The University of Tennessee is being investigated by the NCAA for possible recruiting violations that include using "hostesses"; co-eds who, allegedly, have gone to the high school games of prized football recruits to help lure them to the University. While the NCAA appears to be looking into whether this practice violates NCAA recruiting regulations, there are other glaring issues ripe for discussion: Is it ethical for the University to use some of its own female students as objects in the race to land prize recruits? Should institutions of higher education, whose primary missions are indeed educational, utilize tactics that are rooted in sexism and the objectification of women?
College coaches at all levels are masters of looking for -- and sometimes finding -- the recruiting edge. Using attractive female students to entice (straight) male athletes to choose a particular institution is not a new concept and, given how we market professional football today, not a particularly innovative one. Whether it is effective or not is certainly up for debate. Someone would have to do a study that evaluates all of the variables that impact why a particular student-athlete chooses a particular school and then the degree to which that athlete contributes to the team's success. Obviously, no one is going to do that and I don't think anyone is really interested in whether or not it is an effective recruiting tactic. What is obvious is that a lot of folks involved in this type of recruiting, believe it is effective and are not deterred by any possible ethical objectives anyone may have. NCAA regulations have a far better shot at ending such a practice than a sudden and widespread revelation by coaches, administrators, and the "hostesses" themselves that the practice is somehow "wrong."
Some comments to the article in the New York Times about the NCAA investigation reflect what I think some people's initial reaction is: that it's not surprising, nor a big deal, and that it's a cold, hard, fact that some men will pick their college based on their perception of the attractiveness of the women who attend it. It's one thing to put an act into context. It is wholly another thing to rationalize a decision or action that is based on the exploitation of an entire gender. Should institutions of higher education be expected to raise the bar in all aspects of their institution? Or are some of these Division I athletic departments so removed from the institution's mission that it is pointless to try and make that argument?
I don't think it's too much of an expectation for universities and colleges to raise the moral bar here and to stop the use of such recruiting practices. If they don't, we run the risk of the bar getting lower and lower and it's hard to know where that could end. Using women (and an increasing number of men as well) as sexual objects to sell products is hardly uncommon in our country. We do it to sell sport, aftershave and beer. But is it unreasonable to hope that our institutions of higher learning could be a haven from that culture? That their recruiting practices would prepare prospective student-athletes in their selection of a college rather than a six pack?
Friday, December 18, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Whose Call is it Anyway?
There has been some debate about Thierry Henry's "honor" and his admission about the controversial goal that sent Ireland packing and France into the World Cup. Henry admitted after the game that he handled the soccer ball before kicking it to a teammate who then headed the ball into the goal. But by then, the game was history. The referee didn't see the violation, the goal was allowed and one wonders if -- even if some have suggested would have been more honorable -- Henry had assertively turned himself in right then and there, the outcome would have been different.
For the most part, referees and umpires are trained to call what they see. Not what they think might have happened, not what someone told them happened (just think what that would look like with an umpire listening to players, coaches and spectators to determine what actually occurred), and not what they think probably happened. It would have been unprecedented for the referee, in this situation, to have changed his call had Henry come running up to him saying "I fouled, I fouled, it shouldn't be a goal!" It would have put the soccer world (and other sports) on its head.
One of the defining characteristics of most team sports is that each participant has a clearly defined role to play. Players play, coaches coach, spectators spectate, and umpires umpire. When people go outside their role, it makes people nervous. Coaches are often heard telling players who question their decision-making "you play and I coach." I have heard umpires say (and I have said and heard this myself as a former coach and umpire) "Coach, you do the coaching and I'll call the game." So is there any room for people to cross those clearly marked lines?
A purist (or a golfer) might say that there should be room for a player to call a foul on him or herself. For the integrity of the game, the right call is most important and that it would justify people straying outside their closely defined roles. Others, the pragmatists, I guess, believe that allowing that sort of "self-foul calling" is unrealistic and would undermine the game and result in an uneven playing field. After all, the teams that called the most fouls on themselves (or the most honest teams) would clearly be at a disadvantage. No different than most tennis matches, I would argue. But wouldn't that be kind of cool? To allow individual players to call their own foul in a game when they see that the referee has missed it -- and have the referee actually adjust the call accordingly?
Instant replay has addressed the concerns of those who believe the right and most accurate call is critical to the integrity of the game. But where does that leave the integrity of individual players? Both those who try and cover up a foul -- or even more disheartening -- those who own up to the foul but are ignored by the referees.
