Sunday, December 21, 2014

LDS statements again at odds with BYU's religious freedom policy

Earlier this month, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published the "Fourth in a five-part series on why faith matters to society" entitled In Honor of Human Rights:


Earlier this fall, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also published "I Knew What I Had to Do," a story about a young man who was kicked out of school for distributing LDS pamphlets:


Since both are relatively short, I will reproduce them here: followed by commentary that applies their reasoning to the issue of religious freedom at BYU.


In Honor of Human Rights

“It’s a great affirmation of the possibility of overcoming conflict through reason and good will.” — Mary Ann Glendon[1]

Sixty-six years ago a document graced the world that set new horizons for human relations. It is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and was the first global expression of its kind.

Leaders from different nations, cultures, religions and political systems came together to establish standards of humaneness that apply to everyone, everywhere. The opening lines proclaim that “the inherent dignity” and “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” are the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”[2]

Built in the ashes of World War II and the Holocaust, this declaration provided a collective aspiration to develop “friendly relations between nations”[3] and to bring out the highest and best in our common civilization here on earth.

Why we should care about human rights

Every person, regardless of religion, race, gender or nationality, possesses fundamental rights simply by being human. They include the right to life, liberty, security, equal protection of the law and the freedom of thought, speech and religion.

These human rights protect the weak from the abuses of tyranny. They act as a buffer and arbiter between the lone individual and the concentration of power. These norms and principles defy the natural tendency to dominate one another. Human rights help us move beyond the harmful idea that might makes right.

The strength of the universal declaration lies not so much in enforcing these rights but in its role as a teacher that shapes ideals and molds incentives toward the common good. Human rights bolster our obligations toward one another and give dignity to how we work, worship, interact with our communities and raise our families. Accordingly, human rights complement our civic and democratic engagement. Rights without relationships and responsibilities can only go so far.

Keeping the faith, in private and in public

Article 18 of the declaration is brief but powerful: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”[4]

Freedom of religion is not just some abstract concept that floats in the minds of lawyers and legislators. Rather, it moves and grows in the common soil of our everyday lives. We take our beliefs everywhere we go. They form who we are and drive us to share them with others. We want to influence our communities and the world around us. In this way, our private and public lives are intertwined. It is a paltry freedom indeed that allows us to practice and voice our faith in the privacy of our own home or church, but not in the open exchange of the public square.

The legacy of the universal declaration

The establishment of human rights is an achievement to be proud of. They play a vital role in managing the conflicts and differences so prevalent in our pluralistic world. They help keep us on the same civilizational page. The aims they promote ennoble human existence, inspire decency and urge accountability.

Legal scholar Mary Ann Glendon explained: “Practically every constitution in the world that has a bill of rights is modelled or influenced in some way by that core of principles that were deemed to be fundamental” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[5] Legal frameworks and moral norms of countries around the world have drawn from this document. It continues to put international relations on a more equal footing.

The world is far from perfect in honoring human rights. Injustices and atrocities still occur, but the universal declaration makes it possible to prevent, contain or diminish them. Like all things worth keeping, human rights will forever require our faith and vigilance.


In Honor of Human Rights- applied to religious freedom at BYU

“It’s a great affirmation of the possibility of overcoming conflict through reason and good will.” — Mary Ann Glendon[1]

Sixty-six years ago a document graced the world that set new horizons for human relations. It is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and was the first global expression of its kind.

Leaders from different nations, cultures, religions and political systems came together to establish standards of humaneness that apply to everyone, everywhere. The opening lines proclaim that “the inherent dignity” and “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” are the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”[2]

Importantly, these standards are limited to actual people: members of the human family. This is consistent with other statements by LDS authorities, which consistently affirm the importance of the religious freedom of God's children: again, actual human persons. Hold on to this point, as we'll return to it below. 

Built in the ashes of World War II and the Holocaust, this declaration provided a collective aspiration to develop “friendly relations between nations”[3] and to bring out the highest and best in our common civilization here on earth.

