Belonging or Musket Fire
On August 23, 2021, Elder Holland addressed faculty and staff at BYU’s annual university conference. While urging university constituents to recognize and protect the school’s uniqueness, he also made controversial and alienating statements in defense of some of the school’s most contested policies. Citing complaints from parents and alumni that the university is abandoning its values, Holland challenged audience members to defend the Church’s teachings on heterosexual marriage. He quoted President Oaks, who said, “I would like to hear a little more musket fire from this temple of learning.” Continuing to address the controversy surrounding the LGBTQ community, Holland also appeared to condemn Matt Eatson, the 2019 BYU valedictorian who mentioned being gay in his pre-approved commencement speech, saying, “If a student commandeers a graduation podium intended to represent everyone getting diplomas that day in order to announce his personal sexual orientation, what might another speaker feel free to announce the next year, until everything goes?”
The speech was met with indignation from members and allies of the LGBTQ community. Many felt that it undermined feelings of belonging for queer students. Recently, university officials added this speech to the curriculum for the newly required University Foundations class in which all incoming first year students will enroll. Though the speech’s overall intent was to discuss the distinctive traits of BYU as a religious institution and the unique educational opportunities this offers, implementing this highly polarizing speech into the new student curriculum will undermine the university’s prioritization of belonging, alienate queer students, and deter queer students from seeking help and adjusting to the college environment. There are a variety of alternative speeches and works that will spark similar discussions about the BYU community without the unintended consequence of harming young and vulnerable LGBTQ students.
Though some sections have been redacted (including the section about Matt Easton), this is still a harmful speech that should not be included in University Foundations. There is a clear link between anti-LGBTQ legislation and rhetoric and increased suicide rates. A Canadian study found clear links between youth suicides and hostile educational environments, even if families supported their children’s identities. Another study focused on southern US states that have introduced “Don’t Say Gay” bills, demonstrating that schools with LGBTQ-affirming environments had lower rates of suicide attempts. By requiring students to discuss Holland's speech, which condemns outspoken campus support of queer students, the university risks cultivating an anti-LGBTQ culture and potentially driving students to harm themselves.
Apart from potentially endangering queer students by requiring reading this speech, its message is also only appropriate for the faculty and staff to whom it was originally addressed. Holland is essentially asking these adults to engage in intellectual musket fire to defend the university from criticism. While this admonition is inappropriate in and of itself, extending the charge to young university students who haven’t even decided on their major makes it even more so. Students must have the freedom to decide their position on LGBTQ rights, and this speech directly encourages students to blindly align themselves with the Church’s point of view. Prophets have said before that temple-worthy members are perfectly free to support LGBTQ rights. This speech directly undermines this essential freedom.
The university has chosen a generally unpopular stance, one that contradicts federal law and American public opinion. It must accept the negative consequences of this decision, including negative press and widespread dissent from students and staff, and it must allow students to express this point of view freely. The university is free to expect students to adhere to its university policies, for which they have received Title IX exceptions to implement. Still, it is unfair and unethical to expect students to publicly or personally defend the LDS marriage doctrine. It is also contradictory to the Church’s commitment to political neutrality. LGBTQ rights are also a political voting issue. In a 2023 letter to bishops intended to be read in sacrament meeting, the First Presidency reiterated its political neutrality and instructed, “Political choices and affiliations should not be the subject of any teaching or advocating in Church settings.” In his 2021 speech, Holland asked BYU community members to defend not only a Church policy but also a political stance. By incorporating his remarks into the university curriculum, BYU asks its students to do the same.
Holland’s speech and the decision to universally circulate it to all incoming students represents an alarming departure from Church precedent and its prioritization of belonging. Previously, the Church has generally taken the high road when it came to negative press or public humiliation, such as with “The Book of Mormon Musical.” Until President Nelson changed the Church’s official name policy, we embraced the nickname “Mormon” and the associations that came with it. The charge for “musket fire” from Brigham Young University, particularly about one of the issues that has earned the Church an avalanche of criticism and even membership departures, marks an end to our “Christian way” of responding to negative press. Additionally, with the opening of the Office of Belonging, the university embarked on a mission to promote belonging for all students. The office houses officials who manage women’s services, LGBTQ student support, international student services, conflict resolution, and racial and ethnic minority student support. Since Holland’s speech expresses apostolic disapproval toward LGBTQ relationships and those who support them, its widespread circulation among the student body certainly undermines the university’s commitment to “create and support an environment of belonging” and “value and embrace the variety of individual characteristics, life experiences and circumstances, perspectives, talents, and gifts.”
Though class discussions on this speech are sure to be uncomfortable at best, there is still value in discussing the unique educational environment of BYU. Facilitating this conversation with new students will help them appreciate the opportunities they have here to enrich their scholarship alongside their faith, a goal that few other universities actively facilitate. But this discussion should not come at the expense of fellowshipping already vulnerable queer students. Centering this speech during this discussion may illicit hurtful comments, discourage students from making friends, or even damage established relationships. In the second half of the second century, BYU has to choose whether it wants to double down on “musket fire” or on true belonging for its students.