Imagine a Zoom room filled with bobbing heads, shaking shoulders and “roof raising” hands.
Imagine “DJ DeLay” hyping the crowd, passing the mic from ethics bowl coaches to judges to team captains and back.
Imagine fresh 80s tunes pumpin’ in the background.
And imagine U-M Philosophy Outreach Coordinator Adam Anderson Waggoner stealing the show with a custom Michigan High School Ethics Bowl kickoff rap.
Hey Jeanine, Hey Jeanine, U of M Philosophy loves the ethics bowl scene! It gives us inspiration for our academic dreams.
The questions, the insights, analysis of cases – your work is the reason for the smiles on our faces.
Everyone is showing that the ethics keeps them flowing. No matter where you go, you know we will keep it goin’.
And I want to thank all the dedicated coaches, for all your hours spent, and for all your new approaches. The way you make a difference is amazing – please know this.
So now I’ll pass the mic right back to Jeanine, so we can hear some words from these excellent teams.
What an awesome way to begin a weekend of ethics bowling! As DJ DeLay put it, an event “dedicated to everyone around the world working for health and education, dignity and justice… and philosophy for all.”
All I have to say is…. Aint no party like a Michigan HSEB party cause a Michigan HSEB party don’t stop! Keep doin’ yo think, A2Ethics and DJ DeLay 😉
Virtual bowling was definitely different. On the plus side, we didn’t have to get up as early, got home sooner, and could dress casually from the waist down. On the downside, technology! Awesome when it works. Maddening when it doesn’t.
However, we persevered. Despite bandwidth issues, system crashes, barking dogs and FedEx deliveries, rounds proceeded per usual. Tough issues were thoughtfully discussed. Minds were expanded. Civility was modeled. And ultimately, regional champions were crowned.
Was the NHSEBOne format perfect? No. But having used it to both judge (Texas and New York / New Jersey HSEBs) and coach (Tennessee HSEB) over past week, it was pretty darn good. The only constructive suggestion I can think of – add phone numbers to the Zoom rooms so participants can call in when all else fails. Because sometimes, all else fails.
Overall, I liked it, as well as the similar Zoom-based platform used by the Michigan HSEB. So much so that regardless of whether and when Covid subsides, I encourage regional bowl organizers to retain the opportunity for judges, teams and even moderators to participate remotely. There’s no way I would have flown to Long Island or Tyler (Texas) or Ann Arbor to judge those events. Yet it was awesome to connect with ethically-minded leaders in those communities. We all know there are thoughtful folks out there somewhere considering the same issues, thinking through the same discussion questions, enjoying the same “anti-debate” format. But prior to the pandemic, apart from the regional champs at UNC, we rarely interacted.
Being able to collaborate and share talents across time zones has the potential to synergize the bowling community’s impact in ways disjointed bowling never could. So here’s my vote to find ways to keep it up, pandemic or not, temporary system crashes or not.
What were your own experiences remote bowling? What went well? What are your ideas for making the next event even better?
As case 13 explains, not all people who use the divisive catchphrase, “defund the police” actually want to abolish police departments. Some do. But many simply want to divert some funds to education, employment, social work and mental health resources. Why? Studies have shown that educational and employment equity better decreases crime. A better educated populace would intuitively be happier, more successful and therefore more law-abiding. And while cutting police budgets might give departments good reason to behave, it might also be a good idea to keep a few cops around.
However, case 13 doesn’t say much about reforming policing techniques and attitudes, which opens an opportunity for ethics bowlers to add something to the discussion. Many police forces take an overly militaristic approach to their work inappropriate for civilian policing, one that can unnecessarily escalate encounters and perpetuate a contentious culture.
Or so argues former police officer turned University of South Carolina law professor Seth Stoughton. Below is Stoughton’s TED talk on just that subject, followed by my own take on his argument. I’ll be discussing it with my ethics bowl team this weekend, and also sharing the TED vid from 0:15 – 2:17 and 10:00 – 12:30. Enjoy!
Article example – analysis of “zingers” from a presidential primary debate.
