Athletes: Do They Have Special Ethical Obligations as Role Models On and Off the Field?
By Derek Collins, written on Mar. 28, 2007
Below is a summary of a discussion between a diverse group of Michigan student-athletes on this topic, collected by Maher Salah,
Director of Student-Athlete Development and Academic Advisor, University of Michigan Athletics:
I think some athletes do feel obligated and some don’t.
You should be a role model on your campus and you know inherently that your actions are viewed and judged by others. In the community you also soon realize the amount of power you have to influence kids, and that you should use it in the right way, and yes we feel more obligated to positively represent ourselves as student-athletes. When you travel you should feel obligated to behave well, since you are representing your university and the way you act is the way people will perceive the university. However, some athletes may be selfish and personally focus on themselves only, and not worry about this.
It says something about the culture we live in when the first people that kids and adults look to as role models are our athletes. Why are athletes the first people to be questioned about and looked to as role models? The culture should shift and look other places for role models. But it happens because we glorify athletes, when the real heros should be doctors and firefighters etc. Our country values entertainment over education and this is why they seek role models in our famous celebrities and athletes. Ask a stranger what University has the best political science department in the country and he/she won’t know. Ask them who has the best college football team in the country and they’ll have a pretty good idea. Athletes are thrust in this role. People who are good at sports are the ones we want to look up to, but people should look up to the smartest doctors, most talented musicians, and brightest teachers.
What do you think?
Conflicts in a University’s Free Speech Credo
By Jamie Ruth, written on Dec. 6, 2006
(Cross posted on Kicking Ass Ann Arbor)
A number of recent events have brought to light the ethical challenges the university grapples with in its pursuit of open dialogue and free speech.
At any controversial speakers-event or dialogue, the University must protect the (often conflicting) free speech rights of all sides. For instance, at Thursday’s American Movement for Israel event (which I briefly attended, before things got tense), a pair of heckling protesters made it virtually impossible to hear Dr. Raymond Tanter’s presentation on U.S. policy towards Iran. No police presence was requested prior to this event (thus setting a respectful tone from the get-go), and DPS was only called to the scene once the hecklers had been asked by event organizers to quiet down or leave, as per the university’s “heckler’s warning”.
Ethically, at what point does a dissenting voice in an audience unduly infringe upon the right of a speaker to communicate effectively?
Furthermore, DPS must negotiate between protecting these rights and ensuring the safety of the university community. When Israel I.D.E.A. held an event on Monday with Brigitte Gabriel, organizers reported a supposed threat and requested increased police presence. And a presence they got, including two sweeps through the Angell Hall Auditorium with a bomb-sniffing canine. Such an extreme reaction, in response to seemingly baseless rumors and stereotypes about those who might object to Gabriel’s radical doctrine and rhetoric, unnecessarily chills constructive speech and dialogue on this campus.
Under what circumstances, if any, should DPS plan to be present at an event ahead of time? Does, or should, DPS make decisions about which events to staff with officers ahead of time on a viewpoint-neutral basis? Or a content-neutral basis? Who does, and should, make these decisions, and can they be appealed?
Given the negative effect of DPS presence on the tone of a political event, and its propensity to vilify particular viewpoints, should such a presence only be requested if an incident arises (as was the case for the Tanter event)? Should student organizations have a say in whether or not police are present (P.O.I.: overtime fees are billed to student organizations)?
Disclaimer: I only attended the first 5 mins or so of the Tanter event, and did not attend the Gabriel event, so my facts are based almost entirely on the two articles published in the Michigan Daily about the two events.
Ethics in Sports
By Elizabeth Mann, written on Nov. 21, 2006
*This post was written by a member of Students for Ethics*
Cheating is probably more visible in sports than in any other public forum. America’s
pastime, baseball, has been marred by scandal after scandal. One need not look any
further than the World Series to get an idea of just how pervasive cheating is in sports.
Kenny Rogers pitched the first inning of Game 2 with some sort of brownish gunk smeared
on a good portion of his hand. Let me preface the following by saying I am a Detroit
Tigers fan. Kenny Rogers cheated. Plain and simple. You could listen to his excuse
that it was just “dirt” or you could look at the pictures from the ALCS and see an
identical smear on his left hand. If only it ended there. From the infamous Black Sox
to the BALCO scandal, baseball is a dirty sport, but it is hardly alone.
The San Diego Chargers’ linebacker Shawne Merriman was recently suspended 4 games for
testing positive for steroids. Each biennial Olympics brings new doping scandals with
cross-country skiers testing positive for erythropoietin and sprinters using testosterone
or its derivatives. Doping allegations have also tarnished cycling’s reputation as Floyd
Landis was disqualified from the past Tour de France.
Does the cheating affect people’s interest in sports or is it merely a nuisance that
people would rather ignore? Should we obsessively test and re-test the professional
athletes in the major sports and the amateur athletes competing in events like the
Olympics or should we recognize that cheating is “part of the game” and will continue in
spite of drug-testing efforts? These are difficult questions to answer and I am curious
to hear some of your opinions.
Negative Campaign Ads
By John Chamberlin, written on Nov. 7, 2006
Happy Election Day! It’s hard to imagine that anyone reading this has escaped the tsunami of political ads on TV in recent days. Many of them have been negative/attack ads, which research has shown to be reasonably effective. Nearly everyone bemoans these ads (including some candidates who use them) and wishes there were fewer of them. But they are not likely to stop unless voters react to them in ways that lead campaign managers to abandon them.
Have there been instances in which the candidate you preferred in a race ran ads that you found offensive? Or do you just find offensive negative ads run by candidates you didn’t like to begin with? To what extent are your judgments about what’s an ad that crosses the line dependent on your partisan leanings?
