Brigham Young University
Gary James Bergera and Ronald Priddis
Standards; the Honor Code
Early Rules and Enforcement
[p. 93] Brigham Young University is perhaps best known for its proscriptions against alcohol, coffee and tea, tobacco, premarital sex, coeducational housing, long hair, and short dresses. But only since the late 1960s have specific rules regarding behavior and dress become institutionalized as permanent standards of student conduct. Although previous BYU presidents had emphasized or de-emphasized adherence to moral standards according to their particular ideological bent, the trend during the 1960s towards greater regimentation was largely a reaction of President Ernest L. Wilkinson to developments on other American college campuses during the same era, when traditional western values were being questioned by students nationwide. Initially, officials at Brigham Young Academy offered relatively little supervision for undergraduates outside of school, which was an unusual approach to discipline for the period, especially in view of the average age of the student body–fourteen years–and the fact that many students were away from home for the first time (Smith). The academy’s 1876 Prospectus contained only a vague warning that “every student shall, in and out of school, cultivate a gentlemanly or lady-like deportment, and avoid all unbecoming associations that might reflect discreditably upon [themselves] or the institution [they have] the honor to attend.” Students were told that if they committed acts of delinquency, they would be “reprimanded by the principal,” and that in serious cases a note would be sent home to their parents. Otherwise, students were apparently free to do as they pleased off campus. Such an approach reflected BYA principal Karl G. Maeser’s European upbringing and education, where the closely supervised dormitory system of British and American schools was untried. In fact, compulsory dormitories originated in seventeenth century England, where undergraduates enrolled in college at the age of fifteen, and gradually disappeared in the late nineteenth century as the age of entering students increased to nineteen years.1
[p. 94] As steeped as Maeser was in the Saxon method of leaving after-school discipline to students’ parents, after three years as principal he came to realize that because “the students behaved so badly” off-campus, additional measures would be necessary to guarantee his pupils’ moral safety and to protect the good name of his academy. Maeser thus devised a housecheck program, christened the Domestic Organization, which provided that students would be “visited in their residences at stated intervals by [faculty] representatives.” Furthermore, one student per house was to be appointed to “act as Senior,” to attend meetings with the principal, and to encourage conformity to BYA standards among peers. Defending his Domestic Organization at an 1880 assembly, Maeser answered critics, “Some may think it none of my business where they are or what they do when out of school, but that is the law of the academy, and if they wish [it] to be none of my business, all they have to do is leave.”2
During the Domestic Organization’s first year, 1881-82, Maeser forbade “vulgar language, profanity, or obscenity in any form, smoking, [and] the use of strong drinks.” Three years later, Maeser’s pupils were forbidden from attending “public or private parties without a written permit from the principal.” In February 1885, twenty-two-year-old chemistry instructor James E. Talmage was appointed “assistant to the principal over giving permission to go to parties and [over] receiving excuses for being away from home after academy hours,” defined as eight o’clock on week nights and ten o’clock on weekends. The previous year, faculty also advised students against “attending the skating rink” and loitering near stores, on street corners, or near the train station.3
Although these and other regulations appeared extensive, students soon discovered that enforcement of Maeser’s rules would be minimal. Students learned, for example, that faculty assigned to visit their boarding rooms visited them only for “counseling and advising,” not for “espionage or individual surveillance.” Maeser kept his 1880 promise to the students, when the Domestic Organization was first introduced, that they would be “on their honor” to confirm or deny accusations made against them and that “any student who [wanted] to make himself smart by disobeying the rules without being found out [was] perfectly welcome to all the honor and glory resulting from such a course.”4
Besides being privately reprimanded by the principal, students who were observed–or admitted to–violating Domestic Organization rules could also be placed under “house arrest.” But as one faculty member recalled, “House arrest was too formal and did little to retard the natural exuberance and instincts of normal young men” (Swensen). House arrest and curfew both proved simple enough for enterprising students to circumvent by sneaking out of back windows. The BYA [p. 95] Student newspaper joked that “since the subject of marriage was considered in Brother Keeler’s theology [class], domestic visitors complain that they can’t find the boys at home. Probably the young ladies can tell where they spend their time.” In 1895, under Maeser’s progressive successor, Benjamin Cluff, Jr., the Domestic Organization was reorganized so that students were assigned to visit fellow students, thus relieving the faculty of this largely unwanted chore. Determining and enforcing rules, according to the school catalog, was placed “as much as possible in the hands of the students, with the view of developing in them the power of self-government.” “The greatest liberty possible [is] allowed the students,” Cluff added the following year, “until by some overt act they demonstrate that they are not able to use that liberty with wisdom and discretion” (“President’s Report”). Specific rules were eventually eliminated in favor of the general statement, “Students who are irregular in their habits, keep late hours, have improper associates, or visit any place of bad or questionable repute, are liable to be placed under special restrictions and regulations” (Circular).5
Although Cluff had little tolerance for adolescent mischief, he considered it futile to try to coerce students to behave–a viewpoint he probably acquired while studying at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. When at Cluff’s invitation, acclaimed liberal educator John Dewey delivered ten lectures at the BYA Summer School in 1901, he told his audience that “the reason for giving [children] freedom . . . is to be found in the fact that only through freedom can [they] develop responsibility.” Too many educators, he added, “carry the entire burden of the school themselves, leaving the children barbarians and savages–unable to face any responsibility of life when it comes.”6
Under Cluff’s replacement, George H. Brimhall, the university gradually reverted to increased regimentation and administrative surveillance. The 1910 Quarterly instructed students that within the limits of “honor and personal righteousness demanded of good citizens and consistent Latter-day Saints,” they would be given “the fullest freedom.” Brimhall’s interpretation of this broad statement included a ban on “pool halls and bowling alleys,” which had not been specifically forbidden since Maeser’s time. Furthermore, students were told, “the president of the university may announce additions to these rules at any time.” Brimhall asked theology teachers in 1911 to make periodic inquiries into student behavior and to “hand in to the presidency a list of students violating the regulations.” The Domestic Organization was converted into a student court, through which students were encouraged to try classmates for such infractions as “profanity, persistently idling away time, use of tobacco or intoxicants, and frequenting places of questionable repute” (Quarterly, 1919-20). Those found guilty were required to apologize for their behavior, pay [p. 96] a small fine, or renounce their student body privileges. An adverse judgment from the student court often also resulted in a further hearing with the BYU Administrative Council, where penalties included suspension and expulsion. Besides establishing a student court, the faculty/student Board of Control, which oversaw student government, suggested the establishment of a “student police force,” with a “chief of police” and “secret service men.” The board finally settled for a “Social Service Committee,” which sounded less clandestine but probably served the same purpose (WB, 16 Feb. 1915). Another innovation of the Board of Control was a 1916 staff of “student disciplinarians,” who were responsible for “clear[ing] the halls and radiators of loafers” at the beginning of each class period.7
When Brimhall was succeeded by Franklin Harris, BYU experienced yet a third shift in discipline, this time towards the former, more lenient policies of Benjamin Cluff. Harris assured students that during his tenure there would be “no particular rules to live up to except to be men and women in the real sense” (YN, 26 Sept. 1923). He reported the following year that the university took pride in being “an institution practically without rules,” adding, “We simply expect every student to be a gentleman or a lady, and [we] leave largely to each individual [the] responsibility for doing this as best he [or she] can.” Six years later in 1930, Harris again emphasized, “Brigham Young boasts that it gets along without disciplinary rules of conduct for the students,” reiterating that the school “merely requires that students shall be Latter-day Saint ladies and gentlemen.” In 1925, at the recommendation of Dean of Women Ethel Butt, Harris authorized a curfew for coeds–11:00 on week nights and 12:30 on weekends–which was subsequently expanded to include men, but the curfew was never conscientiously enforced. Butt later successfully pushed for a regulation prohibiting men and women students from living in the same house or building (YN, 15 Sept. 1930). With these two exceptions, however, Harris held to his promise of keeping rules to a minimum and of leaving their enforcement to students. Only when he was abroad for the 1939-40 school year, overseeing the establishment of an Iranian department of agriculture, did the faculty Attendance and Scholarship Committee break a twenty-year tradition and enunciate a list of specific regulations for students. The committee’s “Standards and Rules Governing Student Conduct at BYU” prohibited the use of tobacco and “intoxicating liquor,” required that students “maintain order in all buildings of the institution,” and stipulated that “women are not permitted to enter the living quarters of men except when properly chaperoned.” Despite the committee’s best intentions, however, their list did not last long and was never printed in the school catalog.8
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Coffee
[p. 97]Typically, when BYU administrators addressed the issue of student standards, they focused on alcohol and tobacco use and premarital sexual activity–areas of major interest to church leaders. When two second-grade pupils admitted to tobacco use in 1884, Maeser uncharacteristically recommended to their parents that the children be given “a severe corporal chastisement.” During Brimhall’s administration in 1910, two students found smoking were required to post bonds of ten and twenty dollars each to remain in school. One year, Brimhall proudly reported that, whereas 40 percent of the more than one hundred students in the school’s mission-preparatory program had “bad habits” when they enrolled, “such as using tobacco, blaspheming, using intoxicants, visiting saloons, idleness and lack of ambition,” by the end of the year there was “not one” who did not abstain from tobacco and alcohol, have “a desire to learn, [and] a reverence for the name of Deity” (Brimhall to Young). Among students generally, however, such progress was not as clearly evident. The 1920 school yearbook reported that the “boys pass[ed] a resolution that they’ll never use tobacco or swear again,” then added, “but you know where good resolutions go.” In filling out a theology class questionnaire in the fall of 1921, a number of students admitted they “were indulging in strong drink,” and the faculty began investigating to determine the source of the alcohol. But early the next year, an advertisement in the school paper for “SBS,” the clandestine Student Bootleg Society, defiantly announced that it had “just received another shipment of homebrew,” giving a telephone number where orders could be placed. “Rush! The bottles are breaking,” the advertisement read.9
Although most students voiced support for prohibition in 1910 and 1924, a 1929 Y News editorial explained, “There is a fair proportion of the student body who use liquor, to a greater or lesser degree. In fact, there are a few among us who could almost be branded as ‘old soaks.’” Mark K. Allen, later chair of the psychology department, remembered a 1926 junior/senior party, which he helped plan with young Ezra “T” Benson and Connie Osmond, at which “some of the fellows were carrying flasks on their hips that were alleged not to be full of cider.” The three organizers of the party were called before school administrators and asked for an accounting of the night’s events. “This committee,” explained Allen tongue-in-cheek, “was about as innocent as any trio on the campus.” But, “as far as we knew, nothing like that had happened.” The party’s chaperone then came to the students’ rescue, saying that he had seen only “a lot of good, wholesome fun and a lot of noise.”10
[p. 98] In the mid-1930s, Harold T. Christensen, a senior in sociology, was given permission to survey BYU students’ attitudes and behavior, including their views on the use of alcohol. Christensen found that 37 percent of the student body was not opposed to drinking beer with 3.2 percent alcohol, and that 7 percent of the students were not opposed to “alcoholic intoxication.” Although Christensen did not specifically ask about students’ consumption of alcohol, he found that in other areas of the survey where beliefs were compared with behavior, beliefs tended to be more conservative. Twenty years later, following what may have been an even more relaxed period at BYU, another study reported that 30 percent of the student body used alcohol, 19 percent occasionally got drunk, and 22 percent used tobacco.11
In the 1940s, during World War II, when Army Specialized Training Program and Civilian Pilot Training Program cadets were quartered on campus, emboldened undergraduates took advantage of the situation and “smoked freely all over town,” according to the Y News in 1942. Administrators dismissed the trend as an inevitable result of “war hysteria.” One columnist parodied the attitude among BYU students, writing that “since [his] roommate received his April 12 Reserve call, he [had] definitely adopted a ‘what-the-hell’ attitude and [was] always ready for a party.” Taking time out from their “usual intellectual activities,” the two roommates purchased four cases of King’s Court beer and joined some friends. The roommate “began dancing and carrying on a conversation with a broom he called his skinny gal.” The scene was “so silly” that the student columnist “started to laugh [and] the lampshade almost fell off my head.”12
The first major effort to curb this trend in drinking and smoking came in December 1946, when President Howard McDonald observed that many students “do not seem to realize, or absolutely ignore the fact, that smoking and the use of liquor on or off the campus are prohibited.” McDonald announced that he was giving students who were violating such standards “three months to clear up their bad habits and conform with the rules and regulations of the school.” Following McDonald’s notice, the campus paper was filled with letters to the editor defending smokers and drinkers, especially veterans who had acquired these habits while in the military. One irate undergraduate, George Ballif, termed McDonald’s attitude “belligerant and unchristian.” But however reluctantly some students received McDonald’s position, strict conformity to Word of Wisdom prohibitions became a BYU hallmark. When Harold Christensen, together with BYU Professor of Family Sciences Kenneth Cannon, readministered Christensen’s 1935 survey in 1973, they found that only 3 percent of the student body approved of drinking beer and that only 1 percent approved of alcoholic intoxication.13
[p. 99] This pattern towards increased abstinence from alcohol and tobacco paralleled a broader movement in the church in interpreting the Word of Wisdom revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1833. Initially viewed as counsel for temperance rather than as a call for abstinence, the Word of Wisdom had not excluded a Mormon-operated brewery in Nauvoo, Illinois, or Joseph Smith’s own moderate use of wine at weddings and other festive occasions. Similarly, Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, chewed tobacco for a period and established wine vineyards in southern Utah. It was not until the 1930s that the current interpretation of the Word of Wisdom became “important and obligatory to all” church members, according to historians (Peterson; Alexander). Early BYU parties and banquets often included “toasts” to students and faculty who had brought recognition to the school; cigarettes were occasionally used in school plays; pipes were included in school newspaper advertisements for local clothing stores. While nonalcoholic beverages may have been used in campus toasts and cigarettes may not have been actually smoked in school plays, such behavior approaching the “appearance of evil” would appear foreign to contemporary BYU students.14
Coffee and tea were not specifically prohibited on campus until 1968 when administrators banned their use in the school’s honor code. As an example of their early presence on campus, a BYU German Club luncheon in 1917 was reported in the school newspaper to have included “wienie sandwiches, dill pickles, cake and coffee.” Throughout the 1930s, students writing in the school paper often referred to morning cups of coffee as part of the day’s routine and later told of staying alert for tests by taking “wakies [caffeine-laced pills] and black coffee.” By the mid-1950s, however, when abstinence from coffee and tea had become a standard of church orthodoxy, references to coffee became noticeably absent from campus publications. Coffee-substitutes, such as Postum, began appearing where the mention of coffee would have otherwise appeared. Some church members, including some BYU personnel, further interpreted the ban against coffee and tea to include all caffeine-containing substances. When the BYU Bookstore carried nationally marketed “Campus Pac” school supply packages in 1967, employees removed No-Doz tablets before placing the packages on the shelves (DU, 29 Sept., 3 Oct. 1967). Eight years later, in 1975, when law students installed a Pepsi Cola machine in their school lounge, university officials told them they would have to replace it with another brand of machine. In the place of tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and caffeinated soft drinks, BYU students seem to have acquired an unusual taste for candy, evidenced, for example, by a 1973 report that the campus’s Candy Jar concession was selling fifty pounds of cinnamon bears a day.15
[p. 100]In terms of the moral issues facing a religious university, few aspects of student behavior have been as problematic as sexual conduct. Nevertheless, Christensen’s and Cannon’s longitudinal study revealed a remarkable decrease in acceptance of premarital sexual activity by BYU students over the nearly forty years surveyed. Whereas, in 1935, 73 percent of the student body had approved of premarital “necking,” 14 percent of pre-marital “petting,” and 7 percent of pre-marital coitus (a 1954 administrative study estimated that 14 percent had participated in premarital intercourse), by 1973 these figures had dropped to 48 percent for necking, 4 percent for petting, and a mere 1 percent for premarital coitus. A second longitudinal study from 1950 to 1972 by sociology professor Wilford E. Smith demonstrated a similar decrease in pre-marital coitus among Mormon students at “a large church university” in the “northwestern part of the United States” (presumably BYU) from approximately 8 percent in 1950 to less than 4 percent in 1972. Heavy petting decreased from 40 to 23 percent. Smith reported that the responses of Mormons at state universities “did not differ significantly from [the] responses of Mormons [at the church university] when age and church attendance were held constant,” but noted that some sexual behavior, such as masturbation, was unrelated to church attendance or enrollment at the church university. Christensen, Cannon, Smith, and other researchers have repeatedly noted the consistently low incidence of pre-marital sexual activity by BYU students compared to college students generally.16
