Jump to content

Bombshell BYU announcement


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

This kind of stuff might be appropriate if anyone had appointed you their life coach.

It is also against board rules:

 

 

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

This kind of stuff might be appropriate if anyone had appointed you their life coach.

It is also against board rules:

 

So she can go through my post and pick out certain things that she doesnt like, then say what I'm posting is odd and creepy? There's nothing positive in that message at all. 

     Then, instead of coming up with a crazy meme, like I've been doing, I choose positivity, and tell her "love ya",  some how that's against board rules? Man!!!! Your leaving no room to be human. Is that the goal here?

    If you go back  through my post I've actually told a few guys I actually love them to, cant remember all of them, but I remember saying it to Ahab, and he and I get along great now. The first time I say it to a women within 5 minutes your pouncing on me. G-wiz calm.

Edited by AtlanticMike
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
9 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

 

So she can go through my post and pick out certain things that she doesnt like, then say what I'm posting is odd and creepy? There's nothing positive in that message at all. 

     Then, instead of coming up with a crazy meme, like I've been doing, I choose positivity, and tell her "love ya",  some how that's against board rules? Man!!!! Your leaving no room to be human. Is that the goal here?

    If you go back  through my post I've actually told a few guys I actually love them to, cant remember all of them, but I remember saying it to Ahab, and he and I get along great now. The first time I say it to a women within 5 minutes your pouncing on me. G-wiz calm.

When you start talking about the person instead of behaviour, it is against the board rules.  And usually wrong from what I have seen, emotions aren’t expressed well in text.  It has nothing to do with it being a woman...it has to do with saying it to someone you are telling how they should think and feel after mind reading your assumptions into what they say instead of actually paying attention to them.  Reminds me of my grandma ordering us to smile but never asking us if we felt like smiling.  Or the antis that sweep in to tell us we are going to hell and then sign off “love in Christ” or some such thing.

Edited by Calm
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

It has nothing to do with it being a woman...it has to do with saying it to someone you are telling how they should think and feel after mind reading your assumptions into what they say instead of actually paying attention to them.  Reminds me of my grandma ordering us to smile but never asking us if we felt like smiling.

Maybe you need to think about who psychoanalyzing who here. I went back and read my post again  to figure out why juliann thought what I said was "creepy". She could of asked me why I said that. 

     The reason I used the rape example was because when that lady opened the door, the look on her face was sheer terror, like if a ghost or monster was on the porch. I could tell something wasn't right, she was in somewhat of a panic. I have someone close to me who was raped and had a difficult time around certain men. So, When I was standing on the porch, I started thinking that something might of happened to this lady, just like the person in my life. That's why I said what I did. Did juliann no that? No. 

Is your goal to make me think about every word I write before pushing submit? Do I have to learn how to write post that will please everyone on this board? Is that the objective? 

Edited by AtlanticMike
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 3/10/2021 at 7:06 PM, smac97 said:

From the report I see anecdotal allegations of de facto racism.  Not much in the way of de jure racism, let alone de jure systemic racism.

I also see allegations that BYU is not doing enough to "adequately prepare students to navigate cultural and racial complexities."

Page 4 references " heartbreaking stories from individuals who have felt the pain of racism at BYU." 

Page 6 says that "students articulate{d} their experiences with poignant clarity," whose "hearts have been broken by their fellow students and others, whether by ignorance or hostility."  There are also references to "marginalizing comments, otherizing questions, and exhausting racial slights ... from roommates, classmates, church congregations, and faculty members."  That "BIPOC students often feel isolated and unsafe at BYU due to racism."  The examples given here (pp 6-7) are:

  • "{O}ne student from the Hispanos Unidos club said it is 'very hard to find other Latino students at BYU.'"
  • "A student from the Tribe of Many Feathers club recounted that she wanted to transfer out of BYU after her first year because of the lack of other Native American students."
  • "A member of the Black Student Union reported, 'My experience as a Black student at BYU is not equal to other students on campus because I don’t feel safe.'"
  • "A student from the Tribe of Many Feathers stated that during one Halloween there were White students who dressed up as 'savages' in Helaman Halls."
  • "Another student from Hispanos Unidos said that a faculty member chastised her and a friend for speaking Spanish before class."
  • "A member of the Black Student Union recounted an incident where a classmate used the n-word multiple times in response to a professor’s question, leaving the room in shock."

