tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32819443132675554432024-02-20T12:23:48.058-05:00Foul on the PlayA closer look at contemporary sports issues and the philosophical and ethical questions they raise.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-31515224448491539352016-12-18T20:30:00.001-05:002016-12-18T20:30:23.583-05:00True, Unmitigated ConflictPondering once more how competing in organized athletics can develop important traits, I have been reading a great deal of opinion pieces about students' search for "safe spaces" on college campuses. Recently, there has been un uptick in student voices clamoring to tell administrators that they need additional protection against both macro- and micro-agressions, those actions or words issued by others (sometimes unknowingly) that denigrate, stereotype, dismiss, or silence another.<br />
<br />
When considering the experience of these students (or any others who have been the target of behaviors ranging from thoughtless to the heartless and beyond), I was struck by the clarity of athletic competition as one of the few spaces left where direct conflict, albeit controlled by a set of standard rules and norms, remains intact. There is no doubt when you walk into the gym of your opponent that their goal is to defeat your team, that their fans will root against you regardless of your skill or talents, and that there will be a winner and a loser at the end. It's kind of refreshing, isn't it?<br />
<br />
No one who participates will complain that the other side was aggressive and doing everything in its power to come out on top. In fact, the effort to win fully engages the team and the individual participants who prepare for the competition with the primary focus of winning. The focus is not on how we can be protected from the other team's aggression. It's about how we can strategically plan and prepare to overcome any advantage they may have, to maximize our advantage, and in some cases, just figure out how to work harder than them.<br />
<br />
Is this a mindset that current college students (student-athletes and non-student-athletes) need to adopt when confronted by aggressions on campus? Well, it depends.<br />
<br />
As with most of my analogies, this one is far from perfect. For one, there is no clear and agreed-upon set of rules governing most behavior on campus. Of course, there are rules about behavior. Student codes of conduct and college policies usually outline what specific behaviors are unacceptable. But there is this entire subset of behaviors that never fall under any specific category of a violation of college policy. And, in case no one noticed, we don't have referees in striped shirts running around campus blowing whistles and stopping anyone who engages in bad behavior. So essentially, campus life could be described as a free-for-all game. An unrefereed event with conflicting rules, hundreds of teams, and no scoreboard in sight. So how in the world can we expect our students to embrace the conflict and feel like the outcome of that conflict is fair? How can we help them understand that even if they don't "win" the conflict that there is inherent worth in the process of disagreeing?<br />
<br />
Coaches learn to teach their teams that even when they lose, there is a lesson to be learned. "We need to be prepared better next time, we underestimated our opponent, we simply underperformed." When coaches do that well, they create a "growth" environment where their players learn that there is actual value in learning if they learn something from - or grow because of - that loss. They don't evaluate performance solely on whether they won or lost but whether they became a better team as a result.<br />
<br />
I think organized sport does this really well. And I wish it could be replicated in other settings where we are educating young people and working with them to become better, more skilled, strategic, empathetic -- you name the skill or trait. The beauty of sport is that you really can't wallow in loss because you usually have another contest coming up; you need to get back on the horse and figure out how you will be different - better - next time you compete.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-70051918363086697172016-02-15T15:07:00.000-05:002016-02-15T15:08:07.736-05:00Endurance as a Transferable SkillIs it just a hunch or is it in fact true that the virtues learned through participation in sport can translate into other areas of our lives? I started thinking about this again recently when I was listening to a podcast in which two of the hosts were contemplating whether a long-distance runner might somehow possess more "endurance" when it comes to suffering through torture at the hands of his captor. It's an extreme example no doubt - maybe not the best one for this argument as I imagine that someone who endures torture without completely breaking down has traits and habits of mind that can't be chalked up to the ability to run miles and miles - but the taxation of staying the course physically and mentally when both your body and mind beg you to stop is like any other learned skill. Some are naturally better at it than others, but anyone who practices at it can get better. And enduring pain, boredom, grief, or any other uncomfortable state of being is part of being human. So there are many opportunities to flex the skills of endurance.<br />
<br />
Something endurance athletes learn is that the pain is a temporary condition. They know it's finite and they usually believe that once it's over, there is great reward. Or at least, there is the relief of having stopped doing something incredibly difficult. So, tapping into that memory of what it's like to grit your teeth and carry on because you know you'll come out on the other side, seems to be something that endurance athletes can access when facing challenges outside the athletic arena.<br />
<br />