I recently met author and educational consultant Jonathan Haber at the American Philosophical Association’s annual Eastern Division meeting. Having just presented on how ethics bowl enthusiasts have leveraged the web (team collaboration, volunteer registration, awesome blogs), Haber asked me and the other panelists about ways to encourage journalists to improve the quality of their inferences.
As he explained, media-types are used to fact checking. But many feel unqualified, and possibly a little defensive, about logic checking. This is why he set up LogicCheck.net, a website devoted to helping journalists improve the quality of their reasoning. The tagline: Check the Facts. Understand the Argument. Know the Truth.
I suggested highlighting examples of well-reasoned journalism and possibly adding a gentle rating system. The examples could serve as models. And the ratings could encourage journalists to review their inferences before clicking “publish.”
Well, I was pleased to receive a message from Haber this week that he had featured a well-argued editorial by Houston Chronicle staff and awarded it “five dumbbells” as an especially strong argument.
Titled, “Purge of Trump, Parler Show Big Tech Firms Have Too Much Power,” the Chronicle’s argument is indeed evenhanded and reasonable. As Haber points out, the authors don’t marginalize the legitimate values in tension: freedom of expression vs. safety, stability and truth. Their proposed solution (putting more responsibility on platforms, authors and communities to self-monitor, with some light government oversight) follows well enough rom the premises. And it’s both measured and respectfully offered.
Written in the mature, civil style of philosophers at their best, it’s indeed a fine example of a quality argument. Kudos to the Houston Chronicle for their responsible journalism, and kudos to Haber and LogicCheck.net for featuring it. Check out the article and analysis for yourself here.
While you’re there, peruse the site, see what you might learn under Argumentation, More -> Fallacies or Logic-Checker.
Now, who’s the former ethics bowler writing for the Chronicle?
In response to COVID-related bowl cancellations, two ambitious students in New York recently launched the National E-Ethics Bowl Intramurals. Press release below – kudos to Isabelle and Holly for taking the initiative! Check it out yourself at eethicsbowl.com.
We formed NEEBI, the National E-Ethics Bowl Intramurals, to create a national student-led club where any student in the country can participate in our essay contests, or attend our zoom events to talk about ethics issues, or even do some informal ethics debating. We were very motivated to make friends throughout the country who, like us, love ethics.
There are so many divisions in our country, and it was our hope that a national student ethics club would be a great way to create student unity, and get students talking to each other about important issues in a fun way, and enjoying each other’s company.
In addition to our essay contests and zoom meetings, we plan to start a “Bulletin Board” page listing different ethics events coming up during the year in different schools, organizations and universities so that there is one “go-to” place for high school students looking for ethics-activities, especially summer experiences and courses. We are also considering a “Congratulations” page to celebrate winners in the Ethics community of different events if students wish to send in their accomplishments. Finally, we would love for other students to form chapters of NEEBI in their geographic regions, and we can recognize those Chapter Leaders on our website with their names and bios and advertise their separate meeting dates.
We feel that philosophy is a great unifier, leads to critical thinking, and should be invested in at high schools. It is our greatest hope to reach students who do not have Ethics Clubs in their own schools to give them more opportunities to meet and to debate ethical issues informally and with new friends everywhere. – Isabelle Friedberg and Holly Hanlon
My friend Jamey spent a total of 6 years in prison. Today he’s free and thriving. And just a few months ago, he got married. I asked him to review NHSEB case 10, Dating After Prison. What were his thoughts?
Boxing teammate and friend Jamey with wife Peyton
A natural athlete, Jamey had been a star running back in elementary school. He was fast. Scary fast. “Who’s that little white blur?” fast.
Then in the 7th grade he developed chronic knee pain. No longer the fastest, his popularity and self-esteem took a hit, and he turned to substance abuse.
A couple of years into high school his knees were better, but the bad habits remained. He switched to a vocational track to graduate, and played well enough to earn a football scholarship. It was in college that Jamey got his first opportunity to sell drugs. He found that he was naturally good at that, too.
A drug dealer’s life doesn’t mesh well with the demands of higher education. And when the college experiment failed, the downward spiral accelerated. Jail time became prison time, and winning $50k from a scratch-off lottery ticket just made things worse.
