Sport and Society

Should Joe Paterno be fired

2011-11-07T09:34:00.000-08:00

Joe Paterno has the most wins in Division I NCAA football.
Joe Paterno holds the record for most wins.

Penn State football coach Joe Paterno has won more games than any coach in college football history. But now he faces a fight to keep his job because of something he could have done, but didn't.

The story involves one of the worst crimes imaginable -- child sexual abuse. Paterno is not accused, but one of his former assistant coaches has been indicted for the crime of molesting eight young boys.

The question for Paterno is whether he could have prevented more children from being harmed by acting differently when he first learned of the allegations. And the question for us is whether Paterno had an ethical duty to do so.

The man accused is former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky. Sandusky was long considered to be the the heir to Paterno's job. But Paterno continued to coach. He's now 84. Sandusky retired in 1999.

However, Sandusky remained close to Penn State, hosting summer football camps and working with a charity he founded called The Second Mile. A grand jury now accuses Sandusky of sexually assaulting eight boys between the years 1994 and 2009. The indictment alleges that about 20 of the incidents took place while Sandusky was employed at Penn State.

The charges say Sandusky would give boys sporting gear, sports clothing and trips to sporting events, including a Penn State bowl game. The grand jury says Sandusky then coerced the boys into involuntary sexual relations.The key incident occurred in 2002, after Sandusky had retired. According to the indictment, a graduate assistant walked into a Penn State team locker shower room and saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy about 10 years old

Sandusky being arrested.

The assistant reported it to Coach Paterno, who immediately informed his boss, the athletic director. The athletic director barred Sandusky from bringing children to the the campus. But the athletic director never informed police, and now he has been indicted himself for covering up the abuse. No one ever tried to discover the identity of that 10-year-old victim or stop such crimes from happening again.

Police did not become aware of sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky until 2009, when another boy's mother made allegations to the high school her son attended. That school not only banned Sandusky, it triggered a state investigation.

"The failure of top university officials to act on reports of Sandusky's alleged sexual misconduct, even after it was reported to them in graphic detail by an eyewitness, allowed a predator to walk free for years -- continuing to target new victims," Attorney General Linda Kelly said in the report. "Equally disturbing is the lack of action and apparent lack of concern among those same officials, and others who received information about this case, who either avoided asking difficult questions or chose to look the other way."

The question for you is what what was Coach Paterno's ethical duty in this case. He broke no law. He did what the law requires, and reported it to his supervisor. After all, Paterno's job is to be a coach, not a police officer. And even now, no one has yet been convicted of a crime.

However, some people think Penn State needs to immediately clean house because of this scandal, firing everyone including Paterno.

Others say the scandal was allowed to grow like a mushroom in the dark because Paterno wrapped his football program in a shroud of secrecy. "Practices are closed to the media. Assistant coaches are off-limits. Reporters have virtually no access to players," writes one reporter. In such a program, many dark secrets can be hidden, the writer says.

Sandusky and Paterno

Paterno's defense is that he was never told about the "very specific actions" of child abuse observed by his graduate assistant, implying he might have acted differently if he had known. Paterno said he met his responsibilities by reporting the incident to the athletic director. He's saddened about what has happened to the victims, Paterno says, but now people need to let the legal system do its work.

Did Paterno do enough? Did he have a duty to protect that unknown 10-year-old and other children? Did he have a moral obligation to inform police? Did he have a duty to ask deeper questions of the graduate assistant and discover the details of what happened back in 2002?

Or did coach Paterno do enough by following the law, reporting it to his supervisor and expecting that they would uncover the truth? Should the winningest coach in college football keep his job?

What can we do to reduce fan violence?

2011-09-25T16:43:00.000-07:00

Fans riot in Vancouver following loss in Stanley Cup

How far is too far if you’re a sports fan? Is name-calling OK? What about trying to distract the opponent? We probably agree that when fans commit violence, that is going too far. Yet we seem to be seeing a growing amount of fan violence in sports around the world.

When the Vancouver Canucks lost in the Stanley Cup finals of the National Hockey League, the city erupted in rioting and looting. After a baseball game in March, two hometown Los Angeles Dodgers fans severely beat a visiting San Francisco Giants fan, nearly killing him. In August, following a professional football game in San Francisco, a fan was shot because he was wearing a T-shirt that nastily denounced the hometown San Francisco 49ers.

The San Francisco incident led to calls for curbing violence by football fans, perhaps by reducing alcohol sales. The National Football League fears the perception of violence is driving away some fans, particularly families.

Fan violence has not been limited to North American sports. Italian soccer fans have been banned from a match against Serbia because of fear of riots, as happened at a match between the teams last year. In Uganda, the police have opened an inquiry into violence at soccer games and they’re threatening jail time to soccer hooligans. In Turkey, which has a long history of violence at soccer matches, hundreds of Istanbul fans stormed the field during a competition this summer.

But Turkey’s football association has come up with a novel solution to the problem of fan violence. In response to such problems, some soccer leagues force teams to play a series of games in front of an empty stadium. But in Turkey, rather than close a game to everyone, the league decided to penalize only men. For that day of violence in Istanbul, all men were banned from attending one game. However, women and children under age 12 were allowed to attend

Female fans cheer in Istanbul.

Last week, more than 41,000 women and children were admitted free and watched Istanbul play to a 1-1 draw with Manisapor. Rather than fans hurling insults at the opponents, the game began with players hurling flowers at the spectators. And the visiting team was greeted with cheers instead of the usual jeering.

The Istanbul captain said, “The memory will stay with me forever. It’s not always that you see so many women and children in one game.”

A Manisaspor player said, “It was such a fun and pleasant atmosphere.”

Now the league says the same penalty will be applied whenever there are invasions of the pitch or unrest outside the stadium. Men will be banned for a game, and female fans will get the benefit.

Toronto Star writer Cathal Kelly recommends that sports leagues everywhere take a lesson from Turkey and do much more to fill the stands at the home games with women and kids – in part to deter violence. “There is no threat that works better on a surly drunk than, ‘There are kids who can hear you saying that,’” he wrote, concluding: “Feminizing a game can make its masculine attributes even more appealing.”

But some, such as James Calvert, wonder if this is just another example of rules that go too far, even in the interest of curbing violence. Under current anti-violence laws England, football fans convicted of shoving a rival fan or swearing at a stadium steward can find themselves banned from attending their team’s matches. In addition, they have to surrender their passport whenever the team plays abroad and they may be subject to police surveillance as high risk fans.

In Turkey, this new rule that blames all men for the acts of a few is the ultimate kind of guilt by association. If you’re a man, you must be the source of sport violence. Without doubt, it discriminates against men.

Do we need such strict measures to curtail violence by fans? And what is at the root of this violence, anyway? Tell me what your thoughts are on kicking out all men when a few fans get violent. Or do you have other ideas about how to make sports fans more civil?

Go to the comment section and share your thoughts.

Women and children were the only fans allowed into this soccer match in Istanbul.

Here's what one expert, Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll of the Center for ETHICS*, says about banning men from games as a way to reduced violence in sport.

Is it winning to beat a cancer survivor?

2011-09-18T19:23:00.000-07:00

This is a video blog about the case of Romney Oaks, a 9-year-old baseball player from Bountiful, Utah, that we are using as part of a research project.

We also use this video from Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll of the Center for ETHICS, who provides an expert view of the case.

The research project is examining whether a sports blog like ours can affect moral reasoning scores.

Are stem cells medical treatment, or cheating?

2011-06-17T14:51:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

The comeback of New York Yankees pitcher Bartolo Colon has been phenomenal. So phenomenal that Major League Baseball is investigating whether his rehabilitation surgery may have been cheating.

Colon was the Cy Young Award winner in 2005, when he went 21-8 for the Anaheim Angels. But he tore his rotator cuff during the playoffs, and his career went downhill rapidly. His best season since then was 4-2 with the Boston Red Sox in 2008. He didn't play in 2010.

When the Yankees signed him to a minor league contract in 2011, he was 37 years old and 25 pounds overweight. He's 38 now. But his record is 5-3 and he's throwing his fastball in the mid-90s.

The secret of his recovery, according to The New York Times, was stem cell treatment.

Stem cells, according to the National Institutes of Health, serve as sort of an internal repair system. The doctor who treated Colon in the Dominican Republic says he used a pioneering technique of removing stem cells from Colon's bone marrow then injecting them in his elbow and shoulder to help repair his ligaments and rotator cuff.

Was this just good medical treatment? Or is it cheating? The line is not clear. Here's what ESPN columnist Howard Bryant wrote:

The real question is where on the continuum of available therapies rehabilitation and recovery ends and gaming the system begins. One end of the spectrum is Gatorade and aspirin, which are legal, available to everyone and widely used. But it gets murkier as the treatments grow more aggressive, experimental and scarce: from ibuprofen to cortisone, glasses to laser eye surgery, Tommy John surgery to stem cell procedures. What of cloning and gene therapy and the ideas doctors and scientists are just beginning to explore in labs? It is a question that has never been answered, and the league's attempts at regulation -- such as limiting the number of cortisone shots a player can receive in a given season -- disappear in a pennant race or contract drive.

If Colon's doctor had used human growth hormone (HGH) to supplement the stem cell treatment, as he has done for other patients, the case would be clear. Major League Baseball has outlawed HGH and can test for it.

But neither Major League Baseball nor the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) have a position on the use of stem cell treatments. Is using stem cells to rehabilitate a pitching arm like using laser treatments to improve eyesight or getting Tommy John surgery? Or is it more like using HGH in baseball or blood doping in bicycling, which are both illegal. After all, doctors can use HGH treatment for non-athletes and blood doping is just taking an athlete's own blood and transfusing it back at a later date.

One way to look at it may be to consider whether the treatment is truly for rehabilitation, or whether it is being used to gain an advantage. Athletes should be allowed to rehabilitate. But even that line seems blurry sometimes. HGH can be used for rehab, but it's illegal. And anabolic steroids can help healing, too. And they're illegal. In fact many medicines are banned in competition. Even beta blockers, a common heart medicine are banned in some sports. Should the old guy in a curling match be forbidden to use his medicine? WADA says those beta blockers are cheating in curling.

Another way to look at it may be to consider whether the athlete is being honest. If Colon or his doctor lied about whether there was HGH in the treatment, that would clearly be a violation of Colon's agreement with Major League Baseball. But what if they told the truth about the treatment, but lied about whether it was being used to gain advantage. What if he used stem cells not merely to rehabilitate but to strengthen this arm. What if anyone could use stem cell treatment to create a stronger throwing arm? Would that be honest and fair?

And what about the other athletes the doctor has treated with stem cells. No one noticed until Colon made this dramatic comeback. But now many are noticing. Major League Baseball will have to address that issue as more athletes try to for the Colon effect. Should stem cell treatments be allowed or outlawed?

For the health of a catcher

2011-05-30T20:52:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Baseball is not a contact sport -- except for catchers, that is. San Francisco Giants catcher Buster Posey guarded home plate in the traditional fashion earlier this month, standing over home plate as the throw came from outfield. The runner also responded in traditional fashion, smashing into Posey to score the winning run. Posey never caught the ball. The video shows Posey took a frightening hit. And he's now out for the season with a broken leg and torn ligaments.

Some have suggested that if Posey were a third-string catcher, no one would care. But Posey is a star player for the World Champions and one of the top hitters in baseball. The team has a huge investment in his performance. Many are now asking whether regulations to prevent -- or at least reduce - contact at home plate.

In light over rising concerns about concussions in football and hockey, baseball's attention to home plate collisions seems warranted. Baseball already has rules against blocking runners in the base paths. But the home plate collision is perhaps the most exciting play in the game and fans like it. The movie A League of Their Own climaxed when the base runner smashed into the catcher to score the winning run in the World Series.

The proposed rules include forbidding the catcher from blocking the plate -- unless he has full control of the ball. An alternative is to prohibit the runner from having any contact with the catcher if the catcher has control of the ball. Both alternatives have a downside. Catchers are often forced up the third base line to catch the call. And runners may have difficulty making split second decisions about whether the catcher has control of the ball.

However, in other sports we expect players to make those split second decisions. Pass rushers have to avoid hitting the quarterback if he has already thrown the ball, for instance.

And some catchers are opposed to changes. They think the home plate collision is just one of the risks of playing the game. Players can get hurt, and not just a home plate. The can be hurt sliding into third, leaning into a slider or catching a pop fly.

But it seems that if you have a game like baseball, a game of inches where speed and finesse are as important as mass and power, the game could survive without the home plate collision. Yes, it's an incredibly exciting play. But wouldn't a sneaky hook slide be just as exciting?

And if we want to see the best-of-the-best on the field facing each other at the end of the year, why would we want to sacrifice a few of them to injuries that might be avoided? If we looked at the Posey collision and considered the principle of beneficence -- that one ought not to inflict harm -- such plays would be avoided. Or you can weight the harm of the collision against the entertainment value it offered professional baseball. Is the excitement of one play in May worth the loss of one of the heroes of October?

Manny Ramirez and the sport of lies

2011-04-13T15:11:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for Ethics

Manny Ramirez retired this week rather than face a 100-game suspension following a positive test for a banned substance. And the taint of steroids continues to plague baseball. It's Manny's second positive test.

The Barry Bonds case continues to look like just the tip of the iceberg. Bonds' remains in the hands of the jury, though that group is deadlocked on all but one count. And the fate of baseball is in the hands of fans.

Will fans find it repulsive that so many players have been caught trying to cheat, using human growth hormone and designer steroids to try to gain a competitive advantage? Or will they quietly accept that baseball stars use the juice to get a little extra power. Some even dare to say that steroids saved baseball. They suggest that the muscle-bound home run hitters gave the sport excitement at a time when it was becoming upstaged in the public mind by football and basketball.

But to others, this writer included, baseball has become a sport of deceit, not much different from bicycling or professional wrestling. And it's not so much about performance enhancing drugs as it is about the lies. Who can trust any power hitter today?

Albert Pujols has been hailed by such top-flight media institutions as 60 Minutes as the new savior of baseball. He hits more than 30 home runs a year and has never failed a drug test. Yet the rumors continue even about Pujols.

The concensus seems to be that baseball players will do whatever it takes to improve their game, then lie about it. The Bonds' trial is about his lies. Ramirez's retirement shows that the steroid era continues. And so does the lying era.

Professional wrestlers were once the used car salesmen of sport. Then bicycling, with stars such as Tour de France winners Floyd Landis and Bjarne Riis admitting doping, became the sport of lies. And now baseball has so deeply mired itself in the liars and cheaters club that we can't trust the heroes of America's pastime.

You can say it ain't so, Joe. But in the back of our mind, we still won't believe you.

Character matters even in basketball

2011-04-06T10:35:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant

PhD Student, Center for ETHICS*

The Aggies of Texas A&M played great basketball Tuesday night, with Danielle Adams scoring 30 points in the second half to help her team to a win over Notre Dame in the women's NCAA basketball championship.

Compared to the ragged play in the men's NCAA championship matchup -- which one writer called "cover-your-eyes awful" -- the women's game was a sign of what basketball at it's best can be: smart, aggressive and thrilling.

Adams represents the American dream in athletics. She was a great high school player and signed with Missouri. But that plan was derailed because she had to attend a junior college. She had to fight her way back. She used junior college to get her academic and basketball career on track, then signed at A&M after being named junior college player of the year in 2009. But she had a lot more work to do.