Another element of the endurance mindset that can translate is the ability to silence the thoughts that say "stop." Endurance athletes learn when the "stop" message is a true survival signal and when it's a false message, delivered by an instinct not unlike the one that makes some dogs cover their food bowl to protect it from other dogs even when they are the only dog in the house and will get fed like clockwork twice a day. Some deep-seeded instinct that long ago preserved life but is now just an amusing behavioral relic. I believe that endurance athletes learn to identify those signals as fakes. They learn to ignore them and develop that habit quickly, the habit of discarding the negative thought and moving on.<br />
<br />
Finally, the lessons of endurance normally teach that there is benefit from the pain. Whether the benefit is getting faster or being able to go longer, weight control, stress relief, or the satisfaction of accomplishing a difficult feat, the endurance mind knows that the pain is both temporary AND constructive. There is a tangible and positive effect from doing it.<br />
<br />
So will that same virtue emerge in the work setting when the challenge is a difficult project or managing a personal conflict? It may. But perhaps it's more likely to translate when the endurance athlete cognitively connects the skill to the work setting. When the mind says "If I can (fill in the blank - run a marathon, swim 2 miles in open water, etc.) I can deal with this difficult co-worker" then the connection has been made.<br />
<br />
<br />Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-88862244310300306942013-02-18T22:33:00.000-05:002013-02-18T22:33:42.613-05:00Rewards for Good BehaviorI've been shamed into posting again on this blog which is a good thing. I'd gotten lazy (or distracted or busy) but the excuses aside, it has been just over a year since I last posted.<br />
<br />
I've been thinking about the concept of a person being rewarded for being virtuous. In today's culture, we emphasize positive feedback, incentives, and rewards to those who are simply doing the right thing. We have been told this is necessary to build self-esteem in children and to motivate our players (and workers). We call people heroes for calling 911 when they spot a fire; we're shocked when <a href="http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2013/01/18/runner-refuses-to-expolit-mistake-helps-opponent-finish-first/">an elite runner allows the leader to finish the race ahead of him when the leader mistakenly thought he had already reached the finish line.</a> <br />
<br />
I'm not opposed to rewards for virtuous action outright. They all have their place, particularly when used judiciously and in the right context. Good coaches know this. I don't know of any college basketball player who wants to get a big "hooray" and a gold star every time she makes a layup in practice. But what about rewarding behavior that is simply "the right thing to do" as opposed to the behavior that helps win a game?<br />
<br />
In many respects I think media reaction to stories such where athletes assist competitors to their own disadvantage (for good reasons, not because they are "throwing" the contest) need to balance out the almost savage beatings that our athletes get when they commit crimes, violate rules, or act in a wildly unsportsmanlike manner. Why shouldn't we seek to create heroes when so many of our stars become vilified for straying outside the lines of acceptable behavior?<br />
<br />
Athletes are very tuned into reward for correct action. It happens often and instantaneously in many sports where, if you perform the skills correctly, good things will happen. If you perform them enough times correctly and are surrounded by teammates who do the same (assuming you are playing a team sport), you'll probably win a lot of games, maybe even a championship.<br />
<br />
So when an athlete does something right but doesn't win or get noticed because of it what will she learn? What will she gain? How do we help athletes believe that taking a virtuous action, regardless of whether it is noticed or results in recognition, is reward in itself? The idea that virtue is its own reward seems to have lost some of its luster these days.<br />
<br />
Some would claim that rewarding someone for "doing the right thing" both cheapens the act and renders that person too reliant on personal gain. But can you teach someone to be gratified for doing the right thing by not recognizing them or ignoring what they have done? That seems to make no sense either. I have no answer other than excessive reward feels like we have given up on people being good for its own sake - that we have to reward them with something external - otherwise they may never perform any self-sacrificing act. And we know this is not true. Athletes are virtuous every day without anyone noticing. And some just go on being virtuous throughout their lives without the trophy to show for it.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-89087081500197136482012-02-13T21:53:00.003-05:002012-02-13T22:17:47.799-05:00Call It When You See ItJohn Adams who, according to <a href="http://www.athleticmanagement.com/2012/01/31/ncaas_top_ref_has_seen_enough/index.php">this story in Athletic Management</a> is the NCAA's Officiating Coordinator has made a strong statement in hopes of convincing his colleagues to start enforcing the rules and start blowing the whistle on players and coaches who display unsportsmanlike behavior.<div><br /></div><div>He talks about seeing a trend of letting minor infractions go which always seem to morph into bigger problems down the road. Like many phenomena, unsportsmanlike behavior always seems to escalate in the absence of challenge. We rely on referees to avoid the downfall of the general public which has become slowly, albeit increasingly, immune to more and more acts of incivility and disrespectful behavior. From the comfort of our couches, we watch games and occasionally murmur to ourselves "hmm...that was kind of rude" or "he didn't really need to point his finger and pull out his uniform at his chest like that." If our referees become like us, we are in trouble. It's the easier path to swallow the whistle but we know the slope is slippery. You let one call go, then another, then before you know it you have a player pulling out a sharpie from his sock and signing a ball in the middle of a game.