Bombshell BYU announcement

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

is the real issue that the wrong kids are feeling that despair?

Hard to see it otherwise since I doubt that the drive is to increase numbers of middle age or senior BIPOC students. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Largely, yes. 

I think the racism problems at BYU/in the Church and the proposed solutions are vastly overblown. I think this all has much more to do with presenting a furrowed brow and chewing on our pencil eraser to keep "the eye of Sauron" off of us, as the cancel culture witch hunts sweep through higher education. Task forces, committees, etc. shuffling papers, looking very busy indeed. 

I do think that the action items will happen. I think that there will be massive efforts to increase BIPOC enrollment, hire BIPOC faculty, promote BIPOC administrators, etc. It will be interesting to see how the demographic pie chart at BYU changes in the coming years. It will be fascinating to see to what extent non-LDS students will be sought, and if there will continue to be watering down of the religious education requirements because of this. This isn't just a BIPOC thing --- we had a wealthy German girl on our janitorial crew at the Richards Building, and Book of Mormon/Doctrine and Covenants were hard for her. She was only there (with her blue convertible) because her parents chose BYU because of the crime statistics. She became a good friend. I was always impressed that she wanted to work graveyard janitorial, even though she didn't need any money. If BYU tries to bring in large numbers of non-LDS students (of any race), that will be interesting to see the impact of that on a number of things. 

What isn't yet clear is whether this large increase is thought to be among LDS BIPOC, or non-LDS. I ***think*** it's planned on being LDS, but don't know for sure. 

So the “real problem” is racism, one way (overblown sensitivities) or another (objectively identified) 😊

How is it that you think the survey results do not measure a real problem?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Largely, yes. 

I think the racism problems at BYU/in the Church and the proposed solutions are vastly overblown.

I mean absolutely no disrespect or snarkiness when I say that I don't think anyone should care whether or not a white guy (or girl) thinks that the racism problems at BYU are overblown.  If someone of color who has been to BYU thinks they are overblown then that is valid and useful information that I'll pay attention to.  They can speak from a position of knowledge that a white person on BYU can't.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Somehow I don’t see Asians as viewing BYU much as their school of choice given their current rate of attending. 

“The enrolled student population at Brigham Young University-Provo is 81.9% White, 5.91% Hispanic or Latino, 3.96% Two or More Races, 1.88% Asian, 0.647% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders, 0.513% Black or African American, and 0.283% American Indian or Alaska Native.”

https://datausa.io/profile/university/brigham-young-university-provo

And that is certainly their choice.  But personal choice quite a different topic from overtly race-based discrimination in admissions by BYU, which is apparently where things are headed, and which would apparently result in even fewer Asian students, since they aren't included in "BIPOC."

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not every kid who applies is going to get in (plenty of really accomplished students didn't get in with the old standards, as you painstakingly pointed out at the beginning of the OP) so is the real issue that the wrong kids are feeling that despair?

The only “standards” mentioned are in recommendation 21, and are not strictly academic: “Take steps to ensure that the BYU Honor Code and Dress and Grooming Standards are applied with cultural competence and sensitivity.”

#14 doesn’t mention standards and complies with the existing Fostering an Enriched Environment Policy. Independent validation is a best practice, and weighting systems are used to prioritize significance of various factors affecting student performance and success, not to create disparity.

Sharing with @rongo

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How can this new policy make it so not as many 'any' kids are being accepted?  Are they accepting less kids now than before?  If they aren't then that means the same number of kids will be getting in with the new policy as got in with the old.

It's not the "how many," it's the "who." The starfish on the shore analogy. "It mattered to that one." There will be starfish for whom it matters a great deal who would have gotten in, but won't now because it's zero-sum, as you point out.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But seriously, if a kid has been privileged growing up, and that privilege is what is allows them to qualify for BYU, then how is it unfair to extend some of the privilege to someone else so that things are more even?  Do only some kids deserve to have privilege?  Which kids would that be?

Because what some seem to be saying is that if a kid is privileged because of their parents or their school system they grew up in or their access to different programs and sports, then that is fair.  But if a kid is privileged because the college decides to weigh non academic achievements differently in some cases, that is unfair.

Please explain how privilege is fair for some and unfair for others.  Because that seems like a double standard.