Why we should care about human rights

Every person, regardless of religion, race, gender or nationality, possesses fundamental rights simply by being human. Agreed. Though obvious, it is important to point out that LDS BYU students whose religious consciences change while at BYU are humans too. Which means that that they possess these fundamental rights merely by virtue of being human- more on that as well in a moment. They include the right to life, liberty, security, equal protection of the law and the freedom of thought, speech and religion.

These human rights protect the weak from the abuses of tyranny. They act as a buffer and arbiter between the lone individual and the concentration of power. LDS BYU students whose religious consciences change usually fit this description. Because publicizing their change in religious conscience risks their education, housing, and employment, they have to hide their conversion. They can't support each other since those in the same condition are similarly closeted. The power to decide whether they remain as a student is concentrated in BYU: specifically, the Honor Code Office has the power to unilaterally expel an LDS BYU student for publicizing her change in religious conscience.

Additionally, it would not be uncommon for that student to be the only one in her ward to be in such a position. A single man, her bishop, holds the key to whether she can continue to be a BYU student. In that case, she is very literally a weak, lone individual facing a concentration of power: the hands of the local pastor for the faith she no longer believes in. 
These norms and principles defy the natural tendency to dominate one another. Human rights help us move beyond the harmful idea that might makes right. Recently, the Salt Lake Tribune published a story about BYU's policy of expelling and evicting LDS BYU students who change their faith. The most common response was some version of "BYU is a private institution- it can do whatever it wants." Here, the LDS Church explicitly decries this "might makes right" argument. It has no place in the discussion about what the LDS Church should do to protect and honor the religious freedom of all BYU students.

The strength of the universal declaration lies not so much in enforcing these rights but in its role as a teacher that shapes ideals and molds incentives toward the common good. Human rights bolster our obligations toward one another and give dignity to how we work, worship, interact with our communities and raise our families. Accordingly, human rights complement our civic and democratic engagement. Rights without relationships and responsibilities can only go so far.
Agreed. The human right of religious freedom can only go so far unless people and institutions- including BYU and Mormons- live up to their responsibility to honor the same.

Keeping the faith, in private and in public

Article 18 of the declaration is brief but powerful: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”[4]
This is the most applicable part of the whole article. Article 18 explicitly highlights the very aspects of religious freedom that are currently lacking at BYU- (1) freedom to change his religion or belief, and (2) freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. It is precisely the freedom to manifest one's religion (in this case, one's departure from LDS belief) that is burdened. Mormon Stories Podcast recently published 507: Free BYU — Religious Freedom and Faith Transition at Church Schools, which includes an interview with a Mormon-turned-Muslim student named Jeff. Jeff explained how his freedom to proclaim his conversion to Islam, and to practice Islam (e.g. via five daily prayers), is burdened by having to hide his religion in order to avoid being expelled from BYU and evicted from his housing

Freedom of religion is not just some abstract concept that floats in the minds of lawyers and legislators. Rather, it moves and grows in the common soil of our everyday lives. Agreed. This is especially important in the context of religious freedom at BYU. The reason that BYU can expel a student merely for changing her religion is because the Constitution recognizes a right to religious freedom for- and this is important- religious institutions. BYU is not a human, and thus is not entitled to religious freedom via a human rights approach. It is, however, privileged to discriminate on religious grounds where a comparable organization (say, the University of Utah) would not: precisely because of that abstract concept that floats in the minds of lawyers and legislators that an organization is a person entitled to religious freedom under the First Amendment. 

In their statements, the LDS church focuses instead on the religious freedom of actual members of the human family, and how that freedom "moves and grows in the common soil of our everyday lives." In practice, however, at least at BYU- they burden the religious freedom of humans by virtue of the religious freedom granted to institutions. Many are convinced that the BYU Board can match what is practiced by BYU, to what is preached by LDS leaders.

