Recently lots of people have asked me what I think about BYU’s approach to sexual assault and the honor code. Just kidding, nobody has asked me anything – however, as a doctoral therapist at BYU, I find myself forced to come face-to-face with this issue in a very real way. As the world’s newspapers and social media have so bluntly pointed out, BYU is not exempt from instances of sexual coercion, rape, or abuse. Now, what in the world is BYU thinking? What is it that helped create a system where the people who are sexually abused often get retraumatized by the very group that is intended to protect students? Part of me wonders if this current (*insert expletive) is the problem, or if it is just a symptom of a deeper issue within the system.

As the eighth sibling in my family to “rise and shout” and make their way to a degree from BYU, the honor code has been as foundational in my life as gravity or Les Miserables. To me, there is no moment in my life where these things have not been present. The earth is round, Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread, and beards are an easy way to spot a sinner – some things are just generalizable, time-transcending truths. (For real though, when Thomas S. Monson quoted Les Mis during general conference, I felt justified in considering that play to be canonized scripture.)

So let’s jump back to 2005, when a barely post-pubescent male confidently stepped onto BYU’s campus, bringing his scriptures (complete with Les Mis cd’s), a righteous baby face, and an immense gratitude that I was even let onto campus. At this time my world was very black-and-white. There were two types of people; the righteous and the lazy. Like many new Zoobies, I was as confident in my worldview as I was ignorant, and I took that confidence right up to my new dorm room. That’s when I opened the door to my freshman apartment and saw posters of Bruce Willis’s Sin City hanging up in my kitchen…

Excuse me?! I was not going to start my college career by allowing pictures of sub-honor-code-standard women (yeah, I’m looking at you Jessica Alba) or violence be portrayed in my new home. Within five minutes I told my roommate to “take it down or I will.” The cheeky little bastard ended up just putting 8.5×11 pieces of paper over the cleavage, guns, and the word “Sin,” but I figured that God saw my display of honor so I let it go.

Flash forward to the present. I still listen to Les Mis and I still have a cleanly-shaven face (#onmyhonor), but life has a funny way of getting messy and my black-and-white worldview found a way to incorporate big phrases like ‘subjective realities,’ ‘contextual truths,’ and ‘extenuating circumstances.’ Basically, my Javert has been slowly evolving into a Jean Valjean. However, while I feel that this evolution occurs within many faculty members, students, and myself (#arrogant), I feel that the honor code has not chosen evolution, but rather to reinforce their current approach.

You see, in Victor Hugo’s masterpiece, Les Miserables, Javert strives for righteousness and justice. He is a French police officer, fiercely dedicated to upholding the laws and punishing sin. He spends the entire story pursuing the known convict Jean Valjean. Just to give you a sense of the kind of low-life this Valjean is, here are a few of his crimes:

1) stealing food

2) trying to escape prison multiple times

3) stealing expensive silverware from a priest

4) resisting arrest

5) forging documentation

6) running for office under a false name

7) assaulting an officer

8) breaking parole

9) illegal immigration, (just to name a few.)

Clearly, this is a man who needs to be punished…right?

I probably don’t need to connect the dots for people who are familiar with the story, but I will anyway: The honor code is the embodiment of an organizational Javert who proudly tries to keep BYU safe by punishing students who break the rules – the immoral Valjeans.

Javert’s motives are not evil and they are not irrational. When laws are broken, there needs to be a system that corrects behavior. The honor code office has taken it upon themselves to find out if rules have been violated and to administer the designated consequence. For BYU students, this comes in the form of suspensions, expulsions, and ecclesiastic tasks (repenting, journaling, talking with Bishops, etc.). So what does the honor code office do when a victim of sexual assault comes in seeking justice, but also admits to drinking or being sexually active? To the Javerts of the world, this is an incredibly easy decision; All sin and wrongdoing must be punished regardless of the context!

I mean, give me a break! Valjean clearly broke the law. Is there anyone reading this article that is going to argue with me and tell me that the BYU stude…I mean, that Valjean is some innocent civilian? He knew that stealing bread was illegal and he did it anyway. He knew that he was not allowed to break out of prison until his sentence was completed and he did it anyway. She knew that she should not have had premarital sex, but she…

Oh wait, I’m mixing these up, but you get the jist.

Even as I write this, I struggle to stay impartial, because I just see myself as a freshman Javert, walking into the kitchen and seeing “sin” right before my eyes. Literally, the movie was called Sin City. Something absolutely needed to be done. I felt compelled to show my righteousness by making my roommate change. Did I succeed in my goal?

What is it that makes someone change? I’m not talking about an external change of behavior, but a change of their very core? What is it that makes someone better? When I look at the honor code now, I seriously question if it makes people want to be better people. The honor code is far too frequently seen as a punitive organization. And, far too frequently, there is justification for those feelings. So let’s figure it out. Is it punishment that makes people change?