As you point out, there will be winners and losers, no matter what the criteria are. Do you agree that it is understandably unfair to "privileged" students when they are rejected in favor of (under the old standard) unqualified students who get affirmative action advantage? People can say that this is making up for "systemic" and "historic" inequities, but it is still understandably seen as unfair. 

And, I know, I know, maybe the new standards aren't "lower," maybe they are just different. "Holistic," even. But, I think everyone knows what the PC-ese, or my version, of the action steps means when overhauls of "all current admissions policies, particularly the weighting systems, to . . . ensure that the admissions process is holistic in its application and reflects the values promoted in BYU’s Fostering an Enriched Environment Policy" means in practice. Especially when "a race-conscious admissions model for BYU" to reduce "cultural taxation burdens" is the stated end-goal?*

As you point out, if BYU chooses to weigh non-academic achievements (which are actually defined as "socioeconomic profile" and "adverse life circumstances" --- that's a really Orwellian use of the word "achievements," isn't it?), then it's just a different type of unfair. Sure. My opinion is that that is madness, and then BYU will become something "wholly other" than what it was. It's increasingly more "not my circus, not my monkeys," other than me having an opinion on it. 

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And it means that kids who have also dreamed of going to BYU, who are still accomplished, but who could not fairly compete before because of reasons outside of their control, will get in.  Yay for them.

Not every kid who applies is going to get in (plenty of really accomplished students didn't get in with the old standards, as you painstakingly pointed out at the beginning of the OP) so is the real issue that the wrong kids are feeling that despair?

1) It doesn't sound like the aim is to ferret out the kids who yearn to go to BYU, but just couldn't qualify. It sounds more like BYU is trying to attract BIPOC kids for whom BYU wasn't even on the radar.

2) You are correct that the despair is just being shifted to another group. It just seems to me that it is being intensified and concentrated on the group that really dreamed and yearned of BYU. I find the clinical, dispassionate cavalier-ness about this on the part of some to be interesting. Even though I'm not a fan of BYU as a school any more, I have fond memories of it and remember well how I thought of it growing up. It actually was the only school I applied to (I really smile at the naivete of that now --- especially with the rejection rate in my experience). 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And that is certainly their choice.  But personal choice quite a different topic from overtly race-based discrimination in admissions by BYU, which is apparently where things are headed, and which would apparently result in even fewer Asian students, since they aren't included in "BIPOC."

Thanks,

-Smac

Since one reason Asians may not be applying is because they are aware of racism at BYU, personal choice may overlap with race backed discrimination at BYU. 

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And that is certainly their choice.  But personal choice quite a different topic from overtly race-based discrimination in admissions by BYU, which is apparently where things are headed, and which would apparently result in even fewer Asian students, since they aren't included in "BIPOC."

Thanks,

-Smac

There’s an Asian man (not profiling here! 😊 ) on the cover of the report. All the tables include Asians with the other BIPOCs.

PS: I think tehre is a difference between "overtly race-based discrimination" and institutional or systemic racism which is acknowledged by BYU and Church leaders.

Edited March 2, 2021 by CV75

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

And that is certainly their choice.  But personal choice quite a different topic from overtly race-based discrimination in admissions by BYU, which is apparently where things are headed, and which would apparently result in even fewer Asian students, since they aren't included in "BIPOC."

Since one reason Asians may not be applying is because they are aware of racism at BYU, personal choice may overlap with race backed discrimination at BYU. 

How do you know how many Asians are applying?

How do you know that Asians are not applying "because they are aware of racism at BYU?"

What is "race backed discrimination at BYU?"  Are you saying that BYU discriminates in favor of Whites and Asians?  Or against BIPOCs?  Any evidence of any of this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's not the "how many," it's the "who." The starfish on the shore analogy. "It mattered to that one." There will be starfish for whom it matters a great deal who would have gotten in, but won't now because it's zero-sum, as you point out.

But there will be starfish for who it matters a great deal who wouldn't have gotten in but will now.  Why aren't we happy for those starfish?

Quote

As you point out, there will be winners and losers, no matter what the criteria are. Do you agree that it is understandably unfair to "privileged" students when they are rejected in favor of (under the old standard) unqualified students who get affirmative action advantage? People can say that this is making up for "systemic" and "historic" inequities, but it is still understandably seen as unfair.

