Study Guides (248,398)
Canada (121,510)
Philosophy (261)
PHL376H1 (3)
T.J.Berry (2)

PHL376 Final Exam notes (second half of semester only).docx

14 Pages
Unlock Document


March 8, 2013  THE CORRUPTION THESIS: the commercialization of sport corrupts sport because market values conflict with the internal values of sport  External goods get introduced into sport and get people to value something other than the mutual quest for excellence through competition  Gulyas-Kukal match: Kukal collapses from cramps, Gulyas protests that Kukal be given extra time, Kukal wins in 5 sets  FOR THE CORRUPTION THESIS: 1. Reduced sports participation 2. Nuance eliminated in favor of entertainment 3. TV alters fitness requirements 4. TV scheduling disregards commitments of student athletes 5. Richest organizations „buy‟ championships 6. Profit motive lengthens season leading to mediocre play (coasting, disregard of athlete‟s health and longer careers – quick cash in for money) 7. Fans view players as commodities, not persons  Simon page 191: Commercialized sport can play a positive social role as long as it sets ethical boundaries  Constrained commercialization  Those commercial interests in sports, governing bodies of sports have to know that it‟s more than just money they should be interested in, they have a game to preserve, and they have a moral responsibility to preserve it (fiduciary)  Page 178: commercialization may have had a corruptive effect on other athletes but it does not seem to corrupt people‟s love of the game (some of his exemplars are wrong now…ahem Lance Armstrong)  Take any problem that sports are subject to; cheating, violence, demise of team play, attempt to inflate individual statistics, all of these things are worse because of the commercialization of sport  Not clear that on the whole that commercialization is actually good for sport  Exploitation of Student Athletes (Wertheimer)  A exploits B in a transaction only if: i) A gains from the transaction with B and ii) B is unfairly compensated by A in the transaction --------- iii) A takes advantage of unfair background conditions (?)  Distinctions: - big time/small time programs - good/bad programs - not harmful exploitation/harmful exploitation/MAE - MAE /OAE F  Figure 3.1: small time programs are not on the radar in terms of exploitation because the first condition for exploitation is not fulfilled, in big time programs there is a surplus generated so the first necessary condition is fulfilled  Student athletes are compensated with opportunity for networking, social opportunity from having notoriety (local fame), so typically they are receiving some compensation  But some school‟s do not really care about the student part of the student athlete, just the athlete  Create dummy courses so that the student will pass through and remain eligible to compete but will not be learning anything  Support goes once the athlete‟s eligibility goes – many do not end up even graduating  Bad schools are the ones that do not provide the athlete with real education, good schools provide both so that the athlete is able to perform best to their scholastic ability as well as athletics  Table 3.1: good schools and bad schools – lists the possible distinctions for harmful exploitation, not harmful exploitation, and mutually advantageous exploitation (MAE)   MAE: there is some compensation that B is receiving but it‟s not fair compensation  9 logical possible combinations of these outcomes, but the chart drops 3 and only offers 6  This is because a good program is never in a worse state than a bad program  Bad program always at the same level of exploitation as the good program or more  Argument against HE (harmful exploitation) at any schools: 1. Harmful exploitation harms the individual exploited 2. An individual is harmed in a situation if and only if the individual is caused to be worse off than s/he would otherwise have been 3. Student athletes in good + bad programs have opportunities in excess of what they would have had if they had not enrolled 4. So, student athletes are not subject to harmful exploitation  Even at the bad schools where the athlete doesn‟t take advantage of the education opportunities, there‟s still the athletic opportunity that they would not have had they not gone to the school  Networking opportunity there even if they do not take advantage of it  Local fame (social opportunity)  Someone who didn‟t go to school after high school would not have all these same opportunities as a collegiate athlete  Still benefits and opportunities at bad schools because it‟s better than nothing  Therefore no harmful exploitation in the case of college athletes  3 rows left in the table (4, 5, and 6) – table 3.1  Mutually advantageous exploitation in both good and bad programs, or  No exploitation in either the good and bad programs, or  Exploitation in only the bad programs  Continuum of to what degree an athlete may be exploited, so what is the threshold for acceptable exploitation  Harm and anything worse is the range of harmful exploitation  Once the athlete is not being harmed they are receiving a benefit  Mutually advantageous exploitation objective standard (MAE )O  Objective standard of what an educational institution ought to be providing: bona fide educational opportunity – once they‟re being provided with this then they‟re fine, they‟re no longer being exploitation, no mutually advantageous exploitation – only when there is harm is it exploitation  Alternative account of what fair compensation would be (MAE ) F  March 15, 2013  BOXILL’S ARGUMENT: (page 30) 1. All human beings share most of their basic capabilities 2. It is good for human beings to develop their capabilities 3. Sport is the most readily available form of unalienated activity (i.e. free, creative activity) realizing moral, rational, and aesthetic capabilities 4. Gender equity in intercollegiate athletics promotes sporting opportunities for women 