Early BYU undergraduates were surprisingly more carefree in their public discussions of intimacy than their modern counterparts. Campus publications sometimes read like paperback romances, telling one year, for instance, how the student body president entertained his girlfriend on a friend’s sofa the previous afternoon; or warning undergraduates on another occasion that they “must be careful in regard to their actions on Temple Hill” because “there is a telescope in Room A which reveals [activities there] with marvelous accuracy” (YN, 17 May 1922; WB, 1 May 1902). Students nicknamed the path to upper campus “Lovers’ Lane,” the reading room in College Hall the “Queening [i.e., necking] Hall,” and the Heber J. Grant Library the “Matrimonial Bureau.” The 1920 Banyan yearbook commented that one of the things students liked most about BYU was its “darkened halls,” recommending that curtains be hung in the “cozy library” for additional privacy. One student reporter quipped in 1910 that “hammocks [should] be hung in College Hall so that love-making [could] be suspended during devotional exercises.” A 1936 writer jested that an appropriate theme for the Junior Prom would be, “A [p. 101] date in the hand is worth two in the bush.” BYU men claimed they preferred coeds who would “pet” for only “five minutes at a stretch.” While much of this teasing represented growing sexual awareness normal during the pairing-off period of college students, it also served as a backhanded way of acknowledging the limits imposed by religious pronouncements for premarital chastity. Lapses may have been permissible in a given peer group, but there was no encouragement of sexual experimentation on an official level. One 1929 student expressed his appreciation for what he had learned at BYU, unintentionally revealing the dichotomy of attitudes at the school. He wrote that BYU had taught him to “live within the bounds of moral honesty and yet live shorn of the suffocating cloaks of false modesty and pretenses. I have fun with the girls: love them, kiss them, pet them; they have the same fun with me. But,” he concluded, “I remember they are somebody’s sisters. . . . I will have no double standard” (YN, 9 April 1929).17
Administrative admonitions regarding sexual behavior were less frequent and less direct during the early history of BYU than in latter periods, mirroring a similar trend in church addresses and literature. President Cluff warned coeds in 1898 not to become “unduly familiar with their gentlemen friends,” while President Harris, speaking to students thirty-eight years later, reported that he allowed his children to attend movies because “they taught one how to kiss.” Such temperate discussions of intimacy were drastically altered during the 1960s and 1970s, when students were admonished by one visiting General Authority that “kissing before marriage [is like] having a friend lick the butter off a sandwich for you” (DU, 4 Oct. 1962). President Ernest Wilkinson in 1965 termed public expressions of affection “sickening” and added, “There are certain crimes and offensive conduct which will . . . bring immediate suspension from this university. In general, these are offenses involving moral turpitude, such as adultery and fornication, or other breaches of the Mormon moral code.” Fifteen years later in 1982, President Jeffrey R. Holland warned students, “There is too much sexual transgression on this campus. Any is too much, and we have much too much.” While reliable information regarding current trends in sexual activity at BYU is scant, a 1982 memo from Dean of Students David Sorenson to Executive Vice-President Rolfe Kerr observed that “principles of integrity, the Word of Wisdom, chastity, etc. are not as important to our students as we might anticipate and hope.” Sorenson wrote that students “go to the temple Friday afternoon with great sincerity, and on Saturday night degrade and humiliate other students during initiation rites for a club. They speak of obedience to the Lord on Sunday and try to seduce their date on Tuesday. What is quite remarkable is that many do not see the intrinsic connection between these parts of their lives.”18
[p. 102]When Dean of Women Ethel Butt first persuaded school administrators in the 1920s to adopt rules prohibiting men and women from living under the same roof, she likely hoped to protect students from sexual temptation. Yet the need for strict segregation was not apparent at the time and the regulation went generally unenforced. Previously, BYU had not had a tradition of segregating its men and women students. The school’s first official boarding house, founded in 1885 on the corner of Main Street and 100 West, had twenty-three bedrooms, housing both men and women, supervised by a matron and a steward. A typical housing advertisement in the school newspaper near the turn of the century read: “BOARDERS WANTED–three gentlemen, or two ladies and one gentleman; first class accommodations.” (This particular announcement was placed by BYU professor Nels L. Nelson.) John T. Wahlquist, later president of San Jose State College, remembered that while attending BYU in 1919, he lived in the home of Oscar Hyde, son of one of the church’s twelve apostles. He reported a self-imposed taboo regarding accessibility to the rooms of students of the opposite sex. At the Hyde home, for example, there were “a half-dozen girls living on one side of a stairwell [on the first level], and boys, two of us, on the other side, [but] no boy ever went onto the [girls'] side, and no girl came near us. I sometimes think of this,” Wahlquist continued, “when people are scandalized by coed dormitories.”19
BYU’s first major on-campus residences, Allen and Amanda Knight Halls, were constructed in the late 1930s between University Avenue and 100 East at 700 North and 800 North. Allen Hall was intended for men and Amanda Knight Hall for women, but throughout the mid-1940s Allen Hall housed both men and women. Alumnus Hyrum J. Smith explained that “when you live in the same building with the girls like that, they become sisters, and you treat them like sisters. . . . It is different than a boy/girl relationship.” Still, during one year alone, sixteen engagements were announced between men living on the first floor and women living on the second. When the upstairs level was later reconverted into a men’s residence, one student observed that many of the men on the first floor “couldn’t sleep the first few nights because of the sepulchral quietness. We actually missed the clomping of high heels, the feminine screams, and that ever present chatter” (YN, 13 June 1946). Asked about curfews for Allen Hall residents, Smith responded, “They were pretty loose.” In fact, a 1934 Y News article reported that at least one exasperated Provo apartment owner had “closed his doors to [BYU] students because they [had] no definite hours.” When an attempt was made to establish a curfew at Amanda Knight Hall in 1940, coeds began sneaking in after hours [p. 103] through a ground level bedroom window. Occasionally, men were sneaked in through windows as well, earning for Amanda Knight Hall the nickname, “A-Man-A-Night Hall.”20
Shortly after President McDonald issued his 1946 statement on alchohol and tobacco, in which he also alluded to the “bad habit” of staying out “all hours of the night,” he called for a more rigid enforcement of curfew. While curfew hours were extended one-half hour on weekends to make the regulation slightly more palatable, Amanda Knight Hall residents were outraged when officials began locking the doors at night both on the outside and inside. One coed publicly protested that the procedure endangered residents in cases of emergency, while a cartoon in the student newspaper depicted the women’s dormitory as a stronghold, complete with a drawbridge and a shark-infested moat. In the cartoon, a student, shown peering through the underbrush and barbed wire opposite the moat, remarked, “That’s the improvement McDonald requested.”21
Under Ernest Wilkinson, dormitory rules became even more restrictive. Members of the opposite sex were not allowed inside residence halls beyond the lobby, except on Sundays. “What we would like to know is [if it] would not . . . be better to allow boys to come into . . . the apartments rather than have them take us to Rock Canyon, or some similar place,” a group of coeds asked in an open 1956 letter to the student body. Students living in the dorms also reported that dormitory matrons prohibited games with face-cards, and, later, peace signs in their windows. Women were not allowed to keep their curtains open after dark. From 1959 until as late as 1963, when residence hall telephones were connected to the city exchange, telephone service was “cut off” every evening at 11:30 p.m. “With all night phone service, you don’t have a university; you have a night club,” the dean of students insisted in 1959.22
In the 1950s and 1960s, when the university constructed its first major housing complexes, the dormitories were placed on either side of campus, with men strictly segregated from women. Helaman Halls, to the west of campus, was advertised “for BYU men only;” Deseret Towers, to the east, was “solely for girls.” But the Board of Trustees allowed women to occupy two buildings in the men’s complex when too few men applied for occupancy in 1959, and Deseret Towers would ironically come to house more men than women. A complex of “co-op apartments” on the women’s side of campus, known as Heritage Halls, would not allow male occupancy until 1982. This change came only after a decreasing number of students opted to live on campus. Housing officials believed the kitchen facilities, as well as the proximity of Heritage Halls to the law school, would make the complex attractive to older male students. In response to decreased residency, the Housing Office also announced [p. 104] that it would de-emphasize its “nit-picky rules” for residence hall tenants, including “white-glove inspections,” and that typewriters and microcomputers would be installed in the dormitories. By comparison, when students in the crowded Wymount Terrace housing complex for married students petitioned the Housing Office in 1978 to install protective railings on balconies for the safety of their children, housing officials refused: “Cost is the main concern,” tenants were told.23
Three months after Dallin Oaks assumed office in 1971, BYU extended its curfew to twelve o’clock on week days and 1:30 a.m. on weekends, then eliminated curfews altogether, first for men and then for women. A regulation established by Oaks’s predecessor prohibiting male and female students from living in common, off-campus apartment complexes, though in separate buildings, was soon relaxed. Men and women were required only to live in separate buildings. One innovative apartment building owner constructed a ground-to-roof wall dividing his building into two halves, which met with Housing Office approval. Students christened the barricade the “chastity wall” (SEP, 12 April 1982). As the university eased housing restrictions under Oaks, other private universities in the United States were experimenting with coeducational housing, already an accepted feature at most public schools, where men and women shared common dormitories but were usually segregated by floor. Northwestern University adopted this approach in 1969, Harvard and Princeton in 1971, and Southern Methodist University in 1973. BYU has remained among the very few American colleges to refuse coeducational housing, despite repeated pressures to accept the emerging norm.24
The legality of BYU’s requirement for off-campus apartment owners to house men and women in separate buildings was challenged in 1978 by the United States Justice Department. After a woman was denied an apartment in the male wing of an off-campus housing complex, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was asked to make inquiries in the Provo area regarding what Justice Department officials claimed was a wide-spread practice of sexual discrimination. Shortly thereafter, the Justice Department notified BYU and thirty-six Utah Valley apartment owners of its intent to file suit against them for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The defendants were specifically accused of having “refused to rent dwellings to persons because of their sex, and [having] discriminated in the terms, conditions, and privileges of rental because of the sex of the renter.” BYU was included in the list of defendants because it had encouraged sexual discrimination, but was reassured that on-campus housing was protected by previous legislation. The Justice Department promised to delay initiating proceedings for one month to allow the defendants to prepare a consent decree, if they wished, which would eliminate the need for the suit.25
[p. 105] BYU presidential assistant Bruce Olsen told media representatives that the Justice Department’s complaint “hit us like a ton of bricks,” though he insisted that the university would “not negotiate.” Oaks defended BYU’s position by saying that “reasonable separation of the sexes in housing for single students reinforces [our] moral teachings and requirements by helping maintain traditional restraint in relations between the sexes.” He reasoned further, “Congress cannot have intended that the anti-discriminatory laws be used to encourage sexual license or to establish the so-called ‘new morality.’” The administrator of the housing division of the Justice Department, Frank E. Schwelb, responded, “We’re not trying to impose the ‘new morality’ on anyone. We’re talking about separate units, independent apartments” (DU, 6 March 1978). Schwelb assured Oaks that the Justice Department would not require men and women to live in the same apartment, but Oaks rebutted, “The law seems to require that if a landlord has signed rental agreements with five women to live in a six-student apartment and a male applies for housing, the landlord must rent the sixth space. . . . The law seems to compel this result even if the five women occupants or the landlord object on moral grounds and assert the right of privacy of the persons already in the apartment.”26
As accusations and counter-accusations accumulated, Utah’s Republican U.S. senator Orrin Hatch asserted that the Justice Department was attempting to impose “sexual cohabitation” on BYU students. But the majority of students seemed puzzled by the university’s position; two wrote to the editor of the school newspaper, “Housing both male and female students under one roof, but in separate units, is not an imposition on anybody’s morals, nor does it encourage inappropriate relationships.” Universe editors decided to poll students for their opinion on the housing controversy, but when the survey was completed, school officials prevented publication of the results. One angry student’s letter to the editor branded the action a “clumsy attempt” to suppress dissent.27
U.S. assistant attorney general Drew S. Day III met with Oaks on three occasions in the spring of 1978 to determine whether a compromise could be reached out of court. In June, the two men signed an agreement allowing BYU, which represented local apartment owners, to continue separating men and women into distinct buildings, but forbidding apartment owners who complied with the school’s housing policies from renting to non-BYU students. BYU-approved off-campus apartments thus became an extension of the school’s on-campus housing network. When the terms of the agreement were announced to apartment owners, there were, according to Oaks, neither “shouts of anger nor any applause of praise,” although one landlord announced his immediate intention to sever relations with BYU, renting instead to local non-BYU students. Five years later in [p. 106] 1983, BYU announced that children of condominium owners and roommates of the same sex could live in their parents’ condominiums regardless of the sex of those in adjoining units. BYU also allows brothers and sisters to live together while attending school.28
To ensure that students and participating apartment owners comply with BYU regulations, the school has employed a number of full-time investigators since the early 1950s. As of the mid-1980s, the number of housing detectives stood at ten. Students living in unapproved housing are notified that they will not be allowed to register for school until they comply with university regulations (SEP, 3 Feb. 1982). In 1953, shortly after Wilkinson arrived on campus, university officials ruled for the first time that students would be required to live in approved housing. Students were told that they would thus be assured of adequate ventilation, lighting, and sanitation. At the time, students complained that they were “very capable of finding [their] own housing,” and, in fact, housing officials soon proved to be weak defenders of student interests. The first month under the new system, evidently hoping to reassure landlords that their interests would not be overlooked, administrators agreed to enforce eight-month lease contracts, which local landlords had previously tried to establish and students had opposed. As late as 1961, BYU vice-president Ben E. Lewis reported to President Wilkinson that, because of housing shortages, the university had been forced to approve “some 20 percent of [the] off-campus housing [units] which, for all practical purposes, [were] not satisfactory.” Nine years later, a Housing Office Adjustment Board was created to arbitrate disputes between landlords and students, but the board reserved the right to decide which disputes it would consider. An investigation by the student Ombudsman in 1973 revealed that the board tended to rule on only “about three complaints in one thousand,” deciding in favor of students in two-thirds of the cases ruled on.29
In an attempt to provide better representation, students created in 1974 a Student Tenant Association, funded by student government. One of the association’s first projects was to conduct a survey of housing accommodations, grading each local apartment complex according to a set of prescribed criteria. The Utah County Apartment Landlord Association objected to the survey and was initially able to prevent its release. In the winter of 1975, the student association regrouped, but apartment owners again threatened to bring suit against BYU if the results of the survey were published. Undeterred, students enlisted the help of the school’s Statistical Services and the Department of Instructional Evaluation and Testing to guarantee a defensible survey. The results were published as a four-page insert in the Daily Universe, 1 April 1976. Student government officers five years later joined the [p. 107] Utah Students’ Tenant Association to help lobby for favorable housing legislation in Utah and to assist in publishing information for students about tenant rights.30
At other universities nationwide, students encountered similar frustrations with landlords and began in the 1960s to either purchase or construct student government-owned housing complexes. The Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, for example, currently owns and operates some twenty-five houses, while Portland Student Services, Inc., owns and operates ten apartment buildings, including a sixteen-story complex. Presently, student housing cooperatives exist in some form at over 600 American universities and colleges.31
Dress and Grooming
To the campus visitor, perhaps the most striking characteristic of BYU is its dress and grooming code, adopted in the early 1970s when other American universities were abandoning theirs. More significantly, however, BYU went without dress and grooming regulations for well over ninety years.