I don't agree that it's unfair for students to be rejected over other students who are still qualified but in different ways.  

Quote

And, I know, I know, maybe the new standards aren't "lower," maybe they are just different. "Holistic," even. But, I think everyone knows what the PC-ese, or my version, of the action steps means when overhauls of "all current admissions policies, particularly the weighting systems, to . . . ensure that the admissions process is holistic in its application and reflects the values promoted in BYU’s Fostering an Enriched Environment Policy" means in practice. Especially when "a race-conscious admissions model for BYU" to reduce "cultural taxation burdens" is the stated end-goal?*

I think this thread is a good indication that not everyone is interpreting BYU's actions in the same way that you are.   

Quote

As you point out, if BYU chooses to weigh non-academic achievements (which are actually defined as "socioeconomic profile" and "adverse life circumstances" --- that's a really Orwellian use of the word "achievements," isn't it?), then it's just a different type of unfair. Sure. My opinion is that that is madness, and then BYU will become something "wholly other" than what it was. It's increasingly more "not my circus, not my monkeys," other than me having an opinion on it. 

I get that you think it's madness.  I just think that you're responding more to your own issues and baggage and preconceived ideas than what is actually happening in reality (because, nothing has happened in reality yet to even respond to).

Maybe we could see how it all goes first and then get angsty?

Quote

1) It doesn't sound like the aim is to ferret out the kids who yearn to go to BYU, but just couldn't qualify. It sounds more like BYU is trying to attract BIPOC kids for whom BYU wasn't even on the radar.

That could be.  If someone never thought they could get in then it would be unusual for them to pine after that dream.  Opening the options so that more kids could dream about it seems like a good thing.

And to be fair, my only friend that went to BYU never planned on going.  It wasn't on her radar until the week before she applied when her counselor brought it up (and she did get in).  For every kid yearning to go to BYU there are probably just as many who are ambivalent about it and still get in.  Such is life.

Quote

2) You are correct that the despair is just being shifted to another group. It just seems to me that it is being intensified and concentrated on the group that really dreamed and yearned of BYU. I find the clinical, dispassionate cavalier-ness about this on the part of some to be interesting. Even though I'm not a fan of BYU as a school any more, I have fond memories of it and remember well how I thought of it growing up. It actually was the only school I applied to (I really smile at the naivete of that now --- especially with the rejection rate in my experience). 

I've known a ton of kids who had dreams of going to a specific school who didn't get in.  That's not at all unique to BYU.  They got over it and found their place and have loved where they landed.  The same will be true for everyone who doesn't get into BYU.  That's not being clinical, dispassionate, or cavalier.  It's just being honest.

I feel for them of course, but it's not a tragedy.  It's a situation that they can learn and grow from that can actually be a great strength for them as they move forward.  We all have to learn that not every dream comes true.  That disappointment and despair happen to the worthy as well as the unworthy.  And for the members it's a great chance to learn that God's plan for their life can't be thwarted by admission boards and to lean on Him as they find a new way.

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

The Church in the U.S. (and the U.S.) greatly benefits from LDS ex patriats, but it is catastrophic for the Church in the home countries. My parents' missions in Poland and the Czech Republic were a real eye-opener. 

I don't really blame sharp young people with testimonies for wanting to live where the Church is strong, your prospects of marrying in the covenant are strong, etc. But the Church wouldn't be as stagnant in many places if our strongest members weren't still drawn to North America. 

I've seen this in the UK. Where once thousands of people joined the church, very strong members of the church, instead of staying they immigrated to Utah. Of course that was policy once upon a time. But even now, there are a number of families in my own ward in southern England where their young people have gone to Zion rather than staying here and building up the church here. If a ward in the states had only a 90 member attendance rate for sacrament meeting, it would be called a branch. Yet all such units here are wards. 

[Jracforr]

The LDS Church is largely comprised of the Tribe of Ephraim, but they were initially tasked with “ Gathering Israel “. This would suggest that significant changes are about to overcome the Church, as 11 other tribal elements are accommodated. The culture and ethnic composition of BYU and Utah is about to experience a shift that maybe difficult to explain to the pioneers.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's not the "how many," it's the "who." The starfish on the shore analogy. "It mattered to that one." There will be starfish for whom it matters a great deal who would have gotten in, but won't now because it's zero-sum, as you point out.