Jamey was a teammate, mentor and coach at my boxing gym, Monroe County Boxing Club. He taught me how to not to not be “a moving punching bag,” how to use my endurance as a weapon, and how to push my body into beastmode and beyond.
When we met, he’d already done significant time behind bars. And while boxing kept him straight for a while, he relapsed and found himself in trouble with the law once again. The judge gave him the option to either go back to prison or to Miracle Lake, a rustic Christin rehab facility near Etowah, Tennessee. Jamey took the chance, and the experience changed his life.
He’s been clean and straight ever since, and this summer my family attended a beautiful outdoor wedding where he wed his soulmate, Petyon. I remember when Jamey and Peyton first began dating, and I was there when he proposed during intermission at the annual Monroe County Boxing Club Rumble. So when I read case 10, he immediately came to mind.
He agreed to discuss it, and explained that when he graduated from Miracle Lake and thought about dating again, he wanted to be as transparent as possible about his past.
So he shared his background on his Facebook page, regularly posting about the dark places he’d been, and how much better life was on the other side. He would also share his testimony at church, which is where he and Peyton met. As Jamey put it, “I didn’t want anyone to feel deceived. I wanted to be accepted for who I was.”
However, while he wanted church friends and love interests to know as soon as possible, he didn’t think disclosing his prison time was as important for casual friendships (see ethics bowl case discussion question #3).
“About the friendship thing, that’s not as important to reveal right up front… You wouldn’t want her to find out and feel misled. But with dudes, it may not even come up for a long time. But Peyton, she knew everything. I feel that was important.”
In contrasting the gentlemen in the ethics bowl case (Antoine and Jack – see discussion question #2), Jamey thought they were clearly different. “There’s definitely a moral difference due to the type of crime and their time in prison. One was innocent, the other admitted it.”
Jamey argued that the differing amount of time served by Antoine and Jack – Antoine, 8 years, and Jack, 27– was especially relevant.
“The longer you’re in there, away from society, the more of a criminal mind you could have. Not everyone, but someone doing that much time is definitely going to be different. Their frame of mind – someone doing that much time – it becomes truly institutionalized.”
The implication seems to be that a person would have a stronger obligation to reveal their prison time sooner when a) they were guilty, b) their crime was violent and c) lengthy prison time had altered their character in negative ways. These are all things a potential life partner would want to know. And so Jamey argues they’re better to share immediately in the interests of building trust.
However, Sequoyah High School Ethics Bowl team member Juli Brackett argues sharing prison time could and should wait until the third date. Why date #3?
First dates are often shallow chit-chat. Second dates, when they happen, suggest agreement that there’s long-term potential. But by the third date, it’s clear both parties are open to a serious commitment. The emotional attachment approaches an unspoken but significant threshold. And that’s when someone who’s been to prison should disclose it, argues Juli.
Why not share it on or before date #1? Juli argues this could sabotage what could become a beautiful happily-ever-after. If everyone shared their darkest secrets up-front, no one would get married. Waiting puts both parties in a better position to put past mistakes into context.
The up-front approach worked for Jamey. But maybe he was especially charming. Or maybe the fact that he and Peyton met at church reassured her he was a changed man.
Whether Juli’s or Jamey’s approach is morally best is arguable. But three factors that seem unarguably relevant: 1) whether the person was guilty, 2) the nature of their crime, and 3) time served and its impact on their character.
This year 2020 faced a global crisis through the Pandemic COVID-19, formerly known as SARS-CoV-2. In early March of this year, many stores in the United States began closing down, and the economy began to shut down. Organizations deemed as non-essential were closed, and the people were instructed to remain in their homes unless they absolutely needed to go out. This case study analysis will address some ethical issues regarding dining out during the pandemic.
This guest post was graciously written by Mr. Luis Villanueva of East Texas.
Is it unethical to dine-in at restaurants in the midst of a pandemic such as COVID-19? The answer to this question is yes, it can be. However, it can also be unethical not to allow restaurants to remain in business.