Page 12 is long on feelings and vague references and conclusory statements, and short on factual allegations:

  • Many BIPOC students feel unsafe and isolated at BYU.
  • BIPOC students describe harmful and isolating interactions with fellow students on the issue of race, stemming both from ignorance and animus.
  • BIPOC students describe detrimental interactions with faculty whom they perceive to have ignored or even facilitated racially insensitive class discussions or who seemed unprepared or unwilling to address hurtful comments in class.
  • BIPOC students have experienced discriminatory or racially stereotypical treatment in university-sponsored classroom instruction, campus events, and campus housing.
  • BIPOC students have experienced discriminatory application of Dress and Grooming Standards on campus, especially hairstyles for Black students.

I had hoped to see more substance.  More facts.  More objective explanation of what has happened in specific instances, instead of conclusory declarations about motives, neglect, feelings and so on.  A paucity of Latino or Native American students is not, in my view, per se evidence of "racism" in admissions, and certainly not evidence of de facto racism by the student body, faculty, employees, etc.

The complaint about students dressing up as "savages" could be elaborated on.  Did they call themselves "savages?"  Or did they just dress up as Native Americans?  Was there any brownface/blackface (which seems to happen a lot in other contexts, with white folks not realizing the offensive baggage that comes with it)?  

A faculty member "chastised" a Hispanic student for speaking Spanish?  That seems really weird.  BYU is one of the most linguistically diverse places in the United States.  Shoot, I chatted up friends on campus in Mandarin all the time.  Speaking a foreign language there is as about as noteworthy as wearing shoes.  

The incident with a Black student hearing a classmate using the n-word multiple times in class is very unfortunate.  No justification for that.  

The stuff on page 12 is largely too vague to allow for meaningful analysis.  Phrases like "harmful and isolating interactions with fellow students on the issue of race" and "racially insensitive class discussions" and "hurtful comments" and "discriminatory or racially stereotypical treatment" and "discriminatory application of Dress and Grooming Standards" don't really tell us much.

Do is there de jure racism at BYU?  I don't see much in the way of evidence for that in the report.

Is there de facto racism at BYU?  Yes, but the report doesn't do much to establish its prevalence.   Nevertheless, this is unfortunate and merits attention.

Is there race-based violence at BYU?  Apparently not.  The report doesn't mention any, and I would think it would have had there been instances of it.

Is there race-based verbal harassment at BYU?  Verbal taunts?  Racial slurs?  Racist jokes?  

Is there evidence of race-based discrimination in hiring of faculty and employees?  In advancement?  

Again, the report doesn't illuminate much about this stuff.  I am curious as to why.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hi--bumping this as it seems our conversation may have gotten interrupted.

These are anecdotes, not anecdotal evidence.

The anecdotes are illustrative, “case study” examples of the data which is shared in the tables that are provided and discussed in report. These anecdotes are considered to be within the scope of scientific/statistical method as they are consistent with the findings of the larger empirical and verifiable study (see the tables and related discussion).

The tables and related discussion are where you will find the substance and illumination on racial disparity at BYU.

The report also calls for continued surveys to help identify the reasons for these racial disparities and also other types of racism at BYU.

PS Good point on "systemic" vs "institutional" but as I thought more about my conceptualization of the terms, "systemic" to me addresses the interplay between multiple institutions (e.g. banks, companies, zoning boards, etc.) -- more like a complex of institutions than a single entity, which is where I think BYU is primarily coming from.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, CV75 said:
Quote

Page 4 references " heartbreaking stories from individuals who have felt the pain of racism at BYU." 

Page 6 says that "students articulate{d} their experiences with poignant clarity," whose "hearts have been broken by their fellow students and others, whether by ignorance or hostility."  There are also references to "marginalizing comments, otherizing questions, and exhausting racial slights ... from roommates, classmates, church congregations, and faculty members."  That "BIPOC students often feel isolated and unsafe at BYU due to racism."  The examples given here (pp 6-7) are:

  • "{O}ne student from the Hispanos Unidos club said it is 'very hard to find other Latino students at BYU.'"
  • "A student from the Tribe of Many Feathers club recounted that she wanted to transfer out of BYU after her first year because of the lack of other Native American students."
  • "A member of the Black Student Union reported, 'My experience as a Black student at BYU is not equal to other students on campus because I don’t feel safe.'"
  • "A student from the Tribe of Many Feathers stated that during one Halloween there were White students who dressed up as 'savages' in Helaman Halls."
  • "Another student from Hispanos Unidos said that a faculty member chastised her and a friend for speaking Spanish before class."
  • "A member of the Black Student Union recounted an incident where a classmate used the n-word multiple times in response to a professor’s question, leaving the room in shock."

