Bombshell BYU announcement

[smac97]

.

Edited March 3, 2021 by smac97

[SteveO]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

.

Good choice.  It was a good post, but you’re wasting your time anymore.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Quote

.

Good choice.  It was a good post, but you’re wasting your time anymore.

Yeah.  I think I've had my say.  I kept going for a while because I dislike it when some folks try to shout down or shame people with which they disagree (while not really addressing the substantive points being made).  I kept going to signal that I will not be bullied or hectored into silence.  I think I've done that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 3, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Some think that because it is BYU , that such discrimination simply will not happen

Harvard and Yale both have high percentages of Asian American students and faculty (25% students and 10% faculty for Harvard, 17% and 11% for Yale).  Combine that major difference with the major differences in missions for the three schools...apples and oranges.

Better to use BYU’s own past behaviour to extrapolate future possible behaviour as well as BYU’s own framing of definitions of populations at risk and difficulties at BYU (survey) than two schools whose populations and missions are significantly different than BYU.

Not only that, but LDS populations often go against the norm of the general population, for example higher education is correlated with higher commitment to the faith.

It would not be appropriate to disregard the individuality of BYU’s sports population where breaks for missions are not uncommon and just use athletic programs at Yale and Harvard to extrapolate the future policies of BYU’s athletic programs.

Federal funding also has a significant effect on policy making at universities.  BYU’s different approach to funding will therefore like lower correlations between polices at schools more dependent on federal funding.

Quote

Despite Yale’s incredible resources, it still receives heavy subsidies from the federal government. In 2014-2015, the federal government granted Yale University more than a half billion dollars, representing 75.3% of Yale’s grant and contract income. That figure increased by almost $80 million by year 2017-2018.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/federal-subsidies-of-yale-undercut-national-security-and-education

Edited March 3, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

So the answer is to implement policies that have proved detrimental elsewhere (and they are detrimental, read “The Coddling of the American Mind”) and expect that “Zion”will make them not detrimental?

Are they implementing identical policies or is this being assumed?  Goals of policies may be similar while implementation is very different.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Calm

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Harvard and Yale both have high percentages of Asian American students and faculty (25% students and 10% faculty for Harvard, 17% and 11% for Yale).  Combine that major difference with the major differences in missions for the three schools...apples and oranges.

Better to use BYU’s own past behaviour to extrapolate future possible behaviour as well as BYU’s own framing of definitions of populations at risk and difficulties at BYU (survey) than two schools whose populations and missions are significantly different than BYU.

Not only that, but LDS populations often go against the norm of the general population, for example higher education is correlated with higher commitment to the faith.

It would not be appropriate to disregard the individuality of BYU’s sports population where breaks for missions are not uncommon and just use athletic programs at Yale and Harvard to extrapolate the future of BYU’s athletic programs.

Federal funding also has a significant effect on policy making at universities.  BYU’s different approach to funding will therefore like lower correlations between polices at schools more dependent on federal funding.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/federal-subsidies-of-yale-undercut-national-security-and-education

How is BYU’s mission regarding race and diversity different from the race and diversity goals of other schools?

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Having scanned this thread, I have to say I share Smac’s misgivings. Even if he’s wrong, he doesn’t deserve to be shamed or shouted down merely for raising concerns that the university might follow in the misguided footsteps of Yale and other institutions. 

This is a hard topic to discuss, partly because there are often a lot of people (in general, not just speaking about the board or at church) who agree that racism is wrong but who refuse to do much personally, or make many (or any) personal sacrifices to change it.   They profess the correct "faith" (to use religious terms we are all familiar with) but they have no "works" to go along with it. 

And we all know how useful faith without works is.

These are often the "what about?!" or "what if?!" people, who are more concerned with how an imperfect solution could negatively impact their group than they are with the negative impact the current system is actually having on the other group.  

These people do not deserve to be shamed or shouted down, but I think they do need to be challenged.  It's such an unhelpful way to approach a very real problem.

I don't discredit Smac's or your misgivings on this.  I'm sure there will be some missteps that will have to be corrected.  I just wish that people would stop to think about how always focusing (or focusing first) on the missteps that might hurt your personal group, while ignoring the real hurt that the other group is dealing with, looks from the outside.  It's a hard focus to defend.