In 1937, President Franklin Harris wrote to former Superintendent of Church Schools Horace H. Cummings, “I know there is a good deal of discussion of the effect of length of skirts and length of sleeves, etc., on modesty and morality. As I stated before, I, myself, am somewhat baffled to know just what the relationship is,” but added that he did “like to see modesty, whatever that may be,” and would be “constantly alert” in trying to preserve it. Harris’s main concern with regard to clothing was that students dress without alienating those who could not afford popular styles. “We want to be democratic in our dress,” he urged students his first year in office. He encouraged the wearing of class uniforms, which students had adopted five years earlier in 1916. The uniforms, worn “five days of each and every week,” consisted of white shirts and various shades of corduroy pants for men, and white cuffs and collars for women, although each class introduced minor changes to the basic uniform from year to year. Seniors enjoyed exclusive rights to tan corduroy pants, which, if worn by anyone else, were forcibly removed and auctioned to the highest senior bidder while the offender was sent home in a cardboard box. One year seniors added hats to their uniforms, while juniors responded by wearing blue jeans. Another year, juniors wore overalls. By 1925, the original intent of the uniforms, that of promoting “economy,” had been lost in what one observer called a “craze for something exclusive.” “What a parade might be staged along some board walk,” the Y News editorialized in late September 1925, “headed by the senior girls with lumberjack sweaters and followed by groups of big-hatted [p. 108] senior men, plain jacketed juniors, the sophs in the classy golf knickers, and no telling what the frosh might produce.” Because of the expense involved in purchasing uniforms, conformity had dropped by 1925 to 90 percent among seniors, 70 percent among juniors, and 40 percent among sophomores. Sophomore participation rose the next year when knickers were replaced with traditional corduroy pants. Other periodic deviations from the basic uniform included tweed slacks, flannel shirts, blue blazers, stetson hats, berets, and scarfs. Class uniforms continued in some form throughout Harris’s term, although the tradition was eventually reduced to class sweaters only.32
Early BYA upperclassmen, if able, usually wore beards; those who did not were frequently suspected of keeping “bad company.” John Swensen, who later joined BYU’s sociology department, was grilled about his clean-shaven face during an interview for a teaching position at a local school following his graduation from the academy. Swensen maintained that “it doesn’t take whiskers . . . to teach” (Pardoe). A second sign of possible rebellion at the turn of the century was short hair. As late as 1930, student columnist Sam Taylor observed that “a young blood, somewhat of a rounder and hell-about-town has his hairline well above the ears in the rear. More conservative types lower it to the middle of the ears, and married men, mature members of society, earnest seekers after the light, and bankers, have a scant half inch of smooth skin above the collar.” As shorter hair and shaven faces became the norm, considerable enthusiasm was still generated every year for a student beard-growing contest, an annual event on campus for forty years, beginning in 1925. The contest was originally intended for seniors only but later included all male students, generally lasting three weeks and including prizes for the heaviest, most handsome, and thinnest beards. Those who did not participate were branded “pansies” and “cream puffs.” Extra points were awarded one year to anyone who could produce testimony from five coeds that the girls enjoyed kissing the contestant as much “with the fuzz as without.”33
In 1964, the Daily Universe noted that bearded students in sweat shirts tended to gather on the first floor of the library where they discussed philosophy and politics. Concerned about the growing number of casually dressed, longhaired, bearded students on campus, President Wilkinson, in a 1965 president’s address, advised the student body that he did “not want on campus any beatles, beatniks, or buzzards.” He continued that there was “no place at BYU for the grimy, sandaled, tight-fitted, ragged-levi beatnik,” and warned that if any beatles appeared on campus, he intended to “tick them off.” Neither did Wilkinson want to see any “surfers” at BYU. Although the president made no explicit references to long hair or beards, students understood that these had been implied in his blanket condemnation [p. 109] of popular styles. Students joked that it would be a shame to see the campus rid of its statues, including the long-haired Brigham Young, the bearded Karl Maeser, and the American Indian, Massasoit, with braided hair hanging below his shoulders.34
That spring, the newspaper noticed an increase in beards on campus. In the fall of 1966, Wilkinson recommended that students read the dress and grooming guidelines adopted by the church’s youth organization, the Mutual Improvement Association, published in For the Strength of Youth. The pamphlet included a note that “young men’s hair should not be too long.” Two years later in 1968, Wilkinson wrote to the parents of incoming freshmen, “While there can be no objection to a properly trimmed mustache–and there is surely nothing morally wrong with wearing a beard–we would prefer our young men to be clean-shaven and to keep their hair cut. We are living in an age when shaving is so convenient that there is no need to imitate our grandfathers’ facial foliage” (DU, 12 Nov. 1968). To the student body, the president added that fall, “At this institution we must resist even the appearance, not only of evil, but also of the emulation of undesirable contemporary characters,” whom he defined as those having long hair and beards.35
Of all that Wilkinson said, students evidently paid closest attention to his statement that beards would not be absolutely forbidden: the number brandishing whiskers on campus again increased. On 1 October 1968, the Universe carried a front-page photograph of three professors with beards. Incensed, Wilkinson saw to it that the professors shaved and asked the Office of University Standards to interview bearded students they encountered. Clearly, the issue had become something of a power struggle with students exercising passive defiance rather than voluntarily complying with the recommendations. Although administrators held the ultimate weapon–expulsion–the Standards Office was technically limited to persuading offenders to shave since the university had not adopted an official policy regarding facial hair. In fact, the school’s ad hoc Dress Standards Committee reaffirmed in April 1969 that “beards that are neat and well-trimmed are acceptable,” and the Board of Trustees specifically ruled the next month that readmission could not be based “solely on beards or long hair.” Elder Delbert L. Stapley, chair of the executive committee, later reminded Wilkinson that “a positive position should be taken, and instead of threatening students, [administrators should] appeal to their sense of modesty and decency.”36
Many students were thus surprised that summer to receive a letter from Wilkinson informing them that male students would not be allowed to wear beards or let their hair touch their collars or ears (DU, 18 Sept. 1969). In January 1970, Wilkinson wrote to the dean of students, J. Elliot Cameron, explaining that he had been “trying to [p. 110] get a letter from the First Presidency” regarding beards and hair length but, in its absence, wanted Cameron to issue a clarifying statement to the student body. Cameron’s press release was less than the ringing denunciation of long hair Wilkinson had undoubtedly expected. Cameron wrote that BYU had “purposely avoided setting specific mathematical measurements for dress and grooming” and that “no one [was] ever going to be expelled for dress standards” (DU, 17 Jan. 1970). Cameron did mention the possibility of temporary suspension for not cooperating with the university, but his uneasiness about applying disciplinary action to grooming preference was clear. A memo from Wilkinson to Cameron the following month reconfirmed that students could not be dismissed from school “solely on beards or long hair” but suggested that adherence to the dress and grooming recommendations could be considered in determining the fate of students who were belligerent in other areas. Wilkinson had encountered two students on campus who had “long, shaggy hair” and asked Cameron to “see how they are doing in school; find out their background; and also check with their bishop and see how they are doing there.”37
Several months later, in September 1970, the church’s Priesthood Bulletin carried an official statement to local leaders that dress and grooming were matters that should be left to the conscience of individual members. Still, Wilkinson persisted and, in an April 1971 address, warned students that they could be suspended without prior notice for a “combination of violations,” including failure to cut their hair or shave:
May I also say that we have found out through some careful checking we have been doing that those who violate dress standards are often those who are traffic violators; that very often they are those who are short on church attendance; often they are those who have poor academic records; and finally we find that many of these who offend in these various particulars are those who fail, contrary to our regulations, to keep the university informed of their current addresses. From now on all of these various items will be taken into consideration in judging whether students should be suspended, and a combination of violations in these various areas will certainly justify immediate suspension.38
In a number of areas, Wilkinson broke new ground with his 1971 address. He criticized, for example, shaggy moustaches, which had not been specifically mentioned previously. Several months after the talk, one disgruntled student mailed Wilkinson the “lower half inch of my moustache,” explaining that “with all the concern being expressed about it, I was sure you would want it.” A letter to the editor of the Daily Universe complained the day after Wilkinson’s talk, “If [p. 111] [the same] emphasis that has been placed on dress standards [were] placed on academics, BYU [would] be on its way in becoming a great university.” Shortly afterwards, Wilkinson announced that a number of students had been suspended because of defiance of dress and grooming counsel, but denied a rumor that as many as fifty had been dismissed. When Wilkinson was replaced as president that summer, he had not yet been able to persuade his superiors to agree upon a formal, written dress and grooming code. Not until several years after his departure did regulations regarding dress and grooming first appear in the school catalog, although the impetus given these issues by Wilkinson is undeniable.39
In Dallin Oaks’s first address to the student body, the new president announced that he had “no desire to make the razor and the tape measure symbols of my administration.” However, he advised students who were unhappy with the university’s conventions to “demonstrate the sincerity of your protest by leaving.” (When some faculty later jokingly suggested that BYU’s centennial year be celebrated by growing beards, Oaks responded that it was a “splendid suggestion” and recommended that “in keeping with the historical flavor of the idea” they agree to receive their pay in corn, beets, and potatoes [BYU 4:325-26].) Early in Oaks’s administration, the university’s dress and grooming standards were elucidated for the first time in print in the pamphlet, A Style of Our Own. As published, the standards confirmed most of the traditions Wilkinson had tried to establish, stipulating, for instance, that men’s hair not “cover” the ears or touch the collar (later interpreted to mean that hair could appropriately brush the tops of the ears), and prohibiting men from growing beards or bushy sideburns. Moustaches were also “discouraged.” Incoming freshmen were asked, as part of their application for admission, to sign a statement signifying their willingness to abide by the dress and grooming regulations. These standards, which were more easily administered once published and agreed to by students, were conscientiously enforced. Still, Oaks largely succeeded in not giving dress and grooming issues central emphasis during his nine-year administration. The criticisms which had entangled Wilkinson continued under Oaks but were generally less pronounced. Professor of Ancient Scripture Hugh Nibley, for instance, found dress and grooming standards a superficial annoyance. “The haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances,” he commented in a 1973 campus address.40
Student hair styles in the 1980s have once again proven the unpredictability of fashion and the difficulty of circumscribing student tastes. Recently, for example, students have worn their hair above the ears but allowed it to sweep across the eyes; some have dyed their hair bright colors. In response to these and other fads, dress and [p. 112] grooming standards have been amended to preclude any “color or style of hair that brings undue attention.” President Jeffrey Holland has joked that “anything that’s in fashion, we’re against” (DU, 22 Sept. 1983). Daily Universe editors have supported the additions to the dress code, reporting that “it is hard to take a person seriously who has green hair.”41
While beards and long hair for men drew official scrutiny in the late 1960s, women had come under the administrative spotlight for their clothes–slacks and strapless evening gowns, for example–much earlier. The first dress standards committee, formed in the late 1940s, dealt almost exclusively with women’s clothing, ruling that coeds could appropriately wear jumpers (sleeveless one-piece dresses) and that slacks were permissible on Saturdays. In a 1963 address to the church’s young women, Apostle Mark E. Petersen asked, “Do you know what tempts the boys to molest the girls today more than any other one thing? It is the mode of dress of our girls, . . . whose clothing about the bust is often so tight and revealing that it nearly takes the breath away from the boys who look at it. It is the lowcut evening dress, which permits a boy to dance all evening gazing down into a . . . half-disclosed bosom, [that sets] him on fire with an unholy desire.”42
Three years later, President Wilkinson promised students that there would be no “sexy, scantily dressed go-go girls” on campus. The church’s handbook for youth leaders, For the Strength of Youth, advised against wearing strapless gowns or dresses “cut extremely low at the top” and suggested that skirts be “long enough to cover the knee cap.” The latter statement was changed in a subsequent printing to read only, “Skirts and dresses should be of modest length.” The first concerted attempt to enforce any of the dress standards recommended by church and university leaders evidently occured in late 1966 when employees in the Ernest L. Wilkinson Center student union building began denying entrance to the building to coeds wearing slacks. The student Executive Council unanimously voted to censure this action, and a committee of students was appointed to appeal the matter to both school administrators and the faculty Dress Standards Committee. A compromise decision in January allowed women to wear slacks on the first floor of the Wilkinson Center where the bowling alley and hobby shops were located but not elsewhere. Student government leaders then created an ASBYU Dress Standards Committee to educate students about the school’s unofficial dress and grooming guidelines.43
Two months later, in March 1968, Wilkinson Center personnel began another campaign–this time handing out “Pardon Me” slips to coeds whose dresses were thought to be too short. The small, single-page flyer read, “In order to spare you embarrassment, we give you this folder to remind and inform you of dress standards at BYU.” [p. 113] Coeds were advised against wearing pants, pant dresses, pedal pushers, short culottes, and dresses with hemlines above the knee. Men were instructed not to wear bermuda shorts or to go without shoes. Although the flyer claimed to be a product of the ASBYU Dress Standards Committee, committee members immediately denied authorship. The business manager of the Wilkinson Center, Jay Eitner, explained that “the administration took the [dress and grooming education] program out of students’ hands because the [student] Dress Standards Committee was not doing a good job.” According to Eitner, administrators wanted to give students credit for their initial work, however. In response, the Daily Universe published a coupon-like cut-out entitled, “You’re Not Pardoned,” with suggested responses for coeds confronted by custodians and clerks handing out “Pardon Me” slips, such as, “Does your wife realize you’re doing this?” “Jealous?” “Masher!” and “You know what you can do with that.” These tactics successfully undermined the effectiveness of the “Pardon Me” campaign, and the program was abandoned. For a time, Wilkinson Center administrators also evidently tried to prevent coeds wearing slacks or short dresses from using the elevators.44
That Wilkinson Center personnel were among the first employees to attempt to enforce dress and grooming guidelines underscored the reluctance of other administrators to hold students to vaguely defined rules. For example, when pressed for a clarification regarding pants for coeds, Dean of Women Lucille Petty answered in April 1970, “For the Strength of Youth says pants are not appropriate. . . . I wasn’t on the committee which compiled this and I don’t know why [it was decided]. . . . It’s my business [simply] to enforce the rules.” Several months earlier, Wilkinson had commissioned an informal survey of students entering the library which found that more coeds wore their dresses above the knee than below (Wilkinson to Nelson). A second survey, conducted by the BYU Survey Research Center in the spring of 1971, claimed that more than one-third of the student body was in some way in violation of the school’s guidelines. Between 1969 and 1970, Wilkinson asked the deans of students to monitor students at registration and to counsel offenders. However, these interviews had little long-term effect and Wilkinson subsequently began sending memos to the deans regarding those he had personally found in violation of dress and grooming counsel. “As I was coming into the [Abraham O.] Smoot Building,” Wilkinson wrote to Dean Petty in March 1970, “I followed [a young woman] over to what I think was the housing window, and asked her her name.” Wilkinson continued that the coed’s skirt was “at least six inches” above the knee, but added that she “didn’t have anything to show.” The following month, Assistant Dean of Students LaVar Rockwood responded to one of Wilkinson’s requests for stricter adherence to dress and grooming guidelines [p. 114] by writing that it would be “impossible to enforce [these] standards unless the students are informed as to specifically what is expected.”45