Here's what she told ESPN: "After I had to go to junior college, I knew it was a chance for me to work harder and get better," Adams said. "I thought, 'Maybe another team will pick me up that I really like.' And A&M gave me that chance."

Even that wasn't enough. Adams, a 6-1 post, was overweight. She needed to lose 40 pounds to get in shape to become competitive in Division I. And she did.

The Texas A&M team represents what is rarely seen in men's basketball, a team of highly skilled and highly experienced players committed to a great team performance. A&M was led seniors Adams and Sydney Colson along with junior Tyra White. They were experience heavy, and had worked together for years.

In men's basketball, the one-and-done has changed the character of the game. John Feinstein writes that it's one of the things leading men's basketball downhill:

"Many college coaches call this the 'AAUization' of the game. Stars are coddled from the very beginning; no one tells them they have to play defense, no one teaches them fundamentals and no one gets on them if they don’t play hard. Why? Because if a star gets yelled at by one coach, he goes and finds a new coach. That’s why it is now common for players to go to three or four high schools and play on a different AAU team every summer. Then they come to college knowing they hold all the cards with their coach: They only have to deal with him for one year, so why put up with him if he makes unreasonable demands such as 'Would you please try on defense?'"

Feinstein says the NBA needs to change its rules, allowing high school players jump to the NBA if they think they're good enough but forcing those who commit to college to stay there for at least three years. Such a rule would mirror Major League Baseball's relationship with colleges.

Feinstein also argues that men's college basketball needs to clean up its act: "There is also the continuing issue of what everyone who cares about college athletics has known to be true for years: cheating pays. The team that just won the national championship is on probation for major rules violations. The Hall of Fame coach who just joined John Wooden, Adolph Rupp, Mike Krzyzewski and Bob Knight as the only coaches to win at least three national titles will be suspended for his team’s first three conference games next winter because of a “lack of compliance” with NCAA rules. In English, a lack of compliance means you cheated."

NCAA men's basketball could learn a bit from Adams and A&M. They won their title with dedication, perseverance and hard work. They had to make the grades and come together as a team. And they did it without a blot on their recruiting record. And, in my opinion, they played a lot better game than the men -- and not just on the floor.

Respect for older NFL players

2011-04-05T09:09:00.000-07:00

by Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

At least one NFL player needs a lesson in respect, Hall of Fame linebacker Sam Huff said in a letter to The Washington Post.

He was aiming at New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees, one of the leaders for the players in the NFL labor dispute. Brees has been critical of some older players who think they deserve a place at the bargaining table.

The QB said in an interview: “There’s some guys out there that have made bad business decisions. They took their pensions early because they never went out and got a job. They've had a couple divorces and they're making payments to this place and that place. And that’s why they don’t have money. And they’re coming to us to basically say, ‘Please make up for my bad judgment.’ In that case, that’s not our fault as players.”

Former running back Mercury Morris says Brees was merely parroting the talking points of the union's labor lawyer, according to the New Jersey Newsroom. Morris says Brees and the players association have taken that stance to decline responsibility for older players.

Huff points out in his letter that modern players seem to have lost their respect for other athletes: "When I was playing, the players had a great deal of respect for each other, even for the opponents you tried to beat. I had a great deal of respect for both Jim Taylor and Jim Brown, two of my main opponents. There were great athletes and helped make football the nation’s favorite sport. I think that respect is not as prevalent today among the active players."

Part of his message to Brees is that players in the '50s and '60s made what seems like very little money by today's standards. Huff, for instance, made $19,000 in his final year with the New York Giants and $30,000 when he went to the Washington Redskins in 1964. Huff, who had a successful business career following his football years, isn't asking for help, but he pointed out that some older football players need it:

"I know about the players of the 50’s and 60’s, and they gave everything imaginable to make the game what it is today. Some of those players need help from the NFLPA. They deserve it, and Drew Brees needs better credentials before he makes such derogatory statements about those players," Huff wrote.

Brees would do well to consider former players such as Pat Matson, who has required more than 30 operations for injuries suffered while a player. "He admits he is fortunate despite the surgeries as he played 10 years and had a business career after football. He probably should be getting more than $1.064 a month in pension but that is considerably more than many who played for roughly the same amount of time during the same time period that Matson was employed in the AFL and NFL," according to a report in The Sport Digest.

Insurance companies are unwilling to cover old football injuries. When someone like Matson needs a knee or hip replacement, their current employer's insurance is apt to sidestep responsibility, citing pre-existing conditions.

Brees may be rich enough that when the day comes that his knees and hips begin failing, he'll have enough money pay the hospital. But for him to disparage players who made a paltry $20,000 or $30,000 in their prime shows how little he appreciates the people who paved the way for his multimillion dollar salary. That old football player's hip replacement is going to cost an easy $50,000.

Maybe Brees will take it out of his pocket.

Who's corrupt? Athlete or the system?

2011-04-04T06:35:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

There seem to be opposing views on the recent revelations about payoffs, strip clubs and sexual favors in sport. One side says sport needs to remake itself. The other says all that matters about sport is what happens on the playing field.

The latter view was expressed by LaVar Arrington in the Washington Post. Responding to coverage of the Barry Bonds trial, Arrington says that when people pass judgment on Bonds, they're just responding to their own insecurities and fears. People rejoice at seeing athletes such as Bonds brought down because it makes the superstar seem more human and points out that no one is immune to bad judgment.

Arrington says people should focus on what the athletes did on the playing field. "My memories are based off of what I saw them do on a playing field; I don't know them beyond that. For what it's worth, it suits me just fine to leave it that way," Arrington wrote.

Bob Hertzel, writing in the Washington Times-Herald, took a different tack. Looking at the scandals involving Ohio State, Auburn, Michigan, Connecticut and the Fiesta Bowl, Hertzel the structure of college sports is crumbling.

He suggests major changes in sport, including separating the major revenue sports from the rest of college sport. He says major college football and basketball clearly have different goals that sports such as soccer or gymnastics, and they need to be run differently and under separate leadership. He thinks the money made in those sport should be shared with the players, and that college presidents should be calling the shots, not coaches.

On Fox Sports, Jason Whitlock ripped the NCAA for the way it uses and abuses young college athletes. "The kids are disposable," he writes. "They’re totally controlled by the NCAA rule book and dictator coaches. They have little value to the media. We in the media can’t resist exploiting them. We’ve wasted two decades of energy pushing college presidents to add a playoff system to college football. Could we spend a year or two pushing college presidents to do the right thing for football and basketball players?"

Frankly, they all make good points, and their views may not be as far apart as it seems at first glance. They all call for refocusing attention on the most important thing in sport -- the athlete. Our obsession in sports with money, winning and statistical glory now overshadows the purpose of the game and the people that play it.

Mr. Arrington, I do want to remember Bonds for the way he played. But if he used steroids to gain an unfair advantage, then he failed to perform honorably on the field and therefore I must judge him by that. But he's was also a great athlete before all this talk of steroids. He's just one more indications that our obsessions with money in sport have corrupted the people who play the game.

Until we start thinking like Mr. Whitlock, and asking ourselves what's the right thing for the players, sport will continue down the same road. And we'll have more casualties. Mr. Hertzel's idea of letting college presidents call the shots sounds like a good one for college sports. College presidents, while still subject to the lure of big money in sports, at least understand that education is the primary business of universities.

Opening of baseball marred by beating

2011-04-02T17:50:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

The opening day of baseball should be the herald of spring. It should be full of hope. But this year baseball not only opened under the shadow of the perjury trial of San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds, but it also opened with terrible beating of a fan in Los Angeles.

Barry Stow, 42, is now in a coma. His only crime was being a Giant's fan at Dodger Stadium.

According to news reports, two men in Dodger clothing began taunting three Giant's fans, then attacked them. They were punched, kicked and knocked to the ground. Stow, a paramedic and father of two young children, was kicked repeatedly in the head.

Perhaps we can't blame baseball for every assault that occurs in the parking lot. But this sounds like a warning that some sports fans have taken tribalism too far.

Baseball is supposed to be the All-American sport. And if we're all Americans, why are we beating each other up over regional rivalries. For the Giants and Dodgers there will be another game tomorrow. For Stow, we wish we could be so sure.

Some in Los Angeles are raising the questions: Is it safe to go to baseball games? And should alcohol sales be promoted so boldly around sporting events? After all, some criticize the Dodgers for being so eager to sell beer that they built Dodger Stadium without drinking fountains.

Fans in the soccer world fear British soccer hooligans. Now it appears we have our own hooligans of sport. It's time to begin controlling it.

Sleaziness rises in college football

2011-03-31T12:14:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant

PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Coverage of sleaziness in college football this week has rivaled the Barry Bonds trial. We learned about the "money handshake" and sexual favors offered to recruits at such schools such as Ohio State and Auburn. As HBO reported on "Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel," former Auburn players say they were given cash payments in book bags and envelopes, as well as offered sex.

In another story, Jim Tressel, coach of Ohio State, is being assailed for covering up NCAA violations by his players. Tracee Hamilton of the Washington Post says Tressel betrayed his duty to his players. She writes:

"If I were a coach and I knew that five of my players were not only violating NCAA rules, they were doing it with a man being investigated by the federal government for drug trafficking, I wouldn’t turn to a 'mentor' of one of them. I’d turn first to my athletic director and the university counsel to see how best to keep these five players from ending up on the wrong end of a very unpleasant federal investigation — or worse.

"That’s your job as coach: to protect your players. You go into parents’ living rooms and promise them you’ll take their kids, coach ’em up, give them an education and keep them out of trouble. You don’t make promises to their 'mentors.' And if you do, you’d better stop. 'Mentor' is a word that should be raising eyebrows at the NCAA all the way to the ceiling."

And then there's the case of Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker using money from the non-profit organization to pay for strip clubs, birthday parties at Pebble Beach and sending friendly politicians to football games in Chicago and Boston. Junker said he needed to take clients to the strip club because athletes are known to frequent such establishments and that makes them a good place to do business.

Some female sports fans are disgusted. Here's what The Stir said about the allegations involving Ohio State: "And it's gross. Morally. Ethically. Legally. Buckets of cash dropped on college athletes are an insult to the other hardworking students of the university, and we've been promised plenty of money stories on tonight's Real Sports broadcast. But a case of prostitutes sent to players is demoralizing to the tens of thousands of women who make up the Buckeye nation."

Hold Fiesta Bowl as accountable as errant athletes

2011-03-30T09:03:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

"It is expected that all parties contracted with the BCS will live up to the highest standards," said BCS director Bill Hancock following revelations about mishandling of Fiesta Bowl funds.

How refreshing.

Fiesta Bowl executives were caught taking lawmakers on junkets to football games in Chicago and Boston. They held fundraisers to support various politicians. They gave away game tickets to politicos. And they concocted a scheme to funnel Fiesta Bowl money directly into political campaigns. All those things violate the Fiesta Bowl's non-profit status.

The political contribution scheme involved employees being pressured to give money to politicians, then being reimbursed with "bonuses" from the Fiesta Bowl. And don't forget the $1,200 tab for a strip club for Fiesta Bowl executives, or the $33,000 birthday bash at Pebble Beach for Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker.

Junker was fired following an investigative report on the Fiesta Bowl fiasco released Tuesday. Now Hancock and the BCS are reviewing whether the Fiesta Bowl should remain a BCS game.

Given that NCAA athletes are held to such high standards, it seems appropriate to hold the Fiesta Bowl no less accountable. If an athlete sells a bit of memorabilia, he or she can be suspended for several games. That makes suspending the Fiesta Bowl from the BCS for several games sound like an extremely appropriate punishment.

And perhaps it will send a message about the purpose of sport to college football leaders. The college game is supposed to be about education. When executives at the Fiesta Bowl are allowed to use the game for self-serving and illegal purposes, they teach athletes that all the talk about building character and seeking excellence is just a bunch of hot air.

Sordid tales in the Barry Bonds trial

2011-03-29T08:33:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

The mistress of Barry Bonds told a sordid story about the ballplayer's physical changes during the years that he was allegedly taking steroids.

As you can read in the Twitter reports from George Dohrmann, Kim Bell testified that Bonds developed acne, suffered sexual problems and began making violent threats toward her. In tears, Bell testified Bonds threatened, "He would cut my head off and leave me in ditch.... Would cut out my breast implants because he paid for them," according to Dohrmann.

Bell also testified that Bonds directly acknowledged using steroids. "He had an injury on his elbow, big lump, but started out loose conversation, how it got that way, he said cuz of steroids," Dohrmann tweeted.

Here's an AP story about the trial discussing those issues.

In opening statements, Bonds' attorney admitted that Bonds used steriods, though the did so without the knowledge he was using them. Supposedly, he was being duped by his trainer into thinking he was using flaxseed oil and arthritis medicine.

But when Bell testified about the dramatic changes in Bonds' physical and emotional condition, there's no question but that Bonds and those around him must have recognized that this was no side effect of flaxseed oil. These are classic side effects of steroid use.

And young athletes should see this as a powerful reminder of the consequences of the drug. Yes, Bonds got bigger and stronger. Yes, he will be remembered as the home run champ. But in our minds there will always be an asterisk beside his name reminding us that he was also that man who threatened to rip off his girlfriend's breasts and failed in his bedroom performances.

Is winning worth that? And even if it was worth it to Bonds, what was the price for those around him?

Are you sure Jose Canseco signed that?

2011-03-28T09:09:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Jose Canseco and his twin brother Ozzie were caught trying to play bait-and-switch in a celebrity boxing match, according to ESPN.

Jose was supposed to fight in a match at the Hard Rock nightclub in Hollywood, FL. However, patrons saw that it was actually Ozzie, primarily because the two men have different arm tattoos. Sleeves matter. Apparently they've pulled this trick before at autograph signings, ESPN said, where tattoos would be less visible than in a boxing match.

The South Florida Sun Sentinel noted this might seem like just an off footnote to the ballplayer's career if it weren't for Jose's past: "It's one thing to roll your eyes at a faux boxing event that fizzled. It's another to hear how the man who brought down baseball with steroid charges allegedly tried to pull off this silly switcheroo."

Now Jose is in a legal fight with the promoter over the $5,000 he was paid in advance. Perhaps Jose was a respected millionaire athlete at one time. Now he's looking more like Tonya Harding.

Like Harding, he's not much of a boxer, either. As the Sun Sentinel reported, Canseco has lost two fights already and fought to a draw with Partridge Family star Danny Bonaduce.

Is this is the same Jose Canseco who recently said the Barry Bonds trial was a waste of time and money because there were more important issues in the world than steroids? (Like celebrity boxing, for instance?) His point in the article was that people lie all the time and get away with it.

Well, perhaps Jose will one day learn that lying is not the best policy -- or even an acceptable policy. But for now, he doesn't inspire much trust.

Sport and public health

2011-03-27T08:21:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Is sport becoming a public health problem? And if it is, do we, as members of the sports community, have a duty to address that problem?

This a tough question being addressed at multiple levels of sport. In Sunday's New York Times, they address the issue of knee injuries in female athletes, who are five times more likely than men to face ACL injuries. And those injuries have the potential to create osteoarthritis 10 or 15 years down the road. According to the Times:

"'This is more than a sports medicine problem,' said Dr. Edward Wojtys, the director of sports medicine at the University of Michigan. 'It’s becoming a public health problem.'

