Continued from Part I

“A Matter of Free Will Giving”

As BYU opened that September 1959, Wilkinson delivered his second “forthright statement” (his term) on tithing. “Promotions should not be granted those who did not believe in and adhere to the principles and teachings of the Gospel,” especially tithing, he announced at a special faculty workshop.

The question was then raised as to whether belief in and adherence to the principles and teachings of the Gospel, specifically the payment of tithing, should be taken into consideration in the determination of salaries for the coming year. Because no such direct policy had been previously announced, it was decided that the payment of tithing should not be taken into consideration for the fixation of salaries for the school year [1959–60]. But I was instructed [by the board of trustees] that adherence to this principle as well as others should be taken into consideration thereafter.[i]

“A number of faithful members of the faculty came to me afterward,” he recorded, “commending me for the statement. I know, of course, that there will be some members of the faculty who will disagree with it.”[ii]

The next morning, following a panel discussion on an unrelated topic, BYU political scientist Robert E. Riggs (b. 1927) called attention to Wilkinson’s comments of the day before. According to Wilkinson, Riggs

launched into a vigorous attack on the position I had taken to the effect that members of the faculty must pay their tithing to continue on the faculty. This was a real bitter attack in which he took me to task also for having been so long last year in answering a certain request which he made. As he went along in his attack, Francis Pray, Vice President of the Council for Financial Aid to Education, sent me a note stating in effect: “Every university faculty has some of that type on it.” Riggs announced that because of this policy he would not be returning to the BYU next year.

As Riggs concluded, John T. Bernhard (1920–2004), recently appointed as one of Wilkinson’s aides, countered that

Riggs had “brilliance but not wisdom.” He [Bernhard] went on to point out that there would be no purpose in the continued existence of the BYU unless the Gospel of Jesus Christ were placed first in our minds; further, that Riggs’ outburst was altogether improper and unwise because it did not even pertain to the subject matter of the panel discussion. He said that Riggs’ outburst was something that should have been taken up with the administration. It could not possibly do any good in a public meeting of that kind. John gave rather an eloquent defense and at one time referred to Riggs’ speech as “intellectual poppy-cock.”

“My judgment,” Wilkinson wrote, “is that from 20 to 25 per cent of the faculty applauded Riggs. John Bernhard, on the other hand, got pretty much of an ovation from the balance.”[iii]

Later that afternoon, Wilkinson asked that the faculty hold “no hard feelings against [Riggs] for his outburst. While I did not agree with him,” Wilkinson continued,

I defended his right to state what he wanted. I then went on to point out that the statement I had made with respect to the payment of tithing and other adherence to Church standards had been approved by the Board of Trustees. Riggs, in his speech, had quoted the Doctrine and Covenants that members of the Church should be long suffering and patient in trying to persuade others to conform to the standards. He had suggested this was the attitude we ought to take with respect to the faculty rather than making compliance with Church standards a requirement. I pointed out that the Board had considered fully that viewpoint, but that that was the standard held up for us as faculty members to persuade our students to adhere to the Church standards. The Board felt that faculty members themselves must of necessity adhere to all standards in order that they could properly teach the students both by precept and example. I pointed out further that while I had used tithing as an example in my talk, it was only used as an example and what I said applied to all standards and principles of the Church. . . .

I am sure that my comments in the afternoon had a wholesome effect. In fact, after the meeting was over Bob Riggs came up, shook hands, and commended me for my statement. He even went so far as to admit that I might be right. He was somewhat chastened and had the best attitude I had ever known him to have.[iv]

For Riggs, the new policy was merely the tip of the iceberg regarding what he perceived as Wilkinson’s authoritarian administrative style. “That afternoon,” Riggs recalled more than thirty years later,

they had one of their open forum discussions, a panel discussion on the topic “What is a university?” They opened it up for comments. . . . I told how I had come to BYU fresh out of graduate school with high hopes for the kind of institution that it was and could be, and how I’d enjoyed my association with the faculty here, and with the students, but then one thing after another, I don’t recall all the things that I mentioned, but I know I mentioned . . . President Wilkinson’s unwillingness to consult the faculty, how we really weren’t part of the enterprise in the sense that faculty ought to be and gradually I’d developed a great disappointment with what was going on here and now we had come to this tithing requirement and while I agreed that everybody here ought to pay their tithing, it ought to be voluntary for us, it ought to be a matter of free will giving just as it is for everybody else, and from now on my tithing was going to be one dollar short. I also said that because of the things that had happened I was tend[er]ing my resignation from the university, that I would be here throughout the year but I would not be here the following year.[v]

True to his word, Riggs moved to another university at the end of the school year, teaching part-time at the University of Arizona, Tucson, while also attending law school.[vi]

“The Inalienable Right of Every Church Member”

