BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 11.7% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 913 faulty-reasoning hits from 582 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.2% and a BS Rank of 48% (15,064 of 28,846 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.20% of the article peer group.

Greeting visitors at the entrance of Tuskegee University is a large statue of prominent educator Booker T. 
Washington titled “Lifting the Veil of Ignorance.” 
The meaning behind the work’s title carries a message that is as relevant today as it was when the monument was dedicated in 1922. 
The sculpture, created by Charles Keck, shows Washington, dressed in a suit, with one arm extended and the other arm lifting what appears to be a cloak or veil as a seated Black man looks out. 
The image depicts Washington lifting the cloth from the seated man, symbolizing his effort to lead his community toward progress through education and diligent work. 
That symbolism is playing out today as Tuskegee officials have received pushback over a new dress code policy that has sparked debate over professionalism, personal expression and cultural identity. 
Tuskegee’s President Mark A. 
Brown released a statement to parents detailing revised dress code requirements and conduct expectations for the upcoming school year. 
The school’s new policy prohibits attire such as bonnets, durags, bedroom slippers and revealing clothing in shared campus settings, including classrooms, dining halls and university events like Convocation. 
In a statement to students via WVTM Channel 13, President Brown said “The goal here is not meant to restrict you from enjoying the Tuskegee Experience, but to prepare you with a solid foundation for the workforce you will enter once you leave Tuskegee.” 
We support Tuskegee’s decision and believe other historically Black colleges and universities should continue with similar standards. 
As previously reported by The Philadelphia Tribune, dress code policies are already in place at area HBCUs at Cheyney University, Delaware State University and Lincoln University. 
That’s a good thing. 
Universities exist to educate, but they are also responsible for shaping habits, expectations and social norms that students carry into their careers. 
While a dress code alone does not determine success, appearance often influences first impressions, particularly in workplaces where professionalism remains an expectation. 
Though a child’s developmental years are generally considered to extend from birth through ages 18 to 21, the years immediately following high school are just as critical. 
Showing up to class in pajamas, bonnets, durags or bedroom slippers sends the wrong message in an academic setting. 
College is preparation for life beyond campus. 
Students should be encouraged to present themselves in a manner that reflects the seriousness of their academic pursuits. 
Bedroom attire has become acceptable in public settings, a trend reinforced by some popular entertainers and social media personalities like rapper Sexxy Redd, who frequently appears online in pajamas, bonnets and other sleepwear. 
At the same time, head coverings such as bonnets have long evoked images rooted in a painful past, including stereotypes of the “Black Mammy” that emerged during slavery and the Jim Crow era. 
Some have framed the policy as a restriction on individual freedom or an attack on Black culture. 
The question, however, is not whether students have the right to wear what they choose. 
The question is whether institutions have the right to establish expectations that they believe support their educational mission. 
The answer is yes. 
In many ways, the debate returns us to the statue Lifting the Veil of Ignorance as it is a reminder of the values Washington championed  education, discipline and self-improvement. 
More than a century later, Tuskegee’s dress code is rooted in Washington’s belief that preparing for success begins with the standards we set for ourselves. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.2%Tribune Editorial Board: 5.3%phillytrib.com: 3.4%Confirmation Bias7.2%This article: 5.2%Tribune Editorial Board: 1.3%phillytrib.com: 1.0%Anchoring Bias5.2%This article: 10.1%Tribune Editorial Board: 6.3%phillytrib.com: 3.5%Availability Heuristic10.1%This article: 3.3%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.8%phillytrib.com: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic3.3%This article: 8.4%Tribune Editorial Board: 2.1%phillytrib.com: 0.2%Hindsight Bias8.4%This article: 4.5%Tribune Editorial Board: 1.1%phillytrib.com: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias4.5%This article: 11.7%Tribune Editorial Board: 11.2%phillytrib.com: 4.4%Framing Effect11.7%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.9%Tribune Editorial Board: 1.6%phillytrib.com: 1.0%Status Quo Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 2.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Tribune Editorial Board: 4.3%phillytrib.com: 4.8%Negativity Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.9%phillytrib.com: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.8%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.9%phillytrib.com: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 1.3%phillytrib.com: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Tribune Editorial Board: 4.0%phillytrib.com: 0.7%Recency Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 2.9%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.7%phillytrib.com: 0.2%Straw Man2.9%This article: 4.3%Tribune Editorial Board: 5.3%phillytrib.com: 3.1%Appeal to Authority4.3%This article: 2.6%Tribune Editorial Board: 2.2%phillytrib.com: 1.2%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 5.2%Tribune Editorial Board: 2.4%phillytrib.com: 0.5%Circular Reasoning5.2%This article: 3.8%Tribune Editorial Board: 5.7%phillytrib.com: 4.5%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Tribune Editorial Board: 2.1%phillytrib.com: 0.4%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 8.9%Tribune Editorial Board: 2.2%phillytrib.com: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion8.9%This article: 1.9%Tribune Editorial Board: 1.5%phillytrib.com: 0.4%Begging the Question1.9%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 1.1%phillytrib.com: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.7%Tribune Editorial Board: 2.7%phillytrib.com: 4.1%Anecdotal10.7%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.1%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.8%phillytrib.com: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.1%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 5.7%Tribune Editorial Board: 2.8%phillytrib.com: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy5.7%This article: 3.3%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.8%phillytrib.com: 0.8%Unattributed Quote3.3%This article: 7.6%Tribune Editorial Board: 1.9%phillytrib.com: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection7.6%This article: 10.1%Tribune Editorial Board: 6.1%phillytrib.com: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice10.1%This article: 3.1%Tribune Editorial Board: 3.4%phillytrib.com: 0.7%Indoctrination3.1%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tribune Editorial Board: 0.0%phillytrib.com: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

582 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.6%attributed speech538writer words
Selected voice

Mark A. Brown

100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words100% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mark A. Brown: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.0 ptsWriter: 11.0%Mark A. Brown: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Mark A. Brown: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Mark A. Brown: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.