BYU Hypocrisy and Double Standard

[Canadiandude]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The OP loaded with anonymous gossip and multiple hearsay?  

The OP stuffed with conclusory assertions?

The OP that purports to make broad conclusions about BYU based on a single incident?

Feel free to point to the competent, probative "evidence" you included in the OP.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is it a single incident?

 

As I recall there was an entire thread a few months back dedicated to examining the scandal of the BYUpd contributing to the campus’s rape culture. 
 

There are also more incidents than this one. I’ll have to go back to bring the specifics, but treating this as an isolated case feels pretty dishonest and insular from an outsider’s perspective.

Your anonymous and not-so-anonymous readers do have memory, and even if they didn’t the internet sure does. 
 

I think this thread could be more informed as to the past and present history of thread Honor Code and how it has been applied.

 

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Is it a single incident?

Well, there was only one presented in the OP.

4 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

As I recall there was an entire thread a few months back dedicated to examining the scandal of the BYUpd contributing to the campus’s rape culture. 

How does that relate to the topic here?

4 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

There are also more incidents than this one. I’ll have to go back to bring the specifics, but treating this as an isolated case feels pretty dishonest and insular from an outsider’s perspective.

The OP condemned BYU because of this one incident.  FD isolated this incident.

In any commuinity of 32,000 young adults, there are going to be issues of sexual misconduct.  This is particularly so at BYU, where there are real constraints on sexual behavior that do not exist at other schools.

But the topic here is whether there is a gender-based discrimination relative to application of the Honor Code.  The OP cited one uncorroborated instance, and from that declared: "Should males and females received the same consequence for breaking the BYU Honor Code for the same exact infraction?  BYU doesn't think so."

4 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Your anonymous and not-so-anonymous readers do have memory, and even if they didn’t the internet sure does. 

I think this thread could be more informed as to the past and present history of thread Honor Code and how it has been applied.

Feel free to present evidence of gender-based discriminatory application of the Honor Code.  I'm happy to consider what you have to offer.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Presumably not. I looked up the "interview" (if that's what we're calling these things) to see if there was any discussion about what happened with the other student, but I couldn't bring myself to listen to it.

The recording is nearly five hours long -- 4:56:30, to be precise. I'm sorry, but there's no way I'm sitting through a podcast with a runtime longer than Pearl Harbor and Battlefield Earth combined (and is even less enjoyable) just for this.

Yep.  I have a difficult time understanding how there are people who grouse about a two-hour block of meetings on Sunday but are thrilled to devote the better part of a workday (hours-wise) to listen to Dehlin's unfocused, uninformed meanderings.

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So I'll just say this: if students at BYU are voluntary engaging in uncoerced sex, in express violation of the Honor Code, I'm okay with them being kicked out for that - regardless of their gender, wealth, status, talent, etc.

Yep.

The woman reported herself for a violation of the Honor Code, and apparently accepted the consequences attendant to that.  That would have been honorable.  

If, as it seems, the other student did not report himself for a violation of the Honor Code, then BYU may have been left with only the uncorroborated say-so of the woman.  Is that enough to kick him out?  If he denied the misconduct, probably not.  

In the grand scheme of things, the woman behaved honorably.  "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" and all that.  I'm not sure what the particulars of her beef is, and I think less of her for going to John Dehlin with it. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Canadiandude]

Church-friendly source regarding the Police decertification scandal

Source on the first incident I mentioned.

It’s not merely a tree. It’s a forest.

[Canadiandude]

I believe you misunderstand.

The system has overall systemic effects which make it riskier for women to report on abuse such as rape.

Your examination of mere application is purposeful in that ignores actual incentives and disincentives. 
 

I’ll look for more evidence for what you are referring to but keep in mind that these incentives and disincentives are different and remain systematically embedded.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Church-friendly source regarding the Police decertification scandal

Source on the first incident I mentioned.

It’s not merely a tree. It’s a forest.

That is a whole different scandal and one that should have seen a lot more firings at the very least.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I believe you misunderstand.

The system has overall systemic effects which make it riskier for women to report on abuse such as rape.

Your examination of mere application is purposeful in that ignores actual incentives and disincentives. 
 

I’ll look for more evidence for what you are referring to but keep in mind that these incentives and disincentives are different and remain systematically embedded.

This story wasn’t rape.

[Amulek]

49 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Your anonymous and not-so-anonymous readers do have memory, and even if they didn’t the internet sure does. 

And sometimes those readers' memories are selective.

 

30 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

The system has overall systemic effects which make it riskier for women to report on abuse such as rape.

I think you mean to say "had," as in past tense.