Wilkinson correctly feared that Riggs was not his only faculty critic and quietly asked some of his subordinates to watch out for similar sentiments. Less than two weeks after Wilkinson’s address, BYU’s public relations director, Lester B. Whetten (1904–88), informed Wilkinson: “While you were in Europe, at one of our Deans[‘] Council meetings the matter of tithe paying was discussed at some length. I recall that I was quite surprised to hear some of the deans make statements of this nature, stating that some of their men felt this way. My memory could be in error, but as I recall Dean [Armin J.] Hill and possibly Dean [Leonard W.] Rice were the ones who advanced these ideas.”[vii]

Following the Christmas break, Wilkinson met with Armin J. Hill (1912–1988), the fifty-seven-year-old dean of the College of Physical and Engineering Sciences, who, as Whetten had noted, shared some of Riggs’s concerns:

One special thing I did [today] was to have Dean Hill in. I had received a rather impudent note from him stating that he had supported me in the past but implying strongly that if I went ahead, as he felt I was going to do, and examined the tithing of members of the faculty, that he would not support me. He wanted some assurance from me that I would not [examine the faculty’s tithing records]. I called him in with Brother [Earl C.] Crockett and Brother Bernhard and told him that he had not such assurance from me, that I would not give it, and that what I did in a situation would be between me and the Board of Trustees. I told him I wanted to know if I did something he didn’t want me to do, if I would still have his support. He backed down and promised that I would.[viii]

Evidently, Wilkinson’s comments had reached LDS headquarters in Salt Lake City, and early that same January 1960, the Presiding Bishop’s office reminded the Church’s local leaders: “How much tithing a man pays is his own business, his bishop’s and the Lord’s . . . Privacy is precious, and the inalienable right of every member of this Church.”[ix] The First Presidency, too, explicitly informed Wilkinson that such confidential information was to be obtained directly from them. Sensitive to any hint of impropriety, Wilkinson sought to reassure McKay: “I asked if there had been complaints that I had been obtaining the information from local Bishops. He told me that they had received a letter of criticism to the effect that all secretaries in my office and other places knew the amounts paid by faculty members. I assured him there was no truth of any kind to that statement, that no one had the information except me. He said he had himself assumed that fact but that he was glad to have this assurance.”[x]

Early the next week, meeting with McKay and his two counselors, J. Reuben Clark (1871–1961) and Henry D. Moyle (1889–1963), Wilkinson stressed

that unless I knew what the faculty paid, I was in no position to know whether they were, in fact, full tithe payers. President McKay agreed with this and the First Presidency consented that I continue to obtain the information in that way.

I assured them that contrary to reports they had received, that this information was not available to secretaries and was not being broadcast around the campus.

I reported that I had, pursuant to their instructions of last fall [1959], informed Deans of particular faculty members who were short in the payment of tithing but that I had not disclosed the amount to the Deans. I was authorized to continue.[xi]

In the meantime, Humanities and Social Sciences Dean Leonard W. Rice (1914–1986),[xii] the second of the two deans about whom Whetten had expressed concern, decided that, like Riggs, he could no longer remain at BYU, and informed Wilkinson of his intent to “resign and accept a job teaching in Rhode Island because he did not think he could conform to the standards which I set forth in my speech to the faculty in September of 1959. I have known for some time that Leonard was not orthodox in all matters, but he has been an outstanding teacher and administrator and I hope we can persuade him to come back. I cannot for the life of me understand why Leonard cannot conform to the standards set down.”[xiii]

Wilkinson immediately arranged to meet privately with Rice, and for more than two hours the two men debated a variety of topics:

He [Rice] had taken some exception to my letter of last September in which I laid down the requirement that all members of the faculty must be loyal and faithful to the Church. I do not as yet know whether he will return. He particularly had grievances against Elder Mark Petersen and Elder Bruce McConkie. He just could not agree with many of their statements. I took the position that it may be that there are certain isolated statements made by different members of the General authorities with which some of us could not agree, but that it is incumbent upon all of us at the BYU to support these General Authorities in the performance of the functions of their various offices. He agreed with that.[xiv]

Rice did not change his mind and left BYU for Rhode Island by the end of that school year.[xv]

“Self-Styled Intellectuals”

Wilkinson spent much of the remainder of February 1960 going over the partial information he continued to receive from the Presiding Bishop’s office. On the evening of the 23rd, he met individually with five faculty members who, according to the Presiding Bishop’s office, “had not paid tithing during the year.” He also talked with one of his deans, who thought

I ought to have one of the General Authorities come down and sit down with the non-tithepayers and try to persuade them. I recalled that I had personally once suggested this to my Executive Committee but they had turned it down on the ground that they would be undermining my authority, that I ought to do it myself. This particular Dean was afraid that there was an organized clique intending to make a cause celebre out of the present situation and force the Administration to give way on this tithing question or in the alternative to fire some of them, which would be the occasion for a big outburst.

