Yet another ethical and regulatory violation [Archive]

Bluedog

11-12-2010, 03:18 PM

Question: if a family friend buys a prospective basketball player a ticket to a Caribbean cruise, is that an NCAA violation? They can't accept any gifts from anybody?! That seems a bit odd....I mean, if the person who paid for it clearly was trying to get Ayegba to commit to a certain program it makes sense as a violation, but simply paying for a Nigeria-US transportation seems okay to me. I understand that it's a slippery slope to allow free "gifts" to athletes, but regular students get free gifts all the time (from friends, family friends, etc.). I don't know...It's only 9 games though; he'll be back soon enough.

CameronBornAndBred

11-12-2010, 03:18 PM

That's pretty slack. If they can prove that whoever paid for it had no ties to Georgetown they shouldn't be penalized. I'm not even sure if they do prove it if they should be penalized.

4decadedukie

11-12-2010, 09:52 PM

Sounds more like a regulatory violation than an ethical violation ...

I see (and respect) your point, but I disagree. Specifically: (a) policies and rules exist, (b) those who participate agree to abide by them, therefore (c) failure to do so is BOTH a regulatory and an ethical violation (at least, in my view).

Sixthman

11-12-2010, 10:49 PM

I see (and respect) your point, but I disagree. Specifically: (a) policies and rules exist, (b) those who participate agree to abide by them, therefore (c) failure to do so is BOTH a regulatory and an ethical violation (at least, in my view).

So if a basketball player realizes that in a particular game the referee is not calling some kinds of pushing in the low post, even though this kind of contact is clearly against the rules, and therefore takes advantage by pushing to get position to rebound or defend, this is both a violation of the rules, and unethical, because he has agreed to abide by the rules?

pfrduke

11-13-2010, 01:39 AM

I see (and respect) your point, but I disagree. Specifically: (a) policies and rules exist, (b) those who participate agree to abide by them, therefore (c) failure to do so is BOTH a regulatory and an ethical violation (at least, in my view).

I'm asking this because I'm trying to gauge the extent to which you abide by the three point test you set forth above: if I drive 56 in a 55, am I being unethical?

Also, illegal and unethical denote different things. Not everything that is unethical is illegal, and not everything that is illegal is unethical. Society's laws and society's moral code are not meant to be coextensive. And the NCAA rule book and society's moral code quite often have nothing in common.

On the point at hand, have you read any more detailed coverage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202788.html) than the article you linked? Let's take this out of the context of the NCAA rule book for a second: kid lives in Nigeria. A Nigerian native (and former NBA player) tries to help other Nigerian kids follow in his footsteps and play basketball in the US. He meets a US high school coach (at a Christian school) whom he respects, and puts him in touch with Ayegba. The coach pays for the kid's plane ticket to come to the US, where he plays high school ball. And the kid turns out to be a good enough player that he get a scholarship to go play for an excellent US university, while getting a world class education. What in the world is wrong with that? Even if they knew ahead of time that funding the plane flight would result in the kid being ineligible for the first 9 games of his college career, I find it hard to believe that the parties involved did not make the correct ethical decision. Put another way, would everyone have been better off if the coach didn't pay for a $1,400 plane ticket and, as a result, the kid was still back in Nigeria?

gam7

11-13-2010, 02:14 AM

I'm asking this because I'm trying to gauge the extent to which you abide by the three point test you set forth above: if I drive 56 in a 55, am I being unethical?

Also, illegal and unethical denote different things. Not everything that is unethical is illegal, and not everything that is illegal is unethical. Society's laws and society's moral code are not meant to be coextensive. And the NCAA rule book and society's moral code quite often have nothing in common.