With respect to victims of sexual misconduct, BYU has changed their policy to one of "confidentiality, amnesty, and leniency" (see, e.g., here).

But again, as others have pointed out, that doesn't have anything to do with the case referenced in the OP.
 

[Canadiandude]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This story wasn’t rape.

No it wasn’t, but it was about double-standards and about how women are more negatively affected by the Honour Code. 
 

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is a whole different scandal and one that should have seen a lot more firings at the very least.

Agreed, but there remains those disincentives.

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And sometimes those readers' memories are selective.

 

I think you mean to say "had," as in past tense.

With respect to victims of sexual misconduct, BYU has changed their policy to one of "confidentiality, amnesty, and leniency" (see, e.g., here).

But again, as others have pointed out, that doesn't have anything to do with the case referenced in the OP.
 

Thank-you for providing. Yes I’ve been reading up on that, if my memory is selective, understand that these changes only occurred recently (2017) on account of these women literally having to turn to the press, courts, and wider public so as to pressure BYU to make such changes.

These changes have been good but this trust in both the separation of BYU and the PD, and equitable application of the rules remains damaged, and I still believe that women would be more confident in reporting non consensual sexual abuse if non-marital sexual relations was not at all considered an issue of academic misconduct.

I will however concede that I am struggling to find prolific cases similar to the OP’s, where the people involved largely chose to come forward publicly and make issue of the differences of application. 
 

As a result of this inability to provide additional cases bearing stronger resemblance to the original case, I acknowledge that my argument must be made more modest. 

 

 

[Ipod Touch]

9 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Ah...did you read what I posted in my OP?

 

What you describe in your post could easily be stated as:

Quote

"The (student who produces no revenue for BYU ) was given a one year expulsion from BYU while (the student athlete football player who generates lots of income for BYU via lucrative ESPN contracts), who apparently felt no guilt, continued to play football for the Y (and suffered no consequences).

Can you show a continous and consistent pattern of BYU punishing females more than males?

Because I can show you a consistent pattern of BYU looking the other way (Jim McMahon being the most notable) when star football players run afoul of the HC.  I think my explanation is far more likely than yours.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Ipod Touch

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This story wasn’t rape.

No it wasn’t, but it was about double-standards and about how women are more negatively affected by the Honour Code. 

I'm not sure if you have been paying attention, but we don't even have enough information to know if there was a double standard in this specific case.

But don't let little details like that stand in your way of opining about how women are affected by the Honor Code. 

 

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

 I still believe that women would be more confident in reporting non consensual sexual abuse if non-marital sexual relations was not at all considered an issue of academic misconduct.

You know, it's refreshing when critics just come right out and say that they think the church ought to abandon its principles. 

Thanks, but no thanks.

If you want a university which embraces a student culture of alcohol-infused hook-ups, where regrettable sex is a daily occurrence, there are plenty of options out there. 

I'm not at all convinced that such an environment is better for women (or anyone else, for that matter).

 

[Ipod Touch]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is a whole different scandal and one that should have seen a lot more firings at the very least.

Why kick against the pricks, Nehor?  Those in authority would never abuse the power or spread untruths. You simply lack faith.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Why kick against the pricks, Nehor?  Those in authority would never abuse the power or spread untruths. You simply lack faith.

If criticizing silliness at Brigham Young University falls in the same category of Saul going about killing Christians I am undoubtedly going to hell. I am probably going there anyways for lots of other reasons so I am going to go out on a limb and say the Honor Code is stupid to me. It always has been since I was an adult and decided not to go to a church school, mostly because adults don’t have enforceable “honor” codes thrust on them. I think the Code is more for the parents than the students to be honest.

[juliann]

22 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The girl is now 27 and graduated. So it would have happened at least 9 years ago when she was 18-19. She said she was a freshman when it happened 

The girl? 

[Ipod Touch]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I think the Code is more for the parents than the students to be honest.

Do you deny the many testimonies strengthened by banning facial hair?

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Do you deny the many testimonies strengthened by banning facial hair?

I take no position on them as I have not read them. I choose not to read them (assuming they exist) because some knowledge is unholy.

As someone who cannot grow facial hair without looking like a predator I feel no one should be allowed facial hair anyways. So there.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As someone who cannot grow facial hair without looking like a predator I feel no one should be allowed facial hair anyways. So there.

My husband looks too much like a teddy bear without one. So I will fight you nigh unto death over this. 

[Canadiandude]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm not sure if you have been paying attention, but we don't even have enough information to know if there was a double standard in this specific case.

But don't let little details like that stand in your way of opining about how women are affected by the Honor Code. 