5. So, gender equity in intercollegiate sport promotes the good for women  Everyone is entitled to self respect and self esteem (this is undisputed) for Boxill  We can morally develop all of our capabilities, there are also immoral ways of doing so  OBJECTIONS:  To #1. Historically denied  Response: historical claim incorrect  To #2. Different capabilities sex appropriate  Response: stunted males and females  To #2. Development in different spheres (public/private)  To #3. Other unalienated activities in the arts like music, painting, theatre, dance, etc. exist in addition to sports, it may be dubious to assume that it is the most readily available  Response: but sports is a major unaliented activity that is well known and widely shared (major attention grabber compared to other activities)  Another possible response: to strengthen the premise, add physical to the list of capabilities, and add “at once” at the end of the premise  To #4. Non-discrimination  Response: non-discrimination is not enough for fairness  To the conclusion (or #4): worry about intercollegiate sport – argument is too strong  Options:  Come up with gender neutral or specifically feminine sports  Separate women‟s teams for sports that have been traditionally held for men  Creation of co-ed team sports  Boxill argues for separate women‟s teams for sports that have been traditionally held for men (separate but equal)  Sports are super important for individual development and they need to be protected  Should we be funding intermural programs rather than intercollegiate? Logically this may make sense but practically it is impractical  Traditional Defenses for Collegiate Sport:  A. Promotes valuable character development  B. Provides upward mobility for historically disadvantaged/disrespected groups  C. Improve social visibility/attitudes towards historically disadvantaged groups  D. Boosts applications and alumni donations  E. Fosters school identification and community acceptance  Traditional Criticisms for Collegiate Sport:  1. Exploits its athletes  2. Drains scarce revenue  3. Detracts from the academic environment  TITLE IX: 3 Pronged Test: (mandate for public funding for school athletics)  A college is in compliance with Title IX provided:  I) The male to female ratio in athletic population is substantially proportionate to the male to female ratio among students at large (Substantial Proportionality test)  OR II) The institution has a continuing history of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex (according to the proportionality test) in response to their developing interests and abilities (Continuing Expansion test)  OR III) The interests of the underrepresented sex are fully and effectively accommodated under the existing system (Effective Accommodation test)  Simon (page 133)  Donnelly, Kid, and Norman use the substantial proportionality test in their CIS gender equity report:  “Proportionality was seriously considered by CIS/SIC in the early 2000s, in line with a key legal test of Title IX in the US, namely: “[to] have the same proportion of women on sports teams as there are female undergraduates;” however, it was not included in the Equity and Equality Policy.  However, there are clear reasons for amending the policy, and for incorporating proportionality and participation opportunity guidelines into the policy. First, it is “just and fair” in terms of CIS/SIC’s own definition of equity. Second, student fees represent a major contribution to funding Varsity athletics; it is not appropriate, just, or fair for one gender to disproportionately fund the athletic opportunities of the other. Third, given that the university presidents and academic leaders we have spoken with contend that the only reason for sponsoring representative sport opportunities in educational institutions is for the educational 12 opportunities they provide, it is unfair that such educational opportunities be disproportionately available to one gender. And fourth, disproportional and inequitable participation opportunities in the only officially sex-segregated department in Canadian universities may (to paraphrase Hogshead-Makar) call into question an institution’s commitment to fairness in all its programs. For these reasons, measures of proportionality and participation opportunity have been incorporated into the following report. March 22, 2013  Intercollegiate Sport and Academic Values  “Game of Life” book (GOL)  Contains the initial results of an empirical study  Main conclusion is critical of intercollegiate sport in at least some situations  The mission of elite schools: two central themes  1. Knowledge for its own sake and for preparing flexible minds (the creed of a liberal arts education)  2. Education for leadership or success in life (struck harder in state schools)  Simon: Do sports and its values conflict with these missions of elite schools?  GOL Data Profile of the athlete as an admitted undergraduate Profile of the athlete as a college student  Through 1976 to 1999, we see that admissions advantages were given to minorities in 1976, things were more neutral to minorities (affirmative action), legacies, and athletes in 1989, and in 1999 we see that admissions advantages went to athletes  This data is from a single school – not a robust piece of empirical evidence, subject to criticism  Affirmative action over time has fallen over time to being more minor when considering minority admissions  We need more information for every applicant in order to see who had the advantage in admissions – this is a general statistic, we still need much more data from the schools about who applied to them and were not accepted  We find that at any school the males at large have better SAT scores than the athletes, and the higher profile athletes (football and basketball) have better scores than the lower profile athletes (1989 data)  Athletes tend to be weaker in academic scores than the athletes at large  