The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   BYU/St. Mary's (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/86881-byu-st-marys.html)

zm1283 Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:20pm
BYU/St. Mary's
 
Did anyone else watch this game? It just finished on ESPNU. I turned it on at halftime and I think they said they had some intentional fouls in the first half and a warning for BYU's fans throwing stuff on the court. In the second half, they had an INT, a T for the fans throwing stuff on the court, and both head coaches got whacked. It was nuts. Hopefully someone can find some video.

tjones1 Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:33pm
I watched the very end of the game. They were throwing more stuff onto the floor. It looked like the floor supervisors were just watching.

zm1283 Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1 (Post 817641)
I watched the very end of the game. They were throwing more stuff onto the floor. It looked like the floor supervisors were just watching.
Yeah they started with about four seconds left after the ball went OOB. SMC just threw it in and they let the clock run down and everyone got the heck out of Dodge. Pretty poor showing by BYU. Their students were doing the "Worst refs ever" chant toward the end of the game. Of course these are the same people wanting a backcourt violation called when SMC's player jumped from the FC to BC on a throw in and caught the ball in the air, so that should tell you something.

Larks Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:10pm
BYU Students Earned The Vaunted "Crowd Technical Foul" Last Night

Video is there

SCalScoreKeeper Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:36pm
That is absolutely disgraceful! If I am a BYU administrator the entire student section is abolished for 5 home games to send a message unless the culprit comes forward.If the culprit comes forward he/she needs to be banned for the rest of the season and quite possibly expelled.

JRutledge Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper (Post 817955)
That is absolutely disgraceful! If I am a BYU administrator the entire student section is abolished for 5 home games to send a message unless the culprit comes forward.If the culprit comes forward he/she needs to be banned for the rest of the season and quite possibly expelled.
No, they are into banning players from teams because they had sexual intercourse with their girlfriend. They have bigger fish to fry. ;)

Peace

Matt Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper (Post 817955)
That is absolutely disgraceful! If I am a BYU administrator the entire student section is abolished for 5 home games to send a message unless the culprit comes forward.If the culprit comes forward he/she needs to be banned for the rest of the season and quite possibly expelled.
I watched the game--there wasn't a culprit. It looked like a scene out of a prison riot, with the amount of materials being thrown. Most didn't reach the court.

Rich Mon Jan 30, 2012 01:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 817984)
No, they are into banning players from teams because they had sexual intercourse with their girlfriend. They have bigger fish to fry. ;)

Peace
Or because they drank a cup of coffee.

Kelvin green Mon Jan 30, 2012 09:25am
Be careful where this thread goes. I am not a BYU fan and many of their fans are nuts but dont attack beliefs.

You may not like hem but dont need to ridicule or make fun of them as that directly does attack some of us on the board

JRutledge Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin green (Post 818068)
Be careful where this thread goes. I am not a BYU fan and many of their fans are nuts but dont attack beliefs.

You may not like hem but dont need to ridicule or make fun of them as that directly does attack some of us on the board
Don't be so sensitive. I am not attacking beliefs, but their policy. There are other religious institutions that hold another set of beliefs and they have not been known to suspend players for religious violations that other institutions seem to never penalize players for. That also being said BYU has been accused to be selective as to who they penalize. ESPN did a story on this last season and had many former players comment on the selectivity of those policy actions. This would be no different if another religious of another faith getting the same crap. The problem is maybe maybe there are some putting too much responsibility for their beliefs on one institution. ;)

Peace

Rich Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 818081)
Don't be so sensitive. I am not attacking beliefs, but their policy. There are other religious institutions that hold another set of beliefs and they have not been known to suspend players for religious violations that other institutions seem to never penalize players for. That also being said BYU has been accused to be selective as to who they penalize. ESPN did a story on this last season and had many former players comment on the selectivity of those policy actions. This would be no different if another religious of another faith getting the same crap. The problem is maybe maybe there are some putting too much responsibility for their beliefs on one institution. ;)

Peace
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.

Adam Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:34am
Their policy is based on the conviction of their beliefs; so you'd feel better if they weren't so strict with their beliefs?