Because somehow you know the BIPOC students that will be admitted under the new guidelines don’t actually care all that much about being there somehow?
 

Do BIPOC not also have passionate dreams to better themselves and to do so in a great environment in your view?

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There’s an Asian man (not profiling here! 😊 ) on the cover of the report. All the tables include Asians with the other BIPOCs.

PS: I think tehre is a difference between "overtly race-based discrimination" and institutional or systemic racism which is acknowledged by BYU and Church leaders.

Thank you, I was wondering why Smac was concluding Asians (including Asian Americans) weren’t involved because I remembered them being part of the survey and was thinking I was going to have to check. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Quote

And that is certainly their choice.  But personal choice quite a different topic from overtly race-based discrimination in admissions by BYU, which is apparently where things are headed, and which would apparently result in even fewer Asian students, since they aren't included in "BIPOC."

There’s an Asian man (not profiling here! 😊 ) on the cover of the report. All the tables include Asians with the other BIPOCs.

Right.  But in practice, Asians become "honorary Whites" for admissions purposes.  There are some real, empirical reasons why the DOJ sued Yale last year for racial bias against Asian and White applicants (a suit later dropped, though the underlying investigation supposedly continues).  See, e.g. here:

Quote

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Yale University on Thursday, accusing the Ivy League school of illegally discriminating against Asian and white applicants in undergraduate admissions.

The lawsuit escalates the Trump administration’s push against affirmative action in admissions to elite universities, after it publicly supported a lawsuit by Asian-American students accusing Harvard University of discriminating against them.

The Justice Department said Asian-American and white applicants were typically only one-eighth to one-fourth as likely to win admission to Yale as similarly qualified Black applicants.

If these odds were against Black candidates, there would be a great fury unleashed.  But since the apparent racial discrimination is against Whites and Asians . . . ho hum.  Nothing to see here.  

See also here:

Quote

He’s quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor,” read the reviewer’s note on one application. Another said that an applicant’s “scores and application seem so typical of other Asian applications I’ve read: extraordinarily gifted in math with the opposite extreme in English.” Admissions staff typically ranked Asian-Americans lower than whites in “personal qualities” and repeatedly described them as “being quiet/shy, science/math oriented, and hard workers.”

These comments appear in a federal civil rights complaint charging Harvard University with discrimination against Asian-American applicants. The complaint documents a pattern of bias, at Harvard and other Ivy League colleges, that, in its methods and its impact, closely parallels the imposition of de facto Jewish quotas at these schools in the 1920s. By spotlighting how racial preferences for other minorities have ironically contributed to this reprise of Harvard’s bigoted past, with Asians playing the role of modern-day Jews, the plaintiffs hope to prompt the Supreme Court to overturn Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, its 1978 decision allowing the use of such preferences in college admissions. For, as the complaint starkly illustrates, whatever merit affirmative action may once have had, it is a policy relic of an essentially biracial society of the 1970s that has become ludicrous in the multiracial America of 2016.

The Harvard case and a companion case against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were brought by Students for Fair Admissions (SFA), an advocacy group representing Asian-American and other students rejected by top colleges that employ racial preferences. SFA is an offshoot of the Project on Fair Representation, which has brought high-profile challenges to race-conscious policies in education, voting, and other areas. Among its successes is the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which, while reaffirming the holdings in Bakke and in Grutter v. Bollinger that campus “diversity” is a “compelling interest” that can justify the use of racial preferences, significantly strengthened the “strict scrutiny” test to which such preferences are subject: not only must a college show that the consideration of race is “narrowly tailored” to achieve the diversity goal, the Court held, but this showing must now also include proof that “no workable race-neutral alternatives” exist for doing so.

The Harvard lawsuit, with an eye on eventual Supreme Court review, urges the justices to go a step further and overturn Bakke. Laying out a damning indictment that, in using race-based preferences rather than race-neutral alternatives to increase African-American and Latino enrollment, Harvard and the other Ivies have established quotas limiting Asian enrollment, the complaint asserts: “Given what is occurring at Harvard and at other schools, the proper response is the outright prohibition of racial preferences in university admissions—period.” The complaint stresses a particular irony in the use of racial preferences at Harvard. The Bakke decision had held up the Harvard admissions program, touted in Harvard’s amicus brief in the case, as a model of individualized assessment in which race was just one of many nonacademic and subjective “plus” factors, and no quotas were imposed. In fact, the SFA complaint documents, the “holistic” Harvard Plan was conceived in anti-Semitism—and now cloaks similar anti-Asian prejudice.