From my conferences during the evening, I am convinced that if there is a clique of that kind it is confined to very few teachers in political science and history.[xvi]

Three days later, Wilkinson interviewed nineteen additional teachers. “Many of them,” he recorded,

admitted their carelessness or lack of faith, but promised to do better. There were, however, as would be expected, a few dissidents who took bitter exception to the fact that the administration should be concerned with what they considered an obligation between themselves and their bishops. These were generally the self-styled intellectuals who thought they could pretty much solve the problems of the world by logic and the spirit of the intellect. They were centered largely in three departments: English, political science, and history.[xvii]

The next day, Saturday, 27 February 1960, Wilkinson and aide Earl C. Crockett (1903–1975) reviewed the records of approximately forty-five faculty members “who were deficient in the payment of tithing and decided on their salaries for next year. Generally, where they had made no payments on tithing, they got no increases. . . . However, where members paid a partial tithing and exhibited certain evidence of a desire to bear their share of Church responsibility, we tried to be lenient in salary increases. None of the 45, however, received the salary increase he would have received had he otherwise measured up fully in this particular.”[xviii]

According to Kent Fielding, he was one of the nineteen faculty whom Wilkinson interviewed on the 26th. “I was determined to stand my ground . . . ,” Fielding recalled. “Despite Wilkinson’s forthright declaration and his position of authority, it was my Church also and the source of my youthful values as well as the faith of my ancestors, my living relatives and most of my friends. I intended to retain my allegiance on my own terms, regardless of the outcome. Without risks, no change was possible.” As a result, Fielding and his wife had “determined to withhold any further payment of tithing and to refuse to reveal our offerings to any others.”[xix]^⁵⁴ When the acting dean of Fielding’s college, Reed H. Bradford (1912–1994), subsequently “asked me to confirm the accuracy of my tithing record, which he held in his hand,” Fielding wrote,

I refused to look at the record. I declared that such matters were confidential to the parties directly involved and perhaps to God. He replied that President Wilkinson had been given permission to access the tithing records and to utilize this information in decisions affecting salary and promotion. I declared that such matters were now immaterial; it had become a question of conscience with me and I must be retained or fired on my own terms. He urged me not to take such a position, for it could not be supported by the administration. I charged him with irresponsibility in being an agent of coercion rather than in defending the academic freedom of his faculty. He said he could not fulfill his duties as a dean without carrying out the order of his administrative leaders. I declared that he should resign his administrative duties rather than to violate his allegiance to his academic profession.[xx]

As Fielding recalled, Wilkinson began their 26 February 1960 interview by explaining that “his concern was with my evident lack of religious orthodoxy which had the potential of disturbing the testimony of my students in the future.” Wilkinson then queried: “Do you believe Joseph Smith saw God?” “I have to believe he thought he did,” Fielding answered. “This interview continued for four hours,” Fielding wrote, “under circumstances which were never threatening; indeed, they seemed most congenial and understanding. The subject of tithing was never mentioned.” Later, however, Fielding concluded that the decision to terminate his employment—reached on 27 February and delivered to Fielding during a meeting with Wilkinson on 3 March—had been made prior to his interview, that “I was the victim of an elaborate charade, designed to give me a sense of fair treatment.”[xxi]

During a 2 March 1960 meeting with his board of trustees, Wilkinson was pleased to report that his efforts were bearing fruit, and that, in fact, the amount of tithing paid by the school’s faculty in 1959 was considerably more than what had been paid in 1958.[xxii] Wilkinson continued his interviews of faculty members, and in early May 1960 informed trustees that a total of thirty-nine teachers were being released, to be “replaced by faithful and highly educated men.”[xxiii]

“We Do Not Intend to Force Faculty Members to Pay Tithing”

As 1961 began, Wilkinson again faced the task of reviewing the tithing payments of his faculty in determining adjustments to salaries. “This is a most difficult assignment,” he reported on 26 February.

Actually, what ought to be done with respect to those who do not pay tithing is to release them from the faculty because no one should pay tithing in order to stay. I am happy to report that, whereas a few years ago there were quite a number of faculty members who paid only a token tithing, so far this year I have found only about three. Now the main difficulty is in the interpretation of what constitutes tithing. I find that many fall in the upper brackets; that is they will pay about 80% or 85% of what is really a full tithing.[xxiv]

A month later, still reviewing faculty tithing information, he reported:

The day before yesterday one teacher reported to me that while he knew the record showed he was a non-tithe payer he had paid his full tithing after the end of the year, but too late to get on the record for the year. Yesterday in checking with the bishop to confirm his story, about which we were rather suspicious, we found that immediately after having had his interview with me, he went to the bishop and paid the tithing. The bishop commented, “He is a peculiar duck. I could not understand why he was so insistent that I accept a check yesterday for last year’s tithing.”[xxv]