Page 12 is long on feelings and vague references and conclusory statements, and short on factual allegations:

  • Many BIPOC students feel unsafe and isolated at BYU.
  • BIPOC students describe harmful and isolating interactions with fellow students on the issue of race, stemming both from ignorance and animus.
  • BIPOC students describe detrimental interactions with faculty whom they perceive to have ignored or even facilitated racially insensitive class discussions or who seemed unprepared or unwilling to address hurtful comments in class.
  • BIPOC students have experienced discriminatory or racially stereotypical treatment in university-sponsored classroom instruction, campus events, and campus housing.
  • BIPOC students have experienced discriminatory application of Dress and Grooming Standards on campus, especially hairstyles for Black students.

I had hoped to see more substance.  More facts. 

Hi--bumping this as it seems our conversation may have gotten interrupted.

These are anecdotes, not anecdotal evidence.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction.  I agree that the bullet points are anecdotes, but how are they not "anecdotal evidence?"  Consider this explanation of the concept from Wikipedia:

Quote

Witness testimony is a common form of evidence in law, and law has mechanisms to test witness evidence for reliability or credibility. Legal processes for the taking and assessment of evidence are formalized. Some witness testimony may be described as anecdotal evidence, such as individual stories of harassment as part of a class action lawsuit. However, witness testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability. Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of questioning to identify possible gaps or inconsistencies, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence. Where a court lacks suitable means to test and assess testimony of a particular witness, such as the absence of forms of corroboration or substantiation, it may afford that testimony limited or no "weight" when making a decision on the facts.

If these anecdotes are not intended to be presented as evidence, why would they be included in the report at all?

And here:

Quote

Anecdotal Evidence

Anecdotal evidence is evidence that is presented in the form of a story. This is usually given as testimony by someone who is testifying in a trial.

And here:

Quote

Definition of anecdotal evidence

: evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them
His conclusions are not supported by data; they are based only on anecdotal evidence.

And here:

Quote

Evidence derived from medical (or lay) histories, unsupported by objective data. Anecdotal evidence can be an important indicator of need for further study. This may be an anecdotal study, such as the medical histories of a series of cases of a rare condition, and may in turn suggest further investigation, such as a case control study. ... Anecdotal evidence influences policy making when politicians play on emotions aroused by publicizing a single case to promote a particular cause, such as investing in costly diagnostic equipment.

"Anecdotal evidence" sure seems to fit the bill.

Quote

The anecdotes are illustrative, “case study” examples of the data which is shared in the tables that are provided and discussed in report.

I don't think so.

  • "Figure 1" (p. 28) is "BYU Students and Admits by Race, 2018-20."
  • "Figure 2" (p. 29) is "BYU BIPOC Applicants and Admits, 2018-20."
  • "Table 1" (p. 32) is "Six-Year Graduation Rates by Race and Ethnicity."
  • "Table 2" (p. 34) is "University Student Diversity."
  • "Table 3" (p. 35) is "Presidential Scholarships by Race and Ethnicity, 2016-20."
  • "Table 4" (p. 37" is "Full-Tuition, One-Year Scholarships by Race and Ethnicity, 2016-20."
  • "Table 5" (p. 37) is "Half-Tutition, One-Year Scholarships by Race and Ethnicity, 2016-20."
  • "Table 6" (p. 42) is "BYU CFS and CFS-Track Faculty by Race and Gender."

I see no crossover.  The "illustrative, 'case study' examples" are not associated with or referenced "in the tables that are provided."

Quote

These anecdotes are considered to be within the scope of scientific/statistical method as they are consistent with the findings of the larger empirical and verifiable study (see the tables and related discussion).

What "larger empirical and verifiable study" are you referencing here?  

How are the bullet point anecdotes "consistent" with the tables/figures?

What is it about the anecdotes that you would characterize as "empirical and verifiable?"  As I see it, "empirical and verifiable" evidence is what the report decidedly lacks.

Quote

The tables and related discussion are where you will find the substance and illumination on racial disparity at BYU.

Well, let's see.  "Figure 1" is a raw comparison of the numbers of "White" versus "BIPOC" applicants and admits.  No effort is made to analyze or correlate these figures relative to the racial make-up of America.  Why is that?  Showing "racial disparity at BYU" is a far cry from racial discrimination at BYU.

Now, what of the actual data?  They show that 70.02% of "White" applicants are admitted, where as only 59.58% of "BIPOC" applicants are admitted.  However, does this taken into account the qualifications of the applicants?  And if not, why not?  And if so, does the disparity still show up?  Might there even be a disparity the other way?  For example, if race is taken out of the equation, and if the applicants are measured solely by their academic qualifications, what would we see?  I guess we'll never know, since the report doesn't include the relevant data.

