In 1973, Elder Boyd K. Packer spoke to Utah State University graduates about the corrosive influence of liberals and atheists in academia. Granted, this isn’t news (as my title might suggest). But it is news to me. I just recently stumbled about this talk, and I’d like to share it.
(What follows is an abbreviated version of the talk. Here is the full text.)
Standards have changed much in our universities. Through the influence of a few, restrictions on dormitory living have been pulled down. Standards have been abandoned in favor of coeducational living in university housing.
New courses are being introduced in many universities, under the general heading “Alternatives to Marriage.” Some of those alternatives, if accepted, would give our communities kinship with the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The trend sees enrollments declining, endowments withheld (some withdrawn), a loss of confidence in our system of higher education, and worse than that, the graduates from many institutions of higher learning are moving into private and public life well-trained, technically proficient, even talented, but somehow without that attribute of character called integrity.
Graduation is a time for assessment and appreciation for things gained at school. At the dorm and at the apartment you are sorting through things that have accumulated during your school days. Some, such as old work books and test papers, will be discarded. Others you will carry away with you.
The question I ask the graduate is this: In all the review of what you have gained, are you giving any attention to the things you may have lost?
Did you come as a freshman with idealism, and put it aside?
Did you come with faith, and carry away in its place skepticism?
Did you come with patriotism, and replace it with cynicism?
Did you come free from any binding habits, and now leave with an addiction?
Did you arrive aspiring for marriage, a home, and a family, and now have abandoned those aspirations?
And critically important, did you come with virtue and moral purity, and now must admit to yourself that while you were here you have lost it?
How did this happen? … [S]ome few professors (thank the Lord at this school there are but a few) delight in relieving the student of his basic spiritual values. Throughout the world more and more faculty members look forward to the coming of a new crop of green freshmen with a compulsive desire to “educate” them.
Each year, many fall victim in the colleges and universities. There, as captive audiences, their faith, their patriotism, and their morality are lined up against a wall and riddled by words shot from the mouths of irreverent professors.
I hope that while you were taking courses you found time enough, after the study of your subject, to study the professors. One may well learn more from studying the professor than studying the subject.
Most of them, I repeat, have influenced your lives for good. But there are others, those few, who delight in destroying faith. I have found it generally true that a professor who ridicules faith and religious beliefs and downgrades patriotism, who continually presses for the loosening of standards of campus discipline for both faculty and for students, is a very interesting subject for study. A student would do well to look him over. May I predict what you will find.
Be assured that one who strives to widen the breadth of accepted moral conduct does so to condone what he is doing. Not infrequently you will find such a one unworthy. If he derides spiritual development, it can generally be concluded that he failed in the subject. He defends himself by declaring it an unnecessary discipline. He is the one who ridicules faith and humility, who would smile in contempt when anyone mentions virtue, or reverence, or dedication, or morality.
Let me give you a clue. There is something very interesting about a person who is anxious to forsake the standards of his church, particularly if he leaves them and encourages others to do likewise.
Have you ever wondered what it means when he can leave it, but he cannot leave it alone? Normal behavior would have him cancel his affiliation in the church and let that be that. Not so with this individual. He can leave it, but he cannot leave it alone. He becomes consumed with it and obsessed with it. That says something about him.
And one might ask, Is he talking to students, or is he really talking to himself? You might ask also, and he might ask himself: Is he happy, really happy?
This is the man who ridicules belief in a hereafter and says there is no such thing as God. He’d better hope he is right. For if, as some of us know, the opposite is true, the final scene will be his, and justice more than poetic and penalties adequate in every way will be exacted from him.
There is a crying need for the identification of atheism for what it is, and that is, a religion—albeit a negative one, nevertheless it is a religious expression. It is the one extreme end of the spectrum of thought concerning the causation of things.
Those who are spiritually sensitive recognize God as the cause, a living being who rules in the affairs of man. The so-called atheist declares that God is not—not just that he isn’t the cause of things, but that he indeed is not.
Atheism, as theism, is divided into many sects—communism, agnosticism, skepticism, humanism, pragmatism, and there are others.
The atheist proclaims his own dishonesty in accepting pay to teach psychology, sociology, history, or English, while he is indeed preaching his atheistic religious philosophy to his students. If the atheist wants to teach his doctrine at a public university, let him purchase property off campus and build himself a building and offer classes. Let him label them for what they are.
In the separation of church and state we ought to demand more protection from the agnostic, from the atheist, from the communist, from the skeptic, from the humanist and the pragmatist, than we have yet been given.
