98 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
This post is not about whether caffeine is good for you or against the Word of Wisdom. Self-censor yourself accordingly. If you fail to do so, I likely won’t delete your comment… but I will think a lot of condescending thoughts at your expense. |
How could you delete it? I find it interesting, although I don’t care one way or the other. As to how it’s addressed by BYU to the media, it’s just another “how many fingers am I holding up” story. |
That’s exactly it. I hate it when BYU or the Church does this and then expects us to run our doublethink subroutines. I don’t think we should let them get away with it and, since this is a minor issue, it’s a good place to start. That’s the heart of the issue, in my opinion. |
I knew this would happen. BYU, and CES for that matter both represent an elevated state of enlightenment. If the Church is true, these institutions are TRUER. So as the less washed are now allowed to partake of The Real Thing, those with the higherl light and knowledge know that caffeinated Coke is serves to feed base desires and cause promiscuity. And there is tradition. Tradition of competitive obedience. But that’s what people pay for, the BYU experience. |
Here are my reasons for being upset. I would prefer BYU remain caffeine free. The caffeine drinkers have every other restaurant and refridgeraters in grocery stores in the country. Just try being thirsty outside of BYU and wanted a cold diet drink and your choice is caffeine or water, but since you are pregnant, nursing, want to go to sleep, or want to share it with your child you are stuck with water. If you don’t mind sugar you can have Sprite, but that’s it. |
Jason, thanks for the chuckle. JKS, I have never experienced that. Never. Any place that has soda has uncaffeinated drinks. Maybe not Pepsi-Free, but other options. |
jks, I disagree that there is “low demand” for caffeine at BYU (though certainly lower than your average college campus) — although there is absolutely higher than normal demand for caffeine-free sodas. But offering caffeinated drinks and selling non-caffeinated ones are not mutually exclusive. Nobody is asking BYU to get rid of those — so who cares if they offer both? Then everyone’s happy. Why are the non-caffeine drinkers “so put out that they have to go to bat about it?” Nobody’s taking anything away from them.
So what? I don’t see how this is relevant. Nobody’s asking anyone to start drinking caffeine or watching R-rated movies. Nobody’s advocating not having friends who don’t do these things. |
It’s exceptional how far some people will go to restrict the choices of others. If you don’t want to drink Mountain Dew or Dr. Pepper, then don’t! I feel this mentality is hurting our church quite a bit. This bizarre caffeine episode, as the OP correctly points out, is merely a symptom of larger issues. |
jks, I assume your comment is some sort of joke? Do you attend BYU? Do you feel that if regular Coke were available that your choices would be hurt there? Do you see that those that would prefer to have the option of regular soft drinks are being impinged upon in exactly the way you feel you would be? You are probably right that the is a higher than average demand for caffeine-free drinks on campus. But I would guess that when push comes to shove there is still at least as high of a demand for caffeinated soda, if not much higher. BYU’s seemingly constitutional inability to engage honestly on this topic is merely the latest symptom of its dysfunction. |
jks – It’s all well and good to have those opinions, but the STATED REASON for not having those drinks at BYU is due to DEMAND, which is the biggest lie since “I had a revelation I should marry you”. (Of course, this is Dining Services, who wouldn’t promote women to manager positions in the 90s.) At any rate, let’s go over this again – the WoW is about coffee and tea, and it has been for decades. Restricting caffeinated sodas is a weird cultural anacronism that isn’t “doctrine”, isn’t a policy, and is basically stupid. |
(The fact that there are people who equate “good Mormon” with “doesn’t drink soda with caffeine” gets me riled up every time.) |
Fwiw, Barqs is caffeine-free in Utah. That’s a demand-driven business decision…BYU, not so much. |
This post is right on the money. The PR spin that BYU (and to some degree, the Church itself) seems to habitually engage in is part of an old-guard mentality that is fading somewhat from the Church but is still present in some of the more dyed-in-the-wool parts of mormomdom. It’s a mentality that says, “You can’t trust the world with the truth.” So an innocuous-sounding lie is constructed instead. It’s an outdated and irretrievably broken mode of dealing with the world and it needs to be put out of its misery once and for all. That will never happen unless people inside the Church start making a point of shining the light of day on these obvious lies and asking that our institutions stop forcing their PR people to tell these silly stories when the truth will do just as well. |
Amen, MCQ — I wish I’d written that in the OP. As I’ve been saying all along, people pooh-pooh this issue because they think caffeinated soda is a trivial matter. They’re probably right… but this isn’t really about the caffeine. |
@13, very well put. I would add to the list of dishonest BYU statements their incredulous statement that tithing money is not used for their athletic programs. That dishonesty is easily proven by NCAA reports which show every singe Division I athletic department operates in the red-including BYU- and requires an infusion general university funds to break even. Like the recent biography of BY, it appears the BYU is very human and, regrettably, prone to exageration and even dishonesty to “protect” the institution or the delicate feelings of some of its supporters. I suppose BYU will have to learn the hard way about this new thing called the interwebz. I wonder if this is also an extension of the patronizing honor code which treats adults like children who cannot be trusted to “govern themselves” at least with respect to dress and groomng. The honor code takes decision making authority away from a body of presumably mature adults (BYU=Harvard of the West as so many in my Ward believe) and punishes deviation from an arbitrary standard, but the kids, er, I mean students, buy into it and proudly so in many instances. Perhaps the BYU PR dept and Adminsitrators assume the same group of people who’ve proudly surrendered their free agency to attend the school will also be gullible enough to believe whatever the institution tells them about the institution no matter how improbable or dishonest their statements are. Besides being dishonest, these statements assume a level of credulity among BYU supporters that is shockingly condescending. |
rbc, |
I became very tired of hearing before events at BYU that “as is tradition at BYU” we would start with a prayer. I liked the prayers and having that be part of the way things are done at BYU, but I wished we could do better than say we were doing it because its a tradition. |
