Finally! A post on culture.

            Ah, the first post in a new month, it should be full of promise, vigor, and hopefully critical debate. I wanted to discuss something both personal to my situation, but also hopefully address broader topics in this listing. What I am speaking on is BYU’s grooming standard and dress code which I have had to have intimate interaction with over this past week. Now, as a student of BYU I have to sign a contract saying that I a) abide by the Honor Code (this includes no smoking, no drinking, and living a chaste life) and b) I abide by the grooming standard/dress code. Now there are some issues with the latter point and that is the crux of this post.

            My particular sticking point with this is the grooming standard which says that men should have hairstyles that are “neat, clean, avoiding extreme styles or colors, and trimmed above the collar…”. I have no problem with neat, clean hair. I even appreciate that no one on BYU campus has been sporting pink liberty spikes. The issue that I have, though, is the hair trimmed above the collar. As some readers may know, I am half Navajo, which means that I have cultural adherences other than Caucasian and other than Utahn LDS culture. One of those cultural imperatives is the wearing of a tsiyeel or a bun. The bun takes a great deal of hair if it is to be worn properly (folded into four sections before being tied at the back of the head) and it also happens to fall into the other three categories that BYU has outlined (a tsiyeel has to be neat, clean, and naturally colored). I have explained this to the Honor Code board and tried to get an exception in order to grow the amount of hair needed to make a bun, but the board has refused this plea, citing that cultural/religious affiliations aren’t valid reasons for an exception. It might not bother many students or faculty at BYU but this attitude certainly disturbs me for a litany of reasons.

            Perhaps to fully understand, and to offer counterpoints to the prevailing attitudes, we ought to go through the grooming standard and have a de-structuring and analysis of what the standard states explicitly, implicitly, and what is reinforcement of cultural imperialism by uninformed individuals. The Honor Code’s opening statement on the grooming standard says:

The dress and grooming of both men and women should always be modest, neat, and clean, consistent with the dignity adherent to representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any of its institutions of higher education.

Modesty and cleanliness are important values that reflect personal dignity and integrity, through which students, staff, and faculty represent the principles and standards of the Church. Members of the BYU community commit themselves to observe the following standards, which reflect the direction of the Board of Trustees and the Church publication For the Strength of Youth.

Now, let’s deconstruct this general statement and analyze a bit. The first paragraph insinuates that the dress and grooming of individuals who attend Brigham Young University are to reflect the attitudes and stances of the Church. Yet, if we were to examine numerous Church texts from all manner of Church authorities there is not a mandate that is prohibitive of certain grooming practices (growing hair long, keeping a beard, etc.). There are indeed prophets and apostles who admonish modest dress and appearance, yet this is not specific to include hair length or cleanliness.

            This leads to the second paragraph which lets the students know the importance of cleanliness and modesty. I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, cleanliness is next to godliness as the saying goes. What the Honor Code board may not know is that both cleanliness and modesty happen to be standards that Navajo culture exemplify, but why stop there at a single instance? Cleanliness and modesty are attributes that many other religions and cultures exemplify as signs of self respect, religious piety, and/or integrity of character.

            What is going on in this aspect of the discussion is the judgment of character based upon outward appearances. To that my reply comes from three sources: Isaiah 29:20-21, 2^nd Nephi 29:7-9, and from the 1971 opening speech that Dallin Oaks made to the students of BYU. Isaiah 29:20-21 reads

           

 “20… and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:

21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought”.

This means that it is unrighteous or ill advised to make people a sinner for a word, yet isn’t that what is happening under this aspect of the grooming standard? Isn’t a justification for an exemption to one (out of four) facet(s) of the grooming standard at least worth consideration? If there existed numerous reasons for exclusion I might be inclined to understand, but, and this is only in my personal case, the only violation being committed is the length of hair, not its neatness, cleanliness, or modesty. Using this scriptural spring board I’d like to offer another piece of evidence, this time from the Book of Mormon.

            In the Book of Mormon (a canonical book of scripture) there is the passage of 2^nd Nephi 29:7-9 which states,

“7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?  

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also”.

This scripture is used most often as a support for the acceptance and validity of the Book of Mormon as a spiritual document on the same level as the Bible. But it can also be interpreted as all truth comes from God, that no one has all the truth and that God has spoken the truth to diverse peoples and that all those people are His children. That he will speak to them when, how, and why he wills and thus he is no respecter of “nations”. As I, and my family, have always taken this to mean that, those teachings of other faiths that are in agreement with the Gospel (and in some cases are a worthwhile addition to Gospel principles/doctrine) are good, true, and from God. Now a bun is supposed to be a sign given by the gods (or God) to people as a symbol of virtuous, chaste, pure, and charitable living. In a way, the tsiyeel might be considered a kind of Navajo set of temple garments. And as I have studied, prayed, and pondered about the connectivity of these two subjects, I feel that these two practices aren’t in opposition to one another. In fact, they might be considered complimentary, both physical symbols of covenants/promises made to Deity to live worthy lives. But besides this sort of philosophic/metaphysical argument there is a very concrete aspect of this debate in the form of words spoken by an actual BYU president to students concerning this subject.

