BYU/St. Mary's

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm with Rut here -- BYU has been hypocritical and selective on applying penalties for those beliefs and it's the institution I'm mocking, not the beliefs. I'm happy to let people have their beliefs and their rules, but then those rules should be applied across the board, not when they want to use them as an excuse to get rid of an "undesirable" player.

What in the world are you talking about? Davies wasn't an "undesirable" player. He was a significant part of the BYU defense last year. If BYU wanted to do what was best for the team, they would have found a way to skirt the issue.

The fact is that the rule of receiving a suspension for having sex with your girlfriend was applied the same as it is "across the board" in that case. I know plenty of people who have gone to BYU, and it's SOP to get at least a suspension for doing what Davies did.

So I'm not really sure where I see the inconsistency...

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

when it's pretty obvious to me that Brandon Davies probably wouldn't have been suspended had he not been an African American. Being a clean cut Caucasian must be a mitigating circumstance.

Yes, I'm quoting Deadspin. But the editorial written has some pretty appalling statistics.

Yes, you're quoting Deadspin. Let's all remember that.

The question is, what basis does Deadspin have for saying "a majority of Honor Code violations involve black athletes"?

There's no way to know that, because BYU doesn't release that kind of information. It's not common practice for the school to publicly release who has or has not received an Honor Code violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I don't think it's silly in the least to criticize a policy that is enforced in a discirminatory manner, as appears to be the case at BYU. And that's based on more than "some expose by ESPN."

In fact, I don't even think it's silly to ridicule some of the beliefs of Mormonism or any other organized religion once one learns more about the true origins of them. And that is not an "attack" on anyone, rather a simple opinion. I'll leave it at that in recongition of time and place for that conversation.

What I do think is incredibly silly is alluding to a comparison between someone who was convicted of multiple felonies, including attempt to commit sexual abuse and another person who had consentual sex with their girlfriend. Beyond silly.

I'll admit the comparison was a stretch, but my point still stands. One university standing up for their principles vs another that did not. I personally disagree with the BYU policy, and if their enforcement has been demonstrably sketchy, that's a different issue altogether.

And comparing the recent enforcement to McMahon 30 years ago is also not applicable, IMO, as there's just no way you can hold current administrators responsible for infractions ignored by the people running it 30 years ago.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I don't think it's silly in the least to criticize a policy that is enforced in a discirminatory manner, as appears to be the case at BYU. And that's based on more than "some expose by ESPN."

Just because there were people 25 years ago that didn't get suspended, when different people were in charge, doesn't mean it is discriminatory. All it means is that the current leaders are enforcing it and the old ones didn't. Inconsistent over time, sure...but not discriminatory.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

In fact, I don't even think it's silly to ridicule some of the beliefs of Mormonism or any other organized religion once one learns more about the true origins of them. And that is not an "attack" on anyone, rather a simple opinion. I'll leave it at that in recongition of time and place for that conversation.

I think mocking someone else's religious beliefs is silly, no matter how outlandish you may think they are. If you want to disagree with someone, that's just fine when you do it in a mature way.

But to ridicule (mock and deride) the beliefs that someone else has is immature and petty, and it only leads to becoming more insular and less accepting of people who don't share the same beliefs.

Do I always practice this? No. I'm not perfect. But I wish I was better at it, because I know I don't appreciate my beliefs being ridiculed, and I'm sure you don't either.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

What in the world are you talking about? Davies wasn't an "undesirable" player. He was a significant part of the BYU defense last year. If BYU wanted to do what was best for the team, they would have found a way to skirt the issue.

The fact is that the rule of receiving a suspension for having sex with your girlfriend was applied the same as it is "across the board" in that case. I know plenty of people who have gone to BYU, and it's SOP to get at least a suspension for doing what Davies did.

So I'm not really sure where I see the inconsistency...

You obviously did not see the ESPN Story on this topic as they did question the validity of the policy and the consistency of the policy. They even had claims of players not being penalized that were likely violating that policy. It was a little more than hearsay, there were people that were found out to have violated the policy and not suspended. I was not there or have no idea personally what was done or not done, but this was a little more than Deadspin making these claims.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just because there were people 25 years ago that didn't get suspended, when different people were in charge, doesn't mean it is discriminatory. All it means is that the current leaders are enforcing it and the old ones didn't. Inconsistent over time, sure...but not discriminatory.

For the record there were claims that were not 25 or 10 years old. Some of the situations were in the last few years.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You obviously did not see the ESPN Story on this topic as they did question the validity of the policy and the consistency of the policy. They even had claims of players not being penalized that were likely violating that policy. It was a little more than hearsay, there were people that were found out to have violated the policy and not suspended. I was not there or have no idea personally what was done or not done, but this was a little more than Deadspin making these claims.

Peace

I did see the piece. I still take issue with any sort of "statistics" claiming that black athletes are suspended at a higher rate for honor code violations than white athletes.

I take issue with it because there's no way to even have that information. BYU doesn't release that kind of information, so they're going off a bunch of interviews with former players. Hardly seems scientific at all. And so it really is all hearsay, which is fine. Let's just not pretend that the opinions being formed in this thread about BYU's Honor Code practices are somehow based on fact. They're not. They're based on innuendo.