 

You know, it's refreshing when critics just come right out and say that they think the church ought to abandon its principles. 

Thanks, but no thanks.

If you want a university which embraces a student culture of alcohol-infused hook-ups, where regrettable sex is a daily occurrence, there are plenty of options out there. 

I'm not at all convinced that such an environment is better for women (or anyone else, for that matter).

 

Cute.
 

But that doesn’t necessarily counter my argument that the Honour Code does have a more severe impact upon women than men, and that women would feel more confident in reporting sexual abuse were the honour code to no longer consider consensual sex between unmarried adults as academic misconduct.

I have updated my argument upon investigating further- and yes, I have indeed been authentic as to what kind of arguments I could make and not make from what evidence I have.

In this specific case, I think we do have enough information to question the whether there was a different standard applied to the woman as opposed to the man. The question is how representative this case actually is in how similar honour code violations are treated in the case of women vs. men. 
 

As for the ‘critics’ you’re referring to, well, I believe the world to be a little more complicated than that, but you do you.

 

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

My husband looks too much like a teddy bear without one. So I will fight you nigh unto death over this. 

Teddy bears are cute. People who grow facial hair that belongs on an FBI’s most wanted list do not.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Teddy bears are cute. People who grow facial hair that belongs on an FBI’s most wanted list do not.

I am over 60. I am done with cute. At least in my partner. 
 

His is always tidy and relatively short. I don’t like longer beards as it throws off the balance of head to body, destroys the jawline rather than enhance it. I don’t like the Miami Vice look of stubble either. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Calm

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Cute.

Thanks.

 

Quote

But that doesn’t necessarily counter my argument that the Honour Code does have a more severe impact upon women than men, and that women would feel more confident in reporting sexual abuse were the honour code to no longer consider consensual sex between unmarried adults as academic misconduct.

This isn't an argument though - it's an assertion.

But maybe English isn't your primary language. By "argument" do you really mean "opinion?" [sincere question]

 

Quote

In this specific case, I think we do have enough information to question the whether there was a different standard applied to the woman as opposed to the man.

Really? Where?

Here's what we know about this particular situation: A female student went to the Honor Code office and reported that she slept with a male student athlete. The Honor Code office accepted her admission of personal wrongdoing and suspended her for one year. Based on her report, the Honor Code office proceeded to investigate the other student as well. We do not have any information at all regarding this other investigation. All we know is that, upon its completion, the second student was not suspended.

Now, in order for this to be a double standard, the athlete would have had to have confessed to violating the Honor Code during the course of the investigation and then received leniency that was not afforded to the female student. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

 

Quote

The question is how representative this case actually is in how similar honour code violations are treated in the case of women vs. men. 

No, the question is about evidence - not gender.

Consider the following hypothetical: Assume a male student went to the Honor Code office and admitted to having gone out drinking with the captain of the women's volleyball team. Based on his admission of violating the Honor Code, the school places him on probation for the following semester. The Honor Code office then initiates an investigation into the volleyball team captain, but she denies having gone out drinking. There aren't any pictures or any other evidence of her having been out drinking, so the Honor Code office - who, despite characterizations to the contrary, is not the Gestapo - does not place the volleyball captain on probation.

Would you consider such a situation as evidence of disparate treatment based on gender? Or is it based on evidence?

 

Quote

As for the ‘critics’ you’re referring to, well, I believe the world to be a little more complicated than that, but you do you.

Oh, it's not that complicated. I've been around the Internets long enough to spot a critic when I see one, and you (my friend) are a chicken-hawk...I mean, a critic.

 

[Navidad]

Someone made a distinction (if I understood correctly) on how a church member versus a non-church member should (or possibly might) have been treated differently in this situation. I don't agree with that. In our situation, we voluntarily affiliate or associate (pick your term) with a church (ward). We know the expectations for behavior for the members. It would be completely disingenuous of us not to voluntarily, freely, and happily conform to those standards ourselves as well if we expect to fellowship and worship with them, whether we agree with them or not. We also have the responsibility to conform to our own standards and expectations when they do not align with those of the ward/church, so we accept and live two standards, neither of which is higher than the other - they are simply different. I spent some years as a dean of students in a Baptist affiliated college. It never would have dawned on me to treat a Presbyterian student differently from a Baptist student, because he or she wasn't Baptist. All faith groups that I know of have standards. Early in our marriage, for years my wife did not wear slacks outside of the house because of the standards of the group with which the college and academy at which we both taught were affiliated. We didn't go to the movie theater either. I didn't agree with either as a standard of faith, but we believed we should neither offend nor be stumbling blocks, especially to the young people.