"A number of coaches and trainers have criticized youth development in sports, where far more attention is paid to winning and athletic skills than to injury prevention. [Connecticut's Geno] Auriemma and other coaches also wonder whether girls are reinforcing poor biomechanical behavior by specializing in a sport too soon."

In hockey, we're seeing growing concern about concussions. Boston Bruins center Mark Savard is suffering serious memory problems following a concussion, according to ESPN. He complains of being sleepy all the time, that things seem to move slower, and of depression. In a game where fighting has been a key part of the sport, the NHL now struggles with the health ramifications facing its multi-million dollar players.

In the NFL, where concussions are up 21 percent, the league is changing rules to try to reduce the problem. Kickoffs have been shortened. And the NFL now supports changes in laws to help protect young football players from head injuries.

But as NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said, it's going to require a change in culture to change our attitude toward injury in sport. We often see injury as an accepted risk of the game. But that attitude seems to ignore the player.

We need to put ourselves in the place of, say, football player Kort Breckenridge, whose story you can see at The New York Times site. The Idaho high school player suffered severe mental problems following multiple concussions. After listening to Breckenridge's slurred speech, no coach could say the young man's mental disorder was a fair outcome of a game of football.

And as a grandfather with a touch of arthritis in my hip, I can't imagine my granddaughter facing the same pain at age 30 simply because she wanted to play soccer or basketball. She deserves a game that maximizes the fun and educational value of sport, without placing her long-term health at risk. If that means better educated coaches who clearly understand the biomechanics of athletes, as Auriemma suggests, that should become a priority for sport. If that means new rules for sport down to the high school level, as Goodell suggests, that should become a priority, also.

Health is more important than a game. The game can survive changes of rules, but our kids may not survive intact if the hazards are not contained.

HGH testing in the NFL

2011-03-25T07:38:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

The NFL is insisting that all players in the league be tested for human growth hormone (HGH), according to ESPN. Owners want the testing as part of the new collective bargaining agreement, saying that it's important to the integrity of the game.

No one knows how widespread the use of HGH may be. FDA regulations restrict its use and say it must be administered by a physician. However, movie stars such as Sylvester Stallone have promoted HGH as part of their fitness regime. And tests for HGH have generally been regarded as ineffective, in part because they can only catch someone who has used it within 48 hours -- or perhaps less.

But new tests are in development that could increase the testing window to two weeks. Terry Newton, a UK rugby player, was the first professional sport star to be caught by an HGH test when he tested positive and accepted a two-year suspension last year. But his story ended in tragedy when he killed himself a few months later.

In an interview before his death, Newton admitted he became a cheater, in his own words, as he tried to resurrect his career following an injury. He'd heard gossip that there were other players using it and that it was undetectable. "I was cheating, but I thought other people were cheating too – and that there was no way of getting found out," he told the The Independent. But even after admitting his own failings, he refused to name others who he knew were using HGH.

That's another sad part of his story. Newton had so much loyalty to his former teammates that he allowed them to keep cheating, even though he knew the consequences for the game and for other users. Loyalty trumped his sense of right and wrong.

That Newton would allow his mates to use the drug suggests that he still saw success in the game as more important than long-term health. As the Independent also reported, HGH can have even more dangerous side effects than steroids: "It can lead to swelling of the body's soft tissues, abnormal growth of the hands, feet and face, high blood pressure, blood clots, diabetes, increased sweating, and excessive hair growth. Organs including the heart, liver and kidneys, may also grow excessively, leading to potentially life-threatening problems such as cardiomyopathy, a disease of the heart muscle. Researchers have also linked HGH to an increased risks of cancer and overloading of the adrenal glands, which can result in infection and illness."

One sense you get from the NFL negotiations is that attitudes regarding the health of players may be slowly changing. The clamor for rule changes to prevent head injuries and concern about testing for performance enhancing drugs may be an indication that long-term health costs are beginning to take on greater importance.

In the Barry Bonds trial, his old friend Steve Hoskins testified, "I was the one trying to stop him from taking steroids because I thought it was bad for him." That's the kind of refreshing attitude that would be as valuable to sport as testing for HGH.

Self-regulation and boosterism

2011-03-24T06:50:00.001-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

With so much money riding on sport these days, self-regulation has begun to look a lot like self-justification.

At Washington State University, player DeAngelo Casto was cited for marijuana possession and suspended from the team shortly before the team's NIT game with Northwestern. He was the third Cougar this season to be suspended for marijuana, and the other two sat out short suspensions. But Athletic Director Bill Moos said there were special circumstances in this case, and reinstated the player just before the game. Casto proceeded to score the first four points of the game and contribute to a narrow victory by WSU, one that sends the team to New York for the NIT semifinals.

One can't help but wonder if those special circumstances Moos observed in this case include the tremendous desire for a financially beneficial Cougar victory.

That's not so different from the case of cyclist Alberto Contador. After he tested positive for a banned substance during the 2010 Tour de France, international officials recommended a one-year ban from cycling. Contador appealed, saying that he ingested the substance unknowingly when he ate contaminated meat.

Following the international body's ruling, the Spanish cycling federation had to decide the case. It was heavily lobbied by higher officials, including the Spanish Prime Minister, who said there was no legal justification for sanctions against Contador. The Spanish cycling officials then lifted the ban on Contador.

Contador said the decision was not the result of patriotism, but that's not what it looked like from outside. Contador is a hero in Spain. And the Spanish cycling authorities could sidestep political problems by reinstanting Condator. They knew that international officials would likely step again again, as they have. The International Cycling Union is appealing to the Court of Arbitration of Sport to have Contador's suspension reinstated.

But the Spanish officials have satisfied Spanish fans, and can now wash their hands of it.

Or take a look at the case of Ohio State and football coach Jim Tressel. Six football players were caught breaking NCAA rules on selling memorabilia last year. Tressel failed to report that violation to the NCAA after he learned of it. Ohio State disclosed a five-game suspension against the players in December, although the players were still allowed to play in the upcoming bowl big-money game. Later when Tressel was penalized, he was given only a two-game suspension. After public cries of unfairness, he asked to add three more games to his own suspension. But if all was fair, suspensions would be leveled immediately and decisively, not sent up like trial balloons to see which way the wind was blowing.

Give credit to Brigham Young University, which placed its honor code above the desire for victory when it suspended a key basketball player for what seemed to many on the outside as a minor violation -- having sex with his girlfriend. But that was violation of his promise to the university. They held to it even when it threatened to cost the team a shot at a national title.

That's a rare show of moral courage.

Gladiator sport

2011-03-23T08:05:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

"You can't eliminate injuries from football. It's a gladiator sport," said Cleveland Browns returner Josh Cribbs, according to ESPN.

That's why Cribbs is unhappy with the new rule on NFL kickoffs, which moves the kickoff point from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line and restricts the kickoff team to a five-yard running start. The NFL committee rejected two other proposals, one of which would have eliminated the two-man wedge from kickoffs and a second that would have brought touchbacks out to the 25-yard line.

Cribbs said the new rules will take kick returners out of the game. He said the NFL is trying to "hide behind safety," appealing to some safety proponents with this move in a gambit to add two more games to the schedule.

Two more games will likely mean more injuries. But Cribbs eagerness to maintain the "gladiator" nature of football suggests a very short-term view of life. It has only been a month since former Pro Bowl safety Dave Duerson shot himself and requested that his brain be examined for evidence of chronic damage due to a lifetime of football hits.

Perhaps Cribbs and other professionals accept the risk of injury along with their paychecks, but millions of younger players have little understanding of the possible long-term consequences of repeated hits to the head. Football would survive even without kickoffs, just as basketball as survives without repeated jump balls.

Barry's defense: I didn't know

2011-03-22T15:46:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

In opening statements, Barry Bonds' attorney said Bonds' personal trainer misled him when he gave him steroids, according to ESPN. Bonds, the attorney said, was deceived into thinking he was using flaxseed oil and arthritus cream.

"I know that doesn't make a great story," attorney Allen Ruby said. "But that's what happened."

Actually, it sounds like moral justification. That's what happens when people get caught with their hand in the cookie jar and try to justify it by saying they didn't realize what was inside the jar.

Moral justification normally has a negative connotation, but it can have a positive connotation, according to some ethical experts.

"The positive sense of justification, on the other hand, involves bringing others to see our actions as reasonable. In this sense, a course of action is justified if there are better reasons in favor of it than there are against it. Preferably, these reasons should be ones that other people could agree are good ones. It is this sense of justification that is important for morality. Moral justification, then, means showing that there are more or better moral reasons weighing for a course of action than against it," writes Chris MacDonald on EthicsWeb.

If we want to remain morally positive and responsible in this case, however, we must ask of Bonds: Was it reasonable to see huge gains in muscle mass from flaxseed oil and arthritis cream? If he was really being duped by his trainer, he must not have questioned the treatment. Is Bonds that oblivious to the truth (which, he now admits, was that he was being treated with steroids)?

Perhaps that's why ESPN describes Bond as "slouched in his chair" during his federal trial on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. Part of the defense appears to be to present Bonds as somewhat less than the sharpest tack on the bench. However, that runs counter to Bonds' educational history. He graduated from Arizona State University with a degree in criminology. If I was on the jury, I'd have a hard time buying that.

Pearl without wisdom

2011-03-21T16:19:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant

PhD student, Center for ETHICS

Tennessee basketball coach Bruce Pearl was fired this week. But was he fired for recruiting violations or for losing to Michigan by 30 points?

If Tennessee was going to fire him for recruiting violations, one would think the university would have moved more quickly and decisively. According to ESPN, Pearl was informed on Monday that his tenure at Tennessee was over. Supposedly, Tennessee Athletic Director had been extremely supportive of Pearl, but then changed his tune in the last week of the season, when he announced there had been a lot of "soul searching" about whether to keep Pearl.

According to ESPN, officials at Tennessee have known since mid-December that Pearl's promises to abide by NCAA rules were worth little more than the crocodile tears he shed last Sept. 10. In a press conference that day, Pearl admitted misleading investigators who were looking into possible recruiting violations. But in December, Tennessee officials were informed that Pearl would be charged with another recruiting violation, one he's accused of committing on Sept. 14, just days after his tearful press conference.

But Pearl had developed a winning program at Tennessee, leading the program to six straight NCAA tournament appearances. That made him popular, with a recent poll showing that 70 percent of Tennessee fans supported him. Students still love him, even after the firing.

Fox Sports says the fear of NCAA sanctions pushed Tennessee to dump Pearl. But the university has know about the possibility of sanctions for months. If the university was going to fire Pearl because he misled investigators, and continued committing NCAA violations even after feeling the heat, the university should have fired him much sooner. But it's hard to fire a winner. It's much easier to fire someone who just got bounced from the tournament by 30 points.

And Sporting News points out that Tennessee leadership had some responsibility for the Sept. 14 recruiting violation. After learning of the NCAA investigation and that Pearl had misled investigators, Tennessee placed a self-imposed a recruiting suspension on Pearl and his staff. If the university had imposed that ban after the tearful Sept. 10 press conference, Pearl would not have been on the recruiting road on Sept. 14, when the NCAA says the latest violation occurred. But Tennessee wanted Pearl to be out recruiting during that critical period in September, so the university delayed the suspension. And that's when the NCAA slapped him again.

Bonds' steroid question may go unresolved

2011-03-21T09:22:00.000-07:00

by Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

The trial of Barry Bonds has begun. He's accused of four counts of perjury and one of obstruction of justice. But as SI.com reports, he could be convicted even without proof that he actually used steroids.

Three of the perjury counts accuse Bonds of lying about using steroids or human growth hormone (HGH). The fourth perjury count, however, merely accuses Bonds of lying about receiving an injection from his former trainer, Greg Anderson. So to convict Bonds, the prosecution must prove only (1) that Bonds received that injection from Anderson, and (2) that Bonds knowingly lied about receiving the injection. What the injection contained would be irrelevant.

Such is the way legal strategies work.

However, it seems likely most sports fans want to see the prosecution prove its case is a more straightforward manner. A recent poll by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported that most Americans see performance enhancing drugs as the most serious problem facing sports today. Yes, lying is unethical and Bonds should be responsible for his lies. But the poll finds that 75% of the respondents think using steroids or HGH violates the ethical standards of sport. And they're concerned what that says to children.

Athletes are role models, regardless of how they posture on the issue. And many Americans worry that if professional athletes use steroids or HGH, they're telling younger athletes that such use is acceptable.

"The [USADA] study also showed 41 percent of children believe if a well-known athlete breaks the rules it makes children think it is acceptable to break the rules to win," the Los Angeles Times reported.

If prosecutors in the Bonds case hope to send a counter message to children, a message that using steriods is unacceptable, let's hope they can prove their primary allegations -- that Bonds knowingly used performance enhancing drugs.

In the Wall Street Journal, one expert says the case is not really about steroids and HGH. "This is not a steroid case per se," said Richard Collins, a criminal-defense attorney specializing in cases involving athletes and performance-enhancing drugs, who has no involvement in this case. "This is the same as anyone who is accused of lying under oath."

But for most of us, this is a case about steroids, not lying. And after seven years of hearing about it, we want to see prosecutors to prove the steroid use. Only then will be truly believe that the legal system can catch up to cheaters, not just with fancy legal strategies but rather with hard facts that a jury will understand.

Coach fails at apology

2011-02-25T09:21:00.000-08:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Here's how to fail at an apology. Holy Family basketball coach John O'Connor went on Good Morning America to meet with a player he had knocked down during a practice. Here's ESPN's story about it.

As you'll see, O'Connor says the incident was an "accident." The player didn't buy it. O'Connor should not be surprised. His apology lacked the basic elements of an effective apology.

According to Psychology Today, the three general components of an apology are a statement of regret for what happened, a clear "I'm sorry" statement, and a request for forgiveness. Furthermore, the psychology researchers find that there are three additional components that make an apology effective: an expression of empathy, an offer of compensation and acknowledgment that rules or social norms were violated.

From a moral perspective, the person apologizing also needs to accept responsibility for the action and commit to an effort to make sure such an action does not happen again.

O'Connor failed on most of those points. Calling the incident an "accident" shows that O'Connor neither recognizes the violation of rules against a coach striking players nor accepts responsibility for his obviously intentional action. The coach's statement of regret then sounds empty.

O'Connor also fails to emphathize with the player. He was caught speaking to the television host rather than to the player. He fails to address the harm suffered by the player. He doesn't anticipate the player's loss of trust and fear about his own future as a basketball player.

One suggestion to the coach: Before making such a statement, set aside your own personal concerns and spend a few moments imagining yourself in the position of the player you're apologizing to. Imagine the way the player felt when you pushed him down. Think about what was running through the player's head as you began to kick him, even if that kick ultimately was light and half-hearted. Consider the injury to the player, and how he may feel about it affected his basketball game. Think of how that player will view you next time you meet.

Learning to see things from the perspective of the offended person will help you build the kind of sincerity and humility required as part of an effective apology. Apologies, coach, aren't like X's and O's. Psychology Today may tell you the components of an apology. But if you can't deliver it from your heart, it's unlikely to work.

Golfers like the rules. Why don’t other athletes?

2011-01-28T17:26:00.000-08:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Last week, professional golfer Padraig Harrington was disqualified from the Abu Dhabi Championship after a television viewer noticed that he illegally moved the ball and emailed officials. Harrington was one stroke off the lead.

