BYU Hypocrisy and Double Standard

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

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. 

Ahh ok.  I was reading it wrong.  Thanks! I knew dance was a thing with other religions.  I didn't know face cards was.

[Calm]

4 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 differentiated not on a “should be treated differently” basis, but rather there was a good chance the individual would not have viewed our covenants to follow the Law of Chastity (no premarital sex) in the same way as an active and devout member would, who likely would feel the need to confess when breaking.  This doesn’t even need to mean he had less respect for being chaste, simply he viewed the process differently.  He may have been just as committed to no premarital sex, but believed it was solely between himself and God and thus believed it best not to confess to any but God. 
 

This difference in attitude might have driven some behaviour from coaches and others who wanted to keep a star player around and thus they may have protected him from getting pressured to open up to the HC assuming the incident actually happened.

This would have been unfortunate Imo, as I agree if someone chooses to voluntarily associate with a community, that they should also live by the standards they have committed to, truly try to be part of the community rather than just take what benefits are offered (scholarships and publicity as a star player at a semibigger school more likely to get attention for a better job when going professional).

I am not here assuming this is how it played out as the player may not have been involved with the woman at all or dated but no honor code violations occurred is also a possibility since we have no corresponding confession or evidence besides the woman’s own claims, but rather it is one of many possibilities that happened, most of which we have very limited info on.  I do think the willingness of her to be suspended pushes her story to more likely than not though. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Calm

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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. 

thanks strappinglad. You are absolutely right. Sorry I didn't make what I said as clear as you did!

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

Ahh ok.  I was reading it wrong.  Thanks! I knew dance was a thing with other religions.  I didn't know face cards was.

Hi Rain: Yes, playing cards is a no-no for us. It is associated with being worldly and gambling - both bad things for a conservative Mennonite. I believe they are really more cultural than theological, but for some reason they have stuck with me. By saying what I said in my previous post I was trying to compliment the folks in our ward. Sorry I didn't say it better. They wouldn't want to risk offending us any more than we would them. Take care

[Canadiandude]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

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

It is an argument. I have already acknowledged that the case I formerly brought up cannot be used to ground the contention that the honour code is applied differently between men and women.

Yet it is indeed reasonable to contend from the article I shared, and the one below that there is a systemic effect that the Code creates that disproportionately affects women, who are indeed more commonly the victims of sexual assault.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/byu-is-under-fire-again-for-punishing-sex-assault-victims/

 

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

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.

What makes this a fact but my aforementioned position not an argument?

This might be your Manichean construction of the world, but it requires greater nuance. There are plenty of members and nonmembers that concur with the church on some policies and doctrines but not all.

As I have only just arrived, you have no well-established pattern of behaviour to work with, and besides-

Being open to criticism is a necessary part of critical thinking and reasoned decision-making.

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

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.

Rewatch the video. Starting at the 3:30:42 mark.

Did you also skip the earlier part regarding the football team, or that of her roommate’s experience?

The player would later have to sit out a season for engaging in sexual behaviour (again)

Furthermore, if the sexual partner denies it ever happened or there or not enough evidence to suggest that he did in her specific case, why should her confession of having sexual relations with him matter?

People are making comparisons to a criminal investigation but I’m not convinced of the equivalency in terms, that a confession automatically implicates a person when the act requires at least 2 people and the other person denies having ever engaged therein.

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

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

 

Does it matter? Your purpose in pointing this out seems more intended to patronize the person you’re responding to than understand what they are trying to say.

 

[Navidad]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

I differentiated not on a “should be treated differently” basis, but rather there was a good chance the individual would not have viewed our covenants to follow the Law of Chastity (no premarital sex) in the same way as an active and devout member would, who likely would feel the need to confess when breaking.  This doesn’t even need to mean he had less respect for being chaste, simply he viewed the process differently.  He may have been just as committed to no premarital sex, but believed it was solely between himself and God and thus believed it best not to confess to any but God. 
 

This difference in attitude might have driven some behaviour from coaches and others who wanted to keep a star player around and thus they may have protected him from getting pressured to open up to the HC assuming the incident actually happened.

This would have been unfortunate Imo, as I agree if someone chooses to voluntarily associate with a community, that they should also live by the standards they have committed to, truly try to be part of the community rather than just take what benefits are offered (scholarships and publicity as a star player at a semibigger school more likely to get attention for a better job when going professional).