You can disagree with it, and you certainly have the right to ridicule it, but I think it's silly to do so. As a Hawkeye fan, I remember the Pierre Pierce debacle, so I found BYU's stance refreshing, even if I thought it was a bit heavy handed.

They not only have the right to enforce their policy, they have the right to consider whatever mitigating circumstances they choose to allow. Some expose by ESPN doesn't change that.

Rich Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 818086)
Their policy is based on the conviction of their beliefs; so you'd feel better if they weren't so strict with their beliefs?

You can disagree with it, and you certainly have the right to ridicule it, but I think it's silly to do so. As a Hawkeye fan, I remember the Pierre Pierce debacle, so I found BYU's stance refreshing, even if I thought it was a bit heavy handed.

They not only have the right to enforce their policy, they have the right to consider whatever mitigating circumstances they choose to allow. Some expose by ESPN doesn't change that.
Quite frankly, I have a problem with an honor code 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadspin
The reality isn't so appealing. While it's impossible to know how many students disobey BYU's honor code, which prohibits fornication and alcohol use, among other things, the honor code violations that come to light almost always involve student-athletes. And they almost always involve athletes of color. Since 1993, according to our research, at least 70 athletes have been suspended, dismissed, put on probation, or forced to withdraw from their teams or the school after running afoul of the honor code. Fifty-four of them, or nearly 80 percent, are minorities. Forty-one, or almost 60 percent, are black men. These are conservative numbers, compiled from media reports and interviews. In several cases, we could not confirm an honor code violation. In other cases, we could not establish the race or ethnicity of the athlete involved. We excluded those cases from our tally.

Clearly, though, something is amiss at BYU, where around 23 percent of the athletes are minorities, according to the university. Only .6 percent of the student body is black (176 out of the 32,947 students enrolled in 2010). Yet a majority of the honor code violations involve black athletes. Do these numbers mean these athletes "sin" more than everyone else? Hardly. Several former BYU football players told us that their white teammates routinely broke the honor code and got away with it, either because they didn't get caught or because their violations were covered up. (To a lesser extent, this holds true for Polynesian athletes, 14 of whom are included in our honor code tally. More on that later.) Mormon athletes can turn to bishops and church leaders from their own homogeneous communities — people who look like them and might even be related to them — to "repent" and avoid official punishment. Black athletes, who are typically non-Mormon, rarely have this option.

JRutledge Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 818086)
Their policy is based on the conviction of their beliefs; so you'd feel better if they weren't so strict with their beliefs?

You can disagree with it, and you certainly have the right to ridicule it, but I think it's silly to do so. As a Hawkeye fan, I remember the Pierre Pierce debacle, so I found BYU's stance refreshing, even if I thought it was a bit heavy handed.

They not only have the right to enforce their policy, they have the right to consider whatever mitigating circumstances they choose to allow. Some expose by ESPN doesn't change that.
I do not want to get too deep into this because this has many layers. But this not about a comparison with a guy that was accused of rape and a guy that was accused to having a situation with a person of the opposite sex. BTW, that Pierre Pierce situation was kind of close to home as that young man lived a town or two over and I know someone personally that played basketball on the girl's side at that school at the same time he was there. She new him personally and how dumb he was.

Let us keep this all in mind about BYU, a person like Jim Mcmahon was a star at that school and I do not know of him adhering to rules based on his own comments. And when you have former players saying they were penalized and others were not penalized, that is a problem. And based on the inference I would not know why anyone would want to go there in the first place. Remember there are other religious colleges that do not have these accusations or at least not with their athletes and in a public way. If you want to believe in something that is fine, but people can look at the institution's policies just like they do with other organizations and be critical. And I doubt seriously they are going kick out a person for throwing something on a court and acting out publicly as to me that would be worse than a personal interaction that unless you had cameras you would not always know took place.

Peace

VaTerp Mon Jan 30, 2012 02:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 818086)
Their policy is based on the conviction of their beliefs; so you'd feel better if they weren't so strict with their beliefs?

You can disagree with it, and you certainly have the right to ridicule it, but I think it's silly to do so. As a Hawkeye fan, I remember the Pierre Pierce debacle, so I found BYU's stance refreshing, even if I thought it was a bit heavy handed.