We take our beliefs everywhere we go. They form who we are and drive us to share them with others. We want to influence our communities and the world around us. In this way, our private and public lives are intertwined. It is a paltry freedom indeed that allows us to practice and voice our faith in the privacy of our own home or church, but not in the open exchange of the public square.
This is precisely the environment imposed on LDS students at BYU. Many of them have experienced a change in religious conscience, and practice their new faith: but privately, out of fear of expulsion and eviction. It is in the movement and growth of the common soil of their everyday lives that these students suffer most- as evidenced by their compelling accounts. Having to hide one's conversion from roommates and friends, having to avoid statements in class that might betray that conversion, hollowly going through the motions of faithful LDS observance- is a heavy burden indeed.

The legacy of the universal declaration

The establishment of human rights is an achievement to be proud of. They play a vital role in managing the conflicts and differences so prevalent in our pluralistic world. Nowhere are the conflicts of pluralism more poignant than inside religious organizations. The establishment of human rights can help the BYU Board manage religious differences at BYU in a way that ennobles human existence, inspires decency, and urges accountability. They help keep us on the same civilizational page. The aims they promote ennoble human existence, inspire decency and urge accountability.

Legal scholar Mary Ann Glendon explained: “Practically every constitution in the world that has a bill of rights is modelled or influenced in some way by that core of principles that were deemed to be fundamental” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[5] Legal frameworks and moral norms of countries around the world have drawn from this document. It continues to put international relations on a more equal footing.

The world is far from perfect in honoring human rights. Injustices and atrocities still occur, but the universal declaration makes it possible to prevent, contain or diminish them. Like all things worth keeping, human rights will forever require our faith and vigilance.
Including the vigilance of faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in honoring human rights in their own institutions. If BYU administrators and the members of the BYU Board of Trustees don't honor the religious freedom of LDS BYU students whose religious consciences change while at BYU, who will?


I Knew What I Had to Do


I go to a school run by one of the churches in my country. Some time back I was chosen by my classmates to be our class counselor. One day as I was planning what to teach, I came across a Church booklet about the law of chastity. I decided to teach my classmates about chastity and asked the full-time missionaries for booklets, which I gave out during the lesson.
After my lesson, many students wanted to know more about the Church, so I taught them and gave them more Church materials, including the Book of Mormon. I did not know that this was not approved by the head teacher.
One day she called me to her office and asked me which church I went to. When I told her, she asked why I was giving out the Church’s “Bible” to the students. I told her that I gave them only to those who asked for them.
After a long talk about the Church, in which she made it clear that she believed it was not the Church of God, she told me, “I know that you have no parents, but I am very sorry—you will have to leave my school because you will convert many of my good students to that church of yours.” She told me to choose between the Church and my education.
She called an assembly and told the school that I was not allowed in school anymore because I belonged to the Mormon Church and that any other students following me would have to leave.
After the assembly, she asked what I had decided: my church or my education. I felt the Spirit telling me to stand for what I know: that the Lord has restored His true Church. I shared my testimony with her as I was leaving. She told me to return the following week to pick up a letter showing that I no longer went to the school.
When I came the following week, she had changed her mind! She wasn’t making me leave the school anymore. I was very happy, mostly because I had stood for what I knew to be true.
This experience taught me to always stand for what we know to be true. The Lord will always be there for us. If I had denied the Church, the students would have said that what I was teaching them was not true, but now they know that I know the truth.