On the point at hand, have you read any more detailed coverage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202788.html) than the article you linked? Let's take this out of the context of the NCAA rule book for a second: kid lives in Nigeria. A Nigerian native (and former NBA player) tries to help other Nigerian kids follow in his footsteps and play basketball in the US. He meets a US high school coach (at a Christian school) whom he respects, and puts him in touch with Ayegba. The coach pays for the kid's plane ticket to come to the US, where he plays high school ball. And the kid turns out to be a good enough player that he get a scholarship to go play for an excellent US university, while getting a world class education. What in the world is wrong with that? Even if they knew ahead of time that funding the plane flight would result in the kid being ineligible for the first 9 games of his college career, I find it hard to believe that the parties involved did not make the correct ethical decision. Put another way, would everyone have been better off if the coach didn't pay for a $1,400 plane ticket and, as a result, the kid was still back in Nigeria?

I agree with you 100% on your reasoning.

Based on this kid's story, as you (and the Washington Post article) describe it, the coach made the right ethical decision, and this would be a perfect example for Jay Bilas's argument that the system is broken. I will say though that the former NBA player who tipped off the coach and the coach himself may not have had entirely altruistic motivations. Some (perhaps many) of the people who arrange for kids to come to the US from foreign countries agree with the kids that if they ever make it to pro basketball, the kids will pay them a huge percentage of their earnings. These relationships are not subject to agent regulations, so there is no statutory limit on how much these facilitators can demand for passage to the US. This article from several years ago is about this precise issue. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001305.html

If the former NBA player and the coach have arranged to receive kickbacks from this kid, then one could argue that what they are doing is unethical (even if the kid is getting an opportunity that he otherwise would not have had). Regardless, I don't think the NCAA is the governing body best positioned to root out the unscrupulousness in these relationships. Perhaps the NBA players union would be better positioned to deal with the issue.

Richard Berg

11-13-2010, 02:27 AM

I see (and respect) your point, but I disagree. Specifically: (a) policies and rules exist, (b) those who participate agree to abide by them, therefore (c) failure to do so is BOTH a regulatory and an ethical violation (at least, in my view).
Funny, I'd say the opposite. When confronted with a hopelessly corrupt system, it's unethical to go along with the status quo just because it's convenient.

4decadedukie

11-13-2010, 06:26 AM

Funny, I'd say the opposite. When confronted with a hopelessly corrupt system, it's unethical to go along with the status quo just because it's convenient.

. . . And I would concur; that would mean -- under the circumstances you describe -- not agreeing to play intercollegiate basketball, or perhaps entirely eschewing student-athleticism. Once, however, an individual voluntarily associates himself with an entity, he is ethically bound to adhere to its policies and regulations. If this becomes too onerous or unscrupulous, he can always renounce his affiliation.

4decadedukie

11-13-2010, 07:02 AM

I'm asking this because I'm trying to gauge the extent to which you abide by the three point test you set forth above: if I drive 56 in a 55, am I being unethical?

Yes, in my opinion, when I do so I am VERY SLIGHTLY behaving in both an illegal and unethical manner; the illegality is obvious. The failed ethics is less so, however, I place my personal convenience ahead of society's laws, which can be viewed as unethical.

Further (to test the situation you established), if you or I were to drive at 120 MPH in a 20 MPH School Zone -- one straw-man deserves another -- that is flagrantly illegal and unethical (willing to trade individual expedience for clear public safety). Obviously, both examples violate traffic law, but one clearly has a FAR greater potential to cause societal harm.

Let's consider a third scenario: we are driving that 120 MPH in that School Zone, but we are rushing a man who has just had a heart attack to the local emergency room, and we KNOW he can only be saved by getting him there within x minutes, with that only possible thorough egregious violation of traffic statutes. Is that illegal (I don't know), unethical (perhaps not).

A final complication: is it unethical and/or illegal if, while rushing that ninety year old heart attack victim (who is certain to die within two years) to the ER through that School Zone at 120 MPH, we kill a child who has a full lifetime future? I suspect it is both, but I am not certain. You tell me.

oldnavy

11-13-2010, 07:27 AM

Yes, in my opinion, when I do so I am VERY SLIGHTLY behaving in both an illegal and unethical manner; the illegality is obvious. The failed ethics is less so, however, I place my personal convenience ahead of society's laws, which can be viewed as unethical.