What about "Table 1?"  It shows lower graduation rates for non-White/non-Asian/non-two-or-more-races minority students.  Why is this happening?  Is it because students are facing discrimination in grading by faculty?  If so, where are the data to show causative factors?

"Table 3," regarding "Presidential Scholarships," is interesting in that it described "presidential scholarships," but then fails to actually disclose the data for all but the "White" recipients.  For example, whereas the table shows that 44 "White" students were offered and 39 accepted the scholarship (the average acceptance rate for all five years shown is 93.01%).  However, the number of Offered/Accepted scholarships for "Hispanic/Latino," "Asian" and "Two or More Races" is shown simply as "<10."  The same is true for all of the years shown in the table (through 2020).  Why are the data not disclosed?  Is it because the rates are comparable to, or even better than the rates?  Or are the data omitted because of sampling size?  But if sampling size is problematic, why include the table at all?  And why are the data only selectivey excluded?  When no scholarship is offered, the table shows "0" for BIPOC students, but otherwise the numbers are omitted and instead shown only as "<10."  Why is that?  How are 0% offer/acceptance rates re: BIPOC students relevant to the report but nonzero offer/acceptance rates are not?

"Table 4," regarding "Full-Tuition, One-Year" scholarships, is likewise interesting.  It shows an average "Acceptance" rate for white students of 95.77%, a 95.32% acceptance rate for "Hispanic/Latino" students, a 99.66% acceptance rate for "Asian" students, and a 95.65% acceptance rate for "Two or More Races" students.  Meanwhile, the figures for "BIPOC" students (Black, Native American, Pacific Islander) are either shown as "0" or "<10."  Again, why are the data excluded?  And why are the data only selectivey excluded?  Again, the table shows the data when there are zero "Black" students offered a scholarship in a given year, but in a year where a non-zero number of students are offered a scholarship, the committee reports it as simply "<10."  Why?  Why disclose data when no offers are made to BIPOC students but then deliberately not disclose nonzero offer/acceptance rates?

"Table 5," regarding half-tuition, one-year scholarships, reflects the same issues as noted above.

Where is the "substance and illumination on racial disparity" you reference as being in "the tables?"  I'm just not seeing much helpful stuff here.

Quote

The report also calls for continued surveys to help identify the reasons for these racial disparities and also other types of racism at BYU.

Before we go looking for "the reasons for these racial disparities" I think we should first actually confirm that such disparities exist.  That report doesn't really provide much in this regard.  The empirical data is substantially lacking, to some extent by design.  The anecdotal evidence is, well, anecdotal.

Quote

PS Good point on "systemic" vs "institutional" but as I thought more about my conceptualization of the terms, "systemic" to me addresses the interplay between multiple institutions (e.g. banks, companies, zoning boards, etc.) -- more like a complex of institutions than a single entity, which is where I think BYU is primarily coming from.

I think BYU can still be seen as "systemic."  Admissions.  Social life of students.  Personal interactions with faculty.  Grading.  Scholarships.  Housing.  On-campus employment.  Acceptance into competitive undergraduate/graduate programs.  Graduation rates.  Hiring/advancement issues.  If BYU had some sort of "systemic" problem with racism, I think we would see evidence of it across some or most of these dimensions.  The report has little or nothing to say about these things.

The deliberate omission of data in the report is . . . strange to me.  As is the failure to include data that is quantifiable/empirical, even if regarding somewhat "subjective" topics.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction.  I agree that the bullet points are anecdotes, but how are they not "anecdotal evidence?"  Consider this explanation of the concept from Wikipedia:

If these anecdotes are not intended to be presented as evidence, why would they be included in the report at all?

And here:

And here:

And here:

"Anecdotal evidence" sure seems to fit the bill.

I don't think so.

  • "Figure 1" (p. 28) is "BYU Students and Admits by Race, 2018-20."
  • "Figure 2" (p. 29) is "BYU BIPOC Applicants and Admits, 2018-20."
  • "Table 1" (p. 32) is "Six-Year Graduation Rates by Race and Ethnicity."
  • "Table 2" (p. 34) is "University Student Diversity."
  • "Table 3" (p. 35) is "Presidential Scholarships by Race and Ethnicity, 2016-20."
  • "Table 4" (p. 37" is "Full-Tuition, One-Year Scholarships by Race and Ethnicity, 2016-20."
  • "Table 5" (p. 37) is "Half-Tutition, One-Year Scholarships by Race and Ethnicity, 2016-20."
  • "Table 6" (p. 42) is "BYU CFS and CFS-Track Faculty by Race and Gender."