And I wish that more people would consider the real world negative consequences that such a focus has.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, SteveO said:

How is BYU’s mission regarding race and diversity different from the race and diversity goals of other schools?

BYU’s overall mission, which is what I was talking about, is different...to aid the missions of the Church.

Another massive difference are the social relationships at BYU.  First and foremost, percentages of students who are religious and share a faith.  Then there are the percentages of married students (half at BYU are married by graduation) and those dating.   10 years ago, almost 90% of women at BYU said they had dated in the past month and yet many felt they had not dated enough.

Quote

Of 1000 college women surveyed, only half reported going on six or more dates in their four years of college.[13] Contrastingly, according to research done by professors at BYU in their study titled "A Survey of Dating and Marriage at BYU," 88% of BYU students reported going on at least one date a month. Even more, 15% of the student population reported going on six or more dates each month.[14] In the same study, 57% of students at BYU reportedly felt they dated "not often enough".[14]

Marriage statistics[edit]

In 2005, 22% of the student population was married.[12] In 2005, 51% of BYU’s graduating class were married.[15] In the same year, only 3% of Yale’s graduating class were married.[15] And as a national average, 11% of the college class of 2005 were married.[15] The graduating class of 2010 yielded 6147 graduates, 56% of which were married.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_life_at_Brigham_Young_University

Another difference....Faculty often serve as pastoral counselors as well as academic mentors.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

...............................

 

But you can’t make that comparison...

 

So the answer is to implement policies that have proved detrimental elsewhere (and they are detrimental, read “The Coddling of the American Mind”) and expect that “Zion”will make them not detrimental?

Have you ever heard the definition of insanity?

If the evidence doesn't exist to support someone's assertion, that's not my fault.   That's something that the person making the assertion should probably consider (and supports the idea that the assertion is premature).

As to the bold, this is too broad of an assertion to really respond to.  It makes assumptions of facts (1-that BYU is using the exact same policies as other schools, 2-that the implementation of those policies will be exactly the same, and 3-that no good came from those policies) that aren't actually facts at all but are opinion and/or completely based on speculation.

The truth is that we do not have enough information yet to know the consequences (good and bad) of BYU's new policy.  Nothing good comes from pretending like we do.

[SteveO]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

BYU’s overall mission, which is what I was talking about, is different...to aid the missions of the Church.

Another massive difference is the social relationships at BYU.  First and foremost, percentages of students who are religious and share a faith.  Then there is the percentages of married students (half at BYU are married by graduation) and dating.   10 years ago, almost 90% of women at BYU said they had dated in the past month and yet many felt they had not dated enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_life_at_Brigham_Young_University

Wha-?

What?

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Wha-?

What?

Not understanding the question.  If you are wondering relevance...racism is part of our social system.  As BYU researches possible implementations, they will likely refer to current social dynamics to see how to influence future dynamics.  Since their dynamics are significantly different than other schools, seems reasonable to assume implementation of policies will be different as well...thus inappropriate to assume programs or results based on very different schools.

If one looks at one’s fellow students as potential future spouses or as an extended religious community or even as extended family (on Sunday, we were calling each other brothers and sisters, also lots on other days; language impacts perception), one will more likely embrace efforts to increase the positives in others’ lives as one will see it as ultimately benefiting oneself as well as just wanting to help others one cares about.
 

Another difference, LDS also have a massive humanitarian mission to help others and that attitude will likely increase commitment to programs seen as helping others.

BYU, IMO, is way ahead of other non religious schools in terms of inclusion perspectives because of already shared religious community between most students.  Even if a student is not Latter-day Saint, the fact they are willing to attend BYU gives the appearance they are favorable towards the Church and its members, making it more likely that efforts to remove an us vs them mentality will be successful IMO.

Another characteristic is that LDS as a group tend to view other groups more favorably than any other religious denomination.  This is likely to also have a significant effect on the hows and results of the policies under discussion.

I will find the documentation for the last claim later...unless someone else puts them up (bet Robert Smith remembers where they are, I am thinking a Pew research report).