It can be unethical to dine out during the pandemic because doing so unnecessarily increases the likelihood of the disease spreading out. Eating out requires taking off protective masks which the CDC (Centers For Disease Control and Prevention) deems necessary to protect the public. Taking off the mask at one’s table and calling it the “off mask” section is like being in a pool and calling a certain area the “pee section.” It’s going to spread! The urine will travel through the water just like the virus would travel through the air. Moreover, there is really no way to completely eliminate the chances of catching the virus while dining out. Because people eat out at public restaurants, they are putting themselves and others at risk of infection, and it is therefore not the best ethical decision.
It can also be unethical to close down a family restaurant. Refraining from supporting a dear one’s business would de-emphasize the needs and interests of loved ones. Say for instance there is a single-mother working hard to feed her seven young daughters, and she owns a restaurant that provides her only source of income. Shutting it down would place her in a very difficult dilemma. Does she close and let her daughters starve? Or does she keep her business open at the cost of increasing the risk of viral infection?
What about the immediate people who work for her, like cooks and waiters? Closing down the restaurant would also cost these people their jobs and their ability to take care of their families. Statistically speaking, they have a much greater chance of surviving the COVID-19 virus than they do surviving starvation from lack of food or shelter. Keeping the restaurant open is not meant to be an easy ethical choice. And certainly this pandemic year has not necessarily been the most enjoyable, fun, or thrilling year for everyone (although some folks have been able to find so many things to be grateful for even in a year like 2020). From a Care Ethics perspective, it would be understandable, and ethical, if the single-mother kept her restaurant open to prioritize the basic needs of her seven little girls.
What responsibility do Andy and Megan have to protect the health of others, especially if those others choose to put themselves at risk?As the article explains, Megan and Andy used to go out to eat quite a lot before the pandemic. This of course strengthened the profits of the businesses where they dined. Some could say though that they both have a responsibility to stay at home to decrease the chance of spreading the disease. Even if others choose to put themselves at risk by going to public restaurants, Megan and Andy could avoid dining out in order to protect people from greater risk of infection. Not going out to restaurants could be Megan and Andy’s contribution to reduce the chances of spreading COVID-19.
How should decisions balancing the support of the economy and the protection of people’s health be made during a pandemic?This question is really where everything is headed to. What is the balance? Perhaps one could use the production-possibilities frontier to explain what the best course of action would be. This process is very similar to a consequentialist perspective that strives to maximize profit or “net pleasure.” So, according to the production-possibilities frontier, there exists the right amount to balance out supporting the economy and protecting people’s health.
Say for example, that the country closes down all stores altogether, including gas stations, supermarkets, and of course all restaurants. This would be inefficient because people would likely perish from hunger and thirst even so more than they would from the coronavirus. On the other hand, if all restaurants remained open as they normally are, and, just to make things interesting, if all senior citizens who are vulnerable to the virus were given free groceries or meals as an incentive to get out of the house more, then virus cases would skyrocket considerably and possibly turn out fatal for the people of tertiary age. So what the PPF (production-possibilities frontier) would suggest is to do what maximizes net safety. That is, keep enough supermarkets and shops so that people don’t starve out of their basic needs, while at the same time close many others down so as to negate the effect of rising coronavirus cases.
Matt could identify the “I Got It From My Daddy” guy in sunglasses, but that’s it. Which is why Arsheen was a much better fit for this case. Thanks for guest authoring, Arsheen! Image credit to PostKulture.
It’s no secret that K-pop idols are overworked. They’re pressured to constantly improve their talent and image, and to create a never-ending flow of new music and dances. As a K-pop fan of 4 years, I believe listeners have a moral obligation to stop supporting the current industry trajectory and demand a more ethical working environment.
Many fans already do this without even thinking. Min Yoongi, better known as Suga, is the main rapper in the world-famous K-pop group BTS. He recently had his shoulder labrum torn and had to undergo surgery. His fans know that he is in pain and needs time to heal. Therefore, most have been patient and caring for his health and recovery. Fans know that Min Yoongi’s injury may affect BTS’s new album release planned for November 20, but they are ok with it. This is just one example of fans wanting better for their idols.