I Knew What I Had to Do- applied to religious freedom at BYU


I go to a school run by one of the churches in my country. Some time back I was chosen by my classmates to be our class counselor. One day as I was planning what to teach, I came across a Church booklet about the law of chastity. I decided to teach my classmates about chastity and asked the full-time missionaries for booklets, which I gave out during the lesson.
After my lesson, many students wanted to know more about the Church, so I taught them and gave them more Church materials, including the Book of Mormon. I did not know that this was not approved by the head teacher.
One day she called me to her office and asked me which church I went to. When I told her, she asked why I was giving out the Church’s “Bible” to the students. I told her that I gave them only to those who asked for them.
After a long talk about the Church, in which she made it clear that she believed it was not the Church of God, she told me, “I know that you have no parents, but I am very sorry—you will have to leave my school because you will convert many of my good students to that church of yours.” She told me to choose between the Church and my education.
In many ways, this is the message BYU's Honor Code delivers to LDS BYU students whose religious consciences change. "We don't believe your religious conscience is right, and you have to choose: either hide your religion and complete your education, or expose it and be expelled." This is not a choice the BYU Board needs to force upon its students. Instead, it is within their power to say through the Honor Code, "We honor religious freedom as a human right, and allow all men and women to worship how, where, or what they may. As long as you observe the Honor Code as do all BYU students, you can declare your change in faith and remain here in good standing." 
She called an assembly and told the school that I was not allowed in school anymore because I belonged to the Mormon Church and that any other students following me would have to leave.
After the assembly, she asked what I had decided: my church or my education. I felt the Spirit telling me to stand for what I know: that the Lord has restored His true Church. I shared my testimony with her as I was leaving. She told me to return the following week to pick up a letter showing that I no longer went to the school. 
When I came the following week, she had changed her mind! She wasn’t making me leave the school anymore. I was very happy, mostly because I had stood for what I knew to be true.
Sadly, many such stories at BYU do not have such a happy ending. Recently, one student boldly stood for what he knew, and received "a letter showing that [he] no longer went to the school." It looked like this:
Dear student,
Bishop __ has informed the Honor Code Office that your ecclesiastical endorsement has been withdrawn. Since university policy requires all students to have a current endorsement, we have placed a hold on your registration, graduation, and diploma until you are able to qualify for a new one. Effective immediately, you are no longer eligible to attend daytime or evening classes, to register for other courses, to graduate from BYU, to work for the university, or to reside in BYU contract housing. You cannot enroll in or be enrolled in any BYU course that could apply to graduation, including but not limited to Independent Study courses, until you are returned to good standing. Please note that you may not represent the university or participate in any university programs such as Study Abroad, academic internships, performing groups, etc. A hold has been placed on your record which will prevent you from being considered for admission to any Church Educational System school until you are returned to good Honor Code standing. Good Honor Code standing includes a valid, current ecclesiastical endorsement.
The Honor Code Office will work with Discontinuance to remove your classes. If you have any questions please call the Honor Code Office. If you are currently working on past incomplete grade contracts please notify the honor Code Office immediately. When you are ready to return to the university, you must work closely with the Admissions Office, A-153 ASB, (801) 422-2507, regarding readmission requirements.
During at least the next twelve months, Bishop ___’s clearance must be obtained before any other bishop can endorse you. Your Bishop must verbally notify the Honor Code Office as soon as your endorsement has been reinstated. Also be aware that you must stay in contact with the Admissions Office in A-153 ASB (422-2507) regarding readmission requirements if you are away for a full semester. Because the ecclesiastical interview is confidential, any questions regarding your church standing must be resolved with your ecclesiastical leaders. The withdrawal of your endorsement is independent of any investigation or action that may be taken by the Honor Code Office.
If you have any questions about the withdrawal of your endorsement, please contact your bishop and/or your stake president. Your classes will be discontinued immediately.
Signed,
Larry Neal, Honor Code Office Director
This experience taught me to always stand for what we know to be true. The Lord will always be there for us. If I had denied the Church, the students would have said that what I was teaching them was not true, but now they know that I know the truth.
We can do a better job of honoring the religious freedom we proclaim. If you feel to help erase the inconsistency between the LDS Church's position on religious freedom and the current Honor Code, please- get involved

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

The Ginormous Stackrank of Human Experiences

I've decided to accouche an idea that began over four years ago.