A solution to racial injustice over here that involves creating another racial injustice over there doesn't seem like a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

I went to Byu for my undergrad 2006-2013 (mission break+super senior) then for my grad 2013-2015. At the time of admissions for my students undergrad it was about the same rate of admissions as it is now. Compared to other upper league schools, that’s actually not that high. My masters program was extremely competitive and actually had a high rejection rate. Currently it’s at a 20% acceptance rate. My cohort had a slightly higher rate at I think 25%. I feel for those wanting the BYU experience but can’t get in. But I’ve rarely seen a case where it wasn’t pretty clear why they didn’t make it to the undergrad program. There was either one glaring weakness or a couple of small ones that added up. My only  concern going into admissions was that my unweighted GPA was a 3.3 (below the average for BYU admission).  But I had taken almost all AP/IB classes (advanced courses that can be used to substitute college courses if your testing score is high enough), my SAT/ACT scores were comfortably in the index, and my essays were looked over and edited by my friend’s dad who was a lawyer educated at Harvard law. Several times. They were extremely polished and probably my best writings from that time...and I was good at writing to begin with. 

 

For the record I definitely take issue with your summations. Not for them being non-PC. But for them being at best incorrect and at worst knee jerk emotional/reactionary to needed changes to BYU to help meet not only the needs of minority students but to also make a better education experience for all its students to prepare them for life post college in an ever diversifying world. Greater diversity is a net gain for both the school and the students/faculty there. There are experiences one can’t replicate from an overwhelmingly white student body. 

 

Let’s start with all the ones your are summarizing as “affirmative action.” For one, you cannot have quotas for affirmative actions. It’s literally been decades since that was a thing. The first half of this video explains the current limits to affirmative action. 

 

On 14, your response is not simply non-pc...it’s a hurtful stereotype that all students of color but especially BIPOC students have to face. Riddle me this: how do you tell whether a kid gets into college solely from affirmative action? Answer: You don’t, but you can assume it based on their skin tone. Which means when a freshman student of color at Byu is struggling often from culture shock, a sense of isolation, ignorant student body,on top of the normal issues one faces when transitioning to college etc there are likely to be a chunk of people assuming they’re struggling because the “standard” was “lowered” for them to get it. In other words it was inevitable they fail the rigors of a superior college and they should have gone to one that’s better suited for them. That sounds racist...because it is. The work and resources needed to help this student may be delayed compared to a white student who is struggling but who’s problems with school may be seen as more valid or have a few more safety nets to keep the kid artificially going (ie parental resources and less limited funds). At one point at Byu I worked with students who were struggling with their GPA. There was probably one international student and the rest were all white. Lowering the “standard” doesn’t help the school. It reduces retention scores. No school is Interested in that. Which is why several of these points note the need to help retain students of color once they’re in by making sure they have resources to better address the real reasons these kids drop out. On 14 I have a very different understanding of what was said. Often, there can be blindspots to things like admissions that can give an unfair advantage to white students by ignoring or under-recognizing the significance of different minority achievements. So for example let’s say we have two kids who both dance. One did ballet for 4 years and was a solid performer but likely won’t do much with it past high school. The other was an amazing hoop dancer who received a lot of recognition in their  community and would likely make it into a dance troop like living legends. Because a white body may be more familiar with ballet and the rigors it takes they may weigh this achievement as more substantial than the hoop dancer. This would be a cultural-based bias that gives an unfair advantage to the white student. 

 

On the scholarship realm...”weighting” the scale is likely helping to reduce a problem more represented in BIPOC circles and to lessen the chance of drop out: limited financial resources. The wealth gap in the US based on race is HUGE and a lovely carry over from generations of systemic discrimination that artificially kept particularly black families from accruing resources. BIPOC students are disproportionately being hit by the college debt burden because of it and are more likely to take breaks or permanently drop out of school due to an inability to pay for it. 

Also Asians wouldn’t automatically be dinged at BYU. They’re definitely not over represented in their population as 4% of the student body. 