Many fans have tried to get their voices heard about idols being overworked. Another example is Park Jimin, more commonly known as Jimin from BTS. About three years ago, Park Jimin was overworking himself so much that he needed medical attention. He was not eating enough and was working too much. Many fans were upset with BigHIt, BTS’s label, as they did not do anything to help. Instead, they pushed him to almost work himself to death.
The K-pop industry is very competitive. Many, if not all of the idols, start their training at 13 or 14. The teenage years are when individuals don’t make the best decisions. Because of this fact, I believe it does matter if the terms of the contract are exploitative, taking unfair advantage of youth hungry for fame.
I believe that the entertainment industry is inherently exploitative. For example, many K-pop industries do not allow their idols to date. This is because “taken” idols can lower the industry’s revenue compared idols who are single. Dating can lower revenue because every fan has that longing feeling that the idol may end up dating them. If they find out that their idol is already dating someone, they may lose interest.
Another reason why the entertainment industry is inherently exploitative is that idols are forced to undergo plastic surgery to make themselves look perfect. Those who don’t simply can’t compete. And the extreme pressure K-pop stars are under, combined their usually young age, makes any choice they make less than ideally voluntary.
For these reasons, I believe the K-pop industry needs substantial reform. Rising stars will have little power to fight back. And since the culture is driven by money, changes will likely have to be demanded by fans. Therefore, the greatest responsibility to reform the K-pop industry falls on existing stars and K-pop fans like myself. We can still enjoy the music. But we should use our purchasing power to reward labels who decrease these harms, and punish labels who perpetuate them.
If you’ve been meaning to submit a write-up for Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! but just haven’t gotten around to it, don’t miss your chance!
Pour a hot cup of Joe, put that pesky smartphone on airplane mode, and shoot me your thoughts on why ethics bowl rocks, your hopes (and fears) for its future, and anything you’re inclined to share.
Leave the fancy writing to me — literary perfection is neither required nor expected. I’ll simply be pulling key quotes and weaving them into the book’s narrative. So you don’t even have to worry about writing a coherent essay — just answer the prompt. Submissions welcome from organizers, coaches, judges, moderators, competitors and simply fans.
Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! Interview Questions – please submit to matt (at) mattdeaton.com by Oct 31 (shortly thereafter is also OK if you mail me Reese’s Cups):
1) Why were you initially attracted to ethics bowl and why do you continue to support it?
2) What do you see as ethics bowl’s primary benefits?
3) What’s your vision for ethics bowl’s future?
4) Anything extra you’d like to add?
5) What’s your role and how long have you been involved?
If you’re an organizer scrambling to pull together virtual bowl training materials, take a deep breath, strike your favorite yoga pose, and click here. Michigan HSEB organizer Jeanine DeLay and her team at A2Ethics offer a relaxing, reassuring judge training video sure to chillax volunteers and participants worldwide.
One of the things we love about A2Ethics – their style! Here’s Jeanine encouraging judge trainees to stand and stretch.
If you’re an organizer, Jeannine can empathize with the worries that keep you up at night, likening bowl coordination to “mosquito control at a nudist camp.” Luckily we learn from one another’s mistakes and build on one another’s successes. Past problems have inspired redundant point-tallying officials, recruiting, courting and training more volunteers than needed, and in Michigan this year implementation of a new alternate judging system.
While only three judges’ score sheets will be counted, four judges will log into Zoom to view and score each match. Why? If one of the official judges’ computers decides bowl time is the perfect time for a forced reboot, the alternate judge will be promoted, their scores included in the totals. Tada! Simple, seamless, effective.
One note: the scoring interface featured in the video is unique to the Michigan Bowl. I’ve tested it and it works great – suspect creator Wayne Eaker of Zengenuity, Inc would be willing to discuss how to do something similar at your bowl if interested. Thanks for your devotion and leadership, Jeanine and team! The best of luck with your upcoming V-Bowl.
That familiar match format, even if via an unfamiliar platform
Have your own virtual bowl disaster avoidance ideas? New virtual bowling materials others might benefit from? Share in a comment or shoot me an email and we’ll get the word out in an article – collaboration and cooperation are what ethics bowl is all about.