El Oso, Don’t believe me, that’s perfectly reasonable. Perhaps ESPN and TMQ are more believable: As shocking as it may sound to you, but an athletic department that takes in 100 million or more can easily find ways to spend 110 or 120 million. Don’t be so naive. Perhaps you are confusing one part of an athletic department with an entire athletic department. The BYU football team may be profitable but it does not generate enough profit to cover the other expenses of the BYU athletic department. Or, the BYU athletic department is mismanaged by the same geniuses in the PR department. Whatever the source, BYU-like every other DIvision 1 athletic program-reported to the NCAA their athletic program operated at a loss. Given the brouhaha over their caffeine lie, perhaps BYU just lied to the NCAA about its athletic program. And, perhaps a BYU administrator or GA read TMQ and made changes in the last two years so the BYU athletic department is now completely self sufficient. But, as of 2 yrs ago BYU reported to the NCAA its athletic department had to draw upon general university funds to break even. Now, some of the general university funds may not have originated in tithing, but that is a disingenous or dishonest-take your pick-accounting trick which may assuage the consciences of BYU athletic supporters but, like the caffeine statement, is too cute by about half. |
I thought it was funny when Joanna Brooks talked about diet Coke and our attitude toward sin. I can’t remember the exact words. But ALL my friends drink Pepsi or Coke, not just the inactive ones. Some only occasionally; others get their Big Gulp every morning at the Maverik. And refill it at lunch. I no longer believe the W0W is a commandment. I no longer accept it as a valid measure of my orthodoxy. I pretty much live by it, but anybody who doesn’t is fine with me. |
I hope that BYU continues to keep caffeine off its campus. Don’t care what reasons they give, its the principle that counts. what principle? To keep snotty nosed “progressives” like Orwell, queuno, and especially rbc so riled up and angry that they will never even think of attending. Personally I think, just to make a point that BYU is not your average college and make it that much harder to break the honor code, they should have school uniforms. |
Ill fitting uniforms designed with men in mind. |
#20 Whoa, easy there, buddy. No need to be contentious. Those other fellows are expressing an opinion and think they are right, just like you and I do. Besides, they are probably way past the age of college attendance by now or are BYU alumni themselves. Now that the Church has put out a statement, however, I don’t see how BYU can continue to defend their caffeine-free environment. It’s going to happen sooner or later, and it’s not like caffeinated sodas are inherently wicked. Your so-called principle is more of an agenda and your comment about school uniforms is way out there in right field. Personally, I think the anger and debate is just plain silly because two years from now, the whole thing will have passed by like so much hot air blowing in the wind. For now, civil discourse is warranted. |
@20, LOL. That rant is classic and worthy of BYU. Congrats. Please, please keep them coming. Trust me, BYU does not have to tell lies about caffeine or its athletic department funding to be considered a “not your average” school. People like you make certain they will probably never fall into the average school ranks. A quick question: when BYU tells obvious whoppers is it a violation of their “so-called” honor code? If my kids can’t get into a decent school and have to slum at BYU, will they be allowed to play as fast and loose with the truth as the institution itself? I have no idea who Orwell or queno are or if they are progressives. If your definition of a progressive is someone who is disappointed, but not surprised, that BYU would tell an occasional lie, then that tells me you do not understand what a “progressive” is or you graduated from BYU or both. Whatever it is, please keep your thoughts coming. If anything, your rant was too brief. Don’t forget to call me to repentance for being a “progressive” by your odd definition while at the same time defending BYU’s dishonesty. C’mon, try a bit harder. You can do better. Put that BYU education to work for all to see. |
Perhaps we are being too hard on the school. The scriptures teach us dishonesty is occasionally necessary to further the work of the Lord, e.g. Nephi masquerading as Laban to get the plates of brass, among other scriptural examples of misrepresentation or lying for a higher purpose. If BYU needs to declare its basketball teams are “dance troops” to get visas to enter a country to play and while there do a series of firesides for the local saints and youth, then, imo, BYU should lie, lie, lie and call its hoops teams dance troops. Although not BYU related, If the Church can pay a bribe to facilitate the building of a temple to bring those blessings to local saints, then I say “name your price.” Just don’t leave it to the BYU PR department to explain the bribe. (If we have a couple billion laying around for a mall, then there isn’t a bribe in the world too expensive for the work of the Lord. Sorry, couldn’t resist a mall reference.) That BYU sometimes lies in such a ham-handed and clearlyly self-serving way is what makes this amusing. The reaction of BYU supporters is frosting on the cake. |
ah, one of those “lying for the Lord-ers” who think there is some LDS teachings about doing that. Explains a lot actually. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not going to expand on my viewpoints for your amusement (much as your response rants amuse me and let others see who you really are). See, having attended BYU I know that there is not going to be any changes no matter what. I for one do know there isn’t any demand for it at BYU because no one has demanded it. That isn’t to say there isn’t a group of people who attend who would like caffeine drinks. Its that there isn’t any demand for it. |
It would have been so much easier if they had just gone with a more factual reason, like: “Our Board of Directors at some time, either now or in the past, informs us that caffeine is inappropriate for human consumption if it is in liquid form. Since we’ve contracted with vendors and set up to comply with that position, it’s too much of a hassle to change the labels on the soda machines, so we don’t sell it. No, we don’t know which of our Board members most adamantly holds that no-caffeine position, we just know that we need to do what they tell us to do until they tell us to stop doing it.” Maybe if people complain about caffeine too much, the BYU folks will one-up the NYC folks – if NYC can ban big sodas, BYU can ban *all* sodas, leaving students the options of water, milk, lemonade and that old Osmond favorite, Hawaiian Punch. |
rbc: Re: lieing for the Lord. One of my friends was a missionary to Mexico in the 70′s. He told me that his visa said he was a sports coach. |