Following a meeting with his executive committee that May, Wilkinson complained to Henry Moyle about a lack of timely cooperation from the Presiding Bishop’s office. He also thought Church authorities need to issue

some authoritative definition of what constituted full tithing, particularly that it should be paid before the payment of taxes. He [Moyle] thoroughly agreed with my viewpoint, but said as long as President McKay and President [J. Reuben] Clark were in the First Presidency there was no chance to get any authoritative interpretation. He informed me also that President [Stephen L] Richards, and he thought Bishop [Thorpe B.] Isaacson, only paid their tithing after the deduction of taxes and that there was not a chance at the present time to change that situation.[xxvi]

By the end of that month, Wilkinson, during a meeting with McKay, pointed out

that, although bishops in the Church were supposed to have their reports in by the middle of January, there were some reports from some bishops this year which did not get in until well after the first of March. This had hindered us in getting the reports as quickly as we should have the facts in order to determine the eligibility of faculty members for reappointment, etc. I suggested that if there was some way of having the Presiding Bishop’s Office get these records in on time, that it would be helpful to us.[xxvii]

Wilkinson continued to face similar difficulties each year for the next two years. In early 1962, he recorded being “a little discouraged to find that approximately 150 of our faculty were not paying full tithing. . . . this lack of loyalty and lack of assuming their share of financial responsibility for the financing of the Church disappointed me very much.”[xxviii] The next year, he was surprised to find that without his knowledge, two of his aides had assigned college deans to interview faculty members whose tithing contributions were reported to be less than 100 percent. “These deans merely called some in and told them they were short,” Wilkinson reported. “The deans do not know the full facts; and since I am the only one knowing the full facts, it would have been better had I done the interviewing. Some faculty members were furious, but as generally turns out to be the case in these situations, they had made bad mistakes in either computation or definition of what constitutes tithing.”[xxix]

Wilkinson believed that he had the appropriate “authority to check the tithing of all faculty members.”[xxx] However, the Presiding Bishop disagreed, and raised the matter with McKay the next month. As described by McKay:

Bishop [John H.] Vandenberg of the Presiding Bishopric explained that the information about tithing paid by members of the faculty of the Brigham Young University has been requested, and asked whether or not it should be released. Limited authorization formerly given President Wilkinson was considered. I said that we do not intend to force faculty members to pay tithing, nor do we intend to release information about tithing they pay. Special permission was given on one occasion, but it has not been continued regularly. Bishop Vandenberg said that it is the Bishop’s prerogative to interview the person, and the responsibility rests with the person paying tithing. Bishop Victor L. Brown suggested that President Wilkinson might be informed as to whether or not faculty members are tithe payers, part tithe payers, or non tithe payers. I indicated approval. Bishop Vandenberg said that accordingly they would disapprove of giving information about the amount of tithing paid.[xxxi]

“We have reviewed your request for information regarding the amount of tithing paid by the faculty members with The First Presidency,” the Presiding Bishopric subsequently informed Wilkinson. “The occasion on which permission was given to provide you with this information as indicated by President McKay was ‘for that time only.’ The First Presidency has ruled that this information is not to be provided but rather we can give you the status of those employees as to whether they are full, part or non-tithepayers.”[xxxii]

By the end of 1963, Wilkinson decided to pursue a long-time dream of running for public office and stepped down as president of BYU[xxxiii] Following his defeat and return to the BYU presidency in late 1964, his absence together with changes in the composition of the First Presidency and McKay’s failing health combined to end his surveillance of faculty tithing payments. In fact, current BYU policy strictly prohibits the release of faculty tithing information to university administrators.[xxxiv]

During the eight years of increased surveillance of the individual tithing records of BYU faculty members, some two dozen (probably more) teachers were dismissed or resigned specifically, according to Wilkinson, because of “religious problems,” “church problems,” or “disagreement with administration,” including “disagreement with President’s administrative approach.”[xxxv] While these numbers may not seem to represent much of an impact on BYU generally, the effect of Wilkinson’s drive to enforce adherence to LDS teachings on the lives of the individuals who left, either voluntarily or involuntarily, cannot easily be overstated. For some teachers who believed the primary criteria regarding their employment centered on academic experience and expertise, Wilkinson’s emphasis on tithing was misplaced and irrelevant. Still others, appealing to Church guidelines regarding the confidential nature of one’s tithing history, viewed Wilkinson’s interest as inappropriate. For Wilkinson, however, BYU was an extension of the Church, and he was merely an agent of the Church’s general authorities. Not only did he see nothing wrong with having access to such information, he considered itessential if he were to successfully administer the affairs of the “Lord’s University.” That such tensions endured for nearly a decade underscores the challenges confronting a religion-sponsored university and its advocates.