 

On most of the others you’re just slapping the label “affirmative action” to anything that remotely notes and acknowledges the importance of actively promoting diversity for the school. Since your summary mentioned postgrad degrees on that list and it sounds similar to what happened to me getting into a master’s program, Let me illustrate what that actually looks like. When I got off my mission I took a class with a professor who turned out to be the dean of psychology. I spoke up in his class enough for him to know that I was an RM and with another (white) woman in the class he asked if we could help him with a project presenting about mental health prep for pre-missionaries. I readily agreed and did my part. Meanwhile this professor would bring in experts from their areas. One of them was a professor in MFT. I’d reduced my interests to social work or an MFT program. So I got his email and reached out to him. He offered up a time for me to chat with him and I met with him..  I knew I wanted to get a masters and my mission had given me a better edge academically. My GPA noticeably increased, which bumped me to a better spot for looking into post grad programs. After meeting with him he basically convinced me that I needed to apply for the program this year as opposed to my “wait a year and work” plan I’d initially had. That professor would become my advisor. I had known from several other people that one of the most important things you can do is reach out to professors and make personable relationships. I had tried my best to do that. But these rare professors were active in minority concerns and were looking out for me. Well Not me exactly..but POC like me who have the chops to succeed academically but are often overlooked. I was the only person of african decent not only in my cohort But in the cohort after me, before me, and in the MFT PHD program at the time. And that was with a professor who actively worked to promote diversity in the program. In my cohort there was one Taiwanese woman and 1 man who was part latino and married to a Latina. There was one other latino and Asian person in the PhD program. That was it, if I’m remembering correctly. 

Doing this will not suddenly displace a ton of white kids and reduce their chances to get in. This isn’t a zero-sum game. It’ll likely stay the same: 67%, give or take. No one is guaranteed a spot at BYU...or any college. They’ll like still get a good education somewhere as long as they applied to other schools too. The changes made will not ensure any minority has an easier time getting in compared to a white counterpart. Their main question remains how do you best prepare and assure a good quality education for all involved. I personally think that especially by college if there isn’t a good amount of diversity in classes you are likely missing out on some things you simply can’t get any other way. 

 

Also I was scanning through the full report. From 2018-2020, the number of BIPOC admits have decreased. So whatever gave those kids you mentioned a rejection, you can be assured it wasn’t because they were white. According to the graph I found, Their rate was around 60% of applicants were admitted. And about the same as the asian at 62%. Hispanic admits was 50%. Black was 38%. Native was 58%...that was the best year for NA’s. the last to were 54% and 41% respectively. Which that may sound bad enough...but numbers wise in the class of 2021 based on those admitted, at Best that year will included 20 NA’s, 21 black students, and 46 poly’s. The latino and Asian pop is slightly better at 129 and 166 respectivelet. I’ll put the full report up later if no one else has. 

 

 

 

Last thing for now. Cultural taxation is not what you describe. Here’s a solid explanation: 

“Cultural taxation” is a term coined by Amado Padilla in 1994 as a way of describing the unique burden placed on ethnic minority faculty in carrying out their responsibility to service the university.

He defined “cultural taxation” as the obligation to show good citizenship towards the institution by serving its needs for ethnic representation on committees, or to demonstrate knowledge and commitment to a cultural group, which, though it may bring accolades to the institution, is not usually rewarded by the institution on whose behalf the service was performed.1

This “cultural taxation” phenomenon, as stated earlier, is the price that most faculty of color must pay for admission to and retention in the Academy.

“Cultural taxation” is a stealth workload escalator for faculty of color. And like stress, it can be a silent killer of professional careers and aspirations” 

https://www.calfac.org/magazine-article/cultural-taxation-faculty-color-academy

In short it’s being hired for one thing but then being expected to do more than your white peers without acknowledgment of the extra work and/or increased pay for added responsibilities that benefit the school. 
 

with luv,

BD 

Edited March 2, 2021 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

Here is the full report: 

https://race.byu.edu/00000177-d543-dfa9-a7ff-d5cfc1dc0000/race-equity-belonging-report-feb-25-2021?fbclid=IwAR0r2dthS8zJpcY83eEZzwM0cmJIdRiwbs9tyWoxhqke34TT7Mr8N6CmH0E

 

The graph I mention is on page 33. 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Am I mistaken in characterizing the complaint over BYU creating the "BYU Committee on Race, Equity & Belonging" to be that this approach opens the door for a continuing reduction of white students getting into BYU, extending to a number below their representation in [name the community -- USA, Utah, world, Church]?