Football seems to the sport that reveals the weakest academic scores, they are often receiving many blows to the head during the season, some can recover out of season depending on the seriousness of the injury  Wrestlers and hockey players also tend to have some of the lowest scores  Seems like over time athletes are doing worse and worse in school according to mean GPAs, athletes seemed more well balanced in the 50s  Increasingly over time we find that athletes are trending downwards in terms of their performance in school, with GPAs in the bottom percentile  Even in division III we see a gradual falling off  What is more shocking is that athletes are under performing compared to other students with similar circumstances (like background, like scores, like majors)  They‟re not just doing worse, they‟re doing worse than other people like them (as evidenced by their test scores)  Finding is pronounced the least at division IA publics  Same sort of result as male athletes for female athletes in admissions advantages  In 76‟, when women‟s sports were just beginning to be offered, it was expected that the stats would look similar to men‟s stats in the 50s  Dramatic increase in SAT divergence for female athletes, as sports become entrenched for a particular gender we find that the athletes become worse and worse  We do not really see a falling off in graduation rates for female athletes, perhaps because there are not many future athletic careers seen for women after graduation so they focus more on attaining their degrees  Women starting to trend like the men – athletes fall off in mean GPA percentile  Though women athletes are graduating at a higher percentage they still tend to be over-represented in the bottom third of the class  Underperformance relative to non-athletes  Main conclusion of GOL: Academic mission subverted by athletics not at the big- time division IA programs, but at the division IAA (the Ivy League) and division III elite schools  Greater percentage of student body is composed of athletes  Rationalizing athletics: diversity, leadership, donations, profit  High profile athletes tend to come from families where there isn‟t a history of collegiate degrees, but we do not find the same thing with low profile athletes, they seems to be more like the students at large, more privileged if anything  Females tend to have a more realistic view of their academic capabilities, where men tend to be overconfident  Conclusion: Athletes are leaders in exceptionally large numbers in two specific arenas – alumni/ae activities and youth groups (men only) – and having been a college athlete appears…  Intercollegiate athletics should be de-emphasized for donors  Lowest priority is faculty research for big donors  Athletic budgets, seen on a „net‟ basis, should be regarded as expenditures by the institution that must be justified in terms of the contribution they do or do not make to the core educational mission of the school  Simon and other critics respond to the GOL  The conflict of intercollegiate sport and academic values  First thesis: The enormous pressure to win, often generated by the need to keep jobs, produce revenues, and promote the visibility of the institution, all too often generate cheating. The academic fraud we have seen…testifies to the strength of these pressures and to the values associated with victory at all costs (Simon, 144)  Occurs at schools that seek to compete at the highest level (calls this the Elite Athletics Problem)  Second thesis: Even if we ignore the abuses in some major college athletics programs, there seems to be a basic contradiction between the aims of education and the aims of athletics…athletes enter either uninterested in academic work or unprepared to so it undermine the academic mission of many institutions (Simon, 144)  Elite academics problem (applies to smaller institutions) student body composed of athletes is quite high compared to division I schools  Third thesis: Many of the values associated with athletics, such as obedience to the orders of coaches, seem at odds with the kind of inquiring questioning minds professors attempt to develop in the classroom… to many college and university faculty, athletics are at best a necessary evil but in basic conflict with educational values (Simon, 144)  Call this the Absolute Incompatibility Problem (all purpose condemnation of combing athletes and higher education for application at any level of play)  Summary of the Game of Life: The Elite Academics Problem  Admissions advantages for recruited athletes has steadily grown to be considerably greater than for underrepresented minorities and legacies  Student athletes admitted to elite colleges have significantly weaker academic credentials than their classmates, and the gap has been steadily increasing  Class rank in terms of academics has grown significantly worse  Student athletes underperform academically by comparison to classmates with similar academic credentials and backgrounds  Evidence suggests that the underperformance of student athletes cannot be explained solely in terms of their time commitment to their sport, because students in other time consuming extracurriculars tends to overperform  Intercollegiate athletics pose a special threat to the academic mission of small, elite schools because a high percentage of students are athletes  Critiques of the GOL:  Conclusions about the admissions advantage of athletes built from the data of one allegedly „representative‟ school  This problem is serious because showing that athletes have an admissions advantage is essential to the argument that athletic preferences in admissions make the academic atmosphere of institutions of higher learning worse than they would be otherwise. Thus we need more evidence than one „representative‟ school provides  Reclaiming the game – Bowen is worri
More Less

Related notes for PHL376H1

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.