I am not here assuming this is how it played out as the player may not have been involved with the woman at all or dated but no honor code violations occurred is also a possibility since we have no corresponding confession or evidence besides the woman’s own claims, but rather it is one of many possibilities that happened, most of which we have very limited info on.  I do think the willingness of her to be suspended pushes her story to more likely than not though. 

Thanks Calm. Might I add a Mennonite joke? We don't believe in premarital sex because it leads to dancing!

[Canadiandude]

Yes, my type sizing is irregular. I’m messaging from my phone and cannot edit my posts as I’m still quite new.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

But that doesn’t necessarily counter my argument that the Honour Code does have a more severe impact upon women than men,

Sure would like to see evidence of this.

16 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

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.

Extra-marital sex is not a gender-specific thing.  Both men and women at BYU are required to abstain.

16 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

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.

I don't.  We have virtually no credible, competent evidence as to what happened, or why, etc.

16 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

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

If women are held to a different (higher) standard than men re: sexual misconduct, then that should be addressed.

I just don't know that we have much to go on here.  I mean, I could anecdotally point to Dan Reynolds, who was suspended from BYU for sexual misconduct.  Where does that leave us?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Extra-marital sex is not a gender-specific thing.  Both men and women at BYU are required to abstain.

I think the issue would be if rape/sexual assaults happen more often to women than men, especially date rape. Even if the rule applies equally to both and both would be equally punished if they confessed, when one needs to confess to breaking a covenant to report a rape, if women are victims more often, the impact will be greater for them in terms of numbers at least.  
 

I have no clue if once confessed, there is a difference in treatment, as in more or less likely to believed or level of penalty.

Something parallel could be seen with gays who were assaulted on dates…they have to admit to breaking the honor code before they can get attention paid to the crime of assault. If this means they face suspension or other complications with the possibility of nothing happening because it is word against word, a gay man may be more reluctant than a straight man to report date rape. 
 

There is also a huge issue with men even being willing to report sexual assault from anyone as they are less likely to be believed (at least in the past) or even told it couldn’t be rape because they were aroused during the violence. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Calm

[Canadiandude]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure would like to see evidence of this.

16 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Good thing I provided a link with featuring a good examination on the subject.

I’ll post it again since ya must’ve missed it.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/byu-is-under-fire-again-for-punishing-sex-assault-victims/

 

[smac97]

.

Edited August 13, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Good thing I provided a link with featuring a good examination on the subject.

I’ll post it again since ya must’ve missed it.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/byu-is-under-fire-again-for-punishing-sex-assault-victims/

No, I saw this.  From 2018.  

You said "But that doesn’t necessarily counter my argument that the Honour Code does have a more severe impact upon women than men."

Evidence of this happening now is what I would like to see.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Canadiandude]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the issue would be if rape/sexual assaults happen more often to women than men, especially date rape. Even if the rule applies equally to both and both would be equally punished if they confessed, when one needs to confess to breaking a covenant to report a rape, if women are victims more often, the impact will be greater for them. 

Yes. Exactly. I appreciate your phrasing.  

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the issue would be if rape/sexual assaults happen more often to women than men, especially date rape.

Right.  And it seems that BYU is taking that into account now.

But in terms of a gender-based disparaty in Honor Code enforcement relative to consensual extra-marital sex, I'd like to see evidence of that.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even if the rule applies equally to both and both would be equally punished if they confessed, when one needs to confess to breaking a covenant to report a rape, if women are victims more often, the impact will be greater for them in terms of numbers at least.  

I don't understand.  How is it that "one needs to confess to breaking a covenant to report a rape?"  What are you referencing here?

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have no clue if once confessed, there is a difference in treatment, as in more or less likely to believed or level of penalty.

Treatment of, and penalty for, what, though?  A woman who has been sexually assaulted is not in violation of the Honor Code.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Something parallel could be seen with gays who were assaulted on dates…they have to admit to breaking the honor code before they can get attention paid to the crime of assault.  If this means they face suspension or other complications with the possibility of nothing happening because it is word against word, a gay man may be more reluctant than a straight man to report date rape. 

Right.  But hasn't BYU addressed this?   

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is also a huge issue with men even being willing to report sexual assault from anyone as they are less likely to be believed (at least in the past) or even told it couldn’t be rape because they were aroused during the violence. 

Yes, that could also be a problem.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How is it that "one needs to confess to breaking a covenant to report a rape?"  What are you referencing here?

Date rape often includes drinking or engaging in behavior that breaks the honor code before the rape occurs. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

woman who has been sexually assaulted is not in violation of the Honor Code.