They not only have the right to enforce their policy, they have the right to consider whatever mitigating circumstances they choose to allow. Some expose by ESPN doesn't change that.
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.

fiasco Mon Jan 30, 2012 02:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 818084)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 02:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 818091)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 02:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 818219)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 02:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 818219)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 02:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 818219)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 02:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 818223)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 02:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 818235)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 02:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 818238)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 02:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 818228)
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 818235)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 818246)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 818239)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 818251)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 818237)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 818246)
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 Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 818246)
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.

Adam Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 818258)
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.
I question the policy; but the way it was brought up by Rut in this thread qualifies as gratuitous ridicule, IMO.

Camron Rust Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 818237)
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.
Most religious beliefs seem outlandish from the point of view of other religions. That is the nature of religion. Most of what most religions believe is of the same, but different, nature.

fiasco Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 818258)

I only used ridicule because that is the word Snaqs used. More appropriate terms would probably be criticize or question.
Well, words matter. There's a world of difference between criticize, question and ridicule.

VaTerp Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 818265)
Well, words matter. There's a world of difference between criticize, question and ridicule.
Words do matter and please show me anywhere in this thread where someone's beliefs were ridiculed.

And I actually feel strongly enough about some people's beliefs that I think they are worthy of even ridicule. If that makes me silly in some people's eyes so be it. Some of the things that people "believe in" makes them silly in mine.

JRutledge Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 818242)
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.
I did not make the claim about this policy really, I said that if they are going to be worried about something they should worry about suspending kids for actions with the honor code, not a fan and their actions. That was a joke and just like people make jokes about other religious institutions for their lack of consistency or hypocrisy they show as well. As an official usually the most profane or out of control individuals I see come from the religious schools. So yes their policies can and will be questioned. That being said I think there was a little more to the ESPN story than hearsay. Just like a source gives a reporter some information as to some data that they have access to. The story was a little more than someone giving what they thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 818242)
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.
Yes he did confess, but there was also a part of the report that he was accused of doing this based on some other information. Also it was said that there were people trying to "catch" students in violation and having fellow students tell on each other. He did confess, but it was said he was hounded to find a violation. And it does appear that there are some reports they do not apply the rule evenly. I do not claim to know, but if any of that is true then they have the right to be criticized for their policy and application of that policy. Just like any other issue would be up for scrutiny at any other institution, public or private.

Peace

Adam Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:14pm
Apparently they deserve to be criticized even if any of it might be true.

fiasco Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 818271)
Words do matter and please show me anywhere in this thread where someone's beliefs were ridiculed.
Why would I have any need to do that since I've never said anyone's beliefs were ridiculed?

I'm merely responding to your statement that it's acceptable practice to ridicule someone else's beliefs.

fiasco Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 818275)
That being said I think there was a little more to the ESPN story than hearsay.
Like what?

VaTerp Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 818281)
Why would I have any need to do that since I've never said anyone's beliefs were ridiculed?

I'm merely responding to your statement that it's acceptable practice to ridicule someone else's beliefs.
You don't need to do anything. I simply asked b/c you see to be on a soap box about ridiculing people's beliefs here and I was curious as to whether you, like Snaqs, thought that had been done in this thread.

For the record, and before this thing gets locked, I stand by my original statement. IMO it is acceptable practice to ridicule certain beliefs, even those that are religious in nature, given the right place and time.

Many, if not most, will disagree. I don't care.

JRutledge Mon Jan 30, 2012 03:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 818285)
Like what?
There were documents referenced as well as school officials that wished not to be identified. If you watch Outside the Lines often, this is typical of how investigated stories are conducted with people on the inside making claims of information they are privy to a policy or information. Not everyone is going to give a face to face interview and let it be known they have a opposition to a policy or its application. It has been awhile so maybe I can find some information to highlight this, but the story from Deadspin was not the only place where this was claimed about their policy. Now you do not have to accept this, but like many institutions there are things they might be inconsistent with in application and probably have people around that point these things out to the administration. Just because you do not agree with it does not make it untrue either.

Peace


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1