The surveillance of students at registration was modified by Dallin Oaks to involve, much like Cluff’s modification of Maeser’s Domestic Organization, a committee of students monitoring their peers. Letters were sent to offending students inviting them to attend a dress and grooming seminar. A month before Oaks officially assumed office, the university announced that coeds would be allowed to wear “slacks or modest pant suits, not to include levis,” on campus. “I didn’t think pants would ever be allowed,” remarked one coed, reflecting the pleased surprise of many students. “I don’t have one pair of pants to my name” (DU, 13 July 1971). While the decision on slacks apparently reflected in large measure the influence of church commissioner of education Neal A. Maxwell, formerly assistant to the president at the University of Utah, Oaks enthusiastically supported the new policy. To at least one critic, Oaks replied, “We are enforcing BYU’s dress and grooming standards, [but] our desire is not to turn Brigham Young University into a military camp” (Oaks to Niven). As outlined in A Style of Our Own, BYU’s first published dress and grooming code, women were required to avoid “low cut necklines” and “strapless gowns,” and to keep their hemlines a “modest length.” Significantly, there was no mention of Wilkinson’s below-the-knee rule for dresses. While Oaks rarely mentioned the codified regulations to the studentbody, he asked faculty to read to their classes each semester a warning that students violating dress standards would not be allowed to take final examinations. Although Oaks was reluctant to belabor the issue, trustees kept him aware of the fact that they did not want to see dress and grooming counsel forgotten. When church president Spencer W. Kimball spoke to BYU students in the fall of 1974, he suggested that “for a young woman to wear short skirts or other immodest wear when she has covenanted otherwise would not be a matter of cleverness in escaping detection, but a blot on her character.” Regarding hair length, he remarked, “Not all men whose hair is tossed back and forth are effeminate, but surely there is some question about it. How far, we wonder, will men and women go to pay ovations to the god of style? Will men wear rings in their noses when style dictates?”46
School officials became increasingly committed to BYU’s dress and grooming standards in 1975 when their legality was challenged by the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. “We believe that differences in dress and grooming of men and women are proper expressions of God-given differences in the sexes,” President Oaks explained, vowing that the school would “not be prescribed into a unisex standard of appearance” (DU, 17 Oct. 1975). By the end of the decade, the university’s standards had broadened to include explicit prohibitions against the “no-bra look,” shirts without sleeves, tank [p. 115] tops, and, for men, going without socks. A statement in the dress code forbidding women from wearing “levis” met with opposition in 1978 from the Levi Strauss Company. Administrators consequently substituted the word “jeans” for “levis.” Three months later in November 1978, a coed who was refused entrance to the BYU testing center because she was “wearing pants of denim material” left the center, removed her pants, buttoned up her overcoat, and was admitted, pantless, without question. In a letter to the editor of the Universe, she added, “There is something strangely perverse and incongruous about a dress code which demands that a girl dressed in nice denim pants [be] rejected from a campus facility, while a girl in underpants and a coat is acceptable. Is it that vital that we expose the lower half of our legs?” (DU, 14 Nov. 1978). This event, which received national attention, may have contributed to BYU’s eventual capitulation on the jeans issue less than three years later. Addressing students in the fall of 1981, President Jeffrey Holland suggested that modesty and cleanliness should “govern women’s dress on the campus rather than endless debate as to whether a `designer jean’ is also a slack, or whether the fabric is cotton, polyester, or denim, or whether it is colored red, white, or blue.” Holland later oversaw additional interpretations of the dress code prohibiting men from wearing earrings and women from wearing safety pins in their ears.47
“The most common problem with student behavior at BYU,” according to a 1973 statement by Gerald Dye, chair of the Office of University Standards, “is not dress and grooming, but personal honesty and integrity.” Ten years later, the BYU Testing Center reported that from three to five students were apprehended each day for cheating on examinations. According to a 1978 campus news story, BYU students were writing in excess of $100,000 in bad checks every semester; while Mountain Bell Telephone Company claimed tens of thousands of dollars in losses due to unpaid bills at the end of the 1980 school year alone. In these and similar infractions, school officials have found it difficult to decide how to proceed against guilty students. “Problems in this category virtually never result in suspension,” admitted Dye. The 1983 director of University Standards, Michael Whitaker, noted, “We have a fair amount of cheating that goes on here, and we are aware of some rings of students who actually swipe examinations from professors, off desks and out of file cabinets, and . . . sell them for five or ten bucks apiece.” Yet when a group of law students illicitly obtained a copy of one of three test questions prior to an examination that same year, their only punishment was a reduced test score. [p. 116] Administrators and students alike have wrestled with such problems, especially cheating, for well over half a century.48
When, in 1935, one BYU undergraduate claimed it was “almost impossible for an honest student to get a good grade in some classes,” he revealed that “such devices as race horses [i.e., note cards attached to coeds' underwear by elastic bands], journals, and even text books are employed in examinations by unscrupulous students, and honest students do not have a chance” (YN, 6 Dec. 1935). Students that year attempted to establish an “honor system” to curb the incidence of cheating. Most agreed that such a measure was necessary, but, according to one report in the student newspaper, after everyone had “enthusiastically endorsed the system, someone naively asked, `What is [an] honor system,’ . . . [and] the resulting confusion obliterated the movement” (YN, 11 Dec. 1936). A second attempt was made five years later when some undergraduates proposed that the system should be based on the tradition of southern universities, where students were allowed to monitor their peers for honesty, try them in student courts, and deliver punishment–without administrative interference (Sheldon). Other students were concerned about having to “squeal” on friends, however, even to fellow students. Those developing the system at BYU promised that student government would not employ “stooges,” and that “no student [would] be required to tell on his friends.” An Honor Tradition Committee, consisting of five students and two administrators, was created to implement the system for BYU. The influence of administrators on the committee quickly became evident, however, when it was announced that the faculty Attendance and Scholarship Committee, “with student representatives sitting in on hearings,” would continue to serve as the judge of student conduct, and that, “at present, there [would] be no honor court” (YN, 9 Feb. 1940).49
Students complained that without a student court the school would not have a true honor system. Alternative proposals, including suggestions that homework not be graded, that professors give open-book tests, and that the school adopt a pass/fail grading system, were also rejected. In the meantime, a poll conducted in theology classes found that, despite frequent warnings by the Honor Tradition Committee, at least 20 percent of the student body continued to cheat on graded homework (YN, 29 March 1940). In 1949, students submitted a draft of a revised Honor Code to the Honor Tradition Committee, suggesting standards of “honesty” and “abstinence from liquor and tobacco;” and allowing students to “enforce and control” their own code. The initiative was approved by the committee and passed by 75 percent of the voting student body. The student Legislative Council subsequently appointed nine students to serve as judges in a [p. 117] student court, or Honor Council. Court procedures were approved by the legislative body, allowing the dean of students and a defendant’s bishop to attend court sessions when “non-academic violations,” such as alcohol and tobacco use, were involved, but otherwise providing a closed court. Defendants were given the right to confront their accusers; a guilty verdict could be reached only by a three-fourths vote of the council. Penalties included a recommendation to school administrators that a guilty student fail a test, repeat a class, or be dismissed from school. Confirmed violations and penalties were to be printed in the school newspaper, without identifying guilty parties by name. Faculty were asked to support the student Honor Code by “being absent from the classrooms during examinations.” Students themselves were to personally encourage violators to confess before reporting abuses to the Honor Council and were asked to tap their pencils on their desks during examinations when someone was observed cheating, as a warning.50
Six cases were brought before the Honor Council during its first year (1949-50), seven the next, and seventeen the third year. The number continually increased as the student body grew. Newspaper accounts reported that students were found guilty of offenses ranging from tampering with attendance records to breaking into professors’ offices and stealing tests. By and large, however, the new honor system dampened cheating. BYU sociologist Ray R. Canning monitored the amount of dishonesty in classes over a six-year period beginning in 1951 and found that cheating decreased 63 percent. Canning’s method was to grade one test each year without marking the students’ answer sheets and then ask students to grade their own papers the next time the class met, giving the impression that he had not yet graded them. In 1951, students bettered their scores an average of twelve points each by filling in answers left blank, not checking incorrect answers, and by changing answers. In 1957, students improved their scores only by an average of eight points each (Alumnus, March 1956).51
The Honor Council was usually lenient with students who were cooperative and repentant; a failing test grade was the punishment most often recommended. As time passed, the council adopted a probationary period for guilty students in lieu of other punishment, assigning offenders to student counselors who were to work with those who promised to reform. But President Wilkinson criticized this approach, believing that the council was neglecting its duty and allowing the guilty to escape punishment. Wilkinson offered to rewrite personally the Honor Council’s procedures to make them more effective, but his offer was declined. He also suggested that more attention should be given to nonacademic violations involving drinking and smoking, not [p. 118] a high priority among council members. Wilkinson regretted that the Honor Code emphasized only honesty (Hunter).52
To supplement the Honor Council’s 1957 publication, Your Passport to Honor, Wilkinson ordered a separate pamphlet published entitled Latter-day Saint Standards at Brigham Young University. This brochure outlined those standards Wilkinson believed the Honor Code had neglected, such as avoiding “sexual relations outside the marriage covenant,” which, Wilkinson noted, was “regarded by the Lord as a sin second only to murder in seriousness.” In a welcome-back-to-school address two years later, Wilkinson attacked what he saw as another weakness in the Honor Code–its dependence on students to report violations. To bolster the student body’s sense of duty, Wilkinson explained, “In certain strata of our society there has grown up the false code that one ought not to ‘rat’ on friends. . . . This is the code of the underworld. It is the code of those who engage in prostitution, other forms of moral debauchery and crime of all description.” Wilkinson argued that “those who do not engage in crime hardly require this protection and therefore need not subscribe to this nefarious code.” He further suggested that students had a civic responsibility to report offenses. An article in the Daily Universe the month following Wilkinson’s address promised students that if they reported misconduct, their identity would be “handled in strict confidence.” You Are on Your Honor, a new edition of the Honor Code published the next year, included a statement on students’ “moral responsibility to help others to understand the Honor Code” and required that students take alternate seats during exams. “Moral cleanliness,” though not defined, was also added to the 1960 code. As more articles appeared in the campus newspaper encouraging readers to inform the Honor Council of friends’ infractions, students began publicly criticizing the Honor Code for the first time since its inception. One student sarcastically suggested that those who turned in friends should be given a “monetary reward for their thoughtfulness and diligence.” “I have been at BYU for three weeks and I have never seen any place where people trust one less,” commented another, who went on to call the Honor Code “barf” (DU, 9 Oct. 1963).53
By 1965, enforcement of the school’s revamped Honor Code had evidently slackened. In February of that year, Wilkinson announced that he was instructing the dean of students “to be much stricter in the future . . . with respect to the enforcement of the Honor Code.” Yet up to this point, both on paper and in practice, the Honor Code had been enforced entirely by students. Two years later, in January 1967, the Honor Council announced that it was “voluntarily giving up the authority to impose disciplinary measures” for Honor Code violations and that it would only “educate” students, since “counseling and disciplining are now under the direction of the Academic [p. 119] Standards and the [University] Standards committees,” which were staffed by administrators and faculty. (The faculty Attendance and Scholarship Committee had been replaced by the University Standards Committee.) Honor Council members had been persuaded to accept these changes with the threat that the Honor Code would be replaced by an administrative code if they did not concede.54
Students did not learn until November 1967 that the text of the Honor Code had actually been amended to provide for the change in disciplinary procedures announced by the Honor Council. Even more of a surprise was a previously undisclosed addition to the Honor Code prohibiting consumption of coffee and tea, or the use of “amphetamines, barbituates, hallucinogenic drugs, psychedelic drugs, and narcotics,” except as prescribed by a physician (Catalog). A Daily Universe editorial, “Keep Honor in the Code,” protested that students had not been allowed to vote on the proposed revisions and that the administration was meddling in an area of student sovereignty. Tag Taggart, chair of the student Honor Council, publicly emphasized that the code had been amended–”not because that’s what the Student Honor Council wants, but rather because that’s what the administration decided.” According to Taggart, the Honor Council had opposed the revisions and had lobbied fruitlessly for a compromise. Taggart accused the administration of using the code to punish rather than to help students improve themselves (DU, 30 April 1968). The Universe further reported that the Standards Committee had enlisted the aid of campus security officers in administering polygraph tests, which was charged a violation of the intent of the Honor Code.55
Although the revised code was published in the university’s 1968 catalog, the older version continued to be mailed to students applying for admission. In addition, a third version appeared in the September 1967 Faculty Handbook. “It looks like the administration is trying to put something over on the studentbody,” the Daily Universe commented in comparing the three versions (DU, 29 April 1968). The Handbook version of the Honor Code claimed jurisdiction over “faculty, staff and students,” even though the faculty had already gone on record in December 1967 against submitting themselves to the Honor Code. In fact, when the proposal was first presented, the meeting “erupted into a heated, emotional debate, ending in abrupt adjournment.” Academic vice-president Robert K. Thomas, in charge of the meeting, vowed never to conduct another faculty meeting because of the disrespect shown to Wilkinson and him during the discussion. Despite the faculty’s strong protest, however, the unwanted code remained in their Handbook.56
The Handbook version included other changes beyond those reflected in the amended student Honor Code. The most amusing to [p. 120] many faculty was undoubtedly the inclusion of the incomplete statement, “The church does not approve of any form of .” The words “artificial birth control” were supposed to have appeared in the space left blank, but Wilkinson had been unable to secure the endorsement of the First Presidency for the ban and had called BYU Press officials at the last minute, telling them to “remove artificial birth control” from the statement (Faculty Minutes, 16 Nov. 1967).57
To resolve the confusion over the Honor Code, Dean of Students J. Elliot Cameron organized a committee of five administrators and six students in early 1968 to draft an altogether new document. The “Code of Student Conduct” outlined the university’s expectations of students without implying a need for student body ratification. Four of its fifteen rules were sufficiently vague to include behavior not specifically covered by the code, including complying with the “directions of university officials.” Other rules emphasized “observance of the law of chastity,” and, reflecting increased student unrest nationally, forbade disrupting university activities. Physical abuse, obscene conduct, and the use of drugs, tea, coffee, alcoholic beverages, or tobacco were also forbidden. The president of the university was given authority to interpret the code (DU, 8 Aug. 1968). When some students later pointed out that the code was an administrative document rather than an honor code, Dean Cameron explained that the new document “replaces and becomes an honor code because each student who enrolls at the university agrees to abide by this code” (DU, 2 Oct. 1968).58
During his last year in office, Wilkinson presented to the executive committee of the Board of Trustees a proposal to replace the Code of Student Conduct with a student contract, spelling out in legally defensible terms exactly what was expected of students. Written arguments accompanying the sample contract maintained that “the university will not only protect itself from charges of being arbitrary or dictatorial, but more importantly, will provide for its students an example of fair play.” It was also pointed out that “students, often unacquainted with procedures for redress of their grievances . . . would be afforded an orderly channel for seeking relief similar to the procedures available to the university for proceeding against the student” (“Proposed Code”). The executive committee did not act on Wilkinson’s recommendation, however. Less than four months after Dallin Oaks assumed office, the Code of Student Conduct underwent substantial “editorial revision” to make it more “simple, direct and clear.” Assistant Dean of Students Gary Carver explained that, while the new language did not significantly alter any of the standards, it “couched them in a less threatening and demanding way.” Renamed the Code of Honor, it has continued basically unchanged to the present.59
[p. 121]Since the mid-1940s, university administrators had stipulated that applicants for admission submit a letter of recommendation from an ecclesiastical leader. In 1968, they further required a detailed “Confidential Report,” submitted separately by each candidate’s ecclesiastical leader, providing answers to such questions as, “Does the applicant have any unresolved moral problems?” and “To what degree is the applicant active in the church of his choice?” Administrators also wanted to know “anything about the applicant’s personal or family and home situation which you feel would be helpful in evaluating why [the] student should or should not be granted a BYU experience.” Wilkinson defended his Confidential Report to critics by saying that it would insure that church leaders would not send young people to BYU to reform them. His growing anxiety about the trends and general unrest on other college campuses (see Chapter 5) underlay much of the retrenchment he initiated during this period. Concurrent with other changes designed to gauge the moral and spiritual status of students, the Office of University Standards, which evolved out of the University Standards Committee, began employing full-time counselors to compile longitudinal information on potential problem students, beginning with the confidential reports.60