Remember, graduates, there are some rights and wrongs. We must come to understand that there are basic truths and basic principles, basic conformities, necessary to achieve happiness. There are some things that are false, that are wrong. For instance, we cannot be happy and at once be wicked—never, regardless of how generally accepted that course may be.
Thoughts? I don’t really have much to say by way of commentary. I agree with Packer that some professors may be overzealous in challenging students’ religious beliefs. Students should have to confront atheism in philosophy or religion classes, but it’d be inappropriate for the topic to be forced in most other classes. Where I disagree with Packer is his (mis)characterization of atheism and his smearing nonbelievers as amoral and unhappy.
It’s a shame SHAFT wasn’t around in 1973, because I’m sure Packer would’ve had a thing or two to say about us. 
The university is and should be a marketplace of ideas. I say if you leave college without having your ideas challenged your college experience has been a failure. But hey Packer is just doing his part as well in presenting exactly what we need: Ideas that make us think.
I disagree that it is inappropriate for professors to not discuss atheism in their class unless they teach philosophy or religion. As an art professor I prefer to keep my academic freedom and discuss atheism in my class the way it pertains to our study. People with mystical and spiritual views are free to talk about them as well but that isn’t the standard of a scientific reality I set for my class.
To answer his questions: Yes, Yes, Yes, No, Kind of – I discovered that there is no such thing, so I never had it to begin with
And of course, it just wouldn’t be a really good speech without the “deep down they really do know that the church is true, that’s why they fight it so much!” propaganda
Ironically, I think he’s right when he says, “If he derides spiritual development, it can generally be concluded that he failed in the subject.” Sort of. He’s right because everyone fails. The standards set by Mormonism are too high. They try to convince everyone that they’re not, so many pretend that they are perfect. The one who realizes, “hey, these standards are ridiculous and no one can live up to them,” who tries to convince others that it’s a crock of shit, is probably speaking from a place of pain, is probably empathizing with the suffering of those who are trying so hard to fit in and be perfect that it’s killing them. In that way I think he’s right.
Pingback: SoccerMust.com
The resemblance of this talk to recent speeches by Palin is just… eerie.
It is revolting and extremely callous to invoke a firing squad metaphor in any instance, but to mean- listening?! Really? The students aren’t listening anyway, they’re doing happiness checks on the teacher.
And I don’t see how educator= compulsive desire to educate. It is the job of an educator to educate, is that not obvious? So more of a thoughtful choice and outcome of years of work and preparation.
Overall Packer really plays the fool in this talk – accusing professors of resentment when he himself is obviously guilty of resentment. (beam in the eye).
Likewise, I guess he should come out and condemn missionary work, which likewise is… an attempt to persuade others out of their faith and into ours.
Can you say ressentiment!
Furthermore, faith without skepticism is just dogma. Skepticism gives life to faith and without it would go stale.
Packer does; however, have one gem of a quote:
“the graduates from many institutions of higher learning are moving into private and public life well-trained, technically proficient, even talented, but somehow without that attribute of character called integrity.”
Ethics and the humanities are being de-emphasized more and more at our Universities. (At USU the philosophy department almost got dissolved altogether!). This means kids are graduating with high-levels of technical proficiency, but critically lacking a deep understanding of the human condition. They lack social discipline and cohesion and more and more subscribe to Ayn Rand style hedonistic individualism. They are only interested in themselves and what society has to offer them. This is the “me” generation.
Packer’s generation may not have understood everything, but at least they understood the need to guard against extremism (e.g, communism, which let’s not forget was violent and awful) by taking care of the needs of the least fortunate in society.
Today the radical right is a much more realistic threat to the stability of society than communism. So maybe Packer should be talking about that threat now…
(“Ethics and the humanities are being de-emphasized more and more at our Universities. (At USU the philosophy department almost got dissolved altogether!). This means kids are graduating with high-levels of technical proficiency, but critically lacking a deep understanding of the human condition. They lack social discipline and cohesion and more and more subscribe to Ayn Rand style hedonistic individualism. They are only interested in themselves and what society has to offer them. This is the “me” generation.”)
Wait, are you talking about universities in general, or in Utah specifically? Is the “me” generation just the Utah mormon millenials?
If you are speaking about the generation in general, then I differ on that perspective. I see that worldviews are being increasingly widened, and that younger generations are more interested in volunteerism and seeking out causes to support than previous ones. And maybe that is part of the hedonistic individualism that you are talking about, to enjoy and take part in little casual ways, but it doesn’t seem to me less disciplined so much as multifocal.
Packer is not really an archetype of his generation outside the church, so “Packer’s generation” reads as funny to me for the same reason.