But Harrington accepted the disqualification with incredible grace. “The rules are good, we abide very well, the players love the fact that we apply them,” he said. “We love the standard that we play by. When we have to stick to that, that’s the best thing about the game.”

Often, athletes in sports such as football have the opposite attitude. Last year, former running back Marshall Faulk said, “It’s a well-documented thing that if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying in sports. Some of the best things that are done in sports are illegal. You work around the rules to get things done.”

Angela Lumpkin, who wrote “Cheating and Gamesmanship among Amateur and Professional Golfers” as part of the book Golf and Philosophy: Lessons from the Links, writes, “Amateur and professional baseball, basketball and football players are often coached to act in unethical ways to gain competitive advantages, and many teammates expect each other to do whatever it takes to win. Professional golfers, unlike amateur golfers, play a game without on-course coaches and teammates who encourage cheating and gamesmanship and in which playing by the letter and spirit of the rules is revered.”

Harrington epitomizes Lumpkin’s words. The culture of golf at the top level is a culture of principled behaviors. Research by Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll and others shows that that college level golfers score much higher on tests of moral reasoning that other athletes.

A professional sports culture that honors fair play can foster the development of high moral standards at other levels of the game. Reports about Harrington’s handling of the situation should be at the top of the news. Other sports should be asking how they can build a more golf-like sense of integrity into their culture.

Donor wants control of football program

2011-01-25T16:04:00.000-08:00

by Tom Grant
Phd Student, Center for ETHICS*

Another PhD student and I were arguing today about multi-million dollar salaries for college football coaches. I complained that if most college athletic programs are lose money, as the NCAA president says, then it didn't make sense to pay such huge salaries to coaches. He said a lot of the money to pay the coaches was coming from outside sources, including athletic boosters.

A few hours later, ESPN posted this article on a donor from Connecticut who wanted a $3 million dollar contribution returned because he wasn't allowed to have any influence when the university hired its new football coach. The donor was Robert Burton, chief executive officer of Greenwich, Conn.-based Burton Capital Management.

The ESPN story read:

"Burton called the situation 'a slap in the face and embarrassment to my family,' and said he planned 'to let the correct people know that you did not listen to your number one football donor.' He called the search process flawed.'We want our money and respect back,' Burton wrote to [UConn Athletic Director Jeff] Hathaway."

Burton isn't the only booster who is said to want a big hand in major sports operations. Phil Knight of Nike has given millions to the University of Oregon, and is said to have a hand in many sport decisions at the school. Some worry that T. Boone Pickens, who gave $165 million to the athletic department of Oklahoma State University, has too much control there.

Yet with rising costs and state budget cuts, athletic departments are becoming increasingly dependent upon outside donations. Institutions have commonly sold the naming rights to stadiums and buildings as one way of attracting major contributions. Perhaps the era is already upon us when hiring rights to coaches are also being sold to donors. My friend believes he once lost a coaching job because a donor made the call.

It would make things so much easier if they'd just let donors hang their shingle on the coach, like they do on bowl games and buildings.

I can hear the commentators now: "The Burton Capital Management UConn Football Coach has just asked the referee for a time out...."

Where does all the money go?

2011-01-22T17:05:00.000-08:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

NCAA President Mark Emmert says only 14 of the more than 1,100 NCAA schools made money on athletics last year, according to ESPN. So despite the NCAA's new $10.6 billion deal with CBS for the men's basketball tournament, the NCAA can't afford to sucn such things as an "Ultimate Frisbee" championship.

So where does all the money go? Emmert says the NCAA will make $700 million from its new contract and 96 percent of that will go to member athletic departments in support of athletes.

Or perhaps in support of giant salaries for coaches. Only 14 schools make money on athletics, but 70 are willing to pay more than $1 million in salary and bonuses to their football coaches, according to USA Today.

If you look at the 110 football programs in the USA Today report, the total salary and bonuses for coaches adds up to almost $200 million. And don't forget the 25 NCAA basketball coaches who make more than $1 million annually.

If you wonder why colleges aren't making money on athletics, it isn't because they've thrown it away on Ultimate Frisbee.

Rex Ryan: Motivating with Hate

2011-01-19T10:08:00.000-08:00

By Tom Grant

PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Jets coach Rex Ryan is being celebrated for motivating with hate. According to a quote in ESPN, an unnamed NFL executive says of Ryan, “His No. 1 ability is to get his players to identify hate in the week.”

And that pro exec apparently thinks motivating with hate is a good thing.

The story by Gene Wojceichowski reports that Ryan has been using hate as a motivational tool since his days with NAIA New Mexico Highlands in 1989.”He creates a specific reason to play that game and to despise that opponent.”

Without question, hate has been used as a motivational tool throughout history, from the Nazis to the Khmer Rouge. As a group phenomenon, hate divides people — often into groups that may only exist in the imagination of the hater. Yale history professor Ben Kiernan says the promotion of hate is generally delusional. “Hate speech extends hate to a fantastical target group and leads to violence against entire groups which only exist coherently in the mind of hate-speech utterers,” he said.

Keirnan's term "fantastical" can easily be applied to major professional sports teams. They have no coherent form other than through their city affiliation. Coaches, players, fans and even owners change frequently. A Patriot today could be a Jet tomorrow. According to Wojceichowski, Ryan’s technique follows the pattern of creating a group to hate when that group has no identity other than the uniform of the day and no relationship with actions worth of hate: “He invents belief. By the time kickoff arrives, Ryan has his players convinced that the other team not only needs to be crushed but that it deserves to be crushed.”

Why should Jets hate Patriots? The Toronto Sun lists the reasons, starting with a crushing hit on Patriots’ QB Drew Bledsoe in 2001. But that led to Tom Brady’s emergence to lead the Pats to the championship. Then there are some job switches between the teams involving coaches Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick. Is there something wrong about a professional athlete or coach taking a new job? Or could it be that the game itself is the source of hatred?

Such a thought is reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1945 essay “The Sporting Spirit” in which he condemns sport for creating bad feeling between nations: “Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words, it is war minus the shooting.”

Orwell, just as he warned against government oppression in 1984, warned against the “lunatic modern habit” of seeing everything in terms of competitive prestige. “If you wanted to add to the vast fund of ill-will existing in the world at this moment, you could hardly do it better than by a series of football matches between Jews and Arabs, Germans and Czechs, Indians and British, Russians and Poles, and Italians and Jugoslavs, each match to be watched by a mixed audience of 100,000 spectators.”

Why are we celebrating Ryan’s addition to the ill will in the world? Have we forgotten the $50,000 fine given Ryan for giving the middle finger to Dolphins fans? Now when outsiders view the Jets, they see the middle finger everywhere. The Boston Herald reported that Jets players were seen giving the finger to Patriots fans following Sunday’s playoff game. The Jets denied it, but taint remains. Patriots receiver Deion Branch called the Jets “classless” and it made headlines.

Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll of the Center for ETHICS* at the University of Idaho says hate may do more damage to the hater than the hated. Hate is a poison. It tears people apart. Educators would not use hatred in the classroom to try to motivate people to peak performances in, say, math and English. But when high school or college coaches see professional football success expressed as a function of channeling hate, they can’t help but be tempted to take a lesson from Rex Ryan.

For coach/educators, that seems profoundly wrong-headed. Coaches at the high school and college level are role models for their athletes. As we’ve seen in the Jets, athletes are believed to be modeling in their leader — right down to the middle finger to the fans. Perhaps high school and college coaches could get a better idea of where such tactics lead them and their athletes if they pictured themselves not as Ryan the championship coach, but as Ryan the guy in the picture with finger raised.

Dr. Jennifer Beller working to create WSU center for assisting rural coaches

2010-11-09T16:12:00.000-08:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Coaches in rural America face the same demands as big city coaches. They’re supposed to build winning programs, develop athletes of great physical ability and moral character, and minimize the possibility of injury and other potential harm. However, rural coaches seldom have access to the same resources as their counterparts in urban areas.

That’s why Dr. Jennifer Beller of now is working with professionals at Washington State University and the Center for ETHICS* at the University of Idaho to develop a multi-disciplinary program of outreach consultation, leadership training and coaching education. “We have a mission to develop a center for rural coaching education,” Beller said.

As a parent of a child in a rural school, Beller believes such a program can be of immediate benefit to athletes, families and coaches in small-town American. “When our kids get into junior high and high school, we know our sons want to play football, but we worry about the techniques they use,” Beller said. “As a rural parent, I have very real concerns about how my own son would be coached.”

One of the major components will be an online program, filled with techniques based in sound research, to assist coaches of youth and high school programs. Beller expects the center will offer continuing education credits for teachers and coaches at a reasonable cost, hopefully $50 to $74 per credit.

“The nature of sport is incredibly wonderful. There are amazing things it does to us as people and human beings,” she said. “But when something does go wrong, it can be a bad situation both physically and psychologically.”

One problem coaches sometimes face is gearing their training program to the age and development of their athletes. “You have to look at young people differently,” Beller said. Using baseball as an example, she noted that young players may be asked to learn many different pitches as well as increase their pitching speed -- even though their muscles and bone growth plates are not fully developed. “So some kids end up with lifelong injuries and can’t play at higher levels because they are constantly injured.”

Improving coaches’ knowledge of technique and physiological capacities can provide them fresh options to help prevent injury.

Similarly, the center hopes to help rural coaches address the growing concerns about concussions in football. “We know that concussions are a major issue, in part because we don’t necessarily teach young players good techniques for protecting the head, neck and upper body,” Beller said.

The people working with Beller to develop the center include athletic trainers Carol Zweifel and Kimberly Robertello, playground design and safety expert Larry Bruya, physical therapists at Moscow Mountain Sport and Physical Therapy, and the Center for ETHICS*.

They hope to create interactive online modules to help coaches recognize and treat athletic injuries, as well as learn about nutrition, motivation, strength training, diet supplements, fitness and conditioning, and building community involvement in athletic programs. Beller has identified schools in rural Washington, Idaho, Montana and Oregon as a target for the program, but an Internet based program has the potential to reach an even wider audience.

Purdue’s National Rural Education Center and WSU’s Rural Education Center already provide general services to rural schools, but neither focuses on providing coaching education. “There’s nothing I can find out there that focuses on coaching education in particular with rural schools,” Beller said.

Here’s what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll has to say about the idea.

How about family friendly football games?

2010-10-05T17:57:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

The University of Idaho recently changed the name of the week before the Boise State football game. It used to be called “Beat BSU Week.” Henceforth, it will be known as “Vandal Pride Week.”

Ooops. Two weeks later, the Student Alumni Relations Board changed it back to "Beat BSU Week." That sentiment is a tradition that is highly valued at UI.

In actuality, we expected little of substance to change under either name — though we will offer one suggestion to try to make a difference. We suggest creating a family friendly area in the Kibbie Dome parking lot.

That's been one of the areas of conflict between Idaho fans and visitors. Some Idaho supporters still continue to malign Boise State in every way possible. At a recent volleyball match, the rhyme of, “Who do hate? Boise State” greeted visitors, and dispatched them when it ended. And these were sober fans.

When the President of BSU called Idaho fans “nasty” and “inebriated,” it was no idle remark. It reflected his personal experience. He has walked the gauntlet of drunken Idaho tailgaters in the Kibbie Dome parking lot. He has heard the insults thrown like stones at anyone wearing blue and orange. The image he retained of Idaho fans was “nasty” and “inebriated.”

Frankly, those of us who breathe Vandal black and gold may feel little empathy for the BSU President. He’s a big guy — whose team is ranked in the top 5. He can take it. But it may serve Idaho well to consider whether the impression that he gained of the University of Idaho is also shared by other visitors. You should ask, would you want your children to have that impression of Vandals fans?

Our proposal was raised by Seth Haselhuhn, a graduate student at the Center for ETHICS*. He thought of sectioning off a family area in the Kibbie Dome parking lot that would be off-limits to drinking and tailgating. It would have a route to the Kibbie Dome entrance that did not border the tailgating area.

If fans want to drink and celebrate prior to Vandals games, so be it. Revelry is part of the sport. But there’s no reason to mix revelry and rivalry when hatred seems to spring from it.

If Boise Fans choose to tailgate alongside Vandal fans, that should be their right. But if they choose to avoid the abuse and park in the family area, they should have that option, too.

Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll has this to say about the discussion of a name changes for "Beat BSU Week" and the Vandal tailgating culture:

Offended by the word? Maybe we should talk.

2010-10-05T17:38:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant

PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

In a class last week, I heard some of the student-athletes calling each other “nigga.” I was deeply offended —not because they directed their comments at me; they hadn’t. I’m an old white man. The word has never been used as a club to beat me. No, I was offended because I put myself on the line many times to stop people from using such language.

As a journalist in a previous life, I remember standing beneath a bridge near Boise, working on a story about a bunch of beer-drinking skinheads. One of the skinheads, who later went to prison for terrorist acts, used the n-word to describe African Americans. Within his Identity Christian belief system, people of other races were inhuman. He used the term as though he were discussing an animal. I told him I was offended and I didn’t want him to use that language around me. In retrospect, that was probably a risky maneuver for someone surrounded by drunken skinheads. But oddly enough, the young man apologized and quit using the word.

When I lived in the South, I would almost routinely hear people use derogatory terms about African Americans. I remember telling a neighbor that language was unacceptable. I never heard him say it again. I doubt he changed his language patterns in other circumstances. But language is powerful. When one uses the language of hate, and others acquiesce to that language, it signals a quiet agreement. It says, “We are all racists here.” Stopping the agreement requires action. I’ve taken that action. It was the only thing to do.

After the incident in class, I asked an African American friend what he thought of the use of the word “nigga” by young blacks. My friend is an activist. He fights to try to improve the lives of people in the impoverished Southern city where he lives. He is extremely troubled by those who would adopt the language of oppression and turn it upon themselves. Of course, my friend believes in responsibility — that everyone, regardless of race, has a duty to act to improve their own future. Seeking improvement requires working together. My friend believes people hold themselves down by adopting oppressive language, the language of division, and using it on themselves.

There is a strong argument that offensive language can be liberated from its previous meaning. Gay culture has done that, I think successfully, with “queer.” African American legal scholar Randall Kennedy writes in the book “Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word” that use of the word “nigga” by blacks exhibits a “bracing independence.” He believes they are changing the meaning of the word. Some in sport even believe the word conveys concepts of toughness and determination.

But most still hear the word, particularly when used by a white man, as a powerful insult. As Gary Younge wrote in an article in The Guardian, when blacks use the word “nigga” for each other they give tacit approval for use of the word by others. That’s why, in mixed company, Younge told an acquaintance never to call him that again. “If it was left unchallenged, I would have to listen to racist people using racist language and justifying it with the pretext that a black man had said it first.”

As coaches or educators, we could draw a line and say, “Don’t use that word.” And if we never hear the word, we have no need to confront it. But when the word comes up, as it does with regularity in music and conversation, it may offer a teaching opportunity. We are supposed to teach, and not just win games or deliver high scores on standardized tests.

This is a word with the potential to harm. It’s a linguistic elbow that may bend to serve some but has often been thrown to harm others. We can only know the difference by learning how others react to the term. I don’t condemn those young men who used on it on each other. But they probably didn’t understand that it hurt me.

Here’s what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll has to say:

Will tough NCAA stance on rule breaking make educational difference? Or just better relations with the pros?