Jettboy: I’m pretty much as conservative as they come, an anti-progressive even. But I have to admit rbc has a point. I first learned about pious lies in the church when I showed up at the MTC. A lot of public statements made by official representatives of the church, whether directed towards members or towards non-members, just can’t be taken as literally, universally and exhaustively true. When I heard then Elder Monson say “Missionaries _must_ be bla-bla-bla…” back in the 1980′s, I thought “bla-bla-bla” were absolute requirements or prerequisites for missionary service. When I arrived at the MTC and saw how many of us weren’t “bla-bla-bla” or even striving for “bla-bla-bla”, my first thought was that Elder Monson lied. But eventually I realized that I had to nuance the word “must”, and add in all sorts of unspoken qualifiers. “Must” really meant “should” or “ought to”, not an absolute requirement. And unspoken qualifiers were “must…. in order to be effective as a missionary.” As opposed to “must …. in order to become a missionary.” In the business world it’s often called “puffery”. Another example is the characterization of the church’s welfare and humanitarian efforts. In 1985, in my mission, “welfare missionaries” were just a couple designated sister-companionships who taught members or investigators how to properly boil water, basic info on germs and hygiene, and cleaning/sterilizing cooking and eating utensils. It was a drop in the bucket, and almost an afterthought. But to read about the church’s welfare/ humanitarian efforts about those days, one has to apply a lot of nuance in order to make the statements accurate. The other side of the coin is “so what?” The church is still true. Press releases, media interviews, and general conference talks are too short to belabor the points, and specify details with anal-retentive precision and exceptions in order that every spoken word is literally, journalistically and historically true. Much information really has to be glossed over and presented in a format for the least-common-denominator of the intended audience. |
[...] The people who want to hold themselves to a stricter law are, understandably, upset, as are the fans of [...] |
Bookslinger, I am very familiar with the phenomenon you describe; but it’s not the same thing at all. Nobody actually takes those things literally. You learn to unconsciously adjust for reality. It’s analogous to expecting the Big Mac in your bag to look like the picture. We’re all used to the slippage between rhetoric and reality. If, on the other hand, you ask for a Big Mac and open you bag to find a Filet o’Fish, you’re going to complain. That’s what we’re talking about here. BYU’s handling of the situation is an insult to students’ intelligence. The administration has a right to make the policies they will make, but dismissing student concerns with such absurd justifications is embarrassing to the University and to the Church in general. |
From the article: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54797595-78/church-drinks-caffeine-lds.html.csp Part of the confusion stems from LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University, which neither sells nor serves caffeinated drinks. Meh. I could still nuance that with a very large dose of charity to make it true. Maybe “virtually” no demand. Maybe no demand “in writing.” Maybe no demand “sufficient to make the addition profitable.” Maybe no demand “sufficient to outweigh the anti-caffeine ninnies.” Didn’t we read somewhere a few years ago that President Hinckley instructed BYU to not serve caffeinated beverages? Or was that merely someone’s speculation, based on a related comment of his? BTW, I carry caffeine tablets (cut up into quarters) in a pill box on me most of the time. A whole tablet is 200mg, a quarter tablet is 50 mg, about the amount of caffeine in a can of Diet Coke. I usually consume 150 mg spread out over the 3 hour block to keep awake in church. |
@25, I don’t understand what you wrote, but it doesn’t really matter. You comment suggests there is not a rich history of the Church and BYU being creative or selective with the truth from time to time. If so, we can agree to disagree. I really am not interested in debating or discussing all of the instances where BYU has lied or the Church has stretched the truth for its own valid purposes. Call me corrupt or ethically challenged or not worthy to attend BYU, but I fail to see any problem paying off a corrupt official that stands in the way of getting a temple built. With the vast material wealth we enjoy and even wealthier intellectual and creative capital we have in the men and women in the Church, we should be able to get around a corrupt official. I cannot imagine denying the blessings of the temple to a group of Saints b/c of a corrupt official when the solution is as simple as a bribe-no matter the size of the bribe. We’re good for it. That is, at best, a small transaction cost that should not delay or stop the construction of something as important as a temple. I propose a truce. I will try to steer my kids to Patriot League or ACC schools but since I believe in free agency I will not be able to dictate their schools-I can only try and wield the power of the purse to fill in whatever scholarship gap that may arise. Since you are uncomfortable or afraid of free agency, I trust you will be able to dictate to your kids to stay away from Patriot League and ACC schools and our respective children will never cross paths. (Besides, I hear those schools are full of actual progressives.) But if my kids end up at BYU-not a bad safety school-they will probably be easy to spot carrying around Red Bull/Monster/5-hr energy drinks and wearing t-shirts with some subversive message about being progressives/RINOs or worse Democrats!. Then your kids can anonymously report my kids to the honor-code office to restore the sanctity of BYU and get them kicked out of the school or at least brought to repentance for their apostasy. @30, try 5-hr energy drinks. There is no way I would have survived yesterday’s meetings w/o consuming a 5-hr energy about 45 minutes before the start of sacrament meeting. (I didn’t think it would look good if I struggled to stay awake or dozed off on the stand.) The product really works. Not sure if I will die of a heart attack in 5 yrs or I am incubating some form of cancer by drinking it, but it is amazingly effective for what it claims to do. |
This is the best write up I’ve seen to date on this ridiculous debacle. Your analogy to “no homosexuals in Iran” and “no CES employed women want to work if they have children between the ages of 0 and 18″ is spot on. And we’re supposed to yearn for a theocracy? No thanks. You would think the protesters were setting up an opium den from the way the university jumped in to disperse them under some bureaucratic technicality. This is exactly how BYU operates. Ignore diversity. Silence any non-party line viewpoint. Secretly endorse only the most hardline interpretation of the gospel. Pretend that those pathetic individuals who disagree with you simply don’t follow the university rules and are a tiny little minority of nobodies. |