For the most part, referees and umpires are trained to call what they see. Not what they think might have happened, not what someone told them happened (just think what that would look like with an umpire listening to players, coaches and spectators to determine what actually occurred), and not what they think probably happened. It would have been unprecedented for the referee, in this situation, to have changed his call had Henry come running up to him saying "I fouled, I fouled, it shouldn't be a goal!" It would have put the soccer world (and other sports) on its head.
One of the defining characteristics of most team sports is that each participant has a clearly defined role to play. Players play, coaches coach, spectators spectate, and umpires umpire. When people go outside their role, it makes people nervous. Coaches are often heard telling players who question their decision-making "you play and I coach." I have heard umpires say (and I have said and heard this myself as a former coach and umpire) "Coach, you do the coaching and I'll call the game." So is there any room for people to cross those clearly marked lines?
A purist (or a golfer) might say that there should be room for a player to call a foul on him or herself. For the integrity of the game, the right call is most important and that it would justify people straying outside their closely defined roles. Others, the pragmatists, I guess, believe that allowing that sort of "self-foul calling" is unrealistic and would undermine the game and result in an uneven playing field. After all, the teams that called the most fouls on themselves (or the most honest teams) would clearly be at a disadvantage. No different than most tennis matches, I would argue. But wouldn't that be kind of cool? To allow individual players to call their own foul in a game when they see that the referee has missed it -- and have the referee actually adjust the call accordingly?
Instant replay has addressed the concerns of those who believe the right and most accurate call is critical to the integrity of the game. But where does that leave the integrity of individual players? Both those who try and cover up a foul -- or even more disheartening -- those who own up to the foul but are ignored by the referees.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Silence Is His Virtue
In Tiger Woods' recent apology, posted on his website, he makes an interesting statement: "...for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family."
I'm not certain if he is talking about privacy as a personal virtue or one that he believes should be exhibited by the media (and the consumers of media). But privacy--or the respect of privacy--as I suspect Woods means, is not one of the virtues that I think you'll find in Aristotle's writings. Regardless, his reticence on the topic of his private life following his minor car accident, has been framed by Woods as a virtue and he is implying, I think, that the world at large should demonstrate that same virtue of privacy and allow him and his family to work out their problems behind closed doors.
Clearly, he is trying to regain some equilibrium in the face of some transgressions (whatever they may be) on his part. He may have failed his family and himself by succumbing to a moral weakness, but he is nevertheless holding on to his virtue of silence in the face of this. His silence seems integral to his commitment to his family. But can--or should--he expect the same from the public and the media?
The common argument that arises when celebrities ask for privacy is that because they are outrageously famous, they should expect that all of their dirty laundry will be aired in public. The old, "comes with the territory" argument. But as a justification for these acts of tabloid journalism, I think it is a weak argument when looked at in an ethical framework. What indeed is the benefit from airing Woods' (or other celebrities') dirty laundry? Unlike the benefits of a press that uncovers political corruption, does revealing Woods' personal failings somehow benefit our society? An informed citizenry is accepted as a critical element of democracy. But is there a greater good that is being achieved by digging for these details? The freedom of the press is almost without bounds in our country and that has shown over and over again to be elemental to the success of democracy in the United States. But is knowledge of Woods' private indiscretions vital to our functioning democracy?
I'm not convinced that respecting the privacy of celebrities is the virtue we will find in either individual members of the press or the media they represent. Perhaps some occasional discretion is the most we can hope for. At least I think that is the most that TIger Woods can hope for.
I'm not certain if he is talking about privacy as a personal virtue or one that he believes should be exhibited by the media (and the consumers of media). But privacy--or the respect of privacy--as I suspect Woods means, is not one of the virtues that I think you'll find in Aristotle's writings. Regardless, his reticence on the topic of his private life following his minor car accident, has been framed by Woods as a virtue and he is implying, I think, that the world at large should demonstrate that same virtue of privacy and allow him and his family to work out their problems behind closed doors.
Clearly, he is trying to regain some equilibrium in the face of some transgressions (whatever they may be) on his part. He may have failed his family and himself by succumbing to a moral weakness, but he is nevertheless holding on to his virtue of silence in the face of this. His silence seems integral to his commitment to his family. But can--or should--he expect the same from the public and the media?
The common argument that arises when celebrities ask for privacy is that because they are outrageously famous, they should expect that all of their dirty laundry will be aired in public. The old, "comes with the territory" argument. But as a justification for these acts of tabloid journalism, I think it is a weak argument when looked at in an ethical framework. What indeed is the benefit from airing Woods' (or other celebrities') dirty laundry? Unlike the benefits of a press that uncovers political corruption, does revealing Woods' personal failings somehow benefit our society? An informed citizenry is accepted as a critical element of democracy. But is there a greater good that is being achieved by digging for these details? The freedom of the press is almost without bounds in our country and that has shown over and over again to be elemental to the success of democracy in the United States. But is knowledge of Woods' private indiscretions vital to our functioning democracy?