2010-09-27T10:34:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

The NCAA is getting tough on rule-breakers. This year, the NCAA hit Southern Cal with a two-year bowl and loss of 20 scholarships after football star Reggie Bush and basketball standout O.J. Mayo were caught accepting gifts from outside promoters. It’s the toughest penalty in years.

Incoming NCAA president Mark Emmert told the Associated Press that he recognizes how much temptation athletes face: "Around elite athletes, there are always people who see an opportunity to make money in the future, so the opportunities for those things are sort of omnipresent and what the university president and athletic directors have to do is be as rigorous as they can with what the university stands for, their values and be very attentive to it.”

Harsh penalties are designed to encourage other athletic departments to work harder to prevent problems from occurring. "The key is trying to get the penalties to line up with the bad behavior and getting others to change so that they play within the rules," Emmert said. The NCAA has nearly doubled the number of investigators since 2003. Emmert says he may cut the NCAA’s staff of almost 500, but not it’s 23-person enforcement unit.

One of Emmert’s ideas is to create a points system for rule breakers, so that coaches and others involved in illicit activity cannot simply move on to another place, leaving the university behind with the penalties.

Some of his proposals include working with the NBA to create a baseball-style draft rule. Currently, NBA teams cannot draft high school players but can draft college players after their first year, which has encouraged many star players to take a “one and done” college career. A baseball-style draft rule would allow high school players to be drafted, but require those that are not drafted to commit to college for a set period of time before they can be drafted.

"I much prefer the baseball model, for example, that allows a young person if they want to go play professional baseball, they can do it right out of high school, but once they start college they've got to play for three years or until they're 21," Emmert, who is leaving the University of Washington to take the helm of the NCAA, said in a radio interview with KJR. "I like that a good deal.

"But what you have to also recognize is that rule isn't an NCAA rule…. That's a rule of the NBA. And it's not the NBA itself, but the NBA Players Association. So to change that rule will require me and others working with the NBA, working with the players association."

Emmert has also had discussions with the NFL and its union about illicit activity by sports agents. Emmert believes working closely with pro sports leagues and players unions will help clean up the environment of sport. “Emmert said it’s all part of a bigger plan to help police everything from unsavory agents to schools that ignore the rules,” the AP reported.

One question arises from Emmert's plan to get tough on schools and coaches, however. The purpose of college sport is supposed to be education. Is this new approach by the NCAA going to create a better environment for education of athletes? Or is it designed to improve the NCAA's position as a farm system for professional sports?

Here’s what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll says about Emmert’s plan to get tough.

How early should kids turn pro?

2010-09-10T11:02:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Lera Solovieva was 11 years old when Norman Canter of Renaissance Tennis Management signed her to a professional contract. As The New York Times reports, Renaissance Tennis spent $650,000 bringing the young Russian girl to Miami to live and train. Four years later, she’s back in Russia, her career derailed by injuries.

But Cantor and other agents continue to cruise the junior tennis circuit looking for the next big thing. Rafael Nadal signed a professional contract when he was only 13.

However, few of the best junior athletes will become a top men’s or women’s player. About one-percent become a top 10 player. So the agents are playing a numbers game, signing 100 young athletes in hopes that one or two will become marketable stars.

Many of the young athletes will make very little money for themselves. According to the Times, these young professionals get free equipment and clothing from sponsors. They may get a $1,000 bonus for winning a tournament or $25,000 for rising into the rankings of the top 100. Most of the money, probably more than $100,000 per year, is spent on high-caliber coaching, travel and expenses.

In addition, little is known about the risks that young athletes face when they begin intensive training in one sport early in life. Some sports medicine experts say young athletes should be discouraged from "playing through the pain," because overuse injuries in growing children may create permanent damage. One study of high school students showed that those who played sports all year long had a 42% increased chance of overuse injury compared to those who took at least one season off.

Patrick McEnroe, general manager for the United States Tennis Association’s player development program, says this actually weakens American tennis. “The bottom line is, we lost a generation of players the last 10 years that should have gone to college but didn’t,” he told The New York Times.

Some top young tennis players, such as 17-year-old Jack Sock, have refused to accept bonuses or prize money because they want to maintain college eligibility. However, Sock’s choice has required sacrifices from his family.

Is this a good model for treatment of young athletes? If it is, we may expect it would work in other sports. Imagine some basketball players turning pro at age 11 or 12. In some nations, it may already work that way. Kentucky basketball recruit Enes Kantor, 18, has been under professional contract in Turkey for three years already, according to published reports.

Jeremy Tyler turned professional prior to his senior year in high school in San Diego, signing with a basketball team in Israel. However, he failed to last the season and returned home, his NBA prospects fading. Now he's off to Japan, trying to resurrect a career that for most athletes would just be getting started.

If that rule were applied in basketball, 100 players would turn professional in high school and lose their chance at a college scholarship. But only a handful of them — perhaps only one or two — would actually become a professional star. If we value education of young people more than we value professional sport, that seems a high price to pay.

Thinking of Reggie Bush: Make coaches pay when athletes violate NCAA rules

2010-09-10T08:50:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for Ethics

Published reports said in early September that Reggie Bush could be stripped of his Heisman Trophy because he accepted gifts and cash while he was playing football for the University of Southern California. A week later, the New Orleans running back announced he would relenquish his trophy. The 2005 Heisman, which Bush called "one of the greatest honors of my life," was being erased along with all his other college honors.

Georgia wide receiver A. J. Green has been suspended for four games for selling a game jersey for $1,000, which was a violation of NCAA rules that prohibit players from selling memorabilia. Georgia, without Green, lost to rival South Carolina, putting his team in a must win situation if it hopes to compete in the SEC.

College athletes are expected to resist all financial rewards for playing. Their compensation is tuition, books, room and board. Yet they see the institutions and the coaches of college sport make huge amounts of money. In Georgia, for instance, Head Coach Mark Richt makes $3 million per year. At USC during the Bush years, Head Coach Pete Carroll made more than $4 million.

The problems are clear from a rules-based perspective. If Bush and Green failed to abide by NCAA rules, they are subject to sanctions. They are expected to know the NCAA rules — all 434 pages. Before they play NCAA athletics, they’re must sign documents to that effect.
However, a rules-based perspective may be blind to the real world of college athletes. A rules-based system assumes athletes know the rules, even if they probably don’t. One athlete at the University of Idaho described his introduction to NCAA rules where school officials sat him down with a pile of documents: “They said if you don’t sign, you can’t play. So you sign.” When we recently asked a group of athletes in class if they actually read the documents before signing them, none of them had.

In an educational institution, one might expect to see some educational program surrounding the rules, one where students learn about the reasoning and principles behind the rules. At the very least, we might expect that training in the rules is provided to athletes before they’re asked to sign them. Wouldn’t it be better to spend time teaching athletes about the principles and responsibilities they’re expected to uphold rather than wait until someone catches the next Reggie Bush taking money from an agent or booster. In the absence of such an educational program, it would appear that the rules — and the signing ritual demanded of athletes — are mostly for a tool to penalize athletes after they err.

Bush and Green may not understand, but the people who paid the real penalty for the violations are other students. They’re the ones who lose their opportunities to win a scholarship or play in a bowl game. When Green takes $1,000 for a shirt, his teammates suffer because they must play without him in several big games. If Bush and Green had learned to think about how others will be affected by their decisions, they may have come to a different conclusion. However, if all they think about are the “rules,” they may believe, as they do in games, that all is well if the referee fails to spot the violation.

How about creating models of ethical behavior within sports programs and making coaches responsible for the behavior of their athletes? No one is saying that athletes shouldn't be held personally responsible for their behavior, but they should not be held solely responsible. Any program that asks students to lie before they can play the game — in other words, asks them to sign a document saying they read and understand the rules, when they don’t — provides a poor ethical model. When coaches accept millions for work done by athletes who get almost nothing, they’re telling athletes that sport is not fair or just. The huge disparity in benefits between the coach and the athlete may encourage some to seek professional benefits before they’re truly professionals.

Of course, if the coach was required to give back some of those millions if members of his team are found to be violating NCAA rules, perhaps the coach would may more attention. Here’s a thought for institutions: If you give bonuses to coaches when they’re athletes win games, why not ask coaches to personally take responsibility when their athletes violate NCAA rules? Would that encourage them to educate their athletes about making good ethical decisions?

Here’s what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll says on the issue:

How old did you say you were?

2010-09-03T13:17:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

When a 21-year-old man posed as a 14-year-old boy and signed up for a youth football league in Florida, a few people were suspicious. But “Chad Jordan” had turned in all the appropriate paperwork, including a birth certificate. Now, however, the document appears to have been a fake.

Because the coach had some vague suspicions, he launched an investigation to find out if Jordan was who he said he was — a young man whose parents had died and who was now being raised by an older brother. Only after contacting people from Jordan’s neighborhood did the coach discover that Jordan was actually Julius Threatts, age 21, a young man on probation for burglary charges.

A similar case came to light earlier this year, when a 21-year-old in Texas posed as a 15-year-old Haitian orphan and enrolled in high school. In that case, he was adopted by the basketball coach, named Newcomer of the Year in district basketball competition and helped lead the high school to the state playoffs. Later, the athlete was charged with sexual assault when for having sex with a minor — a 15-year-old girl who thought the boy was also 15.

Then there was the 22-year-old in Arizona last year who posed as a high school student in hopes of winning a basketball scholarship. He was later charged with three counts of forgery and 11 counts of sexual conduct with a minor.

There are ethical reasons why 21-year-olds should not compete with 14-year-olds. It’s not fair when someone with seven more years of growth and experience takes the field against younger players. The added physical development of bone, muscle, and coordination may also increase the physical dangers for younger opponents, even if the athletes are roughly the same size. Joining a league of younger players also requires deceiving coaches, teammates and competitors.
What great temptation drives some older athletes to try to recreate themselves as someone half their age? The idea of older people who still look young returning to high school has been glamorized in such movies as “Never Been Kissed” and “Hiding Out.” In general, lying about one’s age is not uncommon.

One could argue that in a sport where outcomes are more important than process, and where deception is commonly accepted as part of the process, athletes may get the idea that it’s wrong only if they get caught. Coaches may not be highly motivated to track down the truth about their best players, particularly when false documentation exists. Many teammates may be happy to have a stronger, more experienced player on their side.

Then whose duty is it to enforce these off the field rules? What responsibility do teammates, coaches and the athlete themselves have to ensure that truth is told?

Here's what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll says:

When athletes are injured

2010-08-27T08:56:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

A coach in McMinnville, OR, is struggling with the burden of whether something he did caused harm to his athletes. It’s a burden many coaches face in their careers.

During an intense series of football practices, 24 players became ill and sought treatment at a hospital. Media reports say the 21 of the players were treated for high levels of creatine kinase (CK) in their blood, and three had surgery for compartment syndrome in their upper arms.

An investigation has been launched into the cause of the injuries, because outbreaks such as this one are rare. A state health official said many of the athletes were diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis, which is characterized by elevated CK and can lead to compartment syndrome. Rhabdomylosis is often associated with muscle injury or strain, and most commonly manifests in crushing injuries.

The media and some doctors have already begun speculating that the players were using the over-the-counter supplement creatine, which both players and coach deny. But the coach — the adult who ran practice — has been on the hot seat. A high school coach is responsible for the well-being of the players. Coaches in all sports are charged maintaining a safe environment for athletes.

In an interview, the coach described practice immediately preceding the injuries as including repeated sets of wind sprints, dips, push-ups and sit-ups. The temperature outside was over 90 degrees, and part of the practice took place in the wrestling room, where some reports put the temperature at 115 degrees.

The McMinnville instance may be rare, but similar outbreaks have occurred. One group of female lacrosse players developed rhabdomyolysis following the first weight training session of the year, where each athlete performed three sets of biceps curls with a 15-pound load.

In Taipei, 119 high school students developed rhabdomyolyis after being required, on a very cold day, to perform 120 push-ups within five minutes. Dehydration and electrolyte abnormalities may predispose athletes to rhabdomylosis. Sudden and drastic changes in muscle activity may also contribute to the condition.

The condition even gets attention in professional football and some say it’s more common that we know in the NFL.

No coach can predict all the circumstances in which a player may be harmed. And we don’t want to speculate in this case. However, a high school coach can be expected to have a moral value system that places great emphasis on the health and safety of the players. The philosopher William Frankena argues that one of our primary values should be beneficence. Beneficence means four things, Frankena says: Inflict no harm, prevent harm, remove evil and promote good.

Regardless of what caused the outbreak in McMinnville — and in this case we begin with the assumption that the coach did nothing to inflict harm to the athletes — a coach who subscribed to the principle of beneficence would still have a duty to prevent harm now and in the future. What should a coach do to prevent harm when next summer’s football practice opens or when other teams begin intense practices in preparation for the season? Do coaches on other teams, having seen what happened in McMinnville, now have a duty to do something more to prevent harm on their own teams?

If a coach accepts the responsibility for preventing harm to the players, that coach must also take responsibility to be fully educated about the risks posed by the coaching practices he or she employs. Good coaching practices require that we demand a full explanation of what happened in McMinnville, educate ourselves, and use our knowledge to prevent other athletes from suffering similar consequences.

Here's what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll says on that subject.

How should we respond to umpire errors?

2010-07-15T15:07:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Detroit Tiger pitcher Amando Galarraga threw a perfect game on June 2, but umpire Jim Joyce spoiled it. Joyce made a bad call on the final out, calling someone safe at first when replays showed he was actually out. Joyce admitted his error. But it ruined Galarraga’s chance to get his name in record books.

Referees were blamed for many bad calls in the World Cup, including one that cost the United States a victory against Slovenia. Now international soccer authorities are considering instant replay in some cases.

In cricket, referees at the top level have been criticized for a number “jaw-dropping” errors. The sport is developing an umpire decision review system.

However, it doesn’t take a computer to see that referees and umpires are imperfect and that sometimes they make mistakes that are game-changing, as this list of the top gaffes by referees will show. But if you look at the No. 1 mistake, you’ll see it involved an instant replay. Referees even make mistakes when it comes to rules about use of video to review their mistakes.

Perhaps someday there could be a perfect “robot umpire” (but that’s criticized as boring).Using video replay for more than a few calls would slow down the game. Even if robot refs or video replay were adopted for use at the highest levels of sport – for professional and World Cup games -- such methods seem impractical at lower levels, where most athletes engage in sport.

What, then, should a coach teach young athletes about referees and referee errors? And how should a referee respond after making an error?

It seems that response to umpiring errors may be a great measure of attitude toward the game. If errors only matter when they appear to change the outcome against us, it shows that we value winning and losing more than other considerations of the game. If, on the other hand, we look at umpire errors as though they were the wind and rain, the bounce of an oblong football, or the shape of a ballpark, we may find new importance in the underlying values of the game. Did we work as hard as we could? Did we make the right strategic choices? Did we treat everyone on the field, including our opponents and the officials, with respect? Would we shout at the wind for blowing a pass off course or kick dirt at the wall that stood a few feet too far oout for our home-run attempt?

Joyce made a mistake. It in no way cheapens Galarraga’s effort. Can you name the other four pitchers who hurled no-hitters this year? If not, the apology of Joyce and grace of Galarraga may have serve up more memorable lessons. The game goes on no matter what the umpire calls. And most of life takes place off the playing field.

Here’s what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll has to say about umpires and the game.

What do you think about umpires and referees? Click here to take survey

Would you break a rule to prevent your opponent from winning?