One of the biggest issues here is that Brandon Davies confessed what he had done to his coach and, IIRC, his ecclesiastical leader. Of course there are going to be a lot of students (white or not, athlete or not) who get away with stuff, because they don't do what Davies had the conviction to do -- admit that he had broken the Honor Code to his leader. Making an apples-to-apples comparison of the Davies case and those kinds of people who intentionally break the rules and try to get away with it and saying there's some sort of injustice going on is just plain stupid.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'll admit the comparison was a stretch, but my point still stands. One university standing up for their principles vs another that did not. I personally disagree with the BYU policy, and if their enforcement has been demonstrably sketchy, that's a different issue altogether.

And comparing the recent enforcement to McMahon 30 years ago is also not applicable, IMO, as there's just no way you can hold current administrators responsible for infractions ignored by the people running it 30 years ago.

Fair enough on the point of a university/institution standing up for their principles. I just think it is extremely unfair to compare the criminal actions of Pierce to violation of a school honor code of Davies.

I think there is evidence that suggest the inconsistency of enforcement goes far beyond the Jim McMahon example.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just because there were people 25 years ago that didn't get suspended, when different people were in charge, doesn't mean it is discriminatory. All it means is that the current leaders are enforcing it and the old ones didn't. Inconsistent over time, sure...but not discriminatory.

Again, there is evidence that goes beyond some things that may have happened "25 years ago." We are all entitle to our opinions. Based on what I have seen and heard, including info from people who attended BYU, I think they have selective enforcement of their policy. And as a private institution, they pretty much have the right to do so. But it doesn't mean that I can't/won't voice my opinion on it.

But I think this thread has gone about as far down that road as is appropriate for this forum. I will say though that I find it ironic and hypocritical that a school with such a high standard on personal conduct had fans throwing debris on the court at a basketball game multiple times with seemingly no disciplinary action or public statement from the administration. I stand corrected if the latter is not the case.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I will say though that I find it ironic and hypocritical that a school with such a high standard on personal conduct had fans throwing debris on the court at a basketball game multiple times with seemingly no disciplinary action or public statement from the administration. I stand corrected if the latter is not the case.

Common ground on this paragraph.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

For the record there were claims that were not 25 or 10 years old. Some of the situations were in the last few years.

Peace

Perhaps they were. And I seriously doubt they will ever comment on why one person was or was not suspended.

In the Davies case, he admitted to violating the policy and made that known in the press himself (or through an authorized representative). Perhaps with others, they've not and it has only been a suspicion with no proof. Claims of people not being suspended are only that...perhaps the authorities in charge didn't feel they had enough evidence to take action.

I can tell you for a fact that they enforce the code (which covers many issues). I have direct knowledge of someone sent home from school for violating the code (in a different way) and it was just a few months ago. But it didn't make the press.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Perhaps they were. And I seriously doubt they will ever comment on why one person was or was not suspended.

In the Davies case, he admitted to violating the policy and made that known in the press himself (or through an authorized representative). Perhaps with others, they've not and it has only been a suspicion with no proof. Claims of people not being suspended are only that...perhaps the authorities in charge didn't feel they had enough evidence to take action.

I can tell you for a fact that they enforce the code (which covers many issues). I have direct knowledge of someone sent home from school for violating the code (in a different way) and it was just a few months ago. But it didn't make the press.

He put them in quite a bind by going public with it; enforce the policy or be seen as catering to star athletes.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I think mocking someone else's religious beliefs is silly, no matter how outlandish you may think they are. If you want to disagree with someone, that's just fine when you do it in a mature way.

But to ridicule (mock and deride) the beliefs that someone else has is immature and petty, and it only leads to becoming more insular and less accepting of people who don't share the same beliefs.

Do I always practice this? No. I'm not perfect. But I wish I was better at it, because I know I don't appreciate my beliefs being ridiculed, and I'm sure you don't either.

Personally, I don't care if anyone ridicules my beliefs. I have enough confidence and conviction in what I believe in that it does not matter to me. But I'm less sensitive and less easily offended than most.

I only used ridicule because that is the word Snaqs used. More appropriate terms would probably be criticize or question.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I will say though that I find it ironic and hypocritical that a school with such a high standard on personal conduct had fans throwing debris on the court at a basketball game multiple times with seemingly no disciplinary action or public statement from the administration. I stand corrected if the latter is not the case.

I hope they do something about that. But, they are not one to have an immediate response nor one to tell you who they disciplined. If they do something, they'll investigate and consider the situation carefully and make a well thought out statement when they have concluded their analysis. They very likely will take actions but keep them private....maybe with a general statement about the overall behavior.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I will say though that I find it ironic and hypocritical that a school with such a high standard on personal conduct had fans throwing debris on the court at a basketball game multiple times with seemingly no disciplinary action or public statement from the administration. I stand corrected if the latter is not the case.

Once again, how would you know if disciplinary action was or wasn't taken? So how can you then find it hypocritical?

Ironic, yes. Hypocritical? Who knows.