A logical development in monitoring student behavior was the further enlistment of local church leaders in keeping the school regularly informed of students’ church attendance and personal morality. Beginning in 1967, Wilkinson distributed questionnaires to local bishops asking for a list of students who were “inactive in the church or . . . not living the standards of the church” (Faculty Minutes, 20 April 1967). Thus administrators were able to compile a roster that year of 125 offenders to be questioned by University Standards personnel (Siddoway and Cameron to Wilkinson). Although bishops did not usually indicate whether a student had confessed to a violation of BYU standards or had not attended church, students interviewed by Standards officers invariably concluded that someone had supplied accurate information about them and, when guilty, told all. This information exchange between bishops and university personnel continued for four years, resulting in lists of 137 students one year and the names of 98 of the worst offenders another year. Church attendance itself became a requirement for continuing enrollment in the early 1970s, making matters easier still for the Standards Office. Wilkinson told students his last year in office that if students were “not taking advantage of the unusual privileges of this institution, such as regular attendance at church, [they would] be advised not to return next year.” Many students that year received a letter from University Standards, reading, [p. 122] in part: “We have been advised that you have been completely inactive in the church during this school year.” To be readmitted, the letter continued, the student would have to “produce evidence from a bishop or bishops attesting to [their] satisfactory church attendance and participation for a period of at least one year” (Dye to S****).61
Combining bishops’ lists and the names of students apprehended by the school’s security force, the Office of University Standards was kept occupied counseling and disciplining wayward undergraduates, despite the lull in student referrals accompanying the abandonment of the student Honor Code. During the 1967-68 school year, the Standards Office counseled a total of 252 students charged with drinking alcohol or using tobacco, 150 accused of heterosexual misconduct, 72 suspected of homosexual activity, and 67 on suspicion of drug abuse. A review of cases handled by the office ten years later when information was no longer actively solicited from local bishops reveals a distinct drop in numbers. During the 1977-78 school year, only 56 students were counseled regarding use of alcohol and tobacco, 20 were accused of heterosexual transgressions, and 31 were suspected of homosexual activity. But the number of cases involving drug abuse, a possible indicator of referrals from campus Security, remained nearly constant at 62. The effectiveness of the university’s counseling is brought into focus when evaluated against the findings of a 1970 study which reported that students tend to pass from one category of misbehavior to another as they progress through school (Stringham). Freshmen most often cheat on examinations and destroy property, sophomores lean in the direction of alcohol and tobacco use, juniors are the most flagrant traffic violators, and seniors drift towards sexual transgression. A 1971 graduate study further indicated that many students may be simply confused about the school’s disciplinary procedures.62
In Dallin Oaks’s first address to students, he reassured his audience that “the administration of this university has no desire to use the coercive pressure of academic standing or continued enrollment as a club to force church attendance or activity.” Standardized questionnaires to bishops were discontinued in favor of a single question regarding a student’s observance of the Code of Honor and dress and grooming standards. School officials decided, however, that the university should continue to be informed of judgments rendered against students by church courts and that excommunication would be grounds for automatic dismissal from school (Oaks to Lewis; Ex. Com. Minutes; Sorenson to Kerr). As an extension of this policy, President Jeffrey R. Holland later told non-LDS students that a Mormon who converted to another faith while at BYU and requested that his or her name be removed from the records of the church would have to appeal for [p. 123] special consideration from the Board of Trustees to remain in school (SEP, 12 Oct. 1982).63
Shortly after Oaks’s release, the Office of University Standards instituted what it termed a “silent referral system,” establishing unidentified checkpoints at certain cashier windows and ticket offices where employees were asked to watch for dress and grooming violations and “silently refer” violators to Standards officials. As part of the silent referral system, students were encouraged to report known violations of the Code of Honor, without being required to divulge their identity (DU, 6 Jan. 1982). Some students likened the system to Nazi youth programs, especially when it was reported that Standards continued to administer polygraph tests (DU, 7 Oct. 1982; University Post, 15 April 1983). “I think that most people think that this office is the gestapo, and that we probably bring students in here and chain them up, give them forty-five lashes and threaten them, and badger them,” joked Standards office director Michael Whitaker in 1983. “I think by and large we don’t do that.” Whitaker explained that only about 2 percent of students referred to his office were ultimately expelled from school (DU, 19 Sept. 1983). In November 1983, students were informed that they would thereafter be required to obtain yearly endorsements from bishops or comparable ecclesiastical leaders as a condition of continuing enrollment. Like Wilkinson’s program earlier, administrators explained that a bishop could at any time withdraw his endorsement of a student, resulting in his or her automatic expulsion from school.64
Even more ardent disciplinarians in some cases than the Office of University Standards personnel have been the uniformed employees and volunteers of University Police, formerly the Department of Campus Security. The department originated with a crew of part-time night-watchmen and custodians who doubled as law enforcement personnel. One of the first BYU employees to work part-time as a security officer was Ernest Reimschussel, who, in 1947, threatened students that if they violated parking regulations he would let the air out of their tires (YN, 12 March 1947). Whether or not Reimschussel was serious, students were incensed. One editorialized in the campus newspaper, “Is this a college, run by practical men, or is it a juvenile training school, with practical joking used as a means to an end?” The following year, traffic fines were first issued, payable to the superintendent of buildings and grounds. In 1952, BYU hired its first full-time security officer, Leonard Christensen, formerly a captain with the Los Angeles Police Department. The city of Provo paid half of Christensen’s salary (BYU 3:270). The decision to hire a full-time [p. 124] security employee may have been influenced by the 1950 discovery of thirty-two stolen wallets at the bottom of the school’s botanical pond. Christensen’s office was located in the old Wymount Cafeteria, where he also operated the university Lost and Found (Hatch). Christensen soon annouced that he was going to be “cracking down” on noisy cars (faulty mufflers received fines of two dollars) and driving cars on sidewalks and lawns (which cost offenders three dollars).65
By September 1961, when Christensen was replaced by Swen C. Nielsen, formerly a field investigator for the Los Angeles Police Department, campus security had grown to two full-time and eleven part-time employees, most of whom had also been deputized as county sheriffs. In November of that year, Chief Nielsen announced that his department had been charged with enforcing federal and state laws, as well as campus regulations, and that he was considering a man-by-man investigation to determine which students had not registered for the draft. Security officers were also soon carrying handguns. In 1964, they were sworn in as members of the Provo City Police force. From then on, security officers have been required to attend the Utah State Police Academy, as is expected of other city law enforcement officers. A 1979 act of the Utah legislature made all of Utah’s college and university security personnel state peace officers. BYU security chief Robert Kelshaw, who replaced Nielsen in 1974, explained that, although his security officers already possessed legitimate police powers, their status would now be “properly recognized.”66
For many students, university police have been most visible when enforcing traffic regulations on a congested campus. In 1970, Vice-President Ben Lewis reported that “much of the [security] office’s budget [was] paid from income derived from parking fees and traffic fines” (BYU 3:270). During the 1970s, students complained in letters to the editor about tickets for riding a bicycle without maintaining two hands on the handlebars; one pedestrian wrote that he had been charged for not having paused at a stop sign. Another student was ticketed for leaving his car idling in a ten-minute zone while running an errand in the administration building. After a brief argument with the security officer issuing the ticket, the student ran over the officer’s motor scooter, bringing an additional fine of $300 for reckless driving (DU, 8, 9 Dec. 1977).67
Under Nielsen, security police also began tackling undercover detective work. In the first publicized case involving a university detective, a security officer in 1968 posed as a drug dealer, offered a group of five students a small amount of marijuana, and then arrested them for possession and use. Was this entrapment, many students and news media representatives wondered? Nielsen stated, “If the court decides we erred, we’ll change our procedure. If the court decides we didn’t, [p. 125] we won’t” (DU, 21 Feb. 1968). Wilkinson’s position on the issue was clear. A week later, he announced that any student arrested on narcotics charges would be automatically suspended. Dean of Students Elliot Cameron elaborated that “because arrests are not made without cause,” BYU would accept arrest as “sufficient proof of guilt for suspension.” If a student’s innocence were later established in court, he or she would have to appeal for reinstatement with “no possibility of getting credit for the semester’s classes. He [or she] would have to re-register and repeat everything” (DU, 1 Feb. 1968). BYU’s hard-line position received wide media coverage, as did the defense attorney’s criticism that the school had covered the defendants with a pretrial “cloak of guilt,” thus influencing the outcome of the proceedings (DU, 2 Feb. 1968). A Daily Universe editorialist asked administrators a few days later if they found it “gratifying in some way to sit in [their] offices and act out the roles of the judge and the jury. . . . Do you find it rewarding to pronounce judgement in cases that have not yet gone to court?” In response to such reactions, Dean Cameron issued a cautious retraction that the university would thereafter “deal with each case separately” (DU, 2 Feb. 1968). But the five defendants in question were not allowed to defend themselves before a representative of the university, even though one was released by the court on insufficient evidence. The Office of University Standards subsequently adopted a policy of visiting arrested students before dismissing them from school. These visits were made “with dispatch” at the offender’s home, the police station, or wherever the student could immediately be located for questioning–the urgency apparently springing from a desire to have undesirables reported as “former BYU students” in news stories.68
In the spring of 1968, BYU’s student housing contract was altered as follows: “In cases in which the university has reasonable cause to believe that personal properties or materials which are prohibited on campus are located in apartments,” security officers could “enter without a warrant for the purpose of searching the apartment and seizing any such personal properties or materials” (DU, 6 May 1968). Wilkinson dismissed student criticism by promising that if anyone could give him “a Supreme Court decision indicating this is unconstitutional,” he would “reconsider” his decision. Until then, Wilkinson did “not want [the] university to become inundated with drugs as some universities have” (DU, 14 May 1968). Unexpectedly, the Board of Trustees disapproved of the addition to student housing contracts and instructed Wilkinson to remove the clause from the next year’s contracts.69
Despite the setback, the security office maintained its undercover operations. Articles appearing in the Daily Universe reported, for example, that campus police were using “sophisticated recording [p. 126] and monitoring devices, both audio and video,” and that the department had employed “confidential informers” (DU, 14 Jan. 1974, 4 March 1982). One student employee described in a 1974 Universe article how he posed as a drug-user at a party, signaling for security officers to enter and make arrests at the proper time. Among the “fifty or so” students who “wandered in and out,” were a girl he had dated, a friend preparing to serve a church mission, and several athletes. The student defended his pretending to be a drug-user as “nothing compared to the hypocrisy of those” who were apprehended. Even though Security and the Office of University Standards fought university-related drug traffic for over a decade, Chief Kelshaw reported in May 1982 that drugs would never be completely eradicated from campus and that the university’s major crimes were still theft, drug abuse, and sexual offenses.70
In the late 1970s, BYU’s security office began focusing on homosexual offenses. A 1978 Campus Life Committee meeting acknowledged, though without specifics, that homosexuality was “more wide spread and hard core [on campus] than at first thought.” Two years earlier, a survey of student behavior had indicated that as many as 10 percent of BYU males and 2 percent of BYU females had engaged in homosexuality at some time and that 1 percent of the males continued homosexual relations while at school. In fact, homosexuality constituted one of the most common problems among students visiting the BYU Counseling Center in 1979. Apostle Boyd K. Packer addressed the issue in a March 1978 Sunday evening devotional address, while President Oaks asked security the following year to be “especially watchful for that kind of crime,” although he advised against making arrests.71
Perhaps taking their cue from these and other sources, dutiful security officers staked out a homosexual bar in Salt Lake City in 1978 in search of BYU students and advertised in a homosexual-oriented Salt Lake City newspaper for anyone interested in starting an underground group at BYU. A police science major, who had enrolled in an internship program with Security that year, arranged to rendezvous in the Wilkinson Center with a twenty-two-year-old non-BYU student who had responded to the advertisement. The intern convinced the nonstudent to drive him up Provo Canyon while security officers followed close behind in an unmarked car. The twenty-two-year-old reportedly made sexual advances. Security officers stopped the car and cited the nonstudent for reckless driving. Two days later, he was arrested for “forcible sexual assault” and fined $450. Although three courts, including the Utah Supreme Court, ruled that the defendant had not been entrapped, the adverse publicity resulting from the incident did little to improve Security’s already humorless image among a non-Mormon public. One student suggested sarcastically in the Daily [p. 127] Universe that Security should “put undercover police posing as loose coeds in the Wilkinson Center to see if they [could] catch any standards violators” (DU, 8 May 1979).72
What critics of University Police have sometimes overlooked is the extent of crime at BYU, which, though relatively insignificant in some areas compared to other communities of equal size and make-up, has not been limited to petty theft and minor property damage. During the 1969-70 school year, for example, security made twenty-two arrests involving grand theft, nineteen involving automobile theft, thirty-five for narcotics charges, twenty-nine for burglary, and seventy-four for sex offenses. From 1973 to 1983, at least four BYU students were murdered, including one by his roommate, a former BYU student. Another student was killed in 1970 while attempting to rob a Salt Lake City bank. As many as ten rapes in one year have been reported in the Provo area. One coed, forced at gunpoint from campus to a near-by car, was taken to a remote area of Provo and raped; another was stabbed in the back, puncturing a lung, and dragged into the bushes near the Maeser Memorial Building where she frightened her attacker away with screams. Her assailant’s bishop later convinced him to surrender. Suicide, too, has been a recurring problem. According to Dean of Students David Sorenson in 1972, “From two to ten BYU students may attempt suicide in any given month,” with an average of one a year succeeding. Students have committed suicide by taking drug overdoses, shooting themselves, hanging, and jumping from a Deseret Towers dormitory window. Incidents of exhibitionism and voyeurism have also proven troublesome.73
In 1982, BYU witnessed what was perhaps the most professional crime ever committed on campus. Three male students living in Helaman Halls operated what President Jeffrey Holland later termed a “highly sophisticated driver’s license forgery scam.” For ten dollars each, the students manufactured and sold a variety of false identification cards, including drivers’ licenses and memberships to obscure clubs. Most of these went to underage students or to students wanting to escape detection by University Standards or University Police. Original photographs were taken and intricate lithographic work performed to make the phony identification cards appear “absolutely perfect,” according to police statements. Twenty-five licenses were in circulation and sixty-seven were being manufactured when the forgeries were discovered. “What need would exist,” Holland asked the studentbody, “for sixty-seven students on this campus to own a fake I.D.? Is it [because of] that tough ticket-taker at the Varsity Theater, or the stern dispenser of ‘Y Sparkle’ at the Cougareat?” (DU, 8 Sept. 1982) A local judge sentenced the ring-leaders of the project to two years of parental custody and court probation, forcing them to discontinue school.74
[p. 128]Life at BYU has also included perennial minor disruptions from noncriminal, anti-authoritarian “college pranks.” Usually adding nothing more than an element of undergraduate abandon to the campus, pranks have also sometimes taken violent or destructive turns. Some have seen in these acts sublimated expressions of protest which, under different circumstances, would have more political aims. Indeed, Ernest Wilkinson came to view this aspect of campus life during his tenure as symptomatic of the social chaos endemic to the 1960s, deserving of stern administrative retribution. Yet other, less authoritarian presidents have dismissed this kind of activity as essentially harmless, albeit irresponsible, adolescent fun.