2010-07-12T16:00:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Seconds from the end of overtime in a World Cup quarterfinal, Ghana’s Dominic Adiyiah headed a ball toward Uruguay’s net. Uruguay’s goalie was nowhere near it. The ball was heading high toward the top of the net. That’s when Uruguay’s Luis Suarez, standing on goal line nearly inside the net, leaped up and knocked the ball away with his fist.

The referee gave Suarez a red card and threw him out of the game. The handball was clearly illegal. But Ghana missed the penalty kick and the game ended. Uruguay won the match in the shootout. Suarez became a hero in Uruguay — and a goat in Ghana and many other parts of the world.

Some writers say it was morally wrong for Suarez to break the rules to win the game. Suarez thinks it was the right thing to do: “It was worth it to be sent off in this way. It was complicated and tough. We suffered to the end but the hand of god is mine now.”

Other athletes feel as Suarez does. Suresh Menon comments in Tehelka Magazine:

“CONSIDER GERMAN goalkeeper Manuel Neur’s reaction to the goal by England’s Lampard that was disallowed by the referee: ‘After I turned around, I just focused on the ball. I tried to continue playing quickly so that the referees wouldn’t notice the ball was in.’ Or Thierry Henry’s confession after the referee failed to notice his handball that led to a goal in the crucial qualifying game that knocked Ireland out of the reckoning: ‘It was a handball. But I am not the referee. I played it, the ref allowed it,’ and then, ‘It was necessary to exploit what was exploitable.’

“At what point did fair play and sportsmanship ooze out of sport so thoroughly to be replaced by the need to win at all costs, and the deification of the cheat who doesn’t get caught? On the other hand, why should sport — widely believed to mirror society — answer to a greater morality than other fields of human endeavour?”

Philosophers and researchers know, even child’s play is governed by rules that determine the structure of the game. German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer noted that the structure of the game is critically important to the players. As Bert Oliver wrote, “It is more a case of the players being played by the game than the other way around. The structure of the game — whatever it is — makes certain demands on the players, and if they overstep these demands or ignore them, the game stagnates.”

What happens when a player willingly breaks the rules to win a game? Does it hurt the game? Or is the action of Suarez indicative of a set of rules outside the game, rules that encourage gamesmanship, interference by fans and abuse of officials? Have we created a new game structure where such thing are expected because winning is so important?

Here’s what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll says:

To whom should LeBron James be loyal?

2010-07-11T16:57:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Loyalty is such a fickle virtue. Fans in Cleveland burned the jersey of LeBron James because he decided to sign with Miami.

The question wasn’t money. James would have made more money in Cleveland. And fans expected him to be loyal to the city. However, James’ question really wasn’t loyalty. James was loyal – to winning, and perhaps to his new teammates Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh.

Wade, Bosh and James plotted the deal that brought them together to form a new NBA powerhouse. Reportedly, they’ve talked about playing together professionally ever since their days on the U.S. Olympic team. It’s not collusion when players themselves decide to play together. It’s about maximizing returns in money and victories.

Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert didn’t see it that way, of course. He called James a quitter and a coward. Many writers sided with Gilbert, saying James was neither loyal nor royal in his treatment of Cleveland.

Others, however, say James owes no loyalty to anyone, particularly owners. The Reason Foundation emphasizes that basketball is a team sport, and that James is merely doing what a rational entrepreneur would do: taking his talent to the most productive place.

Kevin Garnett, who labored for years on unproductive Minnesota teams, said loyalty may actually be harmful to a player: "Loyalty is something that hurts you at times, because you can't get youth back.”

But one interesting question for all of us is what James’ actions say about loyalty as a virtue in sports and in life. One human relations writer called it the “death of loyalty.” Lance Haun said loyalty can no longer be expected from top performers in sports or business, and called on executives to quit building their teams on the superstars: “Whether you have a roster of 15 or a business of 15,000, you can’t just do it with your top 5 percent. And if all your business actions are focused on appeasing those one or two superstars, just remember that when they leave you need a Plan B (or even Plan C).”

Basketball coach John Wooden preached loyalty, but he preached it as part of a team approach to the game. "The main ingredient in stardom," Wooden told his players, "is the rest of the team."

How important is loyalty is sports today? Who should athletes be loyal to? For how long? And what kind of example is James when it comes to loyalty?

Here's what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll says about loyalty.

Deception, drugs and sport

2010-06-28T12:12:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, University of Idaho Center for ETHICS*

Cyclist Floyd Landis spent four years and millions of dollars claiming he was innocent of using performance enhancing drugs as he fought to regain his title of 2006 Tour de France champion, which was stripped from him after he failed a drug test. Then in May he abruptly changed his story, saying that not only had he used steroids, a synthetic blood booster known as EPO and blood transfusions to boost performance, but also that seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong and Armstrong’s longtime coach Johan Bruyneel had helped him learn the proper techniques of drug use.

Landis called his drug use “misjudgments” but said he felt no guilt about using performance enhancing drugs.

“I did what I did because that’s what we [cyclists] did and it was a choice I had to make after 10 or 12 years of hard work to get there,” he told ESPN.

Armstrong and others responded by questioning Landis’ credibility. "This is a man that's been under oath several times and had a very different version," Armstrong said. "This is a man that wrote a book for profit and had a completely different version. This is somebody that took, some would say, close to a million dollars from innocent people for his defense under a different premise, and now that it's all run out, the story changes."

Landis may have documents to support some of his claims. Federal investigators may also help the truth come out. Federal investigator Jeff Novitzky, who led the BALCO Investigation that ensnared Barry Bonds and Marion Jones, among others, is now reportedly interested in the allegations against Armstrong.

But controversies over performance enhancing drugs point out that some sports seem to have created cultures of lying. Landis isn’t the first one to admit to lying about performance enhancing drugs. Bonds, Jones, Mark McGuire, and Alex Rodriguez are a few of the superstars who were caught and finally admitted their drug use. From here on, they’ll be remembered as liars.
At one point in their life, winning became more important than their credibility and honesty.

They knew that use of steroids or blood doping was cheating. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have lied about it. During their years of deceit, they became heroes to many people. Landis was defended by many as having been falsely accused of doping.

Now that Landis is telling another story, the “truth” comes out that his former story was a lie. Why tell the truth now with his athletic career virtually over? It would appear that truth has a different value on the outside of sport than it has inside sport. McGuire admitted his drug use to gain a coaching job. Jones confessed only when facing criminal charges for lying to investigators.

“Truth,” in these cases, seems to be more about serving self-interests than following principles of good character.

In fact, some sports may create cultures in which deceit is acceptable when victory is in the balance. Deception has already been part of sport, as one athlete or team tries to fake out another. But how does public acceptance of deceptive strategy inside the sport lead to private acceptance of an illegal tool such as corked bat or a spitball, or an illegal substance such as steroids.

The Landis case is an opportunity to consider how lying affects athletes. According to Landis, the pinnacle of his career was based in deceit. He felt he had to use performance enhancing drugs to succeed because everyone else was using them, and then he had to lie to prevent others from discovering that he cheated. Now he says, “I want to clear my conscience….I don’t want to be part of the problem anymore.”

Our question is where do athletes begin to be part of the problem? With the first shot of EPO or use of blood doping? Or does it start long before that, with an athlete’s first lesson that it’s okay to lie about stepping on the out of bounds line or using an illegal move — as long as the referee didn’t catch them?

Here’s Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll’s take on deception, doping and why coaches have such a difficult time teaching athletes about the line between deception as part of the game and lying to get ahead.

How do we justify pay for football coaches?

2010-06-16T11:02:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Vandal football coach Rob Akey, with an overall record at the University of Idaho of 11-26, will be considered for a raise from $258,187 to $355,797 when the Idaho State Board of Education meets this week.

According to the Idaho Statesman, Akey’s new five-year contract comes in two parts, $165,796 in base pay and $190,000 in media compensation. He’s also promised various incentives, ranging from $5,000 if he earns WAC coach of the year to $100,000 if the Vandals make a BCS bowl appearance.

The new contract is precedent setting. Akey’s 2007 contract, giving him five years and $1.2 million, was already the largest contract in Vandals’ history.

The new contract was spurred by the Vandals victory in the Humanitarian Bowl, which capped an 8-5 season. The Vandals went 1-11 and 2-10 in Akey’s first two years as head coach.

The Vandals drew a total of 75,000 fans to six home games in 2009. Average home attendance in 2009 ranked 116th of 120 Division 1 teams.

Akey’s raise comes during the same year in which all teaching faculty at the University of Idaho are being forced to take furloughs — leaves without pay — because of the crisis in the state budget. About 2,600 staff members were instructed to take the cuts in time and pay, saving the university about $1.2 million.

Given that the mission of the University of Idaho speaks to educational goals, the question arises: Why is one football coach being rewarded financially while educators are being asked to sacrifice a portion of their salaries?

Those who want to weigh the relative merits of football and educational services to the University of Idaho may look to the Points of Pride listings. The university speaks of its place among the best universities in America, of being a great value in education, and of being one of the top national, doctoral-granting universities. It talks of attracting more National Merit Scholars than all other institutions in the state combined, as well as being one of Outside Magazine’s top 30 universities for hitting the books and the outdoors. Football isn’t mentioned.

University of Idaho President Duane Nellis makes $335,000 per year. What educational justification is there for paying an 11-26 football coach at a school with one of the smallest fan bases more than the president of the university?

Reflections on John Wooden's coaching style

2010-06-09T10:55:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, University of Idaho

Former UCLA basketball coach John Wooden, who died this week at age 99, was a winner. We can count that in his 10 national championships and 620 victories, including 88 straight. That’s quantifiable.

But as Jake Simpson relates in The Atlantic, what Wooden’s players remember is the unquantifiable Wooden as their teacher, mentor, and role model.

“The man they called ‘The Wizard of Westwood’ taught his players more than basketball. He imparted to each young man (in case we've forgotten, that's what college athletes are when you strip away the nationally televised games and the booster money and the arrogance that comes with being larger than life before you've accomplished anything) life lessons far more enduring than any inbounds play or hook shot,” wrote Simpson.

ESPN published a list of some of Wooden’s favorite sayings, words that reflect the coach’s dedication to developing not just good players but good people. One reads: "Things turn out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out." Have you ever seen that on a locker room wall?

Or how about these other Wooden sayings: "You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."

"Success is never final; failure is never fatal. It's courage that counts."

"What you are as a person is far more important than what you are as a basketball player."

Few coaches will win as many games as Wooden. But many, many coaches will have equal or greater opportunity to influence just as many young people.

History marks our wins and losses. But personal records are recorded in many other ways, too. The minds of young people record the unquantifiable – the life lessons of sport delivered to them by coaches.

Think of your coaches. What did they impress upon you that still matters today? One of Wooden’s sayings that has been published again and again upon his death reads, "What you are as a person is far more important that what you are as a basketball player." How will those persons you coach remember you?

Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll of the Center for ETHICS* at the University of Idaho discussed Wooden’s servant leadership style of coaching.

Would you cheat for $385,000

2010-04-22T14:56:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS

Issue:

Professional golfer Brian Davis wanted to win more than almost anything. “You’re not playing for second,” he said. “You’re playing to win.”

He was playing the 18th hole in a playoff of the Verizon Heritage golf tournament. The winner’s check was worth more than $1 million. His ball had a crummy lie in the marsh but Davis lifted it with his wedge to within 30 feet of the pin, well within reach of keeping the playoff going. But something bothered him.

“I thought I saw something out of the corner of my eye,” Davis said later. “I didn’t feel anything but I thought I might have seen something.”

What Davis saw – but which no one else observed – was that his club brushed a reed on his backswing. Try to see it for yourself on this video.

But it is against the rules of golf to move a loose impediment in a hazard. Brian Davis called a two-stroke penalty on himself and that cost him the tournament. The difference between winning and finishing in second place was $385,000.

“I play by the rules and no victory would be worthwhile if it had a cloud hanging over it,” Davis said.

Question:

Would you call a penalty on yourself if it made the difference between winning and losing?
As one newspaper wrote, the world has never seen a football player call himself out of bounds on a touchdown run in the Super Bowl or a baseball player say he missed third base when scoring the winning run in a World Series.

The newspaper says Davis won the respect of the world even though he lost the tournament. The Times of London called it “the supreme act of sportsmanship.”

“One of those things they never quite get around to tell you in school is that doing the right thing quit often entails hurting yourself, or at least your own perceived self interest. Brian Davis proved Sunday that in the end, it’s worth it.”

If you were in Davis’ place, would you call the penalty on yourself? Now imagine Davis playing another sport. Would he earn respect as a football player by calling a holding penalty on himself or in basketball if he called himself for a foul?

Why not? What makes golf different?

Here's what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll has to say:

Football concussions: Who should pay?

2010-04-15T13:04:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Issue:

When old professional football players complain of dementia, the place they turn for assistance is the State of California, as The New York Times reports.

California law says that if you played one professional game in the state, you can file for workers compensation payments for injuries suffered decades before. If the state accepts the argument that repeated brain injuries suffered more than 30 years ago caused dementia in now-aging football players, the total value of those compensation claims could reach $100 million or more. Teams and insurance companies may pay, but if the teams and insurance companies are out of business, a state fund pays the settlement.

Are pros the only ones who deserve compensation? What about college athletes who may be at risk of long-term problems because of injuries suffered during their playing days? A 1999 study of college football players showed reduced neuropsychological performance associated with repeated concussions. A growing body of research indicates that repetitive head injury in sport can lead to premature dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease and Parkinson’s disease.

Worries are not restricted to football players. Young soccer players who are injured heading the ball are shown to have deficits of attention, concentration and memory. That’s why some experts say no child under age 14 should head the ball.

The difference between college athletes and professional football players is that students are not paid for their play. For that reason, worker’s compensation laws will never help old college football players if they suffer dementia decades later. Yet the NCAA knows that concussions account for 6 percent of injuries in football. When the NCAA examined fall sports, which include women’s soccer, men’s soccer, field hockey, women’s volleyball, it found that more than 7 percent of injuries were concussions.

That’s compounded by risks in high school athletics, where researchers found that 40 percent of athletes with a head injury returned to action too soon.(To see the story of an Idaho football player who suffered a life-changing football head injury, watch this video.) Most schools do their best to react to head injuries in the short term. In the long term, however, the athlete may be the one carrying the risk. Is that fair?

Question:

If former college players get dementia or Parkinson’s disease 30 years from now, should universities step up to help pay their bills?

College football, much like the NFL, takes in huge sums of money from the efforts of the athletes. It does so knowing the risk of injury, not only in the immediate sense but in the long-term sense. Yet amateur athletes are expected to leave their game carrying the long-term risks of sports injury on their own backs. Some would say they assumed the risk by stepping on the field. However, they were insured only for short-term risks, and not the long-term ones.

Is that fair to athletes and good for sports? Should college athletes have as much right to long term “workers compensation” as professional athletes?

Put yourself in the position of a spouse whose husband suffers dementia in his 50’s, 30 years after a college football career in which he had one or two concussions he knew about, and perhaps others he “shrugged off” as part of the game. What would she say?

If the dementia were linked not to head injuries but to exposure to chemicals in a college science lab, would that make any difference is whether the university should be responsible?

Here’s what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll says.

Red Bull Controversies

2010-04-09T11:06:00.000-07:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student, Center for ETHICS*

Your opponent drinks Red Bull before the race. How should you respond?