Thanks, hawkgrrrl — I’m a regular reader of yours over at W and T, though I rarely comment these days (I’m inactive in the Bloggernacle, as my number of posts over the last two years will attest). Bookslinger — as much as it pains me to use this abbreviation, I just can’t help it: LOL. I think the most charitable reading goes like this: Peggy Fletcher Stack (or whoever):
Carri Jenkins:
I’m not saying that’s how it went down. I have no idea. I’m just saying that the most charitable reading possible doesn’t make it look any better. In my opinion, this is probably what really happened:
Incidentally, has no one realized that, even if it were true that there is no demand for caffeinated soda at BYU, the only reason that this would be the case is because students thought it wasn’t allowed? (Because normal college students consume a lot of Coke et al.) Like this:
So, either “there hasn’t been a demand” is totally false or the Newsroom is deliberately misleading people. Nobody wants to own up to it, so it gets pushed down the hierarchy until it falls in Dining Services’ lap and they have no recourse but to say “uh, we’ve always done things this way so we see no need to study the issue or change.” Poor Dining Services. |
I’m sorry that some who have commented here will be chagrined by this, but I did graduate from BYU. Twice. The place is chock-full of people like me among both the student body and faculty. All I have to say to you is hide yo’ kids, hide yo’ wife. I should also clarify that I actually love BYU. It’s a great place with a lot of great things going for it, for the most part. I had a (mostly) great experience there, met my wife there, and have a lot of great memories from my time there. I still get depressed for days when the football team loses (tithing funds or not). But the idea that BYU is the thirteenth apostle and not to be contradicted or that we have to be either 100% for it or against it is ridiculous. (“Love it or leave it!” That doesn’t sound at all fascist, now does it?) If this caffeine debacle bothers me especially, it’s only because I really do love BYU and it pains me to see it embarrass itself. |
It’s my take that since the news media does not want to engage in a thoughtful dialogue, and even if they did would be forced to reduce the dialogue to a handful of soundbites, there is no reason why the Church (or any institution for that matter, be it political, civil, or business) should be required or expect to respond in a thoughtful manner that not only contains the whole truth but all the nuances and supporting arguments, etc. The simple question of to drink or not to drink caffeine is one that you can’t really answer, other than the way the newsroom did. They didn’t comment on anything other than to say it’s not included in the requirements the church asks us to abide by in the WoW. And yet that reveals the perils of a soundbite response, because we have faithful members claiming all new models of interpretation the WoW with a 2 sentence newsroom soundbite as cornerstone of the foundation! In the case of BYU, this was perhaps less well done. But still no less accurate. There wasn’t any demand, as in few to no people were demanding it. Of course, they also could have said they didn’t want to serve it. But as pointed out in my first paragraph, any reason for why they weren’t serving it would get reduced in such a way that really did convey the wrong message. The demand model is not inaccurate. I really haven’t heard about people demanding caffeine. So to call that statement dishonest, is well, dishonest. Should the representative have said that demand levels were not sufficient to increase the sales of drinks above and beyond the additional cost of carrying new inventory? (changing out machine labeling, etc. etc.)? I would assume, that at the time the drink contracts were put in place, the vast majority of the customers at BYU stayed away from caffeinated drinks. Now that some people want to make a big stink one way or the other (no caffeine at BYU = righteous or no caffeine at BYU = sanctimonious), you expect the school to start ordering caffeinated drinks just because it would satisfy one end of the debate? I’ve already point out the financials probably don’t justify it. If you want a drink on campus, you’re going to buy what’s available. Unless you’re telling me you’re so addicted to caffeine that you have to travel off campus and BYU is thereby losing lots of sales… in that case, well maybe they shouldn’t be selling the stuff. But I’d agree if BYU was doing to take a “good for your body stance” in their food marketing they’d be better off avoiding soda altogether. At the end of all of this, I just don’t know how the person should have answered. It’s just not being done, because it’s never been done, and it wasn’t done in the past because truly a lot of people refused to drink caffeine. That’s the way it’s always been. Maybe in the future it will change, maybe they’ll consider the principle behind the policy and state the reason for it. But I don’t expect a spokesman to have the principled reasons behind every policy right down to the kinds of toilet paper they use and be able to deliver them on a moments notice. It’s it’s very unfair to call it dishonest just because you’re annoyed with the institution, it’s politics, or policy. |
I’ve got to stick up for JKS here. I am one of those weird people who like mountain Dew for the flavor, nor for the caffeine. Due to a genetic predisposition to hypertension, I have to force myself to abstain from caffeine. Do you know how hard it is to find caffeine-free mountain dew in a real store? If BYU started selling Caffeine, the demand for those caffeine free alternatives would try up in a heartbeat and I as a Hypertension sufferer would be forced to either lose weight or never enjoy the lemony sweet taste of mountain dew again. |
kaphor, I’m glad you commented, because it gives me the opportunity to be more charitable towards Carri Jenkins. The fact is that I don’t know her and have never met her. For all I know, everything she has said she believes with all her heart… or at least didn’t think through very clearly. She likely wasn’t trying to deceive anyone, per se — in which case I would hate to call her dishonest, personally. I apologize for that. She’s probably a very nice person. The criticisms on this thread are really more directed at how the institution chooses to present itself, be it through Ms. Jenkins or other means. They’ve had ample time to clarify the matter and they’ve done a pretty poor job of it.
There’s good stuff here, not much I would really disagree on. I don’t have a problem with how the Newsroom worded their statement. The news is that nothing has changed. Caffeine never has been prohibited nor mentioned by the Word of Wisdom and anyone who thinks this statement is the basis for new interpretations of it never understood it in the first place.