I'm not convinced that respecting the privacy of celebrities is the virtue we will find in either individual members of the press or the media they represent. Perhaps some occasional discretion is the most we can hope for. At least I think that is the most that TIger Woods can hope for.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Does the Devil Wear a Red Uniform?
Jeré Longman’s recent article in the New York Times that UNM soccer player Elizabeth Lambert’s now-famous ponytail pulling of a BYU opponent had become media fodder in part because of a double standard. That her fairly violent hair pulling and flinging to the ground of the opponent (whose name no one seems to know because she is the victim, of course, and they do tend to fade into obscurity) was highlighted because people (I’m presuming they mean “men” when they say “people”) are somehow titillated by this act of woman-on-woman violence and that it has some sort of homo-erotic element that brings to mind female mud-wrestling and, perhaps, roller derby.
I have to say that I was intrigued by this act as well although not for any of those reasons. Sure, it is more unusual to see women involved in this sort of behavior than men. But the act itself sort of appalled me because it appeared relatively unprovoked. At the very least, it seemed disproportionate to the act(s) that provoked it. Now I know that it gets annoying when a forward starts backing into you to get position. I played college basketball and as a 5-6 guard, occasionally found myself thinking that I could play with the big girls (sorry, women) under the basket. I was boxed out with the ease that one swats away an annoying flea. But I accepted that contact as part of the game and while it could be annoying, I can’t imagine taking the sort of action that Lambert did. It was almost as if the hair pulling was choreographed. She was standing there behind this player and then “wham” the BYU player is dramatically flung to the ground (which is another topic of discussion).
So perhaps there are some gender issues at play here in the way this event has been reported, discussed, and analyzed. I take that back. There’s no “perhaps” about it. In the BadJocks website, a reader commented on this story comparing Lambert to Lorena Bobbitt and that all the men out there out to beware. So now she is being compared to a woman who cut off her husband’s penis? That reflects a strange combination of titillation and irrational fear of strong women that I can’t even begin to address.
Lambert’s actions were blatantly unsportsmanlike and demonstrate a lack of control over her behavior that warrants some serious intervention. I’m not a fan of mandatory counseling. I do hope that the leadership of UNM can develop a plan that not only involves what was Lambert’s very well-scripted apology but has elements that indicate she may be willing to gain the tools that would ward off this type of conduct in the future. On the soccer field it is a red card; in life the stakes are jail time. She gets hit from behind while in a fender bender while driving her car and she gets out and starts yelling at the other driver? (By the way, I’m pretty sure she won’t get out and cut off the other driver’s penis). The “what are you going to do when you get out in the real world?” question is a tired one that college students grow weary of hearing. But if part of the educational mission of a college or university (or athletic team) is to prepare students for the real world, then such a message can’t be ignored.
Lambert also makes a statement in her public apology that I often hear in my day-to-day life as a college administrator and that is that what she did is not reflective of her true character. I have students who have committed some violation or another, tell me all the time “I’m not a bad person” or “I’m not like the real criminals.” And while I almost always agree with them that they are not bad people, I do need to remind them (and Lambert) that what you do IS reflective of your character. Is character independent of actions? Is it how you feel, not how you act? Or is it how you act most of the time (and I’m not being flip here since none of us are saints and don’t go through life without a little moral slip here and there.) But if your actions could always be discounted as having nothing to do with your character, where would we then draw the line? Just one bad act a year and you still have character? Or perhaps if you only commit minor violations, fouls, or crimes, then you still get to have the “person of character” designation? I don’t know that answer. I don’t know whether Lambert will be forgiven, let alone ever bestowed with the label of a woman of character. I hope she does. She has a good shot at it if she starts to connect that actions, although forgivable, are part of who you are. You can’t discount them as part of your character and if they don’t reflect how you want to be known or how you want to think of yourself, you better figure out a way to avoid them.
In a follow up article on Nov. 17, 2009, Longman quotes Lambert as saying, “I look at [the video] and I’m like ’That is not me.’” She is still trying to sort this out in her own mind and resolve the dissonance. What she did is at odds with how she perceives herself—and she just can’t quite make that connection. In the stories of our childhood, the good guy (or gal) wore black and was just a bad person through and through. Evil. Lambert (who, by the way, was wearing a red uniform) can’t quite come to terms with how she could have done something like and still be the hero – not the villain.