I see no crossover.  The "illustrative, 'case study' examples" are not associated with or referenced "in the tables that are provided."

What "larger empirical and verifiable study" are you referencing here?  

How are the bullet point anecdotes "consistent" with the tables/figures?

What is it about the anecdotes that you would characterize as "empirical and verifiable?"  As I see it, "empirical and verifiable" evidence is what the report decidedly lacks.

Well, let's see.  "Figure 1" is a raw comparison of the numbers of "White" versus "BIPOC" applicants and admits.  No effort is made to analyze or correlate these figures relative to the racial make-up of America.  Why is that?  Showing "racial disparity at BYU" is a far cry from racial discrimination at BYU.

Now, what of the actual data?  They show that 70.02% of "White" applicants are admitted, where as only 59.58% of "BIPOC" applicants are admitted.  However, does this taken into account the qualifications of the applicants?  And if not, why not?  And if so, does the disparity still show up?  Might there even be a disparity the other way?  For example, if race is taken out of the equation, and if the applicants are measured solely by their academic qualifications, what would we see?  I guess we'll never know, since the report doesn't include the relevant data.

What about "Table 1?"  It shows lower graduation rates for non-White/non-Asian/non-two-or-more-races minority students.  Why is this happening?  Is it because students are facing discrimination in grading by faculty?  If so, where are the data to show causative factors?

"Table 3," regarding "Presidential Scholarships," is interesting in that it described "presidential scholarships," but then fails to actually disclose the data for all but the "White" recipients.  For example, whereas the table shows that 44 "White" students were offered and 39 accepted the scholarship (the average acceptance rate for all five years shown is 93.01%).  However, the number of Offered/Accepted scholarships for "Hispanic/Latino," "Asian" and "Two or More Races" is shown simply as "<10."  The same is true for all of the years shown in the table (through 2020).  Why are the data not disclosed?  Is it because the rates are comparable to, or even better than the rates?  Or are the data omitted because of sampling size?  But if sampling size is problematic, why include the table at all?  And why are the data only selectivey excluded?  When no scholarship is offered, the table shows "0" for BIPOC students, but otherwise the numbers are omitted and instead shown only as "<10."  Why is that?  How are 0% offer/acceptance rates re: BIPOC students relevant to the report but nonzero offer/acceptance rates are not?

"Table 4," regarding "Full-Tuition, One-Year" scholarships, is likewise interesting.  It shows an average "Acceptance" rate for white students of 95.77%, a 95.32% acceptance rate for "Hispanic/Latino" students, a 99.66% acceptance rate for "Asian" students, and a 95.65% acceptance rate for "Two or More Races" students.  Meanwhile, the figures for "BIPOC" students (Black, Native American, Pacific Islander) are either shown as "0" or "<10."  Again, why are the data excluded?  And why are the data only selectivey excluded?  Again, the table shows the data when there are zero "Black" students offered a scholarship in a given year, but in a year where a non-zero number of students are offered a scholarship, the committee reports it as simply "<10."  Why?  Why disclose data when no offers are made to BIPOC students but then deliberately not disclose nonzero offer/acceptance rates?

"Table 5," regarding half-tuition, one-year scholarships, reflects the same issues as noted above.

Where is the "substance and illumination on racial disparity" you reference as being in "the tables?"  I'm just not seeing much helpful stuff here.

Before we go looking for "the reasons for these racial disparities" I think we should first actually confirm that such disparities exist.  That report doesn't really provide much in this regard.  The empirical data is substantially lacking, to some extent by design.  The anecdotal evidence is, well, anecdotal.

I think BYU can still be seen as "systemic."  Admissions.  Social life of students.  Personal interactions with faculty.  Grading.  Scholarships.  Housing.  On-campus employment.  Acceptance into competitive undergraduate/graduate programs.  Graduation rates.  Hiring/advancement issues.  If BYU had some sort of "systemic" problem with racism, I think we would see evidence of it across some or most of these dimensions.  The report has little or nothing to say about these things.

The deliberate omission of data in the report is . . . strange to me.  As is the failure to include data that is quantifiable/empirical, even if regarding somewhat "subjective" topics.  

Thanks,

-Smac

The same Wikipedia article also points out, in the first section, that anecdotes "may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine." Thus, the report appropriately uses anecdotes as examples or illustrations of the data.