Nearly every manifestation of college pranks evident on other American university campuses has been attempted at BYU. In 1974, for example, when “streaking” (nude sprints through a public area) became a fad on American campuses, three BYU men “streaked” from their dormitory past a women’s residence hall to a waiting car, which would not start. A Provo court found them guilty of disorderly conduct and University Standards placed them on probation. The annual panty raids of the 1960s so outraged Wilkinson that he termed them “riots.” Usually amounting only to a little screaming and the exchange of a few pieces of underwear, with encouragement from willing owners, the panty raids occasionally escalated to broken windows and damaged doors when male students forced their way into women’s dormitories. Security police were particularly annoyed one year to find that their spark plugs had been disconnected prior to a panty raid. Coeds often participated by throwing articles of underclothing from their balconies and windows, then dumping water on the men as they scrambled for the underwear. Using a loudspeaker one year, the assailing men instructed the women who supported the raid to turn their lights on and off. “You have never seen such a bunch of [flickering] lights,” reported a bystander. One student, assuming he could make a surprise entrance through an unguarded window, was apprehended by security officers on a building ledge and taken to a nearby dormitory cafeteria for questioning. A crowd followed and staged a sit-down strike to protest the arrest. In response to the chant, “Let him go,” the officers finally relented. When security and other university personnel chased panty-raiders from one dormitory, students often simply raided another hall. Wilkinson himself appeared at these usually nonviolent disturbances, threatening to expel anyone who did not disperse. But for many students, the panty raids were an annual rite of spring comparable to fall’s Homecoming.75
[p. 129] One of the most famous pranks at BYU was the 1956 confinement of a chloroformed cat inside the keyboard cover of the electronic bell console atop the Carl F. Eyring Science Center. When the cat awoke that evening, its frightened clamoring on the keyboard was broadcast to the entire city. The next month, students constructed a device with steel fingers, driven by a toy motor, to play the bell keys unassisted in the middle of the night. Three years later in 1959, pranksters removed the 177-pound bronze ball from the Science Center’s Foucault Pendulum. Security promised to send the thieves to jail, which, the student newspaper commented, would probably guarantee an eternal watery grave for the ball. Inspired by the editorial, the pranksters put the pendulum into an air-tight canvas bag and threw it into the Botany Pond, then notified the newspaper of its location. Unfortunately, the ball suffered a deep scratch during the escapade and had to be recast at a cost of $200. Another innovative prank was the replacement of the wooden building marker outside the Ernest L. Wilkinson Center with a nearly identical marker reading, “Ernie’s Bar and Grill.” Using butcher paper, other pranksters changed the marquee at the entrance to campus, “Enter to Learn–Go Forth to Serve,” to “Enter at Your Own Risk.” The block “Y” overlooking campus was extended one year to ask, “‘Y’ Not?”76
Other pranks have included the 1982 replacement of the National Anthem broadcast, which accompanies the daily flag raising ceremony, with a satirical rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance. Responsibility for the act was claimed by a group calling itself P.R.A.N.K., “People Rebelling Against Nonsensical Kustoms.” The group had earlier sneaked a white toilet bowl labeled, “Tribute to Marcel DuChamp,” into a campus art show. Another group in 1971 sabotaged the bells in the Jesse Knight Building to sound the cadence to “Jingle Bells.” Through the 1960s and 1970s, students placed a bull’s head in a campus tree; buried dead fish in an indoor planter; introduced live fish into the administration building fountain; sewed gym trunks onto the nude statue in the Stephen L Richards Physical Education Building; decorated the president’s home with eighty rolls of toilet paper; and placed a bed on the roof of one of the dormitories. In 1983, enterprising students lassoed forty-four Homecoming flags from hard-to-reach halters on electrical-light poles the same day they were raised.77
Although student misbehavior has invariably been greeted with a mixture of sternness and alarm by university disciplinarians, history reveals that each generation has had its own brand of mischief and its own issues for protest. If anything, the latest generation has demonstrated more devotion to traditional mores than was exhibited by their parents when they attended BYU. Greater specificity of rules and increased penalties have undoubtedly brought greater conformity, but there also seems to be greater respect for rules, as well. It is ironic [p. 130] that today’s BYU undergraduates, whose appearance and behavior are so closely regulated, are, in fact, older and more mature than founding BYA students who were allowed to govern their own lives outside of school. Of course, another Cluff, Harris, or Oaks could, in the future, place more emphasis on personal responsibility, just as a Brimhall, McDonald, or Wilkinson could multiply rules and tighten enforcement. For the time, however, both institutional policy and individual conscience continue to dictate moral standards for BYU students, as administrators, with the acquiescence of parents, feel the heavy responsibility for their students’ spiritual and moral education. Students, in their turn, continue to befuddle school officials with new ways of demonstrating their individuality and emerging independence.
1. Keith L. Smith, “A History of the Brigham Young University: The Early Years, 1875-1921,” Ph.D. diss., BYU, 1972, pp. 127-28; Prospectus, 1876, p. 3; John E. Shay, Jr., “The Evolution of the Campus Residence Hall,” Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, Summer 1964, pp. 181-83. See also W. H. Cowley, “History of Student Residential Housing,” School and Society, 1 Dec. 1934, pp. 705-12.
4. Academic Review, Dec. 1884, p. 18; Domestic Department Minutes, 11 March 1880, BYUA. There is some evidence that Domestic Organization rules applied only to primary and high school grades. See Quarterly (Church Teachers’ College), 1 May 1910, pp. 11-12, and Quarterly (Catalog of Secondary Schools), 1 Aug. 1910, pp. 24-25.
5. Faculty Minutes, 24 March 1885; John C. Swensen, “Autobiography,” p. 8, BYUA. See also T. Earl Pardoe, The Sons of Brigham (Provo, Utah: BYU Alumni Association, 1969), p. 194. “Locals,” BYA Student, 24 Feb. 1891; Circular, 1895-96, pp. 44-45; “President’s Report,” 21 May 1896, p. 3, BYUA; Circular, 1888-89, p. 16.
6. John Dewey, The Theory of Education (BYA, 1901). A popular speaker at BYU, both during this period and later, was David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University. (As a biology professor in the late nineteenth century, Jordan made frequent visits to Utah, discovering sixteen new species of fish. The Jordan River, which flows from Utah Lake to the Great Salt Lake, was named after him.) Speaking on campus in 1913, the progressive president gave his opinion of college discipline: “If your college assumes to stand in loco parentis, with rod in hand and spy glasses on its nose, it will not do much in the way of moral training. The fear of punishment will not make young men moral or religious–least of all a punishment so easily evaded as the discipline of a college. . . . You may win by inspiration, not by fear” (“President Jordan on College Discipline,” WB, 29 April 1913).
7. Quarterly, 1 May 1910, pp. 11-12; BYU Council Minutes, 28 Feb. 1911, BYUA; Quarterly, 1919-20, p. 15; “Report of the Presidency of the Brigham Young University for the Twenty-ninth Academic Year, Ending 1 June 1905,” BYUA; “Revised Resolutions,” WB, 16 Feb. 1915; “Support the Student Body Court,” WB, 13 Jan. 1916. See also “Hardy Elected Chief of Social System,” WB, 2 Feb. 1916; “Discipline in the Halls,” WB, 4 Oct. 1916; and “Will They Govern Themselves?” WB, 24 Sept. 1919.
8. “President Harris Gives Welcoming Talk to Students,” YN, 26 Sept. 1923; “F. S. Harris to the Student Body, 1924,” Harris Papers; “LDS Students,” YN, 19 Sept. 1930; Butt to Harris, 21 May 1925, Harris Papers; “Housing Committee Discusses Projects,” YN, 15 Sept. 1930; “Increased Roll Complicates Housing, Brings New Rules,” YN, 29 Sept. 1939; BYU 2:347, 371.
9. Faculty Minutes, 13 March 1884; BYU Presidency Minutes, 13 Dec. 1910, BYUA; George H. Brimhall to Seymour B. Young, 30 March 1901, Cluff Papers; Banyan, 1920, p. 149; “Advice to Young Men,” YN, 12 Oct. 1921; “About the Campus” (a personals column), YN, 10 May 1922. See also “Taylored Topics,” YN, 18 Feb. 1930, and Gary C. Kunz, “Provo in the Jazz Age,” Sunstone, Jan./Feb. 1984, pp. 34-35.
10. “Prohibition Vote Taken,” YN, 2 April 1924; “The Menace of Student Drinking,” YN, 17 May 1929; Mark K. Allen, in “Robert Hinckley’s Garden of Eden, Faculty and Alumni Reunion,” 4 Aug. 1978, p. 22, BYUA. One student reporter wrote, “We know absolutely nothing about it, but we heard that certain boys were lightening their hours of study in the library last week by bringing with them a certain beverage not on the school’s approved list. Probably just a rumor” (“The ‘Y’ Noose,” YN, 21 Oct. 1938).
11. Harold T. Christensen and Kenneth L. Cannon, “The Fundamentalist Emphasis at Brigham Young University: 1935-73,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1978, pp. 53-57; “Suggested Outline for Faculty Consideration on Honor System Day,” 13 July 1954, BYUA.
13. “Open Letter from the President,” YN, 12 Dec. 1946; George Ballif to Editor, YN, 19 Dec. 1946. See also “The Moral Code,” YN, 12 Dec. 1946; and letters to the editor in YN, 3 July 1947. A proposed 1942 “Salute to BYU” by musician Glenn Miller was cancelled because it was to have had a tobacco sponsor (“Proposed Salute Called Off by Officials,” YN, 20 Feb. 1942). Christensen and Cannon, “Fundamentalist Emphasis,” p. 55.
14. Paul H. Peterson, “An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom,” M.A. thesis, BYU, 1972, pp. 24, 25, 34, 53, 54, 55, 64, 101. Strict obedience to the Word of Wisdom was not added to the church’s General Handbook of Instructions as a requirement for entrance to the temple until 1933 (Thomas G. Alexander, “The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Commandment,” Dialogue, Autumn 1981, p. 82). In 1937, two BYU professors told students that “the church has failed to teach the Word of Wisdom to its own people, if indications of more smoking and drinking can be taken as evidence” (“Peterson, West, Point Out Facts,” YN, 29 Jan. 1937). “BYU Formally Inaugurates President,” YN, 17 Oct. 1921 (see other references to ceremonial toasts in Chapters 6 and 7); “Rambling Around With Burton,” YN, 18 Nov. 1938. For advertisements using models with pipes or cigarettes, see YN, 20 May 1925, 24 Feb. 1928, 9 Oct. 1947; and DU, 7 Oct. 1948, 19 Jan. 1950, 9 Nov. 1950, 7 Oct. 1954, and 18 Oct. 1955.
15. “Student Honor Council Adopts Conduct Code,” DU, 8 Aug. 1968. See also Catalog, 1968-69, and compare previous catalogs. “Deutscher Verein Celebrates,” WB, 25 April 1917; “California Sunshine,” YN, 3 April 1936; “They Wonder Why We Sleep,” YN, 18 Dec. 1936; “Rambling Around With Burton,” YN, 30 Sept. 1938; Richard J. Smart to Editor, DU, 13 May 1957; Marianne and Loraine West to Editor, DU, 29 Sept. 1967; William C. Brown to Editor, DU, 3 Oct. 1967; “Law School Busted,” Centennial Free Press, 7 April 1975, p. 3. BYU’s Salt Lake Center, however, kept its Coca Cola machine (see Sunstone Review, 1 June 1982, p. 7). Caffeine-free cola drinks were allowed on campus in 1983 (“Cola Drinks Set,” DU, 19 May 1983). On candy, see “Students Are Eating It Up,” DU, 16 March 1973.
16. Christensen and Cannon, “Fundamentalist Emphasis,” p. 55; “Suggested Outline for Faculty Consideration on Honor System Day,” 13 July 1954, BYUA; Wilford E. Smith, “Mormon Sex Standards on College Campuses, or Deal Us Out of the Sexual Revolution,” Dialogue, Autumn 1976, pp. 76-81. Smith studied both active and inactive Mormons and Non-Mormons at two small colleges and five large universities, presumably including BYU. He reported (p. 77) that in 1972, 19 percent of all Mormon college males and 10 percent of all Mormon college females had experienced pre-marital coitus. Four years earlier, Harold Christensen (in “Mormon Sexuality in Cross-Cultural Perspective,” Dialogue, Autumn 1976, pp. 62-75) found that 25 percent of all Mormon students at Utah State University had experienced pre-marital coitus, but a 1981 study of students enrolled in sex education classes at the University of Utah claimed that 39 percent of entering Mormon freshmen had had intercourse. Among college students generally, a 1960s study reported that 40 percent of males and 20 percent of females were nonvirgins. A later report found that 52 percent of freshmen men and 46 percent of freshmen women had experienced sexual intercourse. By the mid-1970s, 80 percent of college men and 57 percent of college females reported having had sexual intercourse. See Patricia Reagan, “A Comparison of Sexual Behavior and Experience of LDS [Mormon] and Non-LDS Students in Human Sexuality Classes at University of Utah,” 1981, copy in authors’ possession; Mervin B. Freedman, The College Experience (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967), p. 94; Roberta L. Nutt and William E. Sedlacek, “Freshmen Sexual Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of College Student Personnel, Sept. 1974, p. 347; and Martha C. McBride and Kenneth L. Ender, “Sexual Attitudes and Sexual Behavior Among College Students,” Journal of College Student Personnel, May 1977, p. 186.
17. “About the Campus,” YN, 17 May 1922; “Warning,” WB, 1 May 1902. For joking references to Lovers’ Lane, see YN, 17 Oct. 1923, 5 Oct. 1939, and 27 Sept. 1940; for references to the Queening Hall and Matrimonial Bureau, see YN, 27 Oct. 1926, and Franklin S. Harris to O. K. Hansen, 10 Jan. 1922, Harris Papers. Banyan, 1920, p. 162; “Locals,” WB, 28 Jan. 1910; “The Dope,” YN, 21 Feb. 1936; “What College Has Done for Me,” YN, 9 April 1929 (see also “Too Much Spirit?” DU, 24 Feb. 1958). When BYU offered free blood tests to check for syphilis and gonorrhea in 1940, 230 students came the first day, causing administrators to extend the offer a second day. Twenty years later, students who suspected they had sexually transmitted diseases studiously avoided the school’s Health Center for fear they would be expelled. See “Student Response to Syphilis Examinations Proves Encouraging,” YN, 9 Feb. 1940; “Editorially Speaking,” YN, 2 Feb. 1940; “Venereal Cases Are Decreasing,” DU, 25 Nov. 1974; and “Utah VD Growth Above U.S.” DU, 26 Sept. 1975.
18. Marvin and Ann Rytting, “Exhortations for Chastity: A Content Analysis of Church Literature,” Sunstone, March/April, 1982, pp. 15-21; BYA Young Ladies Class Minutes, 22 April 1898, BYUA; “Weekly Week,” YN, 31 Jan. 1936; “Remember Sacrifices,” DU, 4 Oct. 1962; Wilkinson, “Make Honor Your Standard,” 23 Sept. 1965, in Speeches, 1965-66; “Holland Says Watch Out,” DU, 8 Feb. 1982, reprinted as The Inconvenient Messiah (BYU, 1982), p. 6; Sorenson to W. Rolfe Kerr, 31 Aug. 1982, copy in authors’ possession (see also “Campus Chatter,” SEP, 28 Sept. 1982).
19. Butt to Franklin S. Harris, 21 May 1925, Harris Papers; Deseret Evening News, 14 Aug. 1885; “Board and Rooms,” WB, 1 April 1906; John T. Wahlquist, “BYU Reminiscences,” p. 3, in Nels L. Nelson file, BYUA.
20. BYU 2:233-36; Hyrum J. Smith, Oral History, 17 Oct. 1981, p. 9, BYUA; “Allen Hall Chatter,” YN, 13 June 1946; “Rapid Growth Marks History of Gamma Tau,” DU, 6 March 1951; “Met Wilson Says,” YN, 16 Feb. 1934; “Knight after Knight,” YN, 26 Jan. 1940; “Roston,” YN, 28 April 1939.