Further (to test the situation you established), if you or I were to drive at 120 MPH in a 20 MPH School Zone -- one straw-man deserves another -- that is flagrantly illegal and unethical (willing to trade individual expedience for clear public safety). Obviously, both examples violate traffic law, but one clearly has a FAR greater potential to cause societal harm.

Let's consider a third scenario: we are driving that 120 MPH in that School Zone, but we are rushing a man who has just had a heart attack to the local emergency room, and we KNOW he can only be saved by getting him there within x minutes, with that only possible thorough egregious violation of traffic statutes. Is that illegal (I don't know), unethical (perhaps not).

A final complication: is it unethical and/or illegal if, while rushing that ninety year old heart attack victim (who is certain to die within two years) to the ER through that School Zone at 120 MPH, we kill a child who has a full lifetime future? I suspect it is both, but I am not certain. You tell me.

These are very good questions and are very interesting to debate.

The way I deal with these types of questions is pretty simple in concept but often difficult in practice. I believe that one day I will stand before the Throne and be held accountable for all of my actions. So, I try to make my decisions based on this. When the Creator searches my heart, will I have done what I did for the betterment of His Kingdom or for my own selfish reasons? I can tell you that I do not look forward to being judged because I have failed miserably on many occasions. However, I know that all is forgiven PTL!

SO, there may be an occasion where I would break the law/rules to aide someone, but I would hope that I would only do it as described above.

dukeimac

11-13-2010, 11:27 AM

I disagree with Bilas, the system is not broken.

For every rule made, there is someone out there trying to find a way around it. The tax code is a prime example. For every rule that is written, there is a way around it which creates new rules which creates new ways to get around it. Thus, rules are created to keep people from going around an old rule. People keep finding ways to get around the old rules that the new rules become more finite thus they get too tight.

If you want to fix anything, create more ethical people.

pfrduke

11-13-2010, 12:33 PM

Yes, in my opinion, when I do so I am VERY SLIGHTLY behaving in both an illegal and unethical manner; the illegality is obvious. The failed ethics is less so, however, I place my personal convenience ahead of society's laws, which can be viewed as unethical.

Further (to test the situation you established), if you or I were to drive at 120 MPH in a 20 MPH School Zone -- one straw-man deserves another -- that is flagrantly illegal and unethical (willing to trade individual expedience for clear public safety). Obviously, both examples violate traffic law, but one clearly has a FAR greater potential to cause societal harm.

Let's consider a third scenario: we are driving that 120 MPH in that School Zone, but we are rushing a man who has just had a heart attack to the local emergency room, and we KNOW he can only be saved by getting him there within x minutes, with that only possible thorough egregious violation of traffic statutes. Is that illegal (I don't know), unethical (perhaps not).

A final complication: is it unethical and/or illegal if, while rushing that ninety year old heart attack victim (who is certain to die within two years) to the ER through that School Zone at 120 MPH, we kill a child who has a full lifetime future? I suspect it is both, but I am not certain. You tell me.

Well, I got us distracted down this path, so I feel compelled to respond, although we're now certainly far afield from one person paying for another person to fly into the United States. However, I would say that the very way you asked the questions shows the difference between ethics and laws. Driving 120 in a 20, for whatever purpose, is not legal. It may be ethical, depending on the circumstances (such as those you set forth above).

More to the point, I'm curious what it is, precisely, you find to be unethical about this:

On the point at hand, have you read any more detailed coverage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202788.html) than the article you linked? Let's take this out of the context of the NCAA rule book for a second: kid lives in Nigeria. A Nigerian native (and former NBA player) tries to help other Nigerian kids follow in his footsteps and play basketball in the US. He meets a US high school coach (at a Christian school) whom he respects, and puts him in touch with Ayegba. The coach pays for the kid's plane ticket to come to the US, where he plays high school ball. And the kid turns out to be a good enough player that he get a scholarship to go play for an excellent US university, while getting a world class education.