Issue:

At the Western Athletic Conference swimming championships, rumors began swirling on the first night of the meet that Boise State swimmers had been seen drinking Red Bull. Boise State was favored in the meet and doing very well. But some other teams claimed that coaches and trainers of Boise State were advising their athletes to drink Red Bull and even providing it before the races, according to one newspaper report.

The Boise State coaches denied that, saying athletes were drinking Red Bull on their own. But claims on a blog following the meet suggested that some coaches, and not only at Boise State, were either handing out the drink or looking the other way when athletes used it. One person noted that athletes were hiding the drinks under their parkas and drinking them.

SwimmingWorldMagazine.com said WAC officials issued a reminder to teams and media that caffeine, one of the substances in Red Bull, was a banned substance in the NCAA.

NCAA rules say is caffeine is a banned stimulant and if drug testing shows that athletes have more than a certain amount in their urine, they can be suspended and lose their eligibility. The rules are designed to allow ordinary consumption of coffee, tea or cola, but to control excessive use designed to give an athlete a competitive advantage.

Red Bull also contains taurine, which the NCAA says is an “impermissible” substance. Teams are forbidden from providing impermissible substances to athletes, even in vitamin water drinks.

Neither Boise State nor any other teams were penalized for the use of Red Bull. Some athletes from other teams were extremely upset about what they saw as flagrant abuse of the rules. According to swimmers, when Boise State was announced as the winner, one team chanted “Red Bull” as the Boise State fight song played. Someone else left a case of Red Bull cans with the word “cheater” on it on a Boise State van, a swimmer said.

Question:

How would you respond if you think your opponent used a banned or impermissible substance to gain a competitive advantage? Imagine someone from another team approaches you and asks you to take part in a demonstration against the competitor who used the substance. Would you join in the “Red Bull” chant during the awards ceremony or hold up a sign saying “cheater”? Why, or why not?

At the WAC swimming championships, the athletes drinking Red Bull must have known that their actions were perceived as cheating, even if they didn’t fail an NCAA drug test. If some other teams were also drinking Red Bull, perhaps that was their way of trying to even the playing field. If one team breaks the rules, the other feels justified in doing the same.

When coaches received a letter from the WAC during the meet reminding them that caffeine was banned, they had several options for action. They could have told their players not to use Red Bull, or even penalized players who used the drink. One observer claimed that meet officials also ignored the use of Red Bull.

When one team chanted “Red Bull” during Boise State’s award ceremony, some athletes on other teams saw that as rude and poor sportsmanship. However, traditional avenues of addressing the impermissible substance had not been fruitful.

The Boise State team, after being called cheaters by opponents, may wonder whether the Red Bull controversy cheapened their victory. They were favorites going into the meet but now all some people will remember is the Red Bull controversy.

Imagine yourself in the various roles of people at the meet. What’s the best response for a coach? For a meet official? For an athlete who sees their competitor drinking Red Bull? Would you complain if the Red Bull drinker won? Would you complain if they lost? If your teammate offered you Red Bull, would you drink it?

Here’s what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll of the Center for ETHICS says:

Why should you forgive Tiger Woods?

2010-03-30T13:27:00.000-07:00

Question: Do you forgive Tiger Woods?

by Tom Grant
Ph.D. Student, Center for ETHICS*

Issue:

Tiger Woods apologized to the world in a televised statement. He admitted having affairs and cheating on his wife. He says he is going to become a better person. He asked for forgiveness.

His mother was in the audience, and he ended the press conference by hugging her. Woods’ wife, Elin, did not attend.

Woods suggested the environment affected his judgment. He said he had fallen away from the Buddhist faith he was taught growing up. He acknowledged that he was in a recovery program. The actions he took at the press conference, accepting guilt and apologizing, indicate he’s in 12-step program that requires making amends.

In part, he made a public apology because of the Tiger Woods Foundation, which he says has touched more than 10 million children with its programs. Character development is one of the program’s aims, and Woods says in a letter on the foundation Web site that he is a model for “integrity, honesty, discipline, [and] responsibility.”

Question:

Do you need to forgive Woods? Why?

If you were his wife or his child, the need for forgiveness would be easy to understand. Forgiveness is a mechanism by which we put past harm aside and allow ourselves to move forward with social relationships. It’s like patching a bicycle tube, then riding the bike again to see if the tire holds air. There’s an implication in forgiveness that the actor will refrain from committing harmful activities again.

We may also see the need for Woods to apologize to the children served by his foundation. Publicity surrounding his affairs fractured his image as a role model. Now it is clear that he failed to display the integrity, honesty, discipline and responsibility expected of a husband and father. Still, once Woods destroyed the image that he was a man of character, it seems unlikely that an apology can restore the image.

Now children see not a man who has proved himself through a lifetime of good works, but a man who must try again and again with every step to show that he’s honest and responsible. Is that a good image for Woods?

But to most of us, Woods was just a professional golfer. Why does he need to apologize to us? Even if successful athletes have a duty to be role models, aren’t there some limits to that responsibility? We could take the cynical position that Woods’ apology was self-serving, and he had no need to apologize to us. But Woods has obviously thought about this at greater length than most of us, and he believes he harmed us, ergo the apology.

What did he do to us, and why should we forgive him?

Here’s what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll says:

Sexting - What to do??

2010-02-12T09:30:00.000-08:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student at Center for ETHICS*, University of Idaho

Question:

What will you do when someone sexts you a picture?

Issue:

If you’re under 30, chances are that someone will text you a sexually explicit photo. A recent survey on “sexting” by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that nearly half of the young adults had received a nude or semi-nude photo of someone via cell phone or email. A third of those young people had actually sent such a photo of themselves, generally to a boyfriend or girlfriend.

Despite the private intentions of those messages, sexting has created highly public and criminal dramas around the nation. A 12-year-old and 13-year-old in Indiana are now facing criminal charges for sending nude pictures to each other. Those photos were discovered when a teacher confiscated the girl’s cell phone.

In Ohio, a family is suing their daughter’s ex-boyfriend and other classmates because they shared an explicit photo of the girl. The girl later committed suicide.

In Pennsylvania, six high school students were charged with manufacturing pornography or possession of child pornography in a sexting case. Three girls under the age of 15 sent nude pictures to the boys, and the pictures were discovered on the boys’ cell phones.

In Virginia, a school administrator was charged with failure to report child abuse and possession of child pornography because of his investigation of a sexting case. The photo was discovered on a boys’ phone, it was not immediately identifiable, and the administrator had the student forward it to him so the school could try to determine if any laws were broken. Although charges were eventually dropped, it illustrates the legal danger that sexting creates for everyone involved.

Federal law says that any photo or video showing the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals” of a minor is child pornography. Both those who send such images and those who possess them can be found guilty of crimes. Those convicted of such a crime face a prison term and a lifetime on the sex offenders list. However, no law prevents consenting adults from exchanging nude photos, so the issues may be different for people over 18.

What would you do?

Imagine a friend or acquaintance sent you a sexually explicit photograph. You can’t see the face so you can’t tell who the photo is. You can’t tell if he or she is underage.

Would you forward it to your friends? Yes or No, and why?

Would you delete it? Yes or no, and why?

Would you report it? Yes or no, and why?

Now imagine the photo was sent to you by a friend in high school and it was your sister.

What would you do? And why?

Here’s what Dr. Stoll has to say about what would happen if someone sexted her.

Athletes and Guns - Had to Defend Myself

2010-02-08T11:12:00.000-08:00

By Tom Grant
PhD student at University of Idaho Center for ETHICS*

Question:

What is wrong with carrying a gun into a locker room?

Essay:

Following a felony gun conviction and league suspension for his locker room confrontation with a teammate, Washington Wizards basketball player Gilbert Arenas publicly promised to send “a message of non-violence” to young people.

“Guns and violence are serious problems, not joking matters -- a lesson that's been brought home to me over the past few weeks. I thought about this when I pleaded guilty as charged in court and when I accepted my NBA suspension without challenge,” Arenas wrote in a column in the Washington Post.

In the Wizards locker room on Christmas Eve, Arenas and teammate Javaris Crittenton pulled guns on each in a dispute over a $25,000 gambling debt. Crittenden told the court he brought the gun to defend himself because Arenas had threatened to shoot him and burn his car.

He pulled his gun after Arenas laid out three guns in front of Crittenton’s locker with a note that said, “Pick one.” In early statements, Arenas characterized the incident as a joke and that he never intended to hurt anyone.

Both players pleaded guilty to violating the city’s strict law against weapons possession as well as to breaking the NBA’s rule against carrying weapons while at a basketball arena. They were suspended for the remainder of the season.

Arenas promised in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post to be a better role model. Crittenton was sentenced by the court to mentor young people.

Some say the Arenas case is symptomatic of a broader concern, and that many athletes in the NFL and NBA carry guns. Other gun incidents include Chris Mills brandishing a gun during an argument with a teammate on the Trailblazers’ team bus in 2002 and Sebastian Telfair recently caught packing a loaded handgun on his luggage on the Trailblazers’ plane. Many say that “everyone does it.” Others say they need it for protection because as celebrities and athletes they become targets for criminals.

What do you think?

Were Arenas and Crittenton justified in bringing guns into the locker room because “everyone does it”?

Some athletes legitimately fear that they are targets for crime. They may come from backgrounds where guns were part of everyday life. They see their peers in the league carrying weapons. They may fear they’ll be in danger, as Crittenton did, if they don’t carry guns.

However, the NBA promotes itself as family friendly entertainment. Arenas says guns and violence are not joking matters, and that he won’t carry guns because has a duty to be a role model for young fans. Does that affect your decision about whether professional basketball players should bring weapons into the locker room?

Here’s what Dr. Stoll has to say about the Arenas case:

Tiger and the Media

2010-02-02T18:07:00.000-08:00

From: Tom Grant, doctoral student at the Center for ETHICS*

Question:
Does coverage of Tiger Woods’ sexual escapades serve as a personal constraint on people who are considering sex outside marriage? Or is it making marital transgressions seem morally acceptable because so many people commit them?

Essay:
New York Times columnist Robert Wright says media coverage of Tiger Woods’ marital infidelity, as well as other prominent cases, may be changing our idea of morality — though he’s not sure how it’s changing.
In the article , Wright points to Woods and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford as what he calls “victims of the new transparency.” He says more and more of us are creating records of our behavior through text messages and e-mails, which make it more likely the world will learn about our hidden sexual relationships.
As Vanity Fair summarizes Woods has been a tabloid sensation since a car accident outside his Florida mansion. Gov. Sanford’s affair was discovered by a newspaper when he flew to South American to meet his mistress. Other sports figures and politicians involved in such scandals include Alex Rodriguez, Kobe Bryant, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards. Even though public figures are the ones whose stories will actually make the front pages and nightly newscasts, Wright thinks the coverage could have widespread impact on the general public.
“The resulting parade of foible is bound to affect our values,” he writes. “On the one hand, there could be a drift toward Victorian uptightness. If people are scared that their transgressions will come back to haunt them, then presumably there will be fewer transgressions.”
On the other hand, he says, wide media coverage of every affair of the rich and famous could make such transgressions seem more acceptable to all of us. “In a 1993 essay called ‘Defining Deviancy Down,’ Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan worried that the more common social pathologies became, the more common they would become,” Wright wrote.
Some evidence exists that media coverage of some negative events increases the likelihood of copycat actions, particularly with coverage of suicide and bomb threats. Other research suggests that drawing people’s attention to deviant acts, such as when a park put up signs condemning some visitors for stealing precious artifacts, can actually increase social approval of the action and increase the problem.

What do you think?
Do incidents of sexual escapades teach us that it’s OK to have affairs? Or, do all the sexual escapades warn us about our own behavior?
The answer is not easy. To ferret out a solution to any moral issue, we must first consider reversibility. Ask students to place themselves in the shoes of the people involved. Who is the victim? Tiger Woods? His wife, Elin? Tiger’s children?
Ask : “How you would feel if you were Elin? Or if Elin were your sister or Elin were your mother? How would you would feel if you were Elin’s son or daughter?” We all know someone who has faced the issues of infidelity, and we have seen the consequences. Then ask if the way Elin and her children have been treated the way all people should treat other people.
Now back to the original question, from a personal perspective: Do the students feel desensitized by such sexual transgressions? Are they more fearful of getting caught? Or do they see other values emerging, such as the importance of the promises Elin and Tiger made to each other?
Here’s a look at what Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll has to say about the issue:

Let's Have a Parade

2010-01-22T13:22:00.000-08:00

Let's Have a Parade

The University of Idaho recently won the Roady’s Humanitarian Bowl, defeating Bowling Green 43-42 and ending the season with an 8-5 record.
In honor of that, the Idaho football team will lead a parade down Main Street in Moscow on the afternoon of Saturday, Jan. 23.
My question: Why do the Moscow Chamber of Commerce, Gov. Butch Otter, and the University of Idaho President Duane Nellis see extraordinary value in drawing even greater public attention to the football team's efforts of 2009? Parades are events staged to draw public eyes to those who made great achievements. Historically, we think of ticker-tape parades for astronauts and presidents. We expect to see many parents and young people watching, and that the subjects of the parade will be held up as role models.
The record of 8-5 was the Vandals only winning season of the decade, and represents a winning record of about 62 percent. Would similar performance by a business win the Chamber’s praise? Would a politician deserve a parade if he or she won 62 percent of his or her races? Would you praise a student who scored 62 percent in class? There are differences, but what are they, and what do they say about our societal values?
If the parade is a celebration of a rare achievement, why was Olympic gold medalist Dan O'Brien honored in a much different manner. O’Brien’s coach Michael Keller said, “No parade though they did have a get together in the park up on 6th and Hayes. Yes, if a football team goes 50 percent in loss/win they think that the group is god-led and that the coach is fantastic.”
James Wharton observed that honors vary with the individual: “No, there was not a parade for Dan, but they did name the Track and Field Complex after him. And, as I reminded Mike Keller after his 29 years as track coach and service to the U of I, they named the 'Old Block House Restroom' at the complex which were converted into the new U of I Track and Field Office — after a janitor!”
Is the parade a reflection of the value of one sport over another? Is it a reflection of the attention the team drew by winning an exciting game in a nationally televised bowl? Or is it a reflection of the economic value of football to the city, as Moscow Chamber of Commerce President Steve Hacker suggested? "The University of Idaho's success on the football field has meant more than just numbers in the win column," he said in a press release. "There is a financial impact in merchandise sales, full hotels and restaurants on game days.”
Our point is not that we're against honoring the football team with a parade; rather, we're asking that we clarify the values we celebrate with special honors such as these. As you stand with your children watching the athletes go by, what will you tell your kids when they ask the hidden question: What can I do to be more like these athletes and deserve a parade of my own?
Will you tell your kids to go 8-5? Will you tell them to win a close game on national television? Will you tell them to play football instead of track and field? Or can you find a more valuable lesson here?

Tom Grant, Doctoral Student
Center for ETHICS*

Soccer violence

2009-11-20T10:23:00.000-08:00

We recently witnessed video footage seen here: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4628040&categoryid=2378529 of a University New Mexico and Brigham Young University soccer game displaying Elizabeth Lambert, a junior, committing a series of excessively rough plays, including yanking BYU forward Kassidy Shumway to the ground by her ponytail. The video clip made her an Internet sensation and opened her to scornful criticism.