There has been tons of research done on the effects of punishment. People who get punished do not respond by embracing what the punisher thinks is right, or dare I say, “honorable”. We (humans) often just shift our external behavior and get really good at avoiding punishment. This is primarily what I believe is going on at BYU. Because Javert is such a looming presence on campus, people get really good at avoiding him. Most of their energy is spent avoiding punishment and, in contrast with most people of this age group, they are not spending their energy learning from their mistakes and developing a strong moral code.

There are some people that go to Javert (report themselves to the honor code office), thinking that if they are honest about honor code infractions, they will be shown mercy. Unfortunately, too many people end up getting punished just the same. Again, others are turned into Inspector Javert by fellow students, Title IX, or even congregation members. Thus begins an inquisition. Javert is adept at getting information from these students and punishment can be swift, sure, and incredible damaging to a person’s academic and vocational goals. But, #justice.

When Victor Hugo created the character of Jean Valjean, he tapped into the powerful process of human change and, consequently, may have stumbled across a provocative solution for BYU’s honor code. So, what is it that changes a person? What inspires, motivates, and teaches us to be good and moral people? Valjean experienced two dramatic changes that stemmed from two very distinct approaches.

The first came when he endured the “justice” of Javert, and the consequences of a punitive system. To this, Valjean responded with resentment, anger, and apathy. He almost seems like an average-joe who became a hostile person because of “the system.” This is such a relatable and generalizable human phenomenon. People react in a variety of ways to punishment, but intense anger and bitterness is a very common reaction.

The next fundamental change came when he was met with empathy, understanding, and compassion by the Good priest. Yeah, that’s right! The priest gave Valjean food and shelter and Valjean repaid him but sneaking off with his possessions. Instead of reacting by sending Valjean back into the system to be punished again, he protected him with a soul-shaking level of human mercy and kindness; the priest told the police that the stolen silver was a gift, and then handed over the silver candlesticks!

In that moment, Valjean was given the emotional space to decide what type of person he would be. In this moment, it was not the system, Javert’s system, that was going to dictate what type of person he was going to be. Rather, he was shown love, kindness, and, arguably, underserved mercy, and this allowed him to change his very core.

Now even though I feel like Mr. Valjean has been my buddy since I was a kid, I recognize that he is fictional. But these principles are anything but fiction. As a therapist, I’ve learned that the most important ingredients that help with healing are empathy for an individual’s unique circumstances and a willingness to let people grow and develop at an appropriate pace. In stark opposition to Javert’s context-doesn’t-matter mindset, I want to be clear: Context is Everything!

Javert’s approach will never lead to emotional healing or the space needed to develop a mature moral code, though it may lead to temporary behavior changes. This is also true with the honor code. It may influence external behavior, but it creates an environment of secrecy and fear for those who are not explicitly compliant with the honor code. This, in turn, results in higher levels of anxiety, which tends to stunt development. So ultimately, we are sacrificing long-term relational, moral, and individual development in order to “provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

So now we get to ask two final questions: 1) Are these “ideals” that we are striving for the ideals of Javert or are they the ideals of the Good Priest? and 2) When are we going to get back to the issue of sexual assault? It turns out that these are related questions.

At the end of the day (#punintended), the honor code has developed into a systematic Javert. It embodies the ideals of exact obedience and intolerance for rebellion. In discussing the creation of Javert, Hugo said the following:

“[Javert] was a compound of two sentiments, simple and good in themselves, but he made them almost evil by his exaggeration of them: respect for authority and hatred of rebellion…He is “absolute,” a “fanatic.”

The honor code’s aims are not evil or bad in spirit, just as Javert is not an inherently bad person. However, the fact that students at BYU have been raped and then subsequently subjected to a system that is degrading, dehumanizing, and damaging speaks to the problem. We have exaggerated our desire for obedience into a demand for a specific flavor of honor. We have lost sight of the individual and the complexities of their lives, instead prioritizing a set of rules and implementing a one-size-fits-all approach to “honor.”

This sexual abuse scandal is, unfortunately, only a symptom of a deeper, fundamental problem. The underlying issue is the pharisaical attention that is given to disobedience, not disobedience itself. If we do not learn to trust in human agency and allow people the necessary space to live and learn, then our rigidity will simply result in another scandal on another day and deep pain on all sides. If we are truly striving for the ideals of The Church, then we should turn the other cheek, be longsuffering and kind, and find ourselves comforting those that stand in need of comfort.

Javert was unable to tolerate this higher morality in the end. A part of me can empathize with that – that part is my freshman self. I did not have the courage to allow my roommate to be where he was and simultaneously love him. I perceived him as immoral and in need of correction so I stepped in to control his behavior. And since that was my goal, I can honestly say that I succeeded. But now that I am reflecting back on that incident, one emotion explodes to the surface: Shame. I do not even remember my roommate’s name. That is how little I cared about him as a person. The only memories that I have of him are when I would go into the living room and he would immediately leave and go to his bedroom. Who could blame him for avoiding his personal Javert?