Not for the rape, but possibly for other behaviours that occurred at the same time, such as drinking, going to a man’s bedroom alone or having him go to hers, taking clothes off, etc….all can occur and there still be nonconsensual sex. 
 

Quote

But hasn't BYU addressed this?   

Hopefully, but policy doesn’t always equal practice. 
 

I agree that using examples from prepolicy changes to suggest a current discrimination is inappropriate as anything but a sign a close look at what is happening now should be taken because institutional habits can be harder to change than just writing a new policy. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi Rain: Yes, playing cards is a no-no for us. It is associated with being worldly and gambling - both bad things for a conservative Mennonite. I believe they are really more cultural than theological, but for some reason they have stuck with me. By saying what I said in my previous post I was trying to compliment the folks in our ward. Sorry I didn't say it better. They wouldn't want to risk offending us any more than we would them. Take care

Thanks.   😀

The face card gambling was a thing for us too.  I just haven't heard about it for several decades so often members don't know anything about it. 

[The Nehor]

I think we can say with certainty that several years ago before the changes there is at least one case where the BYU Honor Code office fell harder on a student because:

-she was a woman
-she was a member
-she was not an important athlete
-she confessed
-she shot JFK
-she was the kind of person who would talk with John Dehlin
-she went to school before the Honor Code changes

or some combination of any of the above. Glad we figured this out. I think we have increased our understanding and have come closer to……..okay, yeah, I got nothing.

[Amulek]

20 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Rewatch the video. Starting at the 3:30:42 mark.

That is not how I plan on spending my weekend. 

Why don't you just tell me what is lacking in my summary of the events in this case and we can go from there.

 

Quote

Did you also skip the earlier part regarding the football team, or that of her roommate’s experience?

Please provide the details and explain how they are relevant to the discussion. 

 

Quote

The player would later have to sit out a season for engaging in sexual behaviour (again)

And what were the circumstances that led to him having to sit out a season? Specifically, was the evidence against him the same or different than it had been previously?

 

Quote

Furthermore, if the sexual partner denies it ever happened or there or not enough evidence to suggest that he did in her specific case, why should her confession of having sexual relations with him matter?

People are making comparisons to a criminal investigation but I’m not convinced of the equivalency in terms, that a confession automatically implicates a person when the act requires at least 2 people and the other person denies having ever engaged therein.

I don't agree. Accountability is an individual, not a group, matter. Otherwise this would be a pretty easy get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone who breaks the rules along with another person.

I mean, assume that a student walks into the Honor Code office and confesses to having cheated on one of his final exams. He says that he flirted with the TA and got her to show him the questions in advance. The Honor Code office investigates the TA but isn't able to prove that she gave him the questions. Should the school discipline the confessed cheater or should they let him get away with it just because they didn't have enough evidence to formally punish the TA also? 

 

Quote

Does it matter? Your purpose in pointing this out seems more intended to patronize the person you’re responding to than understand what they are trying to say.

It was a sincere question. ESL speakers sometimes use the wrong words to convey what they are trying to say.  

For example, someone who is Indian might use the English word "argument" when what they really mean is something more like "contention" (which is an assertion). That's why I was asking.

Trust me, you'll know when I get to patronizing.  

 

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Amulek

[Fair Dinkum]

On 8/12/2021 at 8:02 PM, juliann said:

The girl? 

Sorry. I’m still learning. “The woman”

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Sorry. I’m still learning. “The woman”

If you are really concerned about unequal and hypocritical treatment, I would advise more effort into using “woman” when talking seriously about inequality experienced by adult females as infantilizing them is one major factor..  It is in my experience a major signal to many women whether you see them as independent, mature or not.  In casual conversation among friends, using “girl” or “boy” reads differently, like using nicknames is okay among friends, but could show lack of respect in a professional setting.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

“girl” or “boy”

Part of the problem is that in the vernacular, girl can be opposite “boy” or “guy” (“gal” just isn’t used at least where I’m at). Either way, woman is much better. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Part of the problem is that in the vernacular, girl can be opposite “boy” or “guy” (“gal” just isn’t used at least where I’m at). Either way, woman is much better. 

Yes, if you wouldn’t use “boy” naturally in the same sort of context, then best to use woman or female, IMO.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, if you wouldn’t use “boy” naturally in the same sort of context, then best to use woman or female, IMO.

In a thread about the mistreatment of women no less… 

[Fair Dinkum]

On 8/14/2021 at 9:07 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In a thread about the mistreatment of women no less… 

Yup my bad