Yes, I think you are mistaken.  I think the complaint is that race-based discrimination is bad.  And that BYU is implementing formal policies (in admissions, in faculty hiring, etc.) that discriminate based on race.

I have a good friend who had a pretty bad experience at BYU.  He was Asian, and felt pretty out of place, even though he was a member of the Church, had served a mission, etc.  I can't help but think that his experience would have been worse had he not been admitted to BYU because of his race, or if he was admitted while knowing that his race had counted against him in the process.  I would likewise feel badly for White candidates who feel - correctly, it seems - that their furture applications to BYU will be disadvantaged solely because of the color of their skin.

I have a hard time with the idea that we should condemn discrimination by BYU against Black, Hispanic and Native American candidates (standing alone that sounds just dandy) but celebrate and embrace discrimination against White, Asian and Jewish candidates.  I think using race for or against a candidate's application 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 2, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think yo uare mistaken.  I think the complaint is that race-based discrimination is bad.  And that BYU is implementing formal policies (in admissions, in faculty hiring, etc.) that discriminate based on race.

I have a good friend who had a pretty bad experience at BYU.  He was Asian, and felt pretty out of place, even though he was a member of the Church, had served a mission, etc.  I can't help but think that his experience would have been worse had he not been admitted to BYU because of his race, or if he was amitted while knowing that his race had counted against him in the process.  I would likewise feel badly for White candidates who feel - correctly, it seems - that their applications to BYU are disadvantaged solely because of the color of their skin.

I have a hard time with the idea that we should condemn discrimination by BYU against Black, Hispanic and Native American candidates (standing alone that sounds just dandy) but celebrate and embrace discrimination against White, Asian and Jewish candidates.  I think using race for or against a candidate's application 

Thanks,

-Smac

Is trying to make the playing field more even for all students discrimination against white students?

Because I’m not seeing where BYU says it will start discriminating against anyone because of their race. Can you quote that part?

Edited March 2, 2021 by bluebell

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is trying to make the playing field more even for all students discrimination against white students?

"Trying to make the playing field even" being code for "implementing all sorts of policies that on their face treat applicants, students, faculty, etc. differently based on their race?"

And it's not just White students.  Asians and Jews are also fair game for discrimination in academia.  

Quote

Because I’m not seeing where BYU says it will start discriminating against anyone because of their race. Can you quote that part?

See #10 on the list (creating another academic bureaucrat job that is "that is particularly charged with leading initiatives associated with attracting, admitting, retaining and supporting the academic success of BIPOC students").  "BIPOC" = not White / Asian / Jewish.  BYU will be hiring and paying a lot of money to a bureaucrat whose job it is to help selected BYU students based on the color of their skin.

#11 creates bureaucratic committee specifically assigned to "optimize attracting, admitting, retaining and supporting the academic success of BIPOC and other students."  (I'm curious as to who these "other students" would be, and if they really will be targeted by this committee.  I'm not holding my breath that they will be White, Asian or Jewish.)

#13 puts it right out there: "Design and implement a race-conscious recruitment strategy to attract more BIPOC student applicants to BYU."  "Race-conscious" means, I think, that BIPOC will receive preferential treatment, and that White, Asian and Jewish students will, ipso facto, be disriminated against.

As does #15, which has the Office of Legal Counsel working to make sure that the forthcoming "race-conscious admissions model for BYU" is legal.  "Race-conscious" means, I think, race-based preferential treatment for BIPOCs.  Whites, Asians and Jews, meanwhile, will likely lose out.  That's rather the point of preferential treatment.  Preference of one candidate over another.  And that preference will be based on . . . skin color.

#16 is tacit, I think.  It references "prestigious scholarship recipients," but I really doubt White / Asian / Jewish candidates will be considered.

#22 calls for "a best practices model ... to identify qualified BIPOC candidates for BYU faculty positions."  Again, this sounds like qualified White, Jewish and Asian candidates need not apply.

#23 speaks of "a best practices model for college and department faculty search committees to identify qualified BIPOC candidates for BYU faculty positions."  Qualified BIPOC candidates, mind you.  Whites and Asians need not apply.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 2, 2021 by smac97

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Jracforr said:

The LDS Church is largely comprised of the Tribe of Ephraim, but they were initially tasked with “ Gathering Israel “. This would suggest that significant changes are about to overcome the Church, as 11 other tribal elements are accommodated. The culture and ethnic composition of BYU and Utah is about to experience a shift that maybe difficult to explain to the pioneers.

Doubt it. They were overrun by English, Irish, Scottish, and Scandinavian converts. One person who tracked the pattern said there was a period where there were probably more people in Utah with European accents than without. The idea that Utah was a bunch of xenophobic Americans hiding in the desert is a bit overblown.

Note that I am not saying racism was not an issue then or now. I am saying I don’t think they would find the composition of BYU as odd as some may think.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Trying to make the playing field even" being code for "implementing all sorts of policies that on their face treat applicants, students, faculty, etc. differently based on their race?"

And it's not just White students.  Asians and Jews are also fair game for discrimination in academia.  

See #10 on the list (creating another academic bureaucrat job that is "that is particularly charged with leading initiatives associated with attracting, admitting, retaining and supporting the academic success of BIPOC students").  "BIPOC" = not White / Asian / Jewish.

 

#11 creates bureaucratic committee specifically assigned to "optimize attracting, admitting, retaining and supporting the academic success of BIPOC and other students."  (I'm curious as to who these "other students" would be, and if they really will be targeted by this committee.  I'm not holding my breath.)

#13 puts it right out there: "Design and implement a race-conscious recruitment strategy to attract more BIPOC student applicants to BYU."

As does #15, which has the Office of Legal Counsel working to make sure that the forthcoming "race-conscious admissions model for BYU" is legal.  "Race-conscious" means, I think, race-based preferential treatment for BIPOCs.  Whites, Asians and Jews, meanwhile, will likely lose out.  That's rather the point of preferential treatment.  Preference of one candidate over another.  And that preference will be based on . . . skin color.

#16 is tacit, I think.  It references "prestigious scholarship recipients," but I really doubt White and Asian candidates will be considered.

#22 calls for "a best practices model ... to identify qualified BIPOC candidates for BYU faculty positions."  Again, this sounds like qualified "white" and "Asian" candidates need not apply.

#23 speaks of "a best practices model for college and department faculty search committees to identify qualified BIPOC candidates for BYU faculty positions."  Qualified BIPOC candidates, mind you.  Whites and Asians need not apply.

Thanks,

-Smac

WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE POOR OPPRESSED WHITE PEOPLE?!?!?!?!?!!

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

As does #15, which has the Office of Legal Counsel working to make sure that the forthcoming "race-conscious admissions model for BYU" is legal.  "Race-conscious" means, I think, race-based preferential treatment for BIPOCs.  Whites, Asians and Jews, meanwhile, will likely lose out.  That's rather the point of preferential treatment.  Preference of one candidate over another.  And that preference will be based on . . . skin color.

 

Which is exactly what you are doing. Hello?

[juliann]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

A solution to racial injustice over here that involves creating another racial injustice over there doesn't seem like a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

So you are saying that BYU, accountable to the First Presidency, is going full bore for racial injustice. Wow.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Right.  But in practice, Asians become "honorary Whites" for admissions purposes.  There are some real, empirical reasons why the DOJ sued Yale last year for racial bias against Asian and White applicants (a suit later dropped, though the underlying investigation supposedly continues).  See, e.g. here:

If these odds were against Black candidates, there would be a great fury unleashed.  But since the apparent racial discrimination is against Whites and Asians . . . ho hum.  Nothing to see here.  

See also here:

A solution to racial injustice over here that involves creating another racial injustice over there doesn't seem like a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, "bias against" is "bias against", even within minorities. I see BYU addressing that by surveying all minorities to see what is up and summarizing the findings in terms of women (all races) and non-White (all minorities).

I think the current general societal raw sensitivity for Blacks over Asians is based in a complex confluence of culture and historical circumstance, but the BYU survey filters that out even if one thinks such sensitivity is artificially manipulated.

What are the injustices do you see in the recommendations? Might these be some of the items that BYU’s President Worthen suggested require additional consideration?