I would also be interested to know who you believe is being unethical - The student? The coach? The school? - and why.

Indoor66

11-13-2010, 01:28 PM

Well, I got us distracted down this path, so I feel compelled to respond, although we're now certainly far afield from one person paying for another person to fly into the United States. However, I would say that the very way you asked the questions shows the difference between ethics and laws. Driving 120 in a 20, for whatever purpose, is not legal. It may be ethical, depending on the circumstances (such as those you set forth above).

More to the point, I'm curious what it is, precisely, you find to be unethical about this:

I would also be interested to know who you believe is being unethical - The student? The coach? The school? - and why.

A simple maxim: Hard cases make bad law.

pfrduke

11-13-2010, 01:39 PM

A simple maxim: Hard cases make bad law.

I'm not quibbling with the rule; well, more specifically, I'm not quibbling with the fact that the rule was violated. Nor am I quibbling with the outcome - if the rule was violated, and the violation results in a 9-game suspension, so be it. I'm quibbling with what I understood to be 4decadedukie's premise; namely, that any violation of an NCAA rule represents an ethical shortcoming on the part of the violator. I don't think that's right, and I think that this factual scenario is a good example of how people can behave ethically and still run afoul of the NCAA rule book.

It is entirely possible that I am misunderstanding 4dd's premise, which is why I tried to get at what, precisely, it is that he finds unethical about the situation (and who is being unethical).

4decadedukie

11-13-2010, 02:27 PM

More to the point, I'm curious what it is, precisely, you find to be unethical about this . . . I would also be interested to know who you believe is being unethical - The student? The coach? The school? - and why.

I opened this thread yesterday, having only read ESPN's less-detailed piece. With that in mind, my opinions follow:

The student came to the US to compete in intercollegiate athletics; he knew (or he reasonably should have ascertained) the NCAA regulations that apply to student-athletes in his situation. To those who suggest that those rules are imperfect, I certainly agree; however, few statues, regulations and/or policies are faultless, but we are nevertheless obligated and accountable for compliance. Therefore, the student was willing to accept the benefits (at a minimum, a significant undergraduate scholarship package) of becoming a Division I student-athlete, however, he disregarded the responsibilities imposed by the applicable regulatory entity (the NCAA). That, to me, is unethical.

Similarly, the coach and the university are (or certainly should be) “expert insiders” concerning NCAA guidelines and rules; in addition, they can request advice from counsel, from independent experts, from the conference and from the NCAA itself. It would be logical for the university to ask this student how his intercontinental voyage to the United States was funded, especially since these circumstances are not typical, not a drive from (for example) Dallas to Austin to join UT’s athletic program. Their failure to do so may be innocent, however, they had the duty to determine the facts and to ensure compliance. That obligation, if properly fulfilled, would have precluded this violation. Further, one could plausibly speculate that the coach/university did not do so to gain an illicit advantage; specifically, fielding an intelligible athlete to enhance performance and victories. To me, that too, is unethical.

Finally, we come to the professional athlete/benefactor. I am far less certain concerning his ethical status. If he knew (or reasonably should have known) that his gift would violate NCAA rules, then his charity, even if nobly intended, enabled prohibited conduct, which is unethical (in my opinion). On the other hand, if an individual – probably not an NBA player, who likely has some understanding of NCAA policies and who certainly has access to knowledgeable advisors – were to provide entirely altruistic assistance without any knowledge of NCAA regulations, then his action probably would not be unprincipled. Of course, this is precisely where the student and/or the coach, the AD, the Compliance Officer, and the university should discharge their responsibilities and should assert their expertise to preclude regulatory infringement.

pfrduke

11-13-2010, 03:02 PM

I appreciate the detailed response, which certainly clarifies your position. I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion that the conduct engaged in by all parties involved renders them all guilty of ethical lapses, and I reiterate my very strong conviction that the NCAA rule book is not a proxy for a code of ethics.