22. Pat Bringhurst et al. to Editor, DU, 4 May 1956; Jacqueline Howell et al. to Editor, DU, 2 May 1956; Johnny Held to Editor, DU, 26 Oct. 1959; Bob Anderson and Glenn Blake to Editor, DU, 16 May 1969; “Damsels and Dormals,” DU, 3 Nov. 1971; “Dean Lloyd Gives View on Student Problems,” DU, 9 Feb. 1959. See also BYU 3:636, and “Individual Dorm Telephones to be Removed,” DU, 2 April 1963.
23. “A New Approach to Campus Living,” Alumnus, April 1953, p. 9; BYU 3:616; “For BYU Men Only,” Alumnus, Nov. 1956, p. 4; Board of Trustee Minutes, 2 Sept. 1959; “Guys Can Live in Heritage Halls,” DU, 26 March 1982; “Campus Housing to Change,” DU, 1 Feb. 1983. Housing officials claimed there were fewer students in the freshmen class, but a BYU spokesperson called the decrease in freshmen enrollment “insignificant” (“Y Enrollment Expected to Continue Being Stable,” DU, 30 March 1983). “Improved Future Predicted for On-campus Housing,” DU, 30 March 1983; “News,” BYU Today, March 1983, p. 41; “On-campus Housing Designated for Serious Students,” BYU Today, Oct. 1983, p. 16; “Wymount Residents Petition,” DU, 16 May 1978. See also Barry Chown et al. to Editor, DU, 9 Feb. 1979.
24. “Dorm Hours Extended,” DU, 7 Oct. 1971; “HEW Rules May Affect Standards,” DU, 7 Nov. 1975; “Coed Housing Redefined,” DU, 2 April 1972; “Housing Standards Not Relaxed,” DU, 3 April 1972; “Campus Chatter,” SEP, 12 April 1982; “Residence Hall Policies,” Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, Spring 1972, p. 136. Ninety percent of all colleges and universities had coeducational housing by 1972 (Student Housing [New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1972], p. 14). Studies have consistently shown that in coeducational housing there are fewer rapes, less casual and exploitive sex, less damage to housing property, and less noise (“Co-ed Housing,” College and University, Spring 1974, pp. 275-279). Virginia Landwehr, Dean of Students, Northwestern University, to the authors, 17 Jan. 1984; Mary Louise Dewey, Assistant to the Dean of Students, Harvard University, to the authors, 12 Jan. 1984; Cynthia McClelland, Archives Assistant, Princeton University, to the authors, 23 Jan. 1984; and James E. Caswell, Dean of Student Life, Southern Methodist University, to the authors, 10 Jan. 1984. The University of Chicago adopted coeducational housing in 1958; Baylor and Loma Linda are perhaps the only other major private universities, besides BYU, not sponsoring co-educational housing (Edward Arlington, Associate Dean of Students, University of Chicago, to the authors, 19 Jan. 1984; A. A. Hyden, Vice President for Student Affairs, Baylor University, to the authors, 18 Jan. 1984; Sunstone Review, Sept./Oct. 1981, p. 41).
27. “Senator Hatch Introduces Bill,” DU, 16 March 1978; Brad Parkin and Mark Schofield to Editor, DU, 15 March 1978 (for other responses, see DU, 10, 15 March 1978); “Lawsuit Subject of Poll,” DU, 8 March 1978; “University Withholds Results,” DU, 14 March 1978. See also Nelson Wadsworth, Executive Editor of the Daily Universe, to Oaks, 13 March 1978, and Oaks to Wadsworth, 15 March 1978, copies in authors’ possession. Peter Bleach to Editor, DU, 17 March 1978.
28. “Officials Hope for Agreement,” DU, 1 June 1978; “BYU, United States Arrive at Agreement,” DU, 13 June 1978; “Provo Apartment Complexes Announce Modifications,” DU, 17 March 1978; “Housing Policy Needs Revision,” DU, 9 June 1983; “Policy Reaffirmed With Slight Revision,” DU, 23 June 1983; “Housing Policy Clarified,” BYU Today, Aug. 1983, p. 7.
29. “Y Housing Office Offers Protection for Students,” DU, 19 Nov. 1974; “Campus Chatter,” SEP, 3 Feb. 1982; President’s Weekly Meeting, 27 Dec. 1978, BYUA (see also “Students Surprised, Angry Over Unapproved Error,” DU, 20 Oct. 1982); “Housing Plan Prepared for Fall,” DU, 14 May 1953; Leroy Effler to Editor, DU, 21 May 1953; Wesley P. Lloyd, Dean of Students, to Editor, DU, 28 May 1953; Stanley E. Bellamy to Editor, DU, 26 May 1953; Ben E. Lewis to Wilkinson, 3 Jan. 1961, Wilkinson Papers; “Housing Board Helps,” DU, 10 Feb. 1970; “Students Air 2,000 Housing Complaints a Year,” DU, 31 Oct. 1973; “Handling the Housing Hassle,” DU, 29 March 1976.
30. “Rent Group OKs Rules,” DU, 28 March 1974; “Rent Guide Booklet Being Re-Evaluated,” DU, 17 June 1975; “Renters’ Booklet Postponed,” DU, 3 July 1975; “Renters’ Guide Gets Second Chance,” DU, 20 Nov. 1975; “Landlords Oppose Y Housing Booklet,” DU, 23 March 1976. For the relationship between students and the landlords’ association, see “State’s Desist Order Bans Unfair Apartment Pricing,” DU, 27 Feb. 1974. “Student Renters’ Guide,” DU, 1 April 1976; “Association Organized,” DU, 4 Nov. 1981.
32. Harvard eliminated its dress code in 1968; Southern Methodist University in 1969 (Mary Louise Dewey to the authors, 12 Jan. 1984; James E. Caswell to the authors, 5 Jan. 1984). A 1969 survey of 110 American universities found only 20 percent retaining dress and grooming codes (Division of Research and Educational Programs, Survey of University Policies Relating to Student Life–Initial Report [Michigan State University, 1970], pp. 1-10). Harris to Horace Hall Cummings, 13 May 1937, Harris Papers; “Both Presidents Speak in Devotional,” YN, 21 Sept. 1921; “Resolution,” WB, 1 Nov. 1916; “Seniors to Have Distinctive Dress,” YN, 29 March 1922; “Freshman President Introduces New Style,” YN, 17 Jan. 1928; “Frosh President Sees Trousers Auctioned,” YN, 17 Jan. 1928; “Juniors Wearing Distinctive Jeans,” YN, 31 Oct. 1923; “A Fad,” WB, 28 April 1920; “Senior Shirts Stir Latent Humor,” YN, 19 Nov. 1924; Banyan, 1924, p. 243; “The Fashions,” YN, 30 Sept. 1925; “Sophomores Declare Knickers Lead Styles,” YN, 30 Sept. 1925; “Frosh Uniforms,” YN, 11 Nov. 1925; “Class Costumes,” YN, 20 Sept. 1926; “Class Uniforms Decided Upon,” YN, 14 Sept. 1927; “Seniors Choose Class Costume,” YN, 25 Sept. 1928; “Berets and Scarfs Chosen by Junior Girls,” YN, 10 Oct. 1930; “Collett Tells Surprises in Year’s Plans,” YN, 17 Sept. 1931; “Sophomores to Have Snappy Class Costumes,” YN, 16 Sept. 1932; “Senior Garb Appears,” YN, 13 Nov. 1936; “Frosh Settle Sweater Problem,” YN, 14 Jan. 1938; “Seniors Sport Royal Sweaters,” YN, 15 Dec. 1939; “Class Sweaters Swarm Campus,” YN, 9 Feb. 1940; “Class Sweater Sales Begin,” YN, 21 Nov. 1946.
33. Pardoe, Sons of Brigham, p. 196; “Taylored Topics,” YN, 4 Nov. 1930; “Senior Men Developing Plans,” YN, 13 May 1925; “Whisker Contest is Magnificent,” YN, 19 March 1929; “Juniors Chisel on Reserved Tradition,” YN, 15 Feb. 1935. For other references to beard growing contest, see YN, 16 May 1930, 17 March 1933, 2 March 1934, 26 Feb. 1937, 4 March 1938, 24 Feb. 1939, 9 Feb. 1940, 7 March 1941, 13 March 1942, 11 March 1943, 10 May 1945, 2 May 1946, 12 March 1947; and DU, 31 March 1949, 2 Feb. 1951, 13 May 1952, 24 March 1953, 7 May 1956, 12 April 1957, 1 May 1958, 25 April 1962, and 3 May 1964.
34. “Nooks for Neckers,” DU, 21 April 1964; Wilkinson, “Make Honor Your Standard,” 23 Sept. 1965, in Speeches, 1965-66; Lance Jencks to Editor, DU, 1 Oct. 1965. BYU’s bronze Massasoit, sculpted by Cyrus Dallin, was cast in 1976, but the original plaster statue had stood for years in the Franklin S. Harris Fine Arts Center (“Off With His Head,” DU, 15 Oct. 1976).
35. “Tight Close Up,” DU, 29 April 1965; “For the Strength of Youth,” DU, 13 Oct. 1966; For the Strength of Youth (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1965), p. 8; “Sounding Board,” DU, 12 Nov. 1968; Wilkinson, “Welcome Address,” 26 Sept. 1968, in Speeches, 1968-69, p. 16 (see also “Sounding Board,” DU, 12 Nov. 1968).
36. “Bearded or Bare,” DU, 4 Oct. 1968; photograph, DU, 1 Oct. 1968; “Sounding Board,” DU, 16 Oct. 1968; “Sounding Board,” DU, 12 Nov. 1968; Dress Standards Committee Minutes, 11 April 1969, UA 553; Board of Trustees Minutes, 7 May 1969; Stapley to Wilkinson, 2 Oct. 1969, Wilkinson Papers.
37. “Administration to Get Tough on Standards,” DU, 18 Sept. 1969; Wilkinson to Cameron, 2 Jan. 1970, copy in authors’ possession; “Cameron Stresses Standards,” DU, 19 Jan. 1970; “Dress Standards Rule,” DU, 9 March 1970; Wilkinson to Cameron, 21 Feb. 1970, copy in authors’ possession.
39. Joseph B. Platt to Wilkinson, 16 Sept. 1971, copy in authors’ possession; Stephen Wight to Editor, DU, 22 April 1971; “Rumor Validity Disclaimed,” DU, 27 April 1971. At least one faculty member was released because of hair length (Robert K. Thomas to Wilkinson, 25 Feb. 1971, copy in authors’ possession). About this time, a number of long-haired former students posed for a picture before the statue of the long-haired Brigham Young at the entrance to the administration building. The picture was made into a poster, captioned, “‘My independence is sacred to me. It is a portion of that same Deity that rules in the heavens.’ –Brigham Young” (“Looks Speak Louder Than Words,” DU, 3 May 1971). Catalog, 1978, p. 6.
40. Oaks, “A New President Speaks to BYU,” 23 Sept. 1971, in Speeches, 1971-72, p. 14; BYU 4:325-26; “A Style of Our Own,” BYUA. Although the brochure carries no date, it allows slacks for women, indicating that it was printed during the Oaks period. It was parodied by student cartoonist Pat Bagley in DU, 5 Sept. 1978, several years after its initial printing. “Student’s Commitment and Confidential Report for Applicants for Admission or Readmission,” 1972, BYUA; “Standards Remain Firm,” DU, 30 Oct. 1980; “New Rules Allow Jeans, Hair,” DU, 5 May 1981; “Y Clarifies Policy,” DU, 29 Jan. 1982; Nibley, “What Is Zion? A Distant View,” p. 18, typescript in BYUA.
42. “Slacks Taboo On Campus,” YN, 11 Dec. 1947; “Trovata Violates Modesty, School Administrator Says,” DU, 20 April 1956; “Redress May be No Dress,” DU, 5 July 1961; Petersen’s address was quoted in Fred M. Paulson, Jr., to Editor, DU, 27 Feb. 1963, and later appeared in Petersen, Virtue Makes Sense! (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1973), pp. 76-77.
43. Wilkinson, in Speeches, 1965-66, p. 10; For the Strength of Youth, p. 4 (cf. 1969 ed., p. 4); “ELWC–No Slacks,” DU, 13 Dec. 1966; “Student Reaction, Council,” DU, 15 Dec. 1966; “Standards Committee Okays Girls in Slacks,” DU, 3 Jan. 1967.
44. “Pardon Me,” March 1968, BYUA; “‘Pardon Me’ Pamphlet Raises Coed Protests,” DU, 15 March 1968; “Dangerous Booklet,” DU, 15 March 1968; “You’re Not Pardoned,” DU, 15 March 1968; “No More ‘Pardon Me’ Slips,” DU, 18 March 1968.
45. “Dress Board Gives Reasons,” DU, 17 April 1970; Wilkinson to Donald K. Nelson, 29 Oct. 1969, UA 572; “Codes Broken Knowingly,” DU, 3 March 1971; Petty to Wilkinson, 2 Dec. 1969, Wilkinson Papers; “Dress at Registration,” DU, 5 Feb. 1970; Wilkinson to Petty, 12 March 1970, UA 572; Rockwood to Wilkinson, 28 April 1970, Wilkinson Papers.
46. “Dress Violators Mount,” DU, 5 Feb. 1971; “Students View Dress Code Progress,” DU, 29 Nov. 1971. Faculty later assumed the responsibility of checking for violators at registration (“Dress Standard Response Good,” DU, 1 Oct. 1973). “New Dress Standards Announced,” DU, 13 July 1971; “Students, Faculty React to Changes,” DU, 20 July 1971; Oaks to Jeffrey E. Niven, 21 March 1979, copy in authors’ possession; “A Style of Our Own,” BYUA; “Finals May be Withheld from Standards Violators,” DU, 5 Dec. 1973; Kimball, “Be Ye Therefore Perfect,” 17 Sept. 1974, in Speeches, 1974, pp. 235-36.
47. “Challenging Six HEW Sex Bias Rules,” DU, 17 Oct. 1975; “Dress Code Clarified,” DU, 12 June 1980; “Cameron Clarifies ‘Jeans’ for Women,” DU, 10 Aug. 1978 (see also “Standards Office Emphasizes Grubby Jeans,” DU, 19 May 1977); A. Lavon Bryan to Editor, DU, 14 Nov. 1978 (see Pat Bagley cartoon in DU, 22 Nov. 1978); “Y Coed Doffs Denims to Meet Undress Code,” Salt Lake Tribune, 15 Nov. 1978; “Personalities,” Washington Post, 16 Nov. 1978. In 1977, 1,600 coeds signed a petition requesting a different cut of swimming suit than that required at the Stephen L Richards Physical Education Building swimming pools because the current suits were “immodest.” They were told that “anyone concerned with modesty will be given careful consideration” by issue room personnel (“Standard Swimsuit Unsuitable,” DU, 18 March 1977; “No Swimsuit Change Planned,” DU, 15 April 1977; “Swimsuit Policy Unchanged,” DU, 5 May 1977; and Sybel Alger to Editor, DU, 12 May 1977). “New Rules Allow Jeans,” DU, 5 May 1981; “Holland Stresses Standards,” DU, 9 Sept. 1981; “Punk-Rock Styles Violate Standards,” DU, 5 Nov. 1981.
48. “Standards Office Cites Honesty Problems,” DU, 30 Aug. 1973; “Cheating on Rise at Y,” DU, 7 April 1983. Contrary to the headline, the same number of students had been caught cheating eight years earlier (“Test Center Nabs Cheaters,” DU, 22 January 1975). “Fraudulent Check Writing at Y,” DU, 8 June 1978; “Mountain Bell States Position,” DU, 26 Nov. 1980; “Y Honor Code Discussed,” DU, 19 Sept. 1983; “Students’ Grades Penalized,” DU, 16 Sept. 1983.
49. “Council Lays Plans for Honor System,” YN, 6 Dec. 1935; “Professors Have Honor, Students Have System,” YN, 11 Dec. 1936; Henry D. Sheldon, Student Life and Customs (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1901), pp. 262-65; John Utvich, Honor Tradition Committee chair, to Editor, YN, 9 Feb. 1940; “Honor Committee Completes Recommendation,” YN, 16 Feb. 1940; “President’s Club Hears Reports,” YN, 12 April 1940.