One way to understand the distinction is that the plural of anecdote is (valid) data. Or, that "anecdote-as-case study" and "anecdotal evidence" are not the same things, by definition. The anecdote illustrates the evidence, but is not the statistical data which is the evidence.

The report, which summarizes the recommendations drawn from the conclusions of analysis, uses both anecdotes and the tables to illustrate the data in different ways.

So, data is not omitted at all.

P.S. Another type of document would be produced in the event legal evidences are required for some reason, with a different level or standard for  presentation of the data.

Edited by CV75
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The same Wikipedia article also points out, in the first section, that anecdotes "may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine."

I agree.

But I don't think the report does much with the "scientific method."  It doesn't give us any "empirical and verifiable" evidence of de jure racism at BYU, "systemic" or otherwise.

There is clearly some amount of de facto racism at BYU.  I don't think we'll ever get to zero as long as we are in this telestial sphere.  But the report doesn't really do much to illuminate how much of this sort of racism exists at BYU. 

Quote

Thus, the report appropriately uses anecdotes as examples or illustrations of the data.

I don't think it does.  The anecdotes talk about individual students' personal experiences that touch on racism.  The tables/figures deal with admissions and scholarship data, etc.  Not really much in terms of the former illustrating the latter.

Quote

One way to understand the distinction is that the plural of anecdote is (valid) data.

Well, I don't think that really works in this context.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

YES, THE PLURAL OF ANECDOTE IS DATA.

The negated version of this sentence – ‘the plural of anecdote is not data’ – is often presented as advice in a professional seminar or as an insult in a debate. This is problematic in part because it is wrong, but more because it reflects a misunderstanding of how and why statistical inference works.

There is nothing wrong with anecdotes. A dataset is a nothing more than a collection of observations, each anecdotal or non-representative of the population on its own. One can refer to a collection of anecdotes as ‘random collection of observations’ or even a ‘random sample’ and arrive naturally at the functional unit of experimental science and modern statistics.

This simplification is unfair to the common wisdom. The implicit assumption of the ‘anecdotes are not data’ quote is that anecdotes are not random, that a collection of anecdotes must have been selected for specific reason and are necessarily biased. The common wisdom assumes that a collection of biased anecdotes cannot be used to make accurate inferences.

This is a false dilemma. It is possible to make useful, even accurate, inferences from a small biased subset of data (yes, even a single anomaly). In fact, statisticians do this all the time.

The anecdote-versus-data dichotomy is flawed because it emphasizes the wrong relationship. The relevant transformation is not between anecdotes and data (which are equivalent). The relevant transformation is between data and evidence.

DATA IS NOT ITSELF EVIDENCE.

The fact that information is not inherently meaningful (nor objective) is a largely overlooked reality from within the hype of our data-driven tech culture. While this is worth a longer discussion, we can attempt to summarize decades of philosophical, statistical, and scientific debates into a single sentence:

Evidence is a quantification the amount of surprise one should feel at having observed the data given a specific default hypothesis.

A dataset is necessary for evidence, but it is not sufficient. Evidence requires comparing the new observations against the specific predictions of an existing world view.

In practice, this transformation may take the form of comparing new information against a null hypothesis, a Bayesian prior, or informal gut instinct, i.e. ‘Your friend and my friend are BOTH named John and BOTH have a tattoo of a velociraptor. The odds of that happening is low. We must know the same person.’

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE: FORGETTING TO TRANSFORM DATA INTO EVIDENCE.

The problem with anecdotes is that any single or small group of examples is unlikely to be sufficiently surprising, or sufficient evidence, to be compelling against anything but the narrowest default hypotheses (i.e. this has NEVER happened before).

"Racism" is, in many ways, a subjective and difficult-to-quantify thing.  Hard data can help in some ways.  For example, if BYU admissions data showed that BIPOC students, despite having comparable academic qualifications, nevertheless are admitted at non-trivially lower rates than their White (or Asian) peers, then a claim of "systemic racism," at least in admissions, could really have legs.

But we don't have that.  What attention the report pays to admissions data doesn't impress.  

Quote

Or, that "anecdote-as-case study" and "anecdotal evidence" are not the same things, by definition. The anecdote illustrates the evidence, but is not the statistical data which is the evidence.

What "statistical data" are you referencing here?

Quote

The report, which summarizes the recommendations drawn from the conclusions of analysis, uses both anecdotes and the tables to illustrate the data in different ways.