Here, though, you’ve elided different uses of the word “demand,” which makes all the difference. Of course no one was actively writing letters, making phone calls etc., to demand (the verb) caffeinated soda. Surely most assumed it would be pointless. However, the expression that there is or isn’t “demand” (the noun) for something in the economic sense merely means that customers want a product and would buy it if it were available (whether they, of their own accord, actively say so or not). This is the obvious connotation. I hesitate to cite a dictionary because I’m not a prescriptivist, but in this case these definitions still align with current vernacular. If you think that BYU representatives justify saying there had been no demand for caffeinated soda because, technically, no one had been calling for a change in the policy recently… well, then I’m afraid you must think they are more disingenuous than I do. They would have been better off saying that they didn’t know what the demand was because they hadn’t studied it. This is still plenty short to be quoted in its entirety while giving a much more complete (and honest) picture. You can’t blame this on sound-bite media. Moreover, to be able to say, honestly, that there is no demand for something as they did, they would have needed to actually know the answer to the question. The
I wouldn’t expect them to have that specific a response immediately at hand; and if they did, it would be because they had actually studied the issue. I think it’s clear that they haven’t and statements to the media by Dining Services indicate that they currently have no plans to do so. Furthermore, they love to say how committed they are to providing “quality service.” Since the profit margins on fountain soda are astronomically high compared to other things in food service, you can’t tell me that the expense of swapping out a few stickers is what’s holding them back. They probably get those things for free when they order the syrup. As for carrying new inventory, all they have to do is check the box for caffeinated syrup the next time they place their usual order with Coca-cola. They already have the infrastructure in place for soda machines. How significant do you think these practical changes really are?
I don’t think we can know if this is true. If the reason were because it’s against some higher law that no one wants to admit to, then yes, I agree, it would get reduced in a very unflattering way. Pretty much all the other reasons I can think of would not have reflected favorably on BYU, no matter how well spun — but in all those instances I don’t think the long, detailed, more nuanced explanation would have been any better. Basically you’re saying that any reason they give is going to sound ridiculous. You may be right. In which case why couldn’t they have given the real one seeing that “no demand” wasn’t going to fare any better?
I doubt either of us can possibly know the answer to this for sure, but I don’t think there’s much to support your point of view. Based on my anecdotal evidence of having spent my whole life as a Mormon, I very much doubt it. Even granting that there has been a large contingent of Mormons who have believed it is an unspoken part of the Word of Wisdom for a long time, I doubt caffeine abstinence has ever exceeded fifty percent in actual practice. Moreover, it is far more likely that the powers that be at BYU, belonging to this contingent of people, simply made the choice for everyone else.
I’m sure many do buy non-caffeinated soda at BYU because there isn’t anything else available. But what about those who take the trouble to buy soda off campus? If they suddenly bought even half that much on campus instead, that’s a significant increase in sales right there. I don’t think your financial arguments have been at all persuasive. Also, I’m really not interested in BYU taking sides. As pointed out in the OP, that’s what they’re doing now — and that’s precisely why they should stop. Some general authorities drink Coke, some don’t, some don’t drink hot chocolate, some don’t drink anything the color of Coke (“bebidas negras” — I am not making this up, but I’m hardly going to tell you how I know this). None of these views should be endorsed by BYU. In fact, I absolutely support the continued sale of non-caffeinated soda on campus because I am certain there is higher than average demand. But that in no way precludes the sale of caffeinated beverages alongside them.
Again, I’m not interested in debating the health ramifications of caffeine. This argument could apply to any number of things that are currently sold on campus.
I’m not saying I know exactly what they should have said because I, unlike them, have no idea what the real reasons are. Assuming they are sincere responses, a simple “I don’t know” or “it’s a tradition maybe we should reevaluate” would have been better, if still very unsatisfying. But there’s absolutely no excuse for how they did respond. They could easily have said that they would get back to whomever in an hour and take the time to craft a better response with as much information as they could reasonably gather. BYU employs professional PR people whose job it is to represent the university in a sound-bite world. I don’t think we need to coddle them if they let the media get the best of them, especially when they provide such low-hanging fruit.
Yes, you’re right, it is — but that’s not what I’ve done. I admit that I am annoyed with the institution and its policies on occasion. (I’m not sure where politics come into this — are you making assumptions about me because I think BYU should sell caffeine?) However, I’ve used the word “dishonest” (though I prefer “disingenuous” if pressed) not for those reasons but rather because that is how it appears in accordance with the best of information available to me. |
Ron, I’m sympathetic. But if there’s one thing I am sure about, it’s that there will always be enough demand to sell caffeine-free soda at BYU. Just not exclusively. |
By the twisted definitions some have used here for “demand” I doubt there is demand for any soft drinks at BYU or anywhere else for that matter. |
C’mon, arJ, in a world where “preside” means to be an equal partner, I exhort thee to marvel not. |
I think that Carri Jenkins may have hit on a brilliant new strategy for the Church. The “no demand” excuse can be employed to explain away all kinds of difficult church history issues. For example, why did the Church deny blacks the priesthood? Forget this nonsense about racism or unfaithfulness in the pre-existence, among blacks there actually wasn’t any demand for the priesthood. Why did we do away with polygamy? There wasn’t sufficient demand for it. Why did Moroni take back the gold plates? You guessed it — no demand. In fact, it could help with all kinds of things in the church. Why didn’t you do your home-teaching? I would have, but a market assessment suggested there was no demand for it this month. Citing “no demand” is starting to look to me not dishonest, as Orwell suggests, but highly inspired. |
Tagore, I thought the reason it has been so long since you’ve commented around here was because there was no demand. Maybe that’s why it’s been so long since I’ve written a post. I don’t remember anyone calling me or sending me emails demanding that I do so. Probably inspired. |
Orwell, I am told that unless you are my bishop you can’t exhort me. |