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-break">The Guardian recently reported on a study of Israeli judges</a> that indicated that judges were more lenient early in the day or after they took a lunch break. Maybe we need make sure our referees head on to the court sleep and food-deprived. We might have crankier referees but maybe they'd be more inclined to call a tight game. </div><div><br /></div><div>It would be interesting to see the changes in patterns of foul-calling over the years. Have referees become more lax only in calling unsportsmanlike behavior? Or are they calling the game more loosely all the way around? And, if Mr. Adams is correct, what exactly is influencing them to NOT enforce unsportsmanlike behavior? </div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-16714103071631644922010-07-05T16:45:00.006-04:002010-07-05T17:44:54.136-04:00Ortiz's Existential HellBack in late May, The Boston Globe ran <a href="http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2010/05/21/seething_ortiz_boils_over/">a story on David Ortiz</a>, who had started the season poorly for the Red Sox. Ortiz, it seemed, was not "himself" lately. The article explored what, for some athletes -- mostly professional -- is a truly complex relationship between themselves and the media, fans, and teammates. Blocking out negative thoughts, whether generated in your own head or suggested by a caller on sports-talk radio, is a valuable skill for professional athletes. But for Ortiz, he just couldn't take it any more. Apparently, Ortiz was locked in an existential hell, surrounded by his critics. They were in his head, their comments eating at his normally jovial demeanor until he became quiet, morose, bitter, and withdrawn.<br /><br />Ortiz's rationale for his reaction is worth exploring. There is some blame of his tormenters. Their constant criticism of him is, according to Ortiz in this article by Amalie Benjamin, why he "...came to be, going from being an angel to being [a jerk]. It wasn't because of me. It was because people change you." Isn't Ortiz articulating a commonly held thought about the nature of being a professional athlete (or entertainers, or politician, etc.); that what you are is constructed by how you are perceived? Those perceptions are manifest in money - whether people will pay to see you do your thing -- or by votes -- whether people will re-elect you. But your entire professional existence can be, in no small part, defined by others. It's not enough to go merrily along believing that everything is fine because you are doing your best. Professional athletes are acutely aware that criticism from the media and fans can sometimes be a harbinger of a tanking career. It's upsetting not only because it hurts to be criticized, but because it might mean a loss of your livelihood.<br /><br />What is interesting is Ortiz's willingness to reflect a base, some would say less mature, response to his critics when he looks at his own behavior. The "I'm being a jerk because you made me be this way" excuse. Not unlike the reason one sibling gives for hitting the other: "He started it!" It is hard to know, after reading the article, whether to feel sorry for Ortiz and to join him in being hurt by insensitive critics who sometimes forget they're talking about a human being, or whether to tell him to buck up, ignore the insults, and refuse to let others control his behavior. I don't know the context real well because I don't live in Boston, I'm not a Red Sox fan, and don't know the complexities of Ortiz's history in the city. But if Boston fans are like others, some will side with Ortiz, some will think he's whining, some will scratch their heads and even wonder why anyone is paying attention to how a multi-million dollar player "feels" when someone says something unkind to him.<br /><br />The critics are along for the rest of Ortiz's professional ride. He can either let them chatter in his ear as he drives down the highway, banish them to the back seat, or lock them in the trunk. They may feel like a GPS that he can never unplug. So maybe the best he can do is change the setting to a language he doesn't understand and tune them out.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-45563043743766559902010-05-12T19:59:00.006-04:002010-05-12T20:26:09.356-04:00A "Good" TeamHere's a small story about a high school soccer team and its accumulation of red cards. This is not a headline grabber when our media outlets are focused more on the sensational - Virginia lacrosse player, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/sports/04lacrosse.html">Yeardley Love's murder</a> - for instance. But I'm not ready to tackle the weighty moral, judicial, psychological, and social issues that this homicide has raised. I think we all need a little time before we can begin any sort of rational analysis of that tragedy.