I don't see that.  The report tells us some anecdotes, and then gives some tables/figures that, frankely, obscure the data more than disclose it.  And the anecodotal data do not really overlap with the data reflected in the tables/figures.  The former dataset, such as it is, talks about BIPOC students' individual personal experiences with other students and faculty.  The latter dataset deal with metrics about admissions, scholarships, faculty demographics, etc.

Quote

So, data is not omitted at all.

"<10" sure seems to omit data, or at least obscures it.  I find it pretty odd that the report deliberately obscures data that is perhaps the most relevait to the report's raison d'être (how BIPOC students are treated at BYU).

Quote

P.S. Another type of document would be produced in the event legal evidences are required for some reason, with a different level or standard for  presentation of the data.

Sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree.

But I don't think the report does much with the "scientific method."  It doesn't give us any "empirical and verifiable" evidence of de jure racism at BYU, "systemic" or otherwise.

There is clearly some amount of de facto racism at BYU.  I don't think we'll ever get to zero as long as we are in this telestial sphere.  But the report doesn't really do much to illuminate how much of this sort of racism exists at BYU. 

I don't think it does.  The anecdotes talk about individual students' personal experiences that touch on racism.  The tables/figures deal with admissions and scholarship data, etc.  Not really much in terms of the former illustrating the latter.

Well, I don't think that really works in this context.  See, e.g., here:

"Racism" is, in many ways, a subjective and difficult-to-quantify thing.  Hard data can help in some ways.  For example, if BYU admissions data showed that BIPOC students, despite having comparable academic qualifications, nevertheless are admitted at non-trivially lower rates than their White (or Asian) peers, then a claim of "systemic racism," at least in admissions, could really have legs.

But we don't have that.  What attention the report pays to admissions data doesn't impress.  

What "statistical data" are you referencing here?

I don't see that.  The report tells us some anecdotes, and then gives some tables/figures that, frankely, obscure the data more than disclose it.  And the anecodotal data do not really overlap with the data reflected in the tables/figures.  The former dataset, such as it is, talks about BIPOC students' individual personal experiences with other students and faculty.  The latter dataset deal with metrics about admissions, scholarships, faculty demographics, etc.

"<10" sure seems to omit data, or at least obscures it.  I find it pretty odd that the report deliberately obscures data that is perhaps the most relevait to the report's raison d'être (how BIPOC students are treated at BYU).

Sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

From page 6: “By way of illustration, one student from the Hispanos Unidos club said it is “very hard to find other Latino students at BYU.” The term "Illustrate" and the like are used repeatedly. “(For a full discussion of our findings, see p. 12.).” If you do word search of “data” and terms such as “the data demonstrate” accompanying the tables in the report, you will find the terms referenced over and over again. I will not list them as you have, since that would make it too easy to gloss over 😊 – I know from personal experience.

The scientific method from relevant disciplines is reflected by and in the collection of this data, and again I refer to your Wikipedia article on scientifically valid anecdotes.*

From the report’s cover page and Executive Summary, “racism” is used very broadly to refer to any race-based interference with “the unity, love, equity, and belonging that should characterize our campus culture and permeate our interactions as disciples of Jesus Christ.” All kinds are specifically mentioned throughout the report (implicit, overt, individual, institutional, etc.). I’m sure a legal perspective lies somewhere in the discussion as this report makes its way through the preview process, as well as its inherent sociological perspective.

* I also recommend you Google more about “the plural of anecdote is data” to see how it “really works” for this particular kind of report. As a special twist (at risk of creating a tangent), anecdotes are also great sources of preliminary evidence in many disciplines for formulating hypotheses. That is not what is done in this report, however. Rather, the anecdotes help make sense of research findings and interpretations that are based on the study’s data analysis. 

Here’s an easy-to-read, good discussion of the pros and cons of using anecdotes from a sociological perspective, but don’t focus solely on the potential “downsides” of using them: https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2012/09/anecdotes-and-examples.html Disclaimer: I do not know the author's political ideology so if it conflicts with yours, that is not intentional -- clarifying my points about valid anecdotes are my only intention.

If you still don't see it, I did note your earlier post that you are patiently waiting to see.

 

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
6 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Is that the objective? 

My objective is for posters not to have to read comments about the alleged emotions of other posters as a response to disagreement, whether it is accusing others of being emotional (for example someone vigorously disagreeing does not mean they are angry, a common accusation when mindreading) or telling them how they should feel (how much more condescending can you get). Such does not belong in civil and respectful discourse.  I am not asking for anyone to be nicer or to agree, just lose the tactic of using a poster’s alleged emotions unless the poster brings them up themselves. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Keep reading my post Juliann, I have faith one day you'll find a glimmer of hope and joy. Positivity juliann, positivity! Love ya!!