Back then, I was freshly emerging from the ethics-heavy portion of my graduate education. The moral reasoning models I was learning copulated with the decision analysis tools I was exposed to, and my brain conceived The Carmack Vector Addition Theory of Ethics: Advancing the Ball.

In its first trimester, the idea was mostly geared toward enabling a more rigorous mathematical approach to ethical decision making. As the idea continued to gestate, I developed some alternative titles for the approach: "Mathematizing Morality" or "Quantifying Compassion." I also debated various designs and objectives. Eventually though, the example of Facemash from The Social Network (Mark Zuckerberg developed a website that allowed visitors to compare two student pictures side-by-side and let them choose who was “hot” and who was “not”) prevailed due to it's simplicity. My intention now is to create a giant stack rank of human experiences.

How would the system work? I'll go into greater detail below, but the crux of the system is pretty simple: users choose which experience they prefer out of a pair. For example, you might be asked, "Which do you prefer?" between (A) graduating from college and (B) falling in love. You select one, then move on to the next pair the system feeds you and repeat. The end result after millions of selections is a giant, robust stack rank of human experiences.

Below I detail (1) Rules, (2) Approach, (3) Next Steps, (4) Problems/Solutions, (5) Initial List, and (6) Further Commentary.

Rules

  1. You can only select between experiences you've actually had
  1. No experience in the list can exceed a "2" level of detail
    1. 1=Having coffee
    2. 2=Having coffee with a friend
    1. 3=Having coffee with a friend in the morning

  1. You must answer honestly

Approach

A user clicks on a link and arrives on the landing page/app home. There are two options: "View the List" or "Participate." If the user chooses "View the List", they are taken to the stackrank where they can search and browse.

If the user chooses "Participate," he or she is given a Batch (40 experiences). The experiences all have three options: "I have experienced this", "I haven't experienced this", or "this experience doesn't qualify, e.g. it exceeds the level of detail or is not an actual human experience" (the last option is for quality control). The default, "I haven't experienced this", is selected for all. The user selects the appropriate option for all 40 experiences, based on his/her own past.

The user is then fed a set of between 10 & 100 experience pairs (only experiences the user indicated s/he has had are presented to the user). Each pair has two options. For example, the pair is (A) graduating from college and (B) falling in love. The user selects A or B, and is then shown the next pair as well as a progress bar (e.g. pair 2 of 100). At the end of the set of pairs, the user is given the option to add a question of his/her own. If s/he chooses "no thanks," they are returned to the landing page/app home. If s/he chooses "add a question," they are taken to a screen where they submit a question (some brief submission guidelines display).

The system randomly-ish presents the new submissions to subsequent participants, and uses the results to update G-SHE (Ginormous Stackrank of Human Experiences) in real time, much as a chess ranking system would. The system also feeds pairs in a strategic way (e.g. doesn't often ask participants if they'd rather fall in love vs. lose your child) in order to elicit the most differential inputs, similar to the methodology for pairing opponents in large-bracket sport competitions.

Next steps


  1. Determine if G-SHE (or a list substantially like it) is already out there in the world somewhere. If so, consider abandoning or redirecting the effort
  2. Decide which ratings system to use 
  3. Most common- used to rank chess players
    Elo + ratings reliability
    Glicko + ratings volatility
    1. There may be a better rating system - these are just the first three I've researched so far
    2. I'm thinking Glicko 2
  4. Identify an existing list of human experiences to start with
  5. Develop the tool
  6. Distribute the tool
  7. Manage the tool


Problems/Solutions

This effort will doubtlessly run into numerous problems as it proceeds; I'll start capturing them in this expandable table.

