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:
Friday, April 9, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Why should you forgive Tiger Woods?
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:
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:
Friday, February 12, 2010
Sexting - What to do??
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.
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.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Athletes and Guns - Had to Defend Myself
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:
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:
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Tiger and the Media
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:
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:
Friday, January 22, 2010
Let's Have a Parade
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*
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*
Friday, November 20, 2009
Soccer violence
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*
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*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)