50. “On Your Honor,” YN, 20 Nov. 1947; “Honor Committee,” YN, 16 Feb. 1940; “Subject: The Honor System,” DU, 27 Jan. 1949; “Poll of Students,” YN, 29 March 1940; “Honor Code,” DU, 12 May 1949; “Constitution of Proposed Honor Code,” DU, 19 May 1949; “Honor Code Procedure,” DU, 19 Jan. 1950; “Open Forum Disappoints Avid Supporters,” DU, 9 Feb. 1950.
51. “Cases Handled by Student Honor Council,” 1949-60, UA 64; “Hearings Set for Four Cases,” DU, 4 April 1950; “Shumway Announces Decisions,” DU, 11 Jan. 1951; “Code Violation Draws Leniency,” DU, 25 Nov. 1952; “Violations of Honor Bring Failure,” DU, 23 April 1953; “Two Students Released on Burglary Charges,” DU, 21 March 1956. (These were two football players who had tried to break into the North Building in the middle of the night to steal the next day’s accounting final.) “Experiment in Classroom Cheating,” Alumnus, March 1956, p. 12. See also “A Big Laugh–College Integrity,” DU, May 1950; “Honor Code Violations Decrease,” DU, 10 June 1957; Wilford E. Smith, “An Experiment in Honor,” 1963, pp. 9-10, in Smith file, BYUA.
52. “Newly Revised Honor Code Procedure,” DU, 23 April 1953; “Neither Lofty Nor Ineffectual,” DU, 31 May 1955; “Honor Code Should Apply to All,” DU, 18 March 1965; John J. Hunter, “History of the Formal Honor System at Brigham Young University During the First Ten Years,” prepared for the dean of students, 1960, p. 66, BYUA.
53. Wilkinson, Introduction, Latter-day Saint Standards at Brigham Young University (Committee on Standards, 1957), pp. 4-6; Wilkinson, “The Importance of Honor,” 30 Sept. 1959, in Speeches, 1959-60, p. 9. In 1957, Wilkinson had told students, “We trust you all when you enter this university, and we hope you will never violate that trust” (“Wilkinson Tells Throng Never Violate Trust,” DU, 16 Oct. 1957). “New Program Stressed,” DU, 1 Oct. 1959. You Are On Your Honor, 1960, BYUA; “Help Friend With Honor,” DU, 15 May 1964); Robert K. Baird to Editor, DU, 22 Oct. 1964; Jim Kleine to Editor, DU, 9 Oct. 1963.
55. “Honor Code Revised,” DU, 17 Nov. 1967; Catalog, 1968, pp. 39-40; “Keep Honor in the Code,” DU, 17 Nov. 1967; “Honor Code Explained,” DU, 30 April 1968; “University Standards More Than Just Discipline,” DU, 4 Dec. 1967.
57. Brigham Young University Handbook, Sept. 1967, p. 73, BYUA. Wilkinson also wanted a statement against masturbation and had two years earlier pushed unsuccessfully for a ruling from the Board of Trustees that would have equated masturbation with homosexuality (Wilkinson to J. Elliot Cameron, 21 Aug. 1967, BYUA; Board of Trustees, Executive Committee Minutes, 28 Oct. 1965). Faculty Minutes, 16 Nov. 1967.
This incident exposed an issue of special concern to Wilkinson and highlighted his tendency to sometimes be more explicit about moral issues than his superiors. The same year as the Honor Code debacle, Wilkinson also intervened to prevent Marriner S. Eccles, the Utah-born governor of the Federal Reserve Board, from speaking on campus because Eccles had previously voiced approval of birth control to a BYU audience (Wilkinson to Robert K. Thomas, 7 Aug. 1967, Wilkinson Papers; “Eccles’ Talk Takes Two Topics,” DU, 28 March 1962). Three years later, religion dean Daniel H. Ludlow told students that if he were Satan he would develop a pill that would prevent conception (“Ludlow Outlines Subtle Deceits of Adversary,” DU, 18 Mar. 1970). And when national news commentator Paul Harvey addressed students in 1971, he was also specifically instructed not to mention birth control (Board of Trustees, Executive Committee Minutes, 28 May 1970). Since the mid-1960s, BYU’s health center had been prohibited from dispensing birth control pills (Board of Trustees Minutes, 2 March 1966), yet a study conducted in 1970 revealed that nearly two-thirds of BYU married couples used artificial birth control, and that nearly all married students practiced some means of birth control (Erlend D. Peterson, “Attitudes Concerning Birth Control and Abortion as Related to LDS Religiosity of Brigham Young University Students,” M.S. thesis, BYU, 1971, pp. 53, 55). “LDS Birthrate Still High Despite Birth Control,” DU, 3 June 1982, detailed a later study by BYU sociologist Tim Heaton who found that nearly 90 per cent of Mormon couples used artificial birth control. Although the First Presidency issued several balanced statements in the late 1960s and early 1970s, in 1977 church leader Hartman Rector, Jr., asked students to consider “what we have lost [through] the reduction in birth rate in . . . missionaries,” a number he estimated at 22,000 minimum (“Obey God, Be Happy,” DU, 2 June 1977). More recently, however, Gordon B. Hinckley of the First Presidency told students that contraception was a personal decision to be made “between husbands, wives, and the Lord” (“If I Were You,” DU, 21 Sept. 1983; for a similar address, see “Birth Control Topic at Student Forum,” DU, 25 Feb. 1983).
60. Wilkinson, “Memorandum for Board of Trustees,” 31 Oct. 1966, Wilkinson Papers; “Brigham Young University Confidential Report on Candidates for Admission,” 1968, BYUA; “University Standards,” Centennial History, p. 139, BYUA.
61. Faculty Minutes, 20 April 1967; William R. Siddoway, Dean of Admissions and Records, and J. Elliot Cameron, Dean of Students, to Wilkinson, 1 Sept. 1967; Cameron to Wilkinson, 27 June, 18 July 1969, 21 May 1970; Wilkinson to Siddoway, 19 July 1969; “Standards Violators Face Tough Measures,” DU, 21 April 1971. The policy requiring church attendance was first hinted at in “Wilkinson Clarifies University Policies,” DU, 12 May 1969). Gerald J. Dye, Director of the Office of University Standards, to W** S****, 12 May 1971, copy in authors’ possession.
62. “Number of Referrals to University Standards by BYU Security, 1965-70,” UA 586, BYUA. Standards receives approximately 500 referrals a year from security. “Annual Report/Summary of Cases,” 1 Sept. 1967 to 31 Aug. 1968. Thirty-nine students were suspended from school and 37 were “counseled” not to return for moral infractions from fall 1967 to fall 1968. “University Standards—Report of Visits,” 1977-78, BYUA; Arnold J. Stringham, “Differences Between Student Violators of Brigham Young University Standards with Non-Violators When Considering Selected Demographic Factors,” M.A. thesis, BYU, 1970, p. 38; Bruce Elliot Cameron, “Brigham Young University Students’ Understanding of Disciplinary Policies,” M.A. thesis, BYU, 1971, p. 1. The absence of an authoritative, written guide to Standards policies is evident in the fact that student responses had to be matched against those supplied by the dean of students.
63. Oaks, “A New President Speaks to BYU,” 23 Sept. 1971, Speeches, 1971-1972, pp. 6-7; “Student’s Commitment and Confidential Report for Applicants for Admission or Readmission,” 1972, BYUA; Oaks to Ben E. Lewis, 4 Oct. 1972, copy in authors’ possession; Board of Trustees, Executive Committee Minutes, 15 Nov. 1979; David M. Sorenson, Dean of Student Life, to Vice-President Rolfe Kerr, 4 Aug. 1980, copy in authors’ possession. The average number of Mormons excommunicated per year in the 1970s was approximately 4,500, or about one in every 640, as reported in Lester E. Bush, Jr., “Excommunication and Church Courts: A Note from the General Handbook of Instructions,” Dialogue, Summer 1981, p. 78. “Holland: Y Committed to Non-LDS,” DU, 13 Feb. 1981; “Campus Chatter,” SEP, 12 Oct. 1982.
64. “Same Dress Code, Redefinition,” DU, 23 June 1981; “Silent Referral,” DU, 6 Jan. 1982; Gail Richards to Editor, DU, 7 Oct. 1982 (see also John Brammer to Editor, DU, 13 Jan. 1983, and “The Immoral Silent Referral System,” SEP, 18 Nov. 1981); “Y Standards Using Polygraph,” University Post, 15 April 1983, see also Max C. Garrick to Editor, DU, 29 Feb. 1968; “Y Honor Code Discussed,” DU, 19 Sept. 1983 (see also “Standards Office is Your Friend,” DU, 10 April 1969); “Church Interviews Now Required,” DU, 17 Nov. 1983 (see also “New Policy Undermines Confidence,” DU, 6 Dec. 1983, and “Standards Upholds Code,” DU, 11 Jan. 1984).
65. “Traffic Violators to Get Flat Tires,” YN, 12 March 1947; “The Parking Problem,” YN, 19 March 1947; “Administration Announces Campus Traffic Control,” DU, 9 Dec. 1948; BYU 3:270; Ephraim Hatch, “A History of the Brigham Young University Campus and the Department of Physical Plant,” 1975, vol. 5, pp. 67, 97, BYUA; “Officers List New Violations,” DU, 18 Jan. 1955.
66. BYU 3:269-70; “Security Head Asks Students’ Help,” DU, 21 Sept. 1961; “Men Must be Registered for Draft,” DU, 21 Nov. 1961; “Security Crew Shines,” DU, 30 March 1962; “Security Police Join City Force,” DU, 29 April 1964; “Security Enforces Justice,” DU, 14 Jan. 1974; “Oaks Supports Security’s Police Powers,” DU, 18 Sept. 1979; “Y Security Sworn In,” DU, 10 May 1979.
67. BYU 3:270; “Incentive Policy Explained,” DU, 1 April 1980; Carol Vankeeken to Editor, DU, 16 June 1977; James F. Stoffer to Editor, DU, 7 Dec. 1977; “Security Scooter Damaged by Car,” DU, 8 Dec. 1977; “Man Fined,” DU, 9 Dec. 1977.
68. “Security Defended by Nielsen,” DU, 21 Feb. 1968; “Dean Affirms Arrest Means Suspension,” DU, 1 Feb. 1968; “Defense Attorneys Blast Suspensions,” DU, 2 Feb. 1968; “The Firing Line,” DU, 6 Feb. 1968; “A Good Plan,” DU, 8 Feb. 1968; “Does the Court Rule the Y?” DU, 10 April 1968; “Defendants Change Plea,” DU, 10 April 1968; “Police Arrest Three,” DU, 11 Feb. 1969; “Three Students Suspended,” DU, 22 Nov. 1972; “A Guest Editorial,” DU, 7 Dec. 1972.
71. Campus Life Committee Minutes, 9 Feb. 1978, UA 553; Smith, “Mormon Sex Standards,” pp. 77, 80; Richard Johnson to David Sorenson, 3 Aug. 1979, with attachment, copy in authors’ possession. Johnson observed that “eating problems belong primarily to females; sexual disorders primarily to males.” Of 95 men counselled winter semester, 29 reported homosexual activities and 16 reported homosexual fears. In “Homosexuality: Cause for Concern?” DU, 10 April 1979, Maxine Murdock of the Counseling Center conservatively estimated that 4 percent of the student body (approximately 1,200) is homosexual. “Cures For Homosexuality Discussed,” DU, 6 March 1978; “Oaks Supports Security,” DU, 18 Sept. 1979.
72. “Y Aide Clarifies Harassment Story,” DU, 28 Sept. 1979 (see also “Homosexuality at BYU,” SEP, 12 April 1982); “BYU Security Faces Authority Challenge,” DU, 21 Feb. 1979; “Provoan Bound Over,” DU, 28 March 1979; “Chipman Found Guilty,” DU, 8 April 1980; “Former Y Student’s Conviction Upheld,” DU, 12 Jan. 1982. The ruling was first upheld by the Wasatch County Superior Court (“Chipman Case Appealed,” DU, 13 May 1980). Daniel Jongeward to Editor, DU, 8 May 1979.
73. See, for instance, the figures on rape for a community of 40,000 to 70,000 residents in 1979 (23), compared to Provo’s 1979 figure (10), in the Uniform Crime Report, as cited in SEP, 1 Dec. 1981, and “Utah’s Crime Rate Low,” DU, 15 Aug. 1984. “BYU Security Statistics, 1965-70,” UA 586; “$50,000 in Bail Set,” DU, 19 Nov. 1974. The student charged with the murder of this BYU coed was later found innocent. “Stangler-Rapist Sought,” DU, 6 July 1978; “Y Student Murdered,” DU, 12 Jan. 1979; “Court Hearing Scheduled,” DU, 19 Feb. 1980; “Crane Pleads Guilty,” DU, 12 Aug. 1980; “Dixie Okelberry Looks Forward After the Tragedy,” University Post, 15 April 1983. Another student was murdered in 1984 (“Y Student Dies of Gunshot Wound to Head,” DU, 2 Feb. 1984). “Different Campus Aspects Viewed,” DU, 8 Oct. 1973; “Sex Crimes Go Unreported at BYU,” SEP, 1 Dec. 1981; “Rapist Hit Twice in One Week,” DU, 14 Aug. 1979; “Coed Stabbed on Maeser Stairs,” DU, 16 Sept. 1977; “Man Charged in Stabbing,” DU, 2 April 1979; “The College Student Crack-up,” DU, 6 Nov. 1972. See also “Suicides Increasing,” DU, 28 Feb. 1985. Suicides are reported in “Police Report Shooting Death Self Inflicted,” DU, 18 Sept. 1967; “Suicide: Overdose Blamed,” DU, 4 March 1980; and “Fall Claims Life,” DU, 23 June 1981. For incidents of sexual deviancy, see “Y Student Arrested,” DU, 14 Feb. 1980; “Sexual Harassment in ELWC,” DU, 2 Oct. 1980; and “Female Impersonator Caught,” DU, 5 July 1983.
75. “Streaking Reaches ‘Y,’” DU, 11 March 1974; “Y Students Plead Guilty,” DU, 26 March 1974. For the panty-raids, see “Another Prank,” DU, 8 March 1960; “Oh Come Now Kids,” DU, 8 March 1960; “Riot? What Riot?” DU, 13 May 1965; “It’s a Riot Living on Campus,” DU, 14 May 1965; and “Administration Appeals Student Demonstrations,” DU, 17 May 1965. See also Chapter 5.
76. “Men Admit Bell-Ringing,” DU, 17 April 1956; “Device Rigged to Ring Carillons at Midnight,” DU, 13 March 1956; “Who’s Got the Foucault?” DU, 3 Dec. 1959; “Security and Photos,” DU, 11 Dec. 1959; “Botany Pond Yields Pendulum,” DU, 29 Jan. 1960; “Y to Get New Pendulum,” DU, 9 Feb. 1960; “Playful Vandalism Plagues BYU,” DU, 10 Nov. 1971; photo and caption, DU, 14 Dec. 1977; “Y Not Indeed,” DU, 24 Sept. 1974.
77. Campus Chatter,” SEP, 14 March 1982; “Campus Chatter,” SEP, 27 March 1982; “Bells, Books, and Candles,” DU, 27 Oct. 1971; Verdon Harwood, Oral History, 26 May 1981, p. 14, BYUA; Mark Stubbs et al. to Editor, DU, 19 May 1969; “Hats Off to Physical Fitness,” DU, 9 March 1976; “Students Found Papering Trees,” DU, 13 April 1977; “Dorm Short Sheet Artists Hang Grand Slam,” DU, 28 Feb. 1950; “Vandals Limit Flags’ Airtime,” DU, 13 Oct. 1983.