<br /><br />So anyway, this is a story out of a high school in Iowa where the <a href="http://qctimes.com/sports/high-school/soccer/article_3b1cc4e4-572b-11df-a230-001cc4c002e0.html?referer=a0caedec76c312d37a7e5653ee6dc183">boys soccer team is banned from post-season play</a> because they received too many red cards during the season. While the article doesn't go in to great depth, it appears as if the coach and athletic director are not battling this decision. In an unusual acceptance of the importance of behavioral guidelines, the coach states that he is disappointed in his young team. No one is arguing that the league rule is unfair. The coach does make a statement that his team does not want to be known as the the kind of team that gets five cards. That kind of statement, which is repeated in many forms by individuals and teams who firmly state that they're "not that kind of player/team", is a fascinating one. Its premise is that there ARE players and team that are "that kind of player/team." Is that argument at all based in a belief that life is simpler than it really seems? Do we deep down believe that there are "bad" people and "good" people? That when we stray from the rules or make missteps, we desperately need others to know that we're not "bad" people - just "good" people who broke a rule? This inner conflict for those who have strayed is, in some ways, a useful reaction. It is a manifestation of the tension between how we think others are seeing us and how we want them to see us in a moral context. It's a compulsion that can force us to re-examine our ethical standards if we use it as a catalyst to look inward and self-reflect.<br /><br />So here's hoping that this is the learning season for these boys from Iowa. I would be heartened to see an example of individual and group development that results in fewer red cards and a reputation as being a "good" team next year. But if that happens, it probably won't make the news. I'm content to hope.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-90661865476253536082010-04-08T14:19:00.004-04:002010-04-08T15:05:36.538-04:00The Case For CompetitionI often go back to Alfie Kohn's 1986 book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/No-Contest-Case-Against-Competition/dp/0395631254/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270750896&sr=1-1">No Contest: The Case Against Competition</a> to test my beliefs about the value of competitive sport. I don't agree with everything Kohn says (shocking, I know) and I think it's not completely appropriate to group athletic competition in with other types of competition. I DO believe that the competitive playing field can, when regulated by thoughtful and ethical people, be an environment that truly supports positive moral development in young athletes (and even some older ones).<br /><br />But Kohn forces us to look at some assumptions that have been made throughout history, particularly the "sports builds character" mantra that is accepted by some without any critical examination of what that means. Kohn cites a 1971 article by Bruce Ogilvie and Thomas Tutko that was published in <span style="font-style:italic;">Psychology Today</span> entitled "Sport: If You Want to Build Character, Try Something Else." Ogilvie and Tutko discussed in that article a personality profile of 15,000 athletes that showed that they demonstrated a "low interest in receiving support and concern from others, low need to take care for others, and low need for affiliation." They also concluded that those personality traits "seem(ed) necessary to achieve victory over others." Now I haven't read the original article and am not familiar with the Ogilivie/Tutko study but certainly we should always question the demographics of the sample group (particularly gender), what type of sport the subjects played, not to mention all of the other questions one should ask about research such as this before blindly accepting the results. And, of course, the study is now almost 40 years old. <br /><br />That study aside, this kind of research begs the questions of WHY these personality traits are demonstrated. Unless we buy into the theory that personality is completely established at conception and that character traits are immutable, we have to look at the environments that may help perpetuate these traits. The influence that coaches, teammates, parents, and others have over the competitive environment is significant. So how can we just accept that it is the "competitive environment" is simply detrimental to the moral development of young athletes? Doesn't that completely dismiss the impact of those people around the athletes who manage the competitive experience for them?<br /><br />Even on the college level, where some would argue that an individual student-athlete's moral foundation has already been set, I see student-athletes all the time who are competing fairly, with respect for their opponents, themselves, and teammates, and often see them as a reflection of their coach. Now do I have proof that they compete that way because the coach has influenced them to conduct themselves that way? Or is it because the college coach tends to recruit student-athletes that already reflect his or her own ethical characteristics? As is often the case, a little of both.<br /><br />When I was coaching, we had a long-standing rivalry with another team in our conference that to me, epitomized how high level competition could be healthy. For reasons that I am not sure of, our games were almost always nail-biters, both teams played with high intensity, but when the game was over, the shaking of hands was always genuine and on the bus or in the locker room after the game, my players would invariably say things like: "I love playing that team because it's always a clean game," "Their players have great sportsmanship," or "that team plays hard but they're never cocky." Not surprisingly, I also had a good, respectful relationship with that team's coach and my players saw that. What got my team fired up and ready to play was not this unbridled hatred toward the other team. It was the expectation of a good game and that my players would have to compete at their highest level to win the game. And I have no doubt that my players played just as hard against them as any other team. I think when athletes have that kind of experience, they walk away with a model of competition as it should be. And I think that happens a lot. It's just not as newsworthy as the incidents where teams or fans are brawling with each other.<br /><br />Competition itself - like a super power - can be used for good or evil. Kohn makes some compelling arguments about how competition in its rawest form, can negatively impact relationships and hinder growth on a number of levels. But is competition bad simply because it is competition? Or is it only dangerous when it goes unchecked?Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-39130868598432330952010-03-18T19:27:00.008-04:002010-03-18T20:22:22.041-04:00Women and Children First?I'm not sure whether or not I can make a connection to sport here or not, but I'll try anyway! <a href="http://www.theweek.com">The Week</a> magazine recently reported about a study in which Australian researchers looked at what occurred immediately during the minutes and hours during the rescues of the Titanic and the Lusitania. They found that the percentage of women and children who were rescued from the Titanic, which took about 3 hours to sink, was much greater than the percentage of women and children rescued from the Lusitania, which took a mere 18 minutes to sink.<br /><br />The hypothesis is that altruism is suppressed during those first minutes of crisis when the survival instinct is at its peak. And , once people have the time to ponder their values, that they then make different (in this case, more altruistic) decisions. There are numerous incidents of poor decision-making in sport (and of course, other situations) that are made in the heat of the moment. When the game is on the line, and something goes wrong, there is a strong instinct to react in a more primal way, not always one that is consistent with what one values personally, or even with what is best competitively. <br /><br />Take, for instance, the age old situation of the basketball player who drives to the basket and misses an easy shot. Her opponent grabs the rebound and, in frustration, the player who missed the shot immediately fouls that player. The coach gets mad, her teammates glare at her, and the player who just fouled walks back down the court hanging her head with the full weight of knowledge that she let some sort of base pissed-off-ness get the better of her. And even in other sports, we know that it's usually the second fouler that gets caught by the official.<br /><br />Seems like an excellent training ground to teach the benefit of restraint, or perhaps the re-channeling of emotion. Ultimately, a player wants to win. By mastering the emotional part of the game -- recognizing when an instinctual act may harm the team -- an athlete can gain a useful skill that can be used to great advantage outside the bounds of the athletic arena. In a March 9, 2010 posting on <a href="http://fairgamenews.com/">Fair Game News</a>, Laura Pappano makes an excellent point about the recent incident where college basketball player Brittney Griner punched an opponent after tangling with her under the basket. <br /><br />"If we believe competitive sports teach lessons that matter as much off the field as on, then let’s not just sit back and hope lessons emerge. A 19-year-old freshman like Griner may not intuitively be able to handle the pressure (including expectations that she is the future of women’s basketball), without explicit support. If press reports are even half right, Griner will someday be both a superstar and a stand-up person. But players (especially those with targets on their uniforms) must be taught to shrug off trash talk and physical contact under the basket; not everyone is comes to college play with that skill."<br /><br />Rappano addresses the developmental aspect of this perfectly. Many athletes don't come pre-packaged with that restraint, particularly those under a great deal of pressure to perform. While we can't excuse such behavior, we also need to see it in its developmental context and seek to help athletes gain the skills that will do them good once they enter the working world.<br /><br />I've coached "hot heads" before. I think I actually was one as an athlete for awhile (at least that's what some of my former coaches have told me). They have their place on a team. They can be inspirational leaders, can bring positive and passionate emotion to a team when it is in the midst of crisis and needs a lift. Learning the skill to channel that instinct of emotion in crisis, so that it helps, not hurts, the team is the trick. It's hard. Being in the middle of a hotly-contested game, for someone who is innately competitive, is a difficult place to cool your head. And sometimes you don't even want to cool your head as much as you want to channel it. Luckily, most careers, seasons, and games, last more than the 18 minutes it took to sink the Lusitania. <br /><br />I once heard a sports psychologist who worked with Charles Barkley talk about how he helped the basketball player gain control of his emotion during the game. Barkley, who played with lots of emotion ( and still is not a master of restraint when he speaks his mind!) used to get extremely mad at himself when he missed an easy basket or made a stupid mistake. And he couldn't shake that emotion. Using a Keep It Simple Stupid method, the psychologist taught Barkley to, as soon as he made the mistake and started to get mad, say to himself "STOP." This unspoken mantra was powerful for Barkely who, at least according to this psychologist, was able to master his emotion by using the technique and immediately focus on what he had to do next. <br /><br />I don't think Barkley's next thought after "STOP" led to thoughts about how he could save as many women and children as possible, but it probably allowed him to help his teammates win a few more games.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-20954069471886298822010-02-08T21:22:00.005-05:002010-02-08T22:07:23.390-05:00A Failure of Imagination?Although the story is not sport-related, I was intrigued by the recent news about a Rutgers University sorority that found itself in some hot water after <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/rutgers_sorority_members_hazin.html">allegations of some pretty serious hazing.