Pingback: Mormon Normal Time | contrafactus
And there are some over-zealous in challenging the humanistic beliefs and motive of others. Jeebus.
“The theist proclaims his own dishonesty in accepting pay to teach psychology, sociology, history, or English, while he is indeed preaching his theistic religious philosophy to his students. If the theist wants to teach his doctrine at a public university, let him purchase property off campus and build himself a building and offer classes. Let him label them for what they are.”
I subtracted three letters from the BKP’s mumbo jumbo to remake the paragraph (see if you can find them). As it stands now, it’s a pretty strong indictment of certain “universities” I could name…
If you’re implying that BYU is one of those certain universities, then you’re being slightly unfair to Packer’s argument. Packer is talking about public schools, where the separation of church and state exists. BYU is a private religious school, so it’s exempt from the logic of his argument.
@Jon Adams
Not as unfair as the professors and administration of BYU are being to the students (and I’m an alumnus, so I know what I’m criticizing). BYU’s “private” status doesn’t shield it, its employees or its administrators from the heavy responsibility they bear for robbing the minds of their students and forever stunting their intellectual development. It still must be held to decent academic standards and allow freedom of thought and expression.
Packer’s petulant raving about “atheists” or whatever he thinks about academics is moot, in my opinion. His “logic” doesn’t hold. This is the guy who disgorges such
rot as
“I have a hard time with historians, because historians idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting. The truth destroys.”
or the eternal classic “Some things that are true are not very useful.”
Such a person has already sold his mind for a mess of bullcrud and belongs nowhere near a university. He clearly knows nothing about thinking, science, history, or anything else redeeming, so instead of rabidly foaming at the mouth at those braver than he is, he should shut his mouth and listen. Who knows, he might learn something? Miracles do happen.
“And one might ask, Is he talking to students, or is he really talking to himself? You might ask also, and he might ask himself: Is he happy, really happy?”
And one might ask Mr. Packer the same questions. I’m guessing the morality of a typical 1973 mormon would be quite questionable to us as well in which case he may be ‘suppressing the truth by his wickedness’.
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Lifecycle Edition! | Main Street Plaza
My favorite quote: “In the separation of church and state we ought to demand more protection [...] from the skeptic [...]” Yes, the principle of separation of church & state really ought to be protecting us from an attitude of questioning in our educational institutions. (Sarcasm intended.)
I know that by “skeptic” he probably meant specifically “a person skeptical of a god”, but if you just read it as the general definition (“a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual”), it’s too funny. Do you think he really does believe that questioning proposed facts is something that has no place in higher education? I hope not…
“This is the man who ridicules belief in a hereafter and says there is no such thing as God. He’d better hope he is right. For if, as some of us know, the opposite is true, the final scene will be his, and justice more than poetic and penalties adequate in every way will be exacted from him.”
And I’m sure Boyd will be right there with a huge grin on his face.
Fortunately, that’s not the God I worship. Just as I, as a (gay) father, won’t stop loving my kids or “extract penalties” from them for symbolically not believing in me or doing other things I don’t like, God won’t stop loving me for doing dumb things. I think Boyd is going to be awfully disappointed in the afterlife. Is it bad that I’m kind of looking forward to seeing Boyd and Chris Buttars and their ilk stomping around “up there” complaining how unfair it all is?
Unfortunately the majority of the comments to this post unjustly mischaracterize Packer’s position. He was not addressing the good-natured skeptic, the doubter, or even the devil’s advocate. He focused his comments on those “few” professors who “delight in destroying faith” and ridicule faith and religious beliefs. There is a difference between supporting your position and degrading your opponents. Furthermore, as Mr. Adams pointed out, the context of his talk is a state sponsored university, in which separation of church and state applies. At such a university, a theist professor would most likely be sanctioned and/or fired for preaching the gospel in class. This is an idea and therefore deserves place in the “marketplace of ideas.” This is also a challenge to the beliefs of atheists and therefore has place in college if college is where beliefs are challenged. The atheist professor may do this but the theist cannot? Packer’s comments were directed towards the cowards who hide behind and take advantage of this double standard.
Hegji–
Do those kind of professors even exist? Who does that? In my experience, if its not a philosophy or religion class, professors basically never bring up their religious affiliation, if they have it at all. Why would they? They’ve got math to teach, or whatever.
The professors who “delight in destroying faith” sound like they come straight out of a Jack Chick tract.
James
Yes they exist. As for “Why would they?”, that was one of Packer’s main points, so I refer to the quoted materials above.
I don’t doubt that some exist, but I think Packer–in typical form–overstates the nature of the problem.