            As for the third part of my reply, I read through the address that Dallin H. Oaks (now a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) gave to students in 1971, wherein he discussed the grooming standard. He discussed the reasons for application and that these reasons were meant for their season. Which is understandable since there was the counter culture movement which had a substantial arm in the drug community, there was a need to distinguish students from their surrounding environ. But Elder Oaks also explicitly states that he expected those mandates to be changed in the future as society and the university changed. A seeming point of opposition is also one that I would like to use as a support for my own assertion.

            Elder Oaks in his speech noted that, “I think all will agree that dress and grooming standards are not the most important standards required of those who attend this University.” But he qualifies this by quoting D&C 89:3, “…the requirements are ‘adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints (D&C 89:3).’” So, because these are the easiest “commandments” and “requirements” it can be assumed that there is no more discussion about the matter right? Well, D&C 89 is the section that pertains to the Word of Wisdom, a mandate on healthy dietary practices, not grooming standards. And besides that, is there not also violations of this section everyday on BYU campus? The BYU Creamery grill serves up mostly hamburgers, hotdogs, and other meats. Yet, according to this scripture, why would they serve meat at any time besides winter?

            I want to make it clear that I am NOT attempting to correct the leadership of the Church, nor am I falling away in my testimony of what I believe to be true. But what I would rather point out, is that perhaps now is the time that Elder Oaks was referring to. Perhaps now is the time for the standards to be changed, not lowered concerning the grooming standard.

            It is this changing of the standard, not a lowering of the standard, that helps to segue into another aspect of this debate; that of cultural acclimation. Earlier, I had mentioned how I had to be intimately engaged with this rule. The reason why is, I was making a documentary on how a person of a minority culture, engages and cohabitates with the majority while still maintaining an individualistic sense of self. This meant talking about the tsiyeel and the grooming standard besides the points of Native American vs. Mormon biases and interreligious engagement. As part of that documentary I interviewed students about how they felt concerning the grooming standard. Most felt that it was a positive aspect to the university, yet when presented with complications (as I presented it, as a Sikh who wished to attend University) most appreciated the need for religious/cultural diversity at a university that prides itself on its international appeal, and whose unofficial mottos include “The World is Our Campus” and “Enter to Learn, Go Forth to Serve”. There were many who understood the desire to cleave unto traditional religious dogma/cultural mores, yet expressed the opinion of “Our institution, our rules”. This aspect of the discussion disturbs me the most, not only because it demands a kind of uniformity in a world that isn’t made for uniformity, but it also implies a kind of cultural/religious imperialism. There are sincere and well intended reasons behind this attitude, one student remarked how “…if a Sikh or Hassidic Jew came to BYU they might feel out of place and that adherence to the grooming standard would be a way to acculturate them to this environment where they would be a distinct minority.”

            If someone can’t see a problem with this kind of reasoning then there is much discussion that needs to be had. Why should someone subjugate their religious/moral dogmas, which might bring the only comfort in an alien environment, to satisfy a superficial comfort for the people surrounding that individual?  As for the rest of the attitude of our house, our rules; whose rules are those? They certainly aren’t those of the LDS Church, as pointed out earlier, so whose set of rules is BYU operating under? I have considered this and my only serious consideration would be that the rules BYU is guided by are a WASP-ish, White Man’s Burden mentality. I don’t want to charge the university’s faculty, board, students or affiliates with racism, but the mindset that some individuals at the university find themselves in is certainly impacted by it.

            I intend on attempting to get my hair exemption card. I’d like to believe that it would lead to serious discussion and criticism amongst all levels of the university about the principles that BYU is trying to protect without crushing the practices and dogmas of others. But this might be narcissistic to hope for, or even consider. I’ll most likely be shot down, forced to cut my hair until I leave this institution (which is one of my favorites in the whole world), after which I can grow my hair as long/crazy/rebellious as I want. I want to say that I tried though, to leave the university at least saying that I gave it a damn good effort, and maybe a student in the future, perhaps a Native, a Sikh, a Hassidic Jew, or someone will come along and be able to finish the job. I don’t know… but there’s always hope.