</a><br /><br />Like many sport teams that are built around some admirable goals, this sorority prided itself on community service. I imagine that, like most Greek organizations, they also espoused the virtue of sisterhood and loyalty to the organization. So why, when a group has some values that are, on their face, commendable and beneficial to society as a whole, do they use methods of initiation that are based in power, humiliation, and disrespect? What made the members of this sorority choose to beat their initiates and deprive them of food? It is this chasm of ideals that so baffles us every time we hear of such hazing-related events.<br /><br />The answers to this question are complex but one quote in this article stood out to me as a blindingly bright example of how revenge, anger, and fear can cloud rational judgment about how people act. The cousin was quoted in this article as saying:<br /><br />"I wanted to beat them back. Maybe if they got hit, they wouldn’t hit others. They’d know what it felt like."<br /><br />And this, I believe, is exactly the wrong answer. More than likely, those doing the beating WERE beat themselves when they joined the sorority. They hit because THEY were hit. That is one thing we do know about hazing -- that it is rooted in this sense of perpetuating the suffering. "It was done to me so I will do it to others." Exactly the kind of thinking that those of us who work in education try relentlessly to challenge. It's not done overnight. The culture of these organizations and the perpetuation of hazing relies on members operating completely within the context of the organization. It discourages critical moral thinking (despite all of the "community service" that these groups are involved in) and punishes those who don't comply. <br /><br />Teaching moral decision-making in this context is a huge challenge. For athletes, they often see hazing not only as a way to achieve team bonding, but also to encourage "toughness" which, in the right context, is a useful virtue for an athlete to possess. And it may be possible that, without guidance, athletes make an illogical leap between what challenges a coach imposes on players to instill toughness and acts of hazing that they impose on their own teammates. Maybe they just can't think of a better way to create team bonding. Or possibly, they see growth as coming only through unadulterated hardship or punishment. Initiating new players into a team thus becomes about fear and power, not about love of the game or respect for individuals.<br /><br />I recently read David Wroblewski's 2008 novel, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Story-Edgar-Sawtelle-Novel-P-S/dp/0061374237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265684319&sr=1-1">The Story of Edgar Sawtell</a>e, a wonderful and, at times, gut-wrenching read. And please know that I am in no way equating the training of dogs (a major theme of the novel) with the molding of young athletes, but this passage jumped out at me:<br /><br />"She didn't think that the lessons from dog training always transferred to people, but it was the nature of things that if you punished anyone, dog or boy, when they got close to a thing, they'd get it in their head the thing was bad. She'd seen people ruin dogs too many time...Not finding a variation on the same task, not coming at things from a different angle, not making the dog relish whatever it was that had to be done, was a failure of the imaginations." (p. 298)<br /><br />Imagination, mixed in with some empathy and respect for others, might be a key in breaking the chain of hazing.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-49483416308484542552010-01-25T20:39:00.000-05:002010-01-25T20:39:17.029-05:00Measuring the Moral Reasoning of AthletesThe University of Idaho's <a href="http://www.educ.uidaho.edu/center_for_ethics/">Center for ETHICS</a> (Ethical Theory and Honor in Competition and Sport) is the home for a great deal of both theoretical and action research about moral and ethical reasoning and development in sport. The center's Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI) measures moral reasoning in athletes and they have assessed over 80,000 individuals (ranging from high school students through adults) using this instrument and the findings are compelling (more on the findings later).<br /><br />But one of the items on this survey stood out to me because of its uncanny similarity to the now-famous "hand ball" incident that occurred in the World Cup qualifier game between France and Ireland late last year. Thierry's hand ball led directly to a France score which tied the game and effectively eliminated Ireland from the World Cup. The item on the HBVCI reads as follows:<br /><br />"Question 1: Male soccer players are allowed to play the ball with any part of their body except the hands or outstretched arms. A soccer player receives a chest high pass and taps the ball to the ground with his hand. The referee does not see this action and the play continues, Because it is the referee's job to see these actions, the player is not obligated to report his foul."<br /><br />Survey participants are asked to indicate their level of agreement with the last two sentences by noting whether they "Strongly Agree," "Agree," are "Neutral," "Disagree," or "Strongly Disagree." If I am not mistaken, those who strongly agree are demonstrating a lower level of moral reasoning than those who strongly disagree. I think what makes this a worthy point of discussion is that the focus is squarely on the direct connection between decisions made in an athletic setting and the moral development of the athlete making those decisions. This is not about what is "practical" in the game of sport or what behavior seems to best fit in the context of sport as we know it. It's a question that directly accesses someone's moral decision making in an athletic setting.<br /><br />Overall, their findings (summarized <a href="http://www.educ.uidaho.edu/center_for_ethics/Measurements/HBVCI/findings.htm">here</a>) show that males in team sports demonstrate the lowest moral reasoning scores. Athletes in individual sports demonstrate higher levels of moral reasoning than those in team sports. And the longer that women are involved in team sport competition, the more their moral reasoning appears to erode.