If someone agrees to attend, affiliate, or fellowship with those of a faith; I think it is only right that they not create potential issues by not conforming (happily) with the group's standards. That falls for me into the "I want to have my cake and eat it too" category of ethics.

Now I don't want to be hypocritical, so I must in honesty also tell you all that I finished writing this post while finishing a cup of tea, our fridge is full of Dr. Pepper, and my wife just walked into the office with a cup of coffee in her hand. So I guess we, in our nobleness are also guilty of carving out a few exceptions. I would not however drink tea or coffee in front of my LDS friends (at a restaurant, for example) -- if that helps? No, I didn't think so. We do offer them Dr. Pepper however, and many have accepted. Many of the men in our ward grew beards during the lock down, including our bishop. Many men grow beards during hunting season. Some have maintained their mustaches. I have a goatee. I don't have a calling.

To be fair as well, I don't think our LDS friends would invite us to their dances or play face cards either. I think we honor each honor our commitment to Christ when we honor each other, even if we don't agree with or personally have the same standards.

[OGHoosier]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I take no position on them as I have not read them. I choose not to read them (assuming they exist) because some knowledge is unholy.

As someone who cannot grow facial hair without looking like a predator I feel no one should be allowed facial hair anyways. So there.

I tried a beard during quarantine. Figured that since I wasn't gonna see that many people, it was the perfect time to see whether or not I could do it. 

The results appeared to make my family members more ill than the actual virus and thus I will be clean-shaven for the foreseeable future. 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Someone made a distinction (if I understood correctly) on how a church member versus a non-church member should (or possibly might) have been treated differently in this situation. I don't agree with that. In our situation, we voluntarily affiliate or associate (pick your term) with a church (ward). We know the expectations for behavior for the members. It would be completely disingenuous of us not to voluntarily, freely, and happily conform to those standards ourselves as well if we expect to fellowship and worship with them, whether we agree with them or not. We also have the responsibility to conform to our own standards and expectations when they do not align with those of the ward/church, so we accept and live two standards, neither of which is higher than the other - they are simply different. I spent some years as a dean of students in a Baptist affiliated college. It never would have dawned on me to treat a Presbyterian student differently from a Baptist student, because he or she wasn't Baptist. All faith groups that I know of have standards. Early in our marriage, for years my wife did not wear slacks outside of the house because of the standards of the group with which the college and academy at which we both taught were affiliated. We didn't go to the movie theater either. I didn't agree with either as a standard of faith, but we believed we should neither offend nor be stumbling blocks, especially to the young people.

If someone agrees to attend, affiliate, or fellowship with those of a faith; I think it is only right that they not create potential issues by not conforming (happily) with the group's standards. That falls for me into the "I want to have my cake and eat it too" category of ethics.

Now I don't want to be hypocritical, so I must in honesty also tell you all that I finished writing this post while finishing a cup of tea, our fridge is full of Dr. Pepper, and my wife just walked into the office with a cup of coffee in her hand. So I guess we, in our nobleness are also guilty of carving out a few exceptions. I would not however drink tea or coffee in front of my LDS friends (at a restaurant, for example) -- if that helps? No, I didn't think so. We do offer them Dr. Pepper however, and many have accepted. Many of the men in our ward grew beards during the lock down, including our bishop. Many men grow beards during hunting season. Some have maintained their mustaches. I have a goatee. I don't have a calling.

To be fair as well, I don't think our LDS friends would invite us to their dances or play face cards either. I think we honor each honor our commitment to Christ when we honor each other, even if we don't agree with or personally have the same standards.

Why would you think we wouldn't invite you to dances or play face cards?  I can maybe get the face cards since years ago we were discouraged from having them, but if someone is playing with them I have not idea why they wouldn't invite you.  

And I'm totally lost on the dancing unless they know you to be suggestive dancers, but if you tell me you and your wife are I won't believe it!

But as to the topic - the difference to me is possibly testimony.  A nonmember who goes to BYU and commits to not do certain behaviors may have made that commitment, but may not have the testimony of the gospel principle to help him live it.  That's actually true of the member too, but it's just part the limited knowledge we have of the case to make a judgment.  

And you can drink your tea and coffee while you are with me any time.  I have a broken coffee maker in my house right now that I haven't been able to fix and often have tea and coffee - all to go to refugees.  Neither you, nor they, have covenanted to not drink it so it doesn't matter to me that you do. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Rain

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Why would you think we wouldn't invite you to dances or play face cards? 

Dancing and using playing cards are restricted behaviors in some religions so LDS members would not invite him if they knew of his religious beliefs regarding such.