Anyone seen BYU's course description for SOC 380: Deviant Behavior and Social Control? It says "topics include psychosis, addiction, homosexuality, violence, and rape."

Any thoughts? I'm still always amazed and saddened when people group homosexuality with rape and violence without realizing the horrible implications they're making.

guilt by association.

It's worked well for them in the past.

It speaks to the (lack of) quality of the course.

If they replaced "homosexuality" with "cultists," it might fly. But then, that would be self-defeating.

BYU leaders *are* the "Deviant and Social Controllers." HCO, rape culture, much?

Actually, that is the standard course description for a junior/senior college level course in Deviant Behavior.

Nothing Mormon about it.

FYI: I have a bachelors and masters degree in sociology, and a Ph.D. in Educational Research.

I taught sociology at a major research university for over 20 years.


Honestly, there is nothing specific to Mormonism in that description. All listed are considered "deviations from the norm," whatever that norm might be for a particular society.

I never taught the course in Deviant Behavior that my department offered (it was taught by others who specialized in that particular subspecialty).

But I had to teach an intro to the sociology of deviant behavior in my freshman Introduction to Sociology course, and I would point out that Mother Teresa was also a social deviant.

Which, BTW, she actually was, if you define deviant behavior as anything that differs significantly from the norm for a particular group or society, which is the standard definition of the term for sociological purposes. Think about it -- how many people do you know voluntarily take on a life of poverty in order to help other people? It might be a good thing, and something she should be commended for. But it is still MUCH DIFFERENT from the behavior of others in the society she lived in, hence, Mother Teresa really can be considered a "social deviant."


I know that there is of problems in the way MORmONs treat gay and lesbians, and others who are not of their cookie-cutter mold. I've faced alot of that myself, for choosing to work in a profession rather than stay home, barefoot and pregnant.


But sometimes, things are NOT the result of MORmON prejudice.

And this course description is one example of that.

BYU is nowhere to be found in the latest (2016) ranking of the top 1000 Universities in the world. The University of Utah, however, is ranked between 201-250. BYU is considered a third rate school outside of Utah and on the East Coast where I frequently travel for work it's scoffed at. I work for a University myself. It doesn't receive the same scrutiny and harsh rhetoric the church does around here (though it should) because so many (mormons and exmormons alike) attended there and it's understandable they don't want to be dismissive of their education. In my opinion, the policies at BYU should exclude it from receiving federal funding. They teach evolution tongue-in-cheek! How do they even teach Anthropology or any other discipline when the private ownership of the school rejects basic genetics? It's amazing.

I agree. The administration and policies at BYU are inexcusable. I have two degrees from BYU and generally don't mention them because my terminal degree was received elsewhere.

I don't know what it like there now, nor did I take an Anthropology course (I did take an archaeology course), but the courses I took for my geology major were all taught as old earth and pro-evolution. I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics the profs had to go through, but there were several there in the 70's and 80's that were very well known and nationally respected geologists.

It may have gone to pot since then. I don't know.

I just checked (as much as I could on my little phone), and found a couple of .edu sites that include "LGBT issues" listed for this subject. There were several hits for religious schools that still list it in this fashion.

I find it very interesting that sociology might still want to claim that homosexuality is a "behavior," rather than a sexual identity. It tells me much about those who design and teach the courses.

Neither would I call "psychosis" a "behavior" any more than I would call "cancer" a "behavior."

Referring to "homosexulity" as a "deviant behavior" implies that it is a behavioral choice, and an "abnormal" one at that. I would disagree. It is a minority sexual identity, and even children are aware of their own sexual identities. It's time for so-called professionals and "experts" to lay down their rusty arms, and admit that they were wrong, and have been for a very long time.

"LGBT" studies belong in sex ed, in HS. I stand by my earlier post; "cultism" is a better fit for the list.

Then your criticism is directed at those who are professionals in the field of sociology - not specifically at MORmONs.


Which you have a right to do. You make valid points.


My point is that there is nothing in the course description of SOC 380 which is UNIQUE TO MORmONs.


If you disagree with lumping these groups together as examples of deviant behavior, then you make a valid point.


I'm just saying that it is not a MORmON thing. That is standard for the entire academic discipline of sociology.

Then choosing not to stay home "barefoot and pregnant" would be deviant behavior in Mormondom and may be taught as such in this course??

Gatorman
3-1

Yes.

In fact, I actually pointed that out a few times when giving my lecture on deviant sociology. I also pointed out that - although it is normal in Utah for 19 year old boys to head out to the four corners of the earth to do missionary work for two years, we would consider that a form of deviant behavior here in the south.


Thank heavens I only had to give one lecture a semester on the topic!

Here in the South the only deviant behavior I can identify is attending the University of Georgia....

Gatorman
3-1

I agree. Roll Tide.

Southern ExMo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm just saying that it is not a MORmON thing.
> That is standard for the entire academic
> discipline of sociology.

Has the academic discipline of sociology not kept up with the academic discipline of psychiatry? After all, the US professional group representing them removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. What's taking the sociologists so long to catch up?

(just to be fair: searching the web, I found numerous scholarly essays in sociology arguing that homosexuality should not be considered "deviant" behavior. What I couldn't find is any definitive statement from a professional sociology organization one way or another)