Problem
Candidate solutions

Similar experiences submitted (duplicates)
-Use existing tech to detect similar submissions and have a human decide whether they're essentially duplicates, then merge if yes
-Whatever approach is taken to solve this problem in comparable settings, such as user feedback fora

Too little participation
-Could display leaderboards - e.g. who's submitted the most qualifying questions, who's submitted the most selections, etc.
-Could pay folks on mechanical turk to participate
-Could ask volunteers or ethics students to participate
-Could display the full list only if the user participates (only give a sample of the list until the user participates)
-Could exchange statistical analysis of the results for participation
-Whatever other solutions survey firms use to solve this problem

Quality of questions
-Enable a button on the selection screen for "recommend removing this experience (usually because it (1) is not an actual human experience or (2) exceeds a "2" level of detail)
-Enable a button on the "have you had this experience" screen to recommend removal
- enable Wiki-style comments, or some crowd-based moderation approach used in comparable settings such as wikipedia

Bots complete batches
Leverage existing human-detection tech and restrict participation to humans

Same person selects between the same pair 2+ times
Authenticate the users, or require a sign-in that signals the system not to present a pair to that user if that user has seen that pair in the past

Participant lies
    • Have the system refrain from including in the effective data set, all results that come from participants whose selection profiles vary more than 3 standard deviations from the median
    • Use some other "smart" techniques to detect likely liars and underweight or eliminate their responses from the calculations
    • Require a set amount of time on each question (similar to completing the blood donation questionnaire) to disincentivize speeding through the questions

Participant tires due to quantity of pairings
    • Allow users to complete a certain number of pairs per day/week
    • Allow completion in batches that don't exceed a  defined number of pairs


Initial List

I hope to find an existing list of human experiences that comply with rule #2, so I don't have to reinvent the wheel. However, the approach is scalable even if I do have to start from scratch. Here's a candidate initial list:

Being displaced due to a civil war
Waking up after a good sleep
Having sex
Skydiving
Giving birth
Mastering a foreign language
Being tortured for over six months
Losing a life partner
Going fishing
Having an accomplishment recognized at work
Eating lunch
Reading a book for pleasure
Your child dying
Voting in a meaningful government election
Having coffee with a friend
Taking a nap
Falling in love

Further commentary


  • I hope this list will be a useful tool for preference utilitarians. Though I'm not 100% sure yet of all the applications for this stack rank, I expect creative applications will be identified and developed by those who become acquainted with the result. I can imagine think tanks, policy analysts, ethicists, and others being interested in the data; demographers might collect rich data on the participants, then categorize and analyze the results. I also think the average person would be fascinated by the list itself- how interesting it would be to browse and see how various experiences rank! 
  • Q. Why the "2" level of detail? A. To engender consistency and simplicity. The greater the complexity, the more difficult (and potentially less reliable) the preferences become. Plus, constraining the base unit worked well for Twitter... 
  • Q. As sales and marketing professionals will tell you, people's actual choices are better measures of their preferences than what they choose in survey responses. How do you solve for that? A. I don't: that's a weakness in my approach. However, since not all experiences are chosen (say, being raised Catholic), my approach enables a comparison of a greater breadth of human experience than would be possible with a choice-based approach. 
  • Q. Your baby has a long way to go before it matures into a robust, mature adult. How will you get this effort there, given your limited expertise? A. I'm convinced that once smart people see what I'm going for, they'll identify and share improvements. I believe we only need a strong proof of concept to inspire better future versions (like how thefacebook.com of 2004 inspired the far more sophisticated version we now know in 2014 as Facebook).
  • In future iterations I'd like to provide a more sophisticated approach to letting the participant choose the experiences they've had, which populates the pool from which their presented pairings are drawn. 
  • I'd like to capture the data from the batch phase where participants indicate whether they've had the experience. That data element itself is interesting, in addition to being a useful basis for the system to decide what experience pairs to present to a participant (e.g. present several pairs that include rare experiences to participants who have had that experience).
  • So far the best title I have is "The Ginormous Stackrank of Human Experiences", acronym G-SHE; lmk if you have a catchier one.


Search This Blog