In her first interview after the game, Lambert stated that her action was indefensible, which led to her indefinite suspension from the New Mexico team. She further stated that she has watched the game and does not recognize herself pulling down Brigham Young’s Kassidy Shumway.

“I look at it and I’m like, ‘That is not me,’ ” said Lambert, a defender and an all-conference academic player. “I have so much regret. I can’t believe I did that.”
However, she said other moments of aggressive play — in which Lambert elbowed a Brigham Young player in the back, received a yellow card for tripping, seemed to throw a punch at an opponent’s head, and made a hard tackle from behind — came during the forceful, insistent play that routinely occurs in women’s soccer, but might be misunderstood by casual fans.

“I still deeply regret it and will always regret it and will carry it through the rest of my life not to retaliate,” said Lambert, a 20-year-old junior on scholarship.
At the Center for ETHICS*, we have studied moral reasoning development in athletes for over 25 years. Through longitudinal research, we have seen a decline in athlete moral reasoning. It appears that the longer an athlete is involved in competitive sport, the lower the moral reasoning. Likewise, we have recently studied aggression in women’s collegiate soccer. Like Lambert stated, violations such as tripping, elbowing, and tackling from behind regularly occur during the context of a soccer match. However, what athletes sometimes fail to realize is that this creates a slippery slope which can spiral out of control. As stated earlier, Lambert did not recognize herself enacting the violent behavior that is now being continuously replayed via the Web.

Through a series of interviews with coaches, players, and officials in our aggression in women’s soccer study, it appears violence becomes more prevalent when soccer players perceive their opponents are intentionally aggressing upon them or their teammates (Stephens & Kavanagh, 2003). Also it seemed that intentional acts of violence were partially due to frustration from the opposing team playing overtly aggressive and committing hard fouls. Also, each of the interviewees claimed that they would retaliate against an opponent if they believed they were playing explicitly aggressive. If this is the case, then one can see where a player such as Lambert may lose control or cause an opponent to display similar behavior.
Due to this recent event, the effectiveness of an intervention program on the reasoning process in players, coaches, parents, peers, and referees would be valuable. Stoll (2001) states that perhaps an intervention program which emphasizes prime moral values such as justice, honesty, respect, responsibility, and beneficence would be valuable in enhancing the appropriate behavior and aid the reasoning process in athletes, coaches, parents, peers, and referees. In addition, Lickona (1991) states that for unethical behavior to change, one needs to consistently practice sound ethical behavior for it to become habitual. Future studies should examine the roles coaches, parents, peers, players, and referees can play in emphasizing positive moral values necessary to play within the spirit of the game.

Though Lambert’s recent acts are undeniably indecent, we must remember that aggression in women’s collegiate soccer occurs often and that she just happened to get caught on that slippery slope that carried her competition too far. Perhaps some time away from the game and some reflection may be the best thing that ever happens to her. After all, we should use this as a teaching moment for all of us, not just Elizabeth Lambert.

Justin Barnes, Ph.D.
University of Idaho
Center for ETHICS*

The Old Dude - Prejudice i

2009-10-26T09:54:00.000-07:00

This morning I was listening to the DJ on 102.3 say that he was rooting for Brett Favre yesterday. He kept referring to him as the "old dude." As you may not know, Brett and I are the same age and consequently I found this DJ to be totally offensive and very ignorant and here is why.

The notion of "old" I argue is just one of many of our mythical and socially constructed realities. In other words, we abstract our sense of truth and reality based on what is said by various facets of our society, e.g., the media, parents, coaches, friends, etc. Yet, what are these people basing they are claims on?

The problem with socially constructed realities is that they lack empirical evidence that would support a person's claim. So, for example, if I am "old" how is that there is no one in my classes that can keep up with me in a 5 mile run? If 40 is old, why is Brett Favre one of the best QBs in the NFL? If 40 is old, why is Daniel Craig able to be so convincing as James Bond? Does he look old? Or how is it that Tom Watson almost won the British Open at age 58?

Socially constructed realities are very dangerous because they tell us that there are limits to what people can do. Not only with age, but concerning other issues such as gender and race. For example, concerning gender, a socially constructed reality is that women cannot handle management level positions or that they don't know enough about sports to work for a place like ESPN (a very small percentage of women work for ESPN. It is totally dominated by men). Additionally, years ago, a socially constructed reality was that girls/women should not play sports at all. Competing in sports it was believed was too masculine and a violation of a woman’s real place in society which was to stay home and be a wife and mother. Yet, this belief has clearly been debunked. As for race, a socially constructed reality within sport is that whites are more effective coaches than blacks. Consequently, we have very few black coaches in DI football. But where is the empirical evidence to support such a belief? In the case of race, lately there have been more black coaches reaching Super Bowls than whites (Tony Dungy, Lovie Smith, and Mike Tomlin over the past few years).

Socially constructed realities cause people to blindly think that we must be a certain way or only possess certain capabilities depending on our age, gender, race, type of job, socioeconomic background, etc. Personally, I resist subscribing to any of it. I find it much more fruitful to live a life that is more socially unrestrained while believing that the possibilities are endless and that the limits are few. The alternative is to be stuck among the status quo where harmful beliefs and practices are perpetuated and call for change is rarely requested or heard.

Andrew Rudd, Ph.D., Dr. Rudd is a graduate of the University of Idaho, Center for ETHICS*, and is now on faculty at Florida State University, Sport Management Program.

Pushing out Bobby Bowden is a Grotesque Reality of Big Time College Athletics

2009-10-06T13:49:00.000-07:00

As I walked across the Doak Campell parking lot and glanced over at the Bobby Bowden statue, I thought about all the admiration and gratitude that has been paid to Coach Bowden. For years, Bowden has been regarded by the denizens of Tallahassee as some sort of Greek god. But now, as the Florida State Seminoles are 2-3, Jim Smith, Chair of FSU’s Board of Trustees is proclaiming that this has to be Bowden’s final season. As Smith, put it, “We have been patient long enough.” Smith is essentially arguing that the Noles have been dwelling in mediocrity the last several seasons and it is time to get back on top with a new head coach.

In response, I find Smith’s idea to be absolutely ludicrous, if not grotesque when one thinks about the purported ideals of college athletics. Yes, I know, many will say that big time college athletics is a “business” and in business, decisions have to be made in relationship to what is best for turning a profit. However, if one examines the mission statement of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and more locally the mission statement of Florida State’s athletic department, one will find reference to building character, education, and academic achievement. There is nothing in these mission statements pertaining to college athletics as big business or the need to win national championships. But unfortunately, we see once again in college athletics that mission statements are nothing but a façade to cover up the reality which is winning = fans = money = winning = fans = money. So when the statue was made of “Coach,” the Board of Trustees should have told Bowden that all the admiration and accolades would be there only as long as he could sustain the formula. Forget all that silly nonsense about character development and education. The mission statement obviously needs to be reworded into something that represents the truth. Something to effect of “The purpose of big time college athletics is to make lots of money and win national championships…” It should also be mentioned somewhere in fine print that even if you have the second most number of wins in Division I football history, a statue made of you, a field named after you, and the development of a town because of you, you will still be terminated if you do not feed the insatiable appetites of the fans and boosters.

In closing, I am stultified over the kinds of things that can mean so much to people. On the one hand, the world’s environment is withering away, the ozone layer is gone, there are millions of sick and starving people suffering around the world, our U.S. economy has been in turmoil, thousands die of cancer, and other incurable diseases every day. Yet, on the other hand, Smith and many others are lying awake at night over a 2-3 football season. Which by the way, could easily be a 4-1 record if just few a few plays were across the last few games. At that point, FSU is easily in the top 25 and we are not even having this conversation.

Andy Rudd
arudd@fsu.edu
(850) 645-6883

Dr. Rudd is with the program area of Sport Administration in the College of Education, Florida State University

Coach, Let the Players Play

2009-09-16T08:58:00.000-07:00

When it comes to youth sports, some stories just need to be retold. This day, the hometown (host) team was scheduled to play an international team in a regional tournament game. Youth baseball was at its best, under the lights; there was great anticipation in the air. The skies had grown increasingly dark as the day progressed and there was a growing sense of urgency to get the game started so the game could be finished that night. Suspending or postponing a game is never the first choice, especially in tournament play! Luckily, the previous game had finished ahead of schedule and this final game of the day was rescheduled to begin early.

It was a very close loser-out game; one of those truly hard fought competitive games. Unfortunately, the visiting manager informed the tournament directors in the top of the seventh that one of the host team players was wearing “an improper” number. Interestingly, tournament officials noted that the visiting team manager brought up the improper number issue only when the player in question was put into the game as pitcher in the seventh inning. At that time, they were unaware that the visiting team manager had previously brought this same issue to the attention of the umpire-in-chief, who had ruled it a non-issue. The player with the "improper" number happened to be one of the host team’s better players; he already had two at-bats prior to this time. However, because the manager brought the improper number issue to the attention of tournament personnel, the officials had to investigate.

The ethical question that overshadowed the investigation was, “Why now?” because it really did not matter about the player’s number at this point in the game. Play had to be suspended while tournament officials investigated the situation and learned of the previous ruling. All were in agreement that it was an essentially moot point because proper procedure had been followed at the initial report. Official rules refer to players, not numbers. The coach had delayed the game unnecessarily, but the officials handled it swiftly and thoroughly.

Even though coaches try everything to gain advantage to assist their team to the win, there are times when they need to accept the outcome and let the game play out. Wanting to win is one of the powerful purposes of play. However, when wanting to win drives a coach to misuse rules to confound the purpose of play, then perhaps it is time to accept defeat. The purpose of the coach is to provide encouragement, help the athlete improve skills, learn the rules of the game, and assist the athletes to develop to their full potential.

Let the players play the game, Coach!

By Susan Steele and Sharon Stoll, Center for ETHICS*, University of Idaho

When is enough, enough?

2009-04-16T08:59:00.000-07:00

TOPIC: WHEN IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH?
In a remake of a Humphrey Bogart movie called Sabrina, Harrison Ford plays the title role of a multi-billionaire who can’t seem to get enough - of everything—houses, property, businesses, and of course money. The heroine of the movie, Sabrina, pointedly states: “ More is not necessarily better, sometimes more is just.. more.”
When I read of the latest extravagant salary of a coach—I was reminded of this line—when is more just more? Or to put it more bluntly—how much is too much, or enough, enough?
John Calipari agreed Tuesday, March 31, to leave Memphis and the dominant basketball program he built and take on the challenge — and riches — of returning Kentucky to college basketball glory.
Calipari will receive an eight-year, $31.65 million deal plus incentives, according to the uni-versity, making him the highest-paid coach in college basketball. .
At the same historical moment, colleges and universities across the US are weathering the worst recession in decades. Faculty are being dismissed, programs dropped, support services reduced, and student fees increased. Education is taking a serious hit and students can expect higher tuition, smaller scholarships, more rejection letters and bigger classes.
In considering these two stories—Calipari’s salary and the state of the recession on education - something is terribly remiss?
It seems to me that “enough is enough”.
We surveyed 20 colleges and found that not one school thought that the purpose of athletics was to improve the commercialization of their product or pay coaches extreme salaries. Rather, the purpose of athletics is always about education, character, and sportsmanship.
For example, the University of Kentucky is dedicated to improving people’s lives through excellence in teaching, research, health care, cultural environment and economic development.
The mission continues to state that the University of Kentucky facilitates learning informed by research, expands knowledge through research, scholarship and creative activity. And serves a global community by disseminating, sharing and applying knowledge.
I suppose one could argue that a $31.65 million deal plus incentives for the coach improves the economic development of the coach and his heirs, but I doubt that is what the University of Kentucky means in its statement.
I wonder when institutions are going to ask this important question: When is enough, enough?
I suggest that either the institutions rewrite their mission statements about athletics and admit that coaches salaries do not match the mission of the institution, or put a cap on coaches salaries so that athletics matches the mission statement.
If the purpose of college athletics is about education, then no coach should receive a higher salary than the very best of the university distinguished faculty, which isn't chicken feed.
A salary of 3.65+ million a year is just more—well more— and screams of a value system that is about what my mother would say, “Putting on the dog and throwing out the cat.” In other words, the institution makes a display of wealth or importance of its basketball program while ignoring the economic threat to the real purpose of the institution: learning, research and service.
I love athletics and everything about the people who coach and dedicate their lives to helping young people gain the wonderful benefits of play and games.
However, I am hard pressed to support the present salary practices for big time athletic coaches. Enough is enough. And it’s about time that we begin the discussion— even the auto makers have to justify outrageous salaries. S. Stoll, Director of the Center for ETHICS*.

Are you dumber than other generations - and is sport part of the culprit

2009-01-02T12:32:00.000-08:00

Thomas Benton, in a recent article, argues that your generation is dumber than generations of the past. He makes the argument based on his own experience as well as from the content of several new books - (Of which, I have read a few) - Below find his text from the Chronicle of Higher Education, August 1, 2008. I have deleted text marked by .... at the end, I have a question for you.

The Anti-Intellectual Presidency: The Decline of Presidential Rhetoric From George Washington to George W. Bush (2008), by Elvin T. Lim, examines speeches and public papers — noting shortened sentences, simplified diction, the proliferation of platitudes — to show a pattern of increased pandering to the lowest common intellectual denominator, combined with a mockery of complexity and analysis.....

Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter (2008), by Richard Shenkman, argues that the dumbing down of our political culture is linked to the decline of organized labor and local party politics, which kept members informed on matters of substance.

What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004), by Thomas Frank, Shenkman shows how the political right has been able to don the populist mantle even as it pursues policies that thwart the economic and social interests of the average voter......

Former Vice President Al Gore obviously has a dog in this hunt, and his book The Assault on Reason (2007) argues that the fundamental principles of American freedom — descended from the Enlightenment — are being corrupted by the politics of fear, the abuse of faith, the power of an increasingly centralized media culture, and degradation of political checks and balances favoring an imperial presidency.

Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World (2008), by Naomi S. Baron, shows how the proliferation of electronic communication has impaired students' ability to write formal prose; moreover, it discourages direct communication, leading to isolation, self-absorption, and damaged relationships.

Worst of all, the prevalence of multi-tasking — of always being partly distracted, doing several things at once — has diminished the quality of our thought, reflection, self-expression, and even, surprisingly, our productivity. Baron's solution is to turn off the distractions and focus on the task and people at hand.....

Her conclusions are largely affirmed by Nicholas Carr's cover story in the July/August 2008 issue of The Atlantic: "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?"

Carr, author of The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, From Edison to Google (2008), argues that daily use of the Internet may be rewiring our brains for skimming rather than for the sustained concentration that is required for reading books, listening to lectures, and writing long essays. Obviously, such rewiring is going to have the biggest impact on the rising generation appearing in our college classrooms: the "digital natives.".....

The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (2008), by Mark Bauerlein, provides alarming statistical support for the suspicion — widespread among professors (including me) — that young Americans are arriving at college with diminished verbal skills, an impaired work ethic, an inability to concentrate, and a lack of knowledge even as more and more money is spent on education......

Okay, you get the idea. Here's my question - is our love and passion for sport also a part of the problem - not only the digital nature of the generation - but also the passion for sport and the being tuned into hours of viewing of espn, sportcenter, and so forth - in which we do little active thought but much passive thought - we listen, we mimic, ...we hardly argue, question, or think for ourselves. What do you think?