 Yes, tell women to smile. We have a name for that behavior now. 🙄

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I'm assumining your talking about if a black dad and white son came across a "karen"? Yes, that could happen. But, it could also happen with a white dad and black son. Again,  you go right away to bringing in "victimhood". You know, I've been watching a lot of mormon stories podcast and I'm moving away from the DNA and BOM episodes and getting into the more personal ones where he interviews mormons and exmormons. He likes talking about "privileged" and how some people have it and some dont, is that a big part of what you base your outlook on life? I'm asking so in the future I know better how you view the world, it's not a trick question, dont answer if you dont want to.

The difference is I know it has happened with the ethnicity setup I described and I know someone has had it happen to them many times. Never heard stories of your “whataboutism” comparison.

It is part of how I view life but it is not a major part or the most predominant part. Privilege is real but the goal of that recognition is to motivate someone to prefer a world where it didn’t exist. This desire is similar to the Book of Mormon talking about how their were no “-ites”. I disagree with some who I suspect take that scripture to mean we should act as if there are no “-ites” now and hope it comes true or (worse) assume it is already true.

It goes along with the much more direct command to “be one” and the Church has made steps in that direction. Seeking to create a secular environment that encourages a lesser but still good form of equality seems important.

7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Well, some people do think about the lord when playing sports. Tim Tebow does,  wide receivers making a touchdown will often point to the sky and thank the lord. But, in sports I think you dont have to bring religion into the equation. You never played a sport and let the other teams hatred help fuel you to beat them? I did!! We had a team that over something like a 30 year period, had beaten us 2 times, they hated us when we played, so we used that hate for fuel. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you leave it on the field, the lord doesnt care. 

I have used hatred to fuel my competitive spirit in all kinds of competitions (athletic, mental, social). I am not convinced that kind of thinking is spiritually healthy and I don’t really like who I became in those instances. One of the best arguments I heard back in the day against the players having a prayer before a football game was how insincere it was after the team was hyped up to “destroy the enemy”.

Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The difference is I know it has happened with the ethnicity setup I described and I know someone has had it happen to them many times. Never heard stories of your “whataboutism” comparison.

Understood

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It goes along with the much more direct command to “be one” and the Church has made steps in that direction. Seeking to create a secular environment that encourages a lesser but still good form of equality seems important.

True

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I have used hatred to fuel my competitive spirit in all kinds of competitions (athletic, mental, social). I am not convinced that kind of thinking is spiritually healthy and I don’t really like who I became in those instances. One of the best arguments I heard back in the day against the players having a prayer before a football game was how insincere it was after the team was hyped up to “destroy the enemy”.

Well, maybe "hate" isnt the best word choice because you really dont hate the people your competing against. But I couldn't think of a better way to describe it. You wouldn't believe how many times we were told to, "go out there and beat the crap out of those guys" . I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, really just a figure of speach.

Edited by AtlanticMike
Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

My objective is for posters not to have to read comments about the alleged emotions of other posters as a response to disagreement, whether it is accusing others of being emotional (for example someone vigorously disagreeing does not mean they are angry, a common accusation when mindreading) or telling them how they should feel (how much more condescending can you get). Such does not belong in civil and respectful discourse.  I am not asking for anyone to be nicer or to agree, just lose the tactic of using a poster’s alleged emotions unless the poster brings them up themselves. 

So when I came on this board I started reading alot of post so I could figure out what I could and couldn't post because I was put on limited for like a week or two. I made a list, on one side I had you, bluebell, blue dreams and tacenda as the very reasonable, good at finding the middle ground, type of posters. Then I had a few on the other side who push the limits, the poster we're talkin about is on the side of the list, opposite of you Calm. So what I do is try to stay somewhere in the middle of those two examples.  I have a list of about 20 post from various threads and various posters that to me seem controversial. So if I'm writing something, I'll look at those post and try not to make my post more controversial than what has already been posted on this board in the past. Actually I added a few more a couple days ago, so maybe I have 23 now. let me show you what I'm talking about. 

On March 2nd of this year, actually this thread, juliann said, " dominated by older white men complaining about losing out"  

On Dec 9 2020 she said " take your nitpicking pot stirring back to your crap slinging exmo board" . That's two of the new ones I've added. I try to make sure I stay on the more civil side of those post, that way, hopefully I dont get put on limited  again. 

   Do you think that's a good idea? 

                         😉

Edited by AtlanticMike
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...