Orwell, I promise that I will never hold it against you that you graduated from BYU twice, even though I had the good sense to call it quits at graduating once. BYU is making it more difficult for me to be a rabble rouser and trouble maker while on campus (I still visit once in a while). If I can now have a giant Diet Pepsi with my BYU brownies (best there are), how am I to incite trouble? Will I have to resort to wearing my ‘No On H8′ tee shirt? |
Regarding Tagore’s “no demand” explanation for everything, Western High in Baltimore has an all-female student body. I was amazed that such a segregation was possible for a public school and asked some of the students about it. They said it was possible because no boys wanted to go to the girls’ school. In most settings that explanation wouldn’t fly, but I guess EEOC only demands that demand be created when there’s a demand for such demanding of demand. Of course, Western’s “brother” school, Poly, went co-ed forty years ago. |
Arj, how come you never answer when I call you? |
Book, I tried that after you suggested it—the no-doz. It didn’t help me much. |
@46 |
The issue of using caffeinated drinks to pep up illustrates one of my biggest problems with our church members. We’re given conflicting directions. Don’t walk faster than you can run, but work your butt off because faith without works is dead. Jesus died for us and atoned for our sins and we are saved, AFTER ALL WE CAN DO, and you must do everything perfectly. But, oh, of course we know you can’t do that. Still, if you don’t do the most and very best you can, at all times, you’re probably screwed. You can’t save yourself, but if you don’t have a nervous breakdown trying, if you relax and lay on the couch just thinking good thoughts, welcome to the Terrestrial Kingdom where, although we’re taught we’ll go where we’re happy, we’ll be miserable without our families. Geez, talk about a run-in question. So, I, and many of my friends, rely on good old Pepsi, in a 32 oz cup with lots of ice and a straw. Because we see “being ye therefore perfect, even as I am” crossing off a long list of done to-dos instead of embracing an attitude of true Christianity. |
annegb, have you been calling me? I was unaware of any calls. |
Yeah, no matter how hard I try I just can’t get myself to care about this issue at all, and its slightly amusing to me that people get worked up over a statement by byu dining services. The statement was amusing to me also. |
I’ve been calling half the bloggernacle. I thought. |
Every time I get confused about how to use the “more” button or wonder what happened to DKL. Or you or you or you. |
I heart you Orwell. |
Orwell, your #33 fills in a lot of gaps. It makes sense to me now. (I’m so glad I didn’t grow up in Utah.) I’ve known some people to say “The church is perfect, the people aren’t.” To which I usually say, “As long as the church consists of and is run by mortals, it can’t be perfect.” I once remarked to an older gentleman “the church isn’t perfect but the gospel is.” To which he replied that the gospel as we know it isn’t perfect either. Not only because we haven’t received the entire gospel yet (AoF #9), but what we have been given has been dumbed down to fit our earthly understanding and language. |
Hey, an skl sighting! This whole post is worth it just for that. |
Having intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Dining Services I can say they are puppets for higher ups. One of the problems at BYU (and in the Church) is people try to act a certain way to impress people hire up the chain…even if no hire up up explicitly said to not sell caffeinated beverages (which isn’t true) then the lowers would still not sell it because that’s what the think the hire ups secretly want. |
* hire = higher…it’s been a long day :) |
Thanks for dropping by, EW. I’m sadly not at all surprised by that. |
Not surprised by what, that employees want to impress their bosses? Why would anyone be surprised? Thanks, EW, you really blew the lid off of ass-kissing. |
MCQ, thanks for the smart ass response. The problem is that they think that will actually impress them. |
…and that it actually might. |
#37 – Orwell, Have you ever made business decisions that involve revolving stocks of inventory? Ever managed a business where you had a target for how many times a year your inventory should “turn”? Ever had to deal with limited shelf space and an ever growing number of SKUs? If BYU makes $2million a year in soft drink sales, how much more would they make from caffeinated sales? Would the extra sales be worth the additional costs? It’s not something as ridiculous as merely changing out labels. And that suggestion shows you either haven’t put the thought into it, or don’t understand. Which is not surprising as more and more consumers are divorced from supply and production in our society. Let’s say BYU has 9 soda fountain bays. That means they currently supply 9 types of drinks. Which drinks should they cancel? Is that an easy question to answer? What if they cancel the low performers (for example, non carbonated lemonade… do they have such a thing?) for which there is no substitute. One person may substitute Root Beer for Coke, but perhaps the drinkers of the low performer won’t substitute anything soft drink for another choice. So in determining the product mix, BYU has to take into account… what’s that word.. oh yes, the DEMAND for various drinks and possible substitutes. Does BYU just stop carrying non-caff drinks? Or are you suggesting they should another another bay and all the associated costs? What about inventory levels? How much syrup should they keep on hand? Do they increase their inventory burden just to satisfy your demand? At what cost? Is it worth it to have greater inventory overhead, that turns over less times a year? These are questions that any dining service that runs itself as a business would ask itself, and I assume BYU’s service would actually consider some of these things at a high level. Clearly, I’m not expecting the spokesperson to say this off the cuff. But these are legitimate… what’s that word… SUPPLY & DEMAND factors involved in running a business. It would be foolish to ignore them and think they should just change everything because all they have to do is check off a couple boxes for the caffeinated syrup. I see no problem with a spokesperson highlighting demand as a concern. Clearly, they just needed to supply an answer to a question they weren’t expecting. But making, promoting, and encouraging accusations based on a partially ignorant answer, while revealing your own stunning ignorance about the issues of just bringing in caffeine sodas as a policy because it must be so easy to do, is well, unfortunate. |
Kaphor, What definition of “demand” are you using now? Do you think that selling normal Coke and Diet Coke at football games would result in lower overall sales? Do you think that even if they’d make more money and move more product selling a normal product mix (say, what Cafe Rio or any restaurant in Provo serves) that they’d actually switch? |
First off, kaphor, I’m sorry you keep getting put in the mod queue, I don’t know why that’s happening.
While I object to your tone (I don’t know where I’ve been disrespectful to you), I’m glad you brought these things up. They are all legitimate considerations that Dining Services needs to address internally. No one imagines it’s as simple as merely swapping out labels — I was riffing off of one of your own examples. Of course they have to do their due diligence and determine that it absolutely makes sense from an economic standpoint. In general, that’s fine by me. But fixating on that detail avoids the whole issue.
