Read the lawyers’ letter.
They are not challenging the withholding of the diploma, they are only challenging the fact that mention was made of “other reasons” for the excommunication, and that people were assuming that Hardy was engaged in immorality. Notice that Hardy has not denied immorality (except for denying a sexual relationship with one particular female). He is merely denying that that was the basis for his excommunication.
So, the lawyers write this long letter, concluding by saying that Hardy just wants an opportunity to set the record straight about the reasons for the excommunication and clear his name.
So, BYU gives him a review, which he tapes. And, at which he knows that all the honor code questions will be asked, giving him that precise opportunity to clear his name — if his name is, in fact, “clearable.”
What does he do? He refuses to answer the questions which would clear his name.
If he didnt’ want to answer to BYU, he should not have reenrolled in June of 2008. But he did so, dishonestly.
He is an activist with an agenda.
I did, maybe better than you.
heh sure... and 2 + 2 = 0
The lawyers are outlining the case for challenging the ecclesiastical basis for rescinding the degree.
The church's excommunication was the reason for BYU's decision. Vernon Heperi, BYU Dean of Students, made that point repeatedly as he kept reexplaining how he could reverse the decision to rescind the diploma by reestablishing Mr. Hardy's academic standing. Heperi himself established the facts that the original basis for rescinding Hardy's diploma was ecclesiastical and that as Dean of Students he could overrule that decision solely on a basis of academic authority.