<br /><br />OK, there are so many directions to move in here and I'll stop for now. Food for thought and a future posting.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-1956164733777195382010-01-10T20:42:00.006-05:002010-01-12T16:31:48.150-05:00Breaking the Unwritten RuleI was interested to read the comments of the coach of the Yates High School (Houston, TX) boys basketball team after the media and public response to his team's 170-35 shellacking of another team on January 5, 2010. Greg Wise, the coach of this obviously talented team, responded to criticism by saying:<br /><br /> "The real story isn’t getting out, and that’s what hurts me. If you are interested in breaking records, that’s not the main focus of high school sports. That’s not the stuff I’m teaching my kids. Nobody shows me taking kids home in an impoverished area where there is gang violence, or calling kids before school and telling them to get on the bus. Nobody shows them doing study hall before school. It’s crazy.”<br /><br />His frustration is not unlike that of many whose stories are reported by the media with an eye toward simplicity, sensation, and what will grab the attention of a CNN Headline News viewer. But I have to ask, how would showing his players in study hall contribute to a well-balanced view of this issue? As far as I can figure, the issue at stake is one of sportsmanship, a commitment to the unspoken, unwritten contract that two high school teams enter into when they play each other. That contract, as I see it, includes the assumption that both teams will play hard, play fairly, and will treat each other with respect. Pressing, running the break, and allowing starters to play when you have a 100-point lead is not respect. Even if you are a regular participant in study hall. <br /><br />I will allow that there is some gray area when it comes to "running up the score." There are countless stories of teams that were soundly beating another team, let up, and then ended up losing the game. But this doesn't look gray to me. It looks as black and white as a Holstein (and smells just as bad). And why do I think this is one of the more blatant acts of unsportsmanship I've seen lately? In part, because it is disregards one of the most important elements of team competition: that the game simply wouldn't exist without the full participation of two teams. The Yates team relied on the other team to even have a game (and the referees too, of course). They couldn't achieve any of their goals if the other team didn't exist, show up, or play. Unlike, say, pole vaulting, they couldn't score their hoped-for 200 points and have it count for anything if there wasn't an opponent (and I don't know enough about international track and field to know whether or not a pole vaulter actually needs to have opponents for his or her vault count, but let's say for argument, that they don't).<br /><br />We can rationalize such running up the score, particularly in professional sports, for all sorts of reasons. But this coach's rationale is weak at best. In fact, his argument doesn't even address whether or not what his team was wrong. He deflects the issue by saying "My players and I do all of these other admirable things so you should ignore this particular act." Like many "rules of the game," not running up the score is unwritten. And these unwritten rules are most vulnerable to abuse since they are followed only when teams and coaches demonstrate thought, restraint, and discretion. This is REALLY hard in a competitive arena. How do you tell competitive players not to score or to play soft when all of their training has been geared toward the exact opposite?<br /><br />No doubt, successful athletes have the "killer instinct." Successful professional athletes almost as a rule, need to have that characteristic. But to cultivate that at the high school level to such a degree that the utter humiliation experienced by the other team isn't even recognized, is a disservice to all involved in high school sports. The chance to blow out another team (and resist the temptation) is a great teaching moment. It is an opportune time to instill in players that competition and at least some level of empathy are not mutually exclusive. And it's a great time to demonstrate the honor of respecting another team's presence and participation in the game.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-8476332073236378142010-01-04T20:39:00.004-05:002010-01-04T21:17:34.088-05:00Motivation or Abuse?Mike Leach, the Texas Tech football coach, was recently fired amid allegations of abuse toward players (really one player in particular). Leach allegedly told an athletic trainer to have a player, who had recently been diagnosed with a concussion, go stand in a dark room and stand alone for the duration of practice. It's not clear to me exactly what the connection there is but there are indications that the player was not on Leach's good side (which I kind of hope is true because if not, I shudder to think of what he might do to players who pissed him off).<br /><br />The relationship between coach and player can, at its best, be life changing, transformative, and highly educational. But like any other relationship it can go bad. And the potential for it to slide from one of unequal power into abuse is ever-present. Acts like Leach's illustrate what happens when a coach chooses to use his power and act out in a way that has no resemblance to sound discipline or education. Coaches are generally given more freedom to do what they think necessary to help a player and team become "better." When I was a college coach, I secretly loved the idea that every once in awhile I could say to an underperforming player, "get your head out of your ass!" when my faculty friends would likely be hauled into the Provost's office for saying anything resembling that comment to a student. I'm sure that secretly they too would like to walk over to an inattentive (ok, sleeping) student and suddenly bellow into their ear "GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!" Alas, only a coach (or a drill sergeant) is given the leeway to say such things and still be applauded as an excellent motivator.