Neither do I. Nobody has ever suggested that lack of demand is not a good reason for offering something — as long as it’s true. The fact is that Dining Services has admitted that they haven’t studied it and don’t plan on doing so, despite the current situation. Without having done that, neither they nor a university spokesperson is in any position to make any statements about demand. At best that’s very disingenuous. But that’s not really the whole story. The context is what makes their response more damning. Let’s look at this same situation and swap soda out for any other product — say there is a certain brand of chips or something that everybody’s enamored with. BYU doesn’t sell it. Someone asks the administration why they don’t and they respond, “Well, I guess there isn’t a demand.” I really wouldn’t have a problem with that. Without knowing all the facts, it would be a perfectly understandable assumption under the circumstances. No one would care. However, as you well know, caffeinated soda is not just like any other product. This is a huge cultural issue. I will be the first to say that it’s stupid that it’s an issue, but it’s an issue nonetheless. Despite the fact that you and I know that the Newsroom statement changes nothing and that caffeine has never officially been a part of the Word of Wisdom, there is a contingent of people that has quite vocally believed the opposite for a very long time (and probably still do). Furthermore, I don’t think that I’m going out on a limb when I say that the original reason that BYU decided not to sell caffeinated beverages had nothing to do with business. It was likely instituted at the request of a higher-up or at least because there was an assumption that that’s what leaders would want. Perhaps no one even knows anymore. But it really doesn’t matter why or how it started. It even could have been for economic reasons for all the difference it makes (though I seriously doubt it). What matters is that the majority has always assumed that it was an administrative edict. In an honor code-obsessed environment, these sorts of traditions take on a life of their own and people begin to attribute more and more authority to them over time. Mormons love visible, measurable signs or orthodoxy and it’s not a surprise that they latched on to this one — and not just at BYU. I don’t think BYU was necessarily the original source for this way of thinking, but that’s inconsequential at this point. The fact is that, for years, it has been held up by many as evidence that the Church doesn’t approve of caffeinated soda. It has contributed to the creation and perpetuation of this myth of the unwritten higher law. So, whether it has filtered down or up over the years, there’s no question that it has become institutionalized at BYU. Now, fast forward to the Newsroom clarification. No, nothing has really changed, but BYU naturally gets asked about their policy. With all that cultural baggage, you know people are going to pay attention to the answer. The very idea that an official representative of the university has to comment on this in the first place demonstrates how big a deal it is to some people. So, explaining things away due to a lack of demand is disingenuous because:
I’d say that’s a pretty good case for calling their handling of the situation very disingenuous. That might be too charitable. They’ve had ample opportunity to correct or clarify their comments and have only made things worse. |
At Johns Hopkins University, dining services were contracted out to Marriott. Now there would be a way to bring caffeinated beverages (any of them) onto the BYU campus, and anything else a paying customer desires. |
kaphor, and people like him (or her), are just enablers for the culture at BYU that says it’s ok to put the public off with an obvious lie. And it is an obvious lie. Let’s stop enabling that behavior by calling it something else. |
LRC, sorry your comment didn’t post until now — we just barely found it in the spam filter. |
I’ve seen those new-fangled soda machines at truck stops and restaurants that can dispense 16 varieties of soda. So it could be done when current machines become old enough to be replaced. High voulme gas stations and convenience stores even have two of the big 8 or 10 bay machines next to each other. Actually, all soda, regular or diet, caff or non-caff is bad. The acid dissolves your tooth enamel, and the preservatives in it, benzoates, are not good for your body, especially kidneys. The sugared kind is bad because of the high calories, the glucose and the fructose, the diet kind because artificial sweeteners are bad, etc, etc. Long term use of caffeine alters the brain. I wonder if my long term consumption of diet coke has anything to do with my ADD and short term memory problems. |
Orwell, I still think the bigger problem is that people think it will impress others higher up (regardless of whether it actually would). If it would “impress” them then fine, it would be the “correct” thing to do as an employee seeking approval. But the fact that it’s not actually discussed, the silence allows for a pressure without accountability. |
There’s no question that that’s a big component of this, EW. I’ve been fixating on why this specific response has been less-than-forthcoming, to be diplomatic (MCQ, don’t think I haven’t considered writing “the administration basically gave the students the bird while simultaneously blaming them for asking for it”), but the phenomenon you describe, which is likely prevalent to some degree in most workplace situations under the church umbrella, is, in my opinion, one of the driving factors for why this is even happening in the first place. It’s the background behind point number two of my number 66. It gives the institution and higher-ups too much plausible deniability. It’s what enables them to publicly claim there is no official policy with a straight face, when everybody knows it’s been the unofficial policy since time immemorial. It’s the “unwritten order of things” loophole that BYU and Church PR can exploit in public without actually having to take any responsibility. |
Does anyone know when BYU _stopped_ selling Coke in favor of only the caffeine-free variety? I assume that at some point they just sold the normal stuff. Maybe early 1970′s? |
MCQ – |
Ya’ll (both sides) need to read Jeff Lindsay’s post: http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/liars-liars-everywhere-story-of-my-lie.html Wherein, as a child, he made a list of all the lies his mother told him. |
I’m not sure what specific answer Mcq, or anyone else for that matters, wants from BYU apart from honesty or at least candor. The BYU caffeine response is neither and to suggest it is, stretches the definition of honesty or candor beyond the breaking point. I’m not part of the BYU community, but I am a Mormon and bask in the reflected glory of BYU, whether or not I want to. When BYU does stupid things like this I get asked about it by non-Mormon friends and colleagues. (I guess they lump all of us Mormons together. I don’t ask my Catholic neighbors about every dumb thing Georgetown or Villanova does.) Because BYU is so closely tied to the Church my default is to defend BYU and even celebrate when BYU does something good. This caffeine stuff, however, is indefensible except to admit to my inquiring friends that we Mormons are human and prone to obfuscation and exageration like the rest of humanity. For those in the BYU community who drink this sophistry, you should probably read up on battered-wife and/or Stockholm Syndrome. The instution views you all as complete morons willing to believe anything it tells you and, it appears, they are willing to tell you whatever you want to hear. |
Orwell, I think we agree :) Thanks for the original post and follow-up comments. I liked your point that this is a low-stakes opportunity. I hope it goes somewhere and doesn’t fizzle out. |
arJ, “Coffee and tea were not specifically prohibited on campus until 1968 when administrators banned their use in the school’s honor code. As an example of their early presence on campus, a BYU German Club luncheon in 1917 was reported in the school newspaper to have included “wienie sandwiches, dill pickles, cake and coffee.” Throughout the 1930s, students writing in the school paper often referred to morning cups of coffee as part of the day’s routine and later told of staying alert for tests by taking “wakies [caffeine-laced pills] and black coffee.” By the mid-1950s, however, when abstinence from coffee and tea had become a standard of church orthodoxy, references to coffee became noticeably absent from campus publications. Coffee-substitutes, such as Postum, began appearing where the mention of coffee would have otherwise appeared. Some church members, including some BYU personnel, further interpreted the ban against coffee and tea to include all caffeine-containing substances. When the BYU Bookstore carried nationally marketed “Campus Pac” school supply packages in 1967, employees removed No-Doz tablets before placing the packages on the shelves (DU, 29 Sept., 3 Oct. 1967). Eight years later, in 1975, when law students installed a Pepsi Cola machine in their school lounge, university officials told them they would have to replace it with another brand of machine. In the place of tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and caffeinated soft drinks, BYU students seem to have acquired an unusual taste for candy, evidenced, for example, by a 1973 report that the campus’s Candy Jar concession was selling fifty pounds of cinnamon bears a day.” http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=13895 Interesting….. |
Leave it to Ernest L. Wilkinson’s administration to try to one-up the “standard of church orthodoxy.”