4decadedukie

11-13-2010, 03:35 PM

I reiterate my very strong conviction that the NCAA rule book is not a proxy for a code of ethics.

prfduke: I truly respect your position on this, and many other, matters. However, I want to be unambiguously clear. I, too, believe "the NCAA rule book is not a proxy for a code of ethics." But that misses my/the essential point. When an individual voluntarily affiliates himself with an organization -- thereby enjoying the benefits of that association -- he is morally bound to adhere to their policies and regulations. If he finds those rules to be unacceptably onerous or unscrupulous, he should not join (or he should immediately resign). To accept the advantages of organizational affiliation, without complying with the responsibilities, is simply disingenuous and unethical (in my opinion). In sum, I am not defending the "NCAA rulebook;" rather, I strongly support the concepts of personal accountability and of one performing his duties if he accepts the benefits.

D.C. Devil

11-13-2010, 03:49 PM

prfduke: I truly respect your position on this, and many other, matters. However, I want to be unambiguously clear. I, too, believe "the NCAA rule book is not a proxy for a code of ethics." But that misses my/the essential point. When an individual voluntarily affiliates himself with an organization -- thereby enjoying the benefits of that association -- he is morally bound to adhere to their policies and regulations. If he finds those rules to be unacceptably onerous or unscrupulous, he should not join (or he should immediately resign). To accept the advantages of organizational affiliation, without complying with the responsibilities, is simply disingenuous and unethical (in my opinion). In sum, I am not defending the "NCAA rulebook;" rather, I strongly support the concepts of personal accountability and of one performing his duties if he accepts the benefits.

Your thesis either proves to much or doesn't cover this situation. Moses hadn't accepted the advantages of organizational affiliation in the NCAA when he agreed to be flown over to the states to play HS basketball. What am I missing? And even if he had, so what? The NCAA operates a monopoly over amateur athletic labor in the U.S. that is itself in many ways unethical. In a situation like this, I think its necessary to evaluate the NCAA's legitimate interest in protecting amateurism against the threat or injury to amateurism posed by the benefits received. It's a strange, strange, morality or ethics indeed that would prevent or hinder foreign youths from participating in U.S. amateur athletics because it is a financial hardship for a youth to make his way to this country.

In any event, your original post and title seem to me informed by the recent Tyler Adams recruitment. Maybe that's wrong. If not, however, I think its unfair in itself and also unfair because GU hasn't been linked to the provision of benefits in this case.

Dukeface88

11-13-2010, 03:55 PM

When an individual voluntarily affiliates himself with an organization -- thereby enjoying the benefits of that association -- he is morally bound to adhere to their policies and regulations. If he finds those rules to be unacceptably onerous or unscrupulous, he should not join (or he should immediately resign). To accept the advantages of organizational affiliation, without complying with the responsibilities, is simply disingenuous and unethical (in my opinion). In sum, I am not defending the "NCAA rulebook;" rather, I strongly support the concepts of personal accountability and of one performing his duties if he accepts the benefits.

To chime in with may 2 cents; what about an individual takes an action that is against an entity's rules, but is willing to admit to, and accept of the costs of, that violation? Consider, for example, civil rights leaders who voluntarily broke state laws. They were affiliating themselves with an organization (the state) voluntarily (because they could have left, or not come in the first place) and refusing to comply with that entity's rules and policies. Was that an unethical action?

sagegrouse

11-13-2010, 06:31 PM

4decadedukie

11-14-2010, 07:27 AM

To chime in with may 2 cents; what about an individual takes an action that is against an entity's rules, but is willing to admit to, and accept of the costs of, that violation? Consider, for example, civil rights leaders who voluntarily broke state laws. They were affiliating themselves with an organization (the state) voluntarily (because they could have left, or not come in the first place) and refusing to comply with that entity's rules and policies. Was that an unethical action?

IMHO, this post merits both a response and a heartfelt