Have you ever voted against your favorite candidate (or not voted in a race) because of such ads? If not, why not? If you won’t punish a candidate for his/her ads by withholding your vote, how are you and other voters going to communicate your dissatisfaction with the ads to campaign managers?
Some websites have been collecting attack ads and ads that misinform voters. Slate has one collection (which features Republican ads, but by splicing commentary into them makes them rather like Democratic attack ads (albeit put up on the web by a journalist)). You can find their Political Ad Slime Awards at http://www.slate.com/id/2152969/
FactCheck.org has a collection of what they consider to be “the worst deceptions from House and Senate campaigns” in 2006: http://www.factcheck.org/article467.html.
Given the first amendment protections for political speech, what can we do to decreasing the amount of slime that accompanies our elections these days?
Should a Public University have Honors Programs?
By Stephen Darwall, written on Oct. 14, 2006
I direct the LSA Honors Program and have often thought about this issue. Obviously, I come down on one side of it, but it is a serious question, one that has sometimes been vocally raised here. As I see it, the main argument in favor is that especially talented Michigan students who are interested in, and want to commit themselves to, the kind of intensive intellectual community we strive to provide should not be required to go to expensive out-of-state private institutions to find it. And they won’t be able to find it here unless we recruit out-of-state students also. In my view, this turns the anti-elitism argument on its head. And after all, the University of Michigan doesn’t have open admissions overall in the first place.
Still, I’d be very interested in hearing what students and other faculty and staff think about this issue. What do you say?
Is Wal-Mart now the good guy?
By David Hess, written on Sep. 29, 2006
Most Americans either love Wal-Mart or hate it. Everyone seems to have an opinion. Wal-Mart’s suppliers are the same. Many complain that Wal-Mart uses its power as the largest retailer in the US to force them to change the marketing of their products and sometimes even the actual product itself.
Wal-Mart is one of America’s most-hated companies. What is our most-hated industry? It seems that pharmaceutical companies have to be high on the list. They are portrayed in the media, and even in movies (The Constant Gardener), as companies that put their greed well above their concern for their consumers to have access to life-saving drugs.
Well, Wal-Mart is now taking on the pharmaceutical companies. Recently, they announced that they would start selling one month prescriptions for a wide-variety of generic drugs for only $4 (drugs that others sell for $10 to $30).
Should we all start to warm-up to Wal-Mart?
For some comments on their plan, see this article in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/09/22/hscout535097.html
Ethics of Group Assignments
By Marvin Krislov, written on Sep. 27, 2006
I’d like to pose a new topic. At the forum our group talked about group projects and the difficulties they can present. What are the pedagogical and ethical considerations in assigning a group grade? Should students grade each other (shades of The Apprentice or Survivor?)? While I understand the unfairness that may be associated with giving one grade to a group where different students may have contributed significantly different amounts, what message does it send to have students mark each other? What happens if two or three of the students are friends and dislike another student? If there are only two students on a team, is it feasible? I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.
Virtual Ethics?
By Elizabeth Mann, written on Sep. 15, 2006
What kind of expectations do we have when it comes to Facebook?
In the beginning, the Facebook was perceived as an innocent way to expand our social networks and, well, procrastinate. But recently the latest features and attention from the media have given Facebook a sinister reputation. Students everywhere are finally realizing that Facebook is a public domain – there are real consequences for our online actions. Athletes are warned to be more prudent in their profiles, and students worry that prospective employers will use Facebook as an informal background check. It seems pretty safe to say that students, in general, don’t want employers, professors, or coaches evaluating them based on information intended only for their peers.
So, what do we expect of our peers? Even though Facebook is an online community, doesn’t joining any community, regardless of medium, imply a degree of trust between members? Ultimately, every one of us has control of what appears on our profiles. But no one has control over what others initially post on Facebook – the lack of regulation is what makes it entertaining and, at the same time, dangerous. Entering the Facebook community makes us both vulnerable and responsible. No one’s stopping you from uploading embarrassing pictures of your ex from last Friday night – but should you?
What do we owe one another?
*This post was written by Students for Ethics.
Welcome
By Derek Collins, written on Sep. 10, 2006
Dear Friends and Fans,
Welcome to our new blog, The Choice. We’ve got a great year ahead: we just crushed the Chips last weekend, there’s only been a week of classes–meaning you still have time to drop the dull ones–and you probably signed up for more stuff during Festifall than you can keep track of.
So what’s this site about and why do I want you to read it? If I had my way, The Choice would be the place where we discuss any ethical issue under the sun. What do you do when you can’t figure out what you should do? We need a place to talk about stuff like this. Doesn’t mean you’ll get the answer. Ethics is trickier than that. But if you’re willing to write about your concerns, we’ve got a pretty interesting cast of university characters lined up to respond–including students, faculty, and administrators from most of the schools and colleges. If you want to hear from anyone we don’t already have, let us know. It’s a dialogue we want to begin, that’s all.
So the first thing I want to ask is what in the world is wrong with Facebook? You guys live on this site and should know(I’m too old), but it sounds to me like it’s getting a little creepy. Is there any point to tracking what everybody does, or is it just stalking?
The second thing I gotta do is remember 9/11. Hey, what can I say, I have kids, and that was one of the scariest days in my life. How do you tell a six and three year-old the world’s a complex and difficult place? You just tell them, I guess, and keep talking about it.
’Til next time.
Welcome!
By Joel Howell, written on Sep. 10, 2006
Welcome to the new school year! New this year, “THE CHOICE” is dedicated to exploring ethical issues that confront each of us every day, from social gaffes to academic integrity. We hope to use this blog as a site to discuss real-world issues, issues that can have several “right” answers (as well as quite a few “wrong” ones). Please come back often, and please post your own experiences so that we all can learn about what it means to behave ethically in this complex world.