What Bergera and Priddis leave out here is that it was because there was no demand for caffeinated soda among the law students who installed the machine… |
I’d be in favor of removing Pepsi Cola too….replacing it with Coca Cola. |
EW, Thanks! That seems to have more candor than any PR statement. |
@rbc, #32. Thanks for the tip. I just got some 5-hour Energy shots, the one from Lisving Essentials (www. 5hourenergy. com). The label doesn’t say how much caffeiene is in there. (Of course there are other things in it that boost energy/alertness, such as the B-vitamins, taurine, glucuronic acid, etc. ) Neither the label nor their web site states exactly how much caffeine is in there. They just lump it in with the other ingredients and call it an “Energy Blend, 1870 mg”. I searched the web, and found this: Depending on which lab analyzed it, there is either 207 mg or 157 mg of caffeine in the regular version. (200 mg is the amount in a standard No-Doz or generic caffeine tablet.) The lab that said there was 157 mg of caffeine in the regular version of 5-hour Energy also says that there is 206 mg in the Extra strength version. Instructions on the package of the regular version say to limit intake to 2 bottles daily. Instructions on the package of one brand of caffeine tablets say to take them at least 4 hours apart, another brand says 3 to 4 hours, another brand says 3 hours apart. These and other energy drinks have very high levels of B-6 and B-12. One needs to be careful combining these with other multi-vitamins, let alone other sources of caffeine. |
Orwell, your post #38 was spot on. Kaphor, allow me two kill two of your birds with one stone. Jenkins said both that there was no edict from Church or BYU to stop regular coke sales, and that also there was no demand. Both of these statements are false. Any private vendor has to attain “Approved” status, specifically from the university, before it can operate on campus or at a BYU specific venue. Per the vendor agreement, they can offer such drinks as water, punch, and decaffeinated coca cola products. If an approved vendor were to be caught selling a coke product that contained caffeine, they would immediately lose vendor priveledges with BYU for a years period of time. Indeed, if there really were no demand, private vendors would not be able to sell the product. For example, if a vendor went to the trouble of stocking and chilling 20 oz bottles of diet coke for sales at a BYU game, and none or only scarce quantities were sold, the situation would self resolve. However, there is no option to explore demand here, due to the edict that apparantly does not exist. If a private vendor were not in the crosshairs of a year long ban, they could explore the demand issue at their own expense. They would find out, just like every business on BYU’s periphery, that coke, “the real mccoy”, sells. The severe penalties are in place for approved vendors because the product will sell, and sell very well indeed. |
Lupine: This is the first time I’ve heard/read that vendor contracts specifically forbid caffeinated beverages. I want to explore this, so please elaborate how you know this. Have you seen the outside vendor contract, or are you going by what an actual vendor has said, or are you repeating hearsay? |
This doesn’t surprise me one bit; but I admit it leaves me kind of depressed. I really wanted to take the “no [explicit] university policy” bit at face value, at least, since I thought it was plausible that it was some kind of unwritten rule and I didn’t want to believe the entire response was a lie. If this is true, then I guess I gave BYU too much credit. |
You gave BYU too much credit. |
Orwell, sorry I’m so late to the party to say so, but I *love* your analysis in this post, and your follow-up points in the comments. Great work! |
Thanks, Ziff — I’m always a big fan of your stuff at ZD. |
Great stuff, thanks. Here’s the latest from the Universe: http://universe.byu.edu/index.php/2012/09/25/police-and-advisory-council-weigh-in-on-caffeine-issue/ |
That was a real load of BS. Thanks for the link. |
BYU is the only school in the US where the campus police are called out to squelch students drinking… Coke. Truly the Constitution does hang by a thread when speech about Coke is not allowed on the grounds of the Lord’s university. |
#91 Doh! So that’s what the White Horse Prophecy has boiled down to! And I never saw this coming…! Have no fear, the Elders of the Coke Apocalypse are coming…. |
I think that BYU is keeping us all safe from ocular keratitis: http://espn.go.com/dallas/mlb/story/_/id/8421085/texas-rangers-josh-hamilton-back-lineup-oakland-athletics |
I haven’t read all the comments but I will inform everyone, BYUMOA now sells Mexican (cane sugar) Coca Cola in the gift shop. |
Bookslinger |
It may be just for caterers, alfred, but it is still evidence of an official institutional policy of some kind. Again, I gave BYU way too much credit. |
alfred, WTG! thanks. |
[...] rbc, commenting on Orwell’s post “Why the BYU Caffeine Issue Matters — a Non-exhaustive List” at Mormon Mentality: [...] |