Its variations have been attributed to various people, but the statement “character is what you do when no one is watching” may be useful here. In this case, it could support Lambert’s argument. Her true character is what she does when the video camera is not rolling and can best be understood by the whole of her life: actions, words, and deeds that together, form a person’s character. I don’t know her and only those who know her well could accurately and fairly assess her character. But her initial act and the apology were what she did when people WERE watching. So does that mean they don’t count? I think not. But how she acts from here on in – whether caught on tape of not -- will either prove or disprove her contention that her actions were not indicative of her character.
I have to say that I was intrigued by this act as well although not for any of those reasons. Sure, it is more unusual to see women involved in this sort of behavior than men. But the act itself sort of appalled me because it appeared relatively unprovoked. At the very least, it seemed disproportionate to the act(s) that provoked it. Now I know that it gets annoying when a forward starts backing into you to get position. I played college basketball and as a 5-6 guard, occasionally found myself thinking that I could play with the big girls (sorry, women) under the basket. I was boxed out with the ease that one swats away an annoying flea. But I accepted that contact as part of the game and while it could be annoying, I can’t imagine taking the sort of action that Lambert did. It was almost as if the hair pulling was choreographed. She was standing there behind this player and then “wham” the BYU player is dramatically flung to the ground (which is another topic of discussion).
So perhaps there are some gender issues at play here in the way this event has been reported, discussed, and analyzed. I take that back. There’s no “perhaps” about it. In the BadJocks website, a reader commented on this story comparing Lambert to Lorena Bobbitt and that all the men out there out to beware. So now she is being compared to a woman who cut off her husband’s penis? That reflects a strange combination of titillation and irrational fear of strong women that I can’t even begin to address.
Lambert’s actions were blatantly unsportsmanlike and demonstrate a lack of control over her behavior that warrants some serious intervention. I’m not a fan of mandatory counseling. I do hope that the leadership of UNM can develop a plan that not only involves what was Lambert’s very well-scripted apology but has elements that indicate she may be willing to gain the tools that would ward off this type of conduct in the future. On the soccer field it is a red card; in life the stakes are jail time. She gets hit from behind while in a fender bender while driving her car and she gets out and starts yelling at the other driver? (By the way, I’m pretty sure she won’t get out and cut off the other driver’s penis). The “what are you going to do when you get out in the real world?” question is a tired one that college students grow weary of hearing. But if part of the educational mission of a college or university (or athletic team) is to prepare students for the real world, then such a message can’t be ignored.
Lambert also makes a statement in her public apology that I often hear in my day-to-day life as a college administrator and that is that what she did is not reflective of her true character. I have students who have committed some violation or another, tell me all the time “I’m not a bad person” or “I’m not like the real criminals.” And while I almost always agree with them that they are not bad people, I do need to remind them (and Lambert) that what you do IS reflective of your character. Is character independent of actions? Is it how you feel, not how you act? Or is it how you act most of the time (and I’m not being flip here since none of us are saints and don’t go through life without a little moral slip here and there.) But if your actions could always be discounted as having nothing to do with your character, where would we then draw the line? Just one bad act a year and you still have character? Or perhaps if you only commit minor violations, fouls, or crimes, then you still get to have the “person of character” designation? I don’t know that answer. I don’t know whether Lambert will be forgiven, let alone ever bestowed with the label of a woman of character. I hope she does. She has a good shot at it if she starts to connect that actions, although forgivable, are part of who you are. You can’t discount them as part of your character and if they don’t reflect how you want to be known or how you want to think of yourself, you better figure out a way to avoid them.
In a follow up article on Nov. 17, 2009, Longman quotes Lambert as saying, “I look at [the video] and I’m like ’That is not me.’” She is still trying to sort this out in her own mind and resolve the dissonance. What she did is at odds with how she perceives herself—and she just can’t quite make that connection. In the stories of our childhood, the good guy (or gal) wore black and was just a bad person through and through. Evil. Lambert (who, by the way, was wearing a red uniform) can’t quite come to terms with how she could have done something like and still be the hero – not the villain.
Its variations have been attributed to various people, but the statement “character is what you do when no one is watching” may be useful here. In this case, it could support Lambert’s argument. Her true character is what she does when the video camera is not rolling and can best be understood by the whole of her life: actions, words, and deeds that together, form a person’s character. I don’t know her and only those who know her well could accurately and fairly assess her character. But her initial act and the apology were what she did when people WERE watching. So does that mean they don’t count? I think not. But how she acts from here on in – whether caught on tape of not -- will either prove or disprove her contention that her actions were not indicative of her character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)