<br /><br />In the context of sports, yelling (and sometimes swearing) at young men and women is not always considered abusive. Occasionally, when it gets excessive (or just too quiet in the gym when the expletive flies) it is considered in bad taste. But rarely abusive. But highly successful coaches (and by successful I don't mean wins and losses as much as helping challenge young men and women to become better people) rarely scream and yell all the time and most certainly, they don't lock their players in a dark room to teach them...something.<br /><br />As a coach, I didn't assign the dirty jobs to the freshmen. I had everybody do the dirty jobs (myself and my assistants included) and do them together. Coaches who always assign the grunt work to the freshman are thinking that they are somehow helping these newbies earn their stripes. But what are they really learning? And will they learn more by carrying the water themselves than if they do it with an upperclassmen? To me, building team is building a whole team. Not segments of a team in the hopes that they will then come together magically on game day. In fact, instead of letting seniors sit back and get waited on by the freshman, I often assigned seniors and captains some of the least desirable jobs (cleaning the van after a long road trip, for instance). To me, that sent the message that with seniority and power, came responsibility to do things for the entire team. Freshmen saw that and instead of feeling pushed around, saw a future obligation and the notion that leadership was not about directing others to do your work. It was about chipping in and helping the whole team.<br /><br />To come full circle, you have to wonder what Leach thought he was accomplishing. It seems to be nothing short of retribution or punishment without a modicum of education. Of course, I don't know the full context. But to me, this is one of those things that I'll draw a line in the sand. I -- and many of the outstanding coaches I have come across in my career -- would never consider doing something like what Leach did. And I promise that if I ever get a chance to teach in the classroom, I will never tell a student to get his head out of his ass. Unless of course, I'm teaching veterinary medicine and my student really has his head in his ass.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-86108690047437226502009-12-18T20:53:00.004-05:002009-12-18T22:01:52.790-05:00Lowering the BarThe 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? <br /><br />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, <span style="font-style:italic;">believe</span> 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."<br /><br />Some comments to the article in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/sports/ncaafootball/09tennessee.html?scp=1&sq=recruiting%20hostesses&st=cse">the New York Times about the NCAA investigation</a> 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?<br /><br />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?Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-53666349464272631622009-12-07T20:39:00.006-05:002009-12-07T22:37:33.695-05:00Whose 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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-78011324479827403992009-12-03T20:38:00.000-05:002009-12-03T20:38:19.340-05:00Silence Is His VirtueIn Tiger Woods' recent <a href="http://web.tigerwoods.com/news/article/200912027740572/news/">apology</a>, 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." <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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? <br /><br />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.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-8611211462297691392009-12-01T20:54:00.005-05:002009-12-02T13:18:32.262-05:00Does the Devil Wear a Red Uniform?Jeré Longman’s recent <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/sports/soccer/11violence.html">article</a> 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. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.badjocks.com/">website</a>, 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In a follow up <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/sports/soccer/18soccer.html">article</a> 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.<br /><br />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.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3281944313267555443.post-88011186547546769912009-11-30T12:31:00.002-05:002009-12-02T13:17:46.086-05:00First EditionI decided to start this blog because I was always left wanting after watching heated arguments on TV or "discussions" on the internet, about whether a certain athlete, coach, umpire, fan, parent, etc. was "right" or "wrong." There is so much to discuss out there. From Little League parents, to millionaire college football coaches there is so much material if you want to have a debate about behavior or ethics in sport today. I'm hoping to look at some of these issues in a little more depth on this blog. Some of the material will be generated by more visible current events in sports but some postings will wander into the on-going debates on issues such as Title IX, the recruiting of college athletes, and violence in sport. In fact, there is really too much material out there. I just started listing in my head all of the issues I could take on and I'm already tired. So I'm going to go rest and think about my first topic.Sarah Feyerhermhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13720859871237001027noreply@blogger.com1