Edited March 3, 2021 by Calm

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the evidence doesn't exist to support someone's assertion, that's not my fault.   That's something that the person making the assertion should probably consider (and supports the idea that the assertion is premature).

As to the bold, this is too broad of an assertion to really respond to.  It makes assumptions of facts (1-that BYU is using the exact same policies as other schools, 2-that the implementation of those policies will be exactly the same, and 3-that no good came from those policies) that aren't actually facts at all but are opinion and/or completely based on speculation.

The truth is that we do not have enough information yet to know the consequences (good and bad) of BYU's new policy.  Nothing good comes from pretending like we do.

Now I’m seeing that the policies being proposed aren’t the same as other schools?  Has that been addressed elsewhere in the thread?  If it had, I’ll go look for it myself, I won’t ask you find it for me.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not when none of the apples has implemented the proposed policies under discussion.

It's not my fault though that you made assertions that you can't support with relevant evidence.  That's more a weakness of the assertion than a weakness of the request for evidence to support it.

Quote

With respect, I disagree.  BYU runs into all sorts of problems that other colleges and universities face.  It's quite reasonable to suggest that the results of race-based admissions policies at other schools could be indicative of what will happen at BYU if it decides to emulate their course of conduct.

We'll have to agree to disagree. 

Quote

"BYU will get race-based admissions policies right, and will not end up discriminating against Whites, Asians and Jews as we have seen in other schools which have previously implemented race-based policies because BYU is run by people with authority to act for God'" seems to veer toward expectations of infallibility.

That is not my position.  I'm assuming that they will get some of it wrong.  There is no success that does not include some failure along the way. But I also believe that they will get a lot right and that the positive consequences will benefit Whites, Asians, and Jews more than the negative things will harm them. 

Quote

It also seems to imply that I am opposing the Brethren or the Church.  Simply for expressing concerns about a topic in which I have an interest, but over which I have no actual control.  

I think you are feeling a bit defensive because you are getting a lot of pushback on some of your posts, but please know that no such implication was intended.

Quote

 

So I don't think comparing BYU's prospective race-based policies to similar policies implemented at other colleges and universities is an apples to oranges comparison.  I think it's more of a Red Delicious Apple to Braeburn Apple comparison.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I'm not surprised that you don't.  As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree on the "BYU is the exact same as Yale" argument.

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not understanding the question.

You need to walk me through how any of that information helps the successful implementation of the proposed policies.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, SteveO said:

Now I’m seeing that the policies being proposed aren’t the same as other schools?  Has that been addressed elsewhere in the thread?  If it had, I’ll go look for it myself, I won’t ask you find it for me.

I doubt it has.  That's not the topic of the thread.  What I said is that I'm not going to just assume that they are because you said so.  You don't seem to know if they are either.

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I doubt it has.  That's not the topic of the thread.  What I said is that I'm not going to just assume that they are because you said so.  You don't seem to know if they are either.

Oh that’s fine then.  As long as we’re doing something completely different than everyone else, I’m okay with it.

 

 Carry on

Edited March 3, 2021 by SteveO

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is a hard topic to discuss, partly because there are often a lot of people (in general, not just speaking about the board or at church) who agree that racism is wrong but who refuse to do much personally, or make many (or any) personal sacrifices to change it.   They profess the correct "faith" (to use religious terms we are all familiar with) but they have no "works" to go along with it. 

And we all know how useful faith without works is.

These are often the "what about?!" or "what if?!" people, who are more concerned with how an imperfect solution could negatively impact their group than they are with the negative impact the current system is actually having on the other group.  

These people do not deserve to be shamed or shouted down, but I think they do need to be challenged.  It's such an unhelpful way to approach a very real problem.

I don't discredit Smac's or your misgivings on this.  I'm sure there will be some missteps that will have to be corrected.  I just wish that people would stop to think about how always focusing (or focusing first) on the missteps that might hurt your personal group, while ignoring the real hurt that the other group is dealing with, looks from the outside.  It's a hard focus to defend.

And I wish that more people would consider the real world negative consequences that such a focus has.

If those who voice reasonable and well-considered misgivings and reservations need to be challenged, then those who get caught up in groupthink or a bandwagon effect need it at least as much. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If those who voice reasonable and well-considered misgivings and reservations deserve to be challenged, then those who caught up in groupthink or a bandwagon effect deserve it at least as much. 

It's interesting how you gave lip service to the idea that both groups should be treated equally, but did so by describing one group (the group you agree with) in positive terms and with good intentions and the other group (the group you don't agree with) in negative terms and implied bad intentions.

We all have to get better at challenging our own biases if anything else of importance is ever going to get better.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, SteveO said:

You need to walk me through how any of that information helps the successful implementation of the proposed policies.

See my post above.  Did that help?

[bluebell]

I've been meaning to say this since yesterday and keep forgetting, but I really don't like the language BYU has used in the changes.  It's much too difficult to interpret and understand and in some circles will be instantly off putting (as we are seeing here).

There's a difference between saying something useful and just using a lot of word.  I feel like BYU is in the 'using a lot of words' category.   

I wish they would simplify and say exactly what they mean instead of relying on buzz words and common social justice phrases.  If it seems like you are copying from "social activism for dummies" then something has gone wrong somewhere.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's interesting how you gave lip service to the idea that both groups should be treated equally, but did so by describing one group (the group you agree with) in positive terms and with good intentions and the other group (the group you don't agree with) in negative terms and implied bad intentions.

We all have to get better at challenging our own biases if anything else of importance is ever going to get better.

If I have commented in general terms, let me be clear and say that I was alluding to Smac specifically. He has been eminently reasonable, thoughtful and wise in this debate, as he is accustomed to being. And his points have been rock solid. I have no reservations or discomfort about agreeing with him or even defending him (as though he needed it from me). 

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Oh that’s fine then.  As long as we’re doing something completely different than everyone else, I’m okay with it.

 

 Carry on

Time will tell.  As far as I understand it, the changes haven't even been implemented yet.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been meaning to say this since yesterday and keep forgetting, but I really don't like the language BYU has used in the changes.  It's much too difficult to interpret and understand and in some circles will be instantly off putting (as we are seeing here).

There's a difference between saying something useful and just using a lot of word.  I feel like BYU is in the 'using a lot of words' category.   

I wish they would simplify and say exactly what they mean instead of relying on buzz words and common social justice phrases.  If it seems like you are copying from "social activism for dummies" then something has gone wrong somewhere.

Why do you think the released text used the turgid social activism buzzwords?

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

One is the episode in the 2010s in which internal politics brought about the hijacking of the Maxwell Institute, leading ultimately to a rather substantial course correction being mandated by the Brethren. 

You are so completely wrong.  I was there on the ground floor of FARMS.  I was Jack Welch's first research assistant when Welch came to teach at BYU Law.  I saw how he put together FARMS and FARMS Review.  FARMS then evolved into an apologetic platform when Dr. Peterson took over.  Some of its published pieces were rude and insulting.  But I rather liked the Peterson version of FARMS but, having grown up with my grandfather who had been a BYU university interim president and hanging around with a lot of academic types I seriously questioned the role the Peterson/Maxwell Institute at BYU.  And I was right.  It was replaced by a more neutral academic focus.  With true academics, not lay hacks (like me, who published in FARMS). 

There was no "hijacking."  The Maxwell Institute was BYU's, not Dr Peterson's.  Plus, I think Dr. Peterson is in a much better place now with more freedom to put out what he wants to publish.  And it is quality stuff. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been meaning to say this since yesterday and keep forgetting, but I really don't like the language BYU has used in the changes.  It's much too difficult to interpret and understand and in some circles will be instantly off putting (as we are seeing here).

There's a difference between saying something useful and just using a lot of word.  I feel like BYU is in the 'using a lot of words' category.   

I wish they would simplify and say exactly what they mean instead of relying on buzz words and common social justice phrases.  If it seems like you are copying from "social activism for dummies" then something has gone wrong somewhere.

This I CAN agree with. When I first read these proposals quoted verbatim in a Deseret News story, I was overwhelmed by the lengthy word salad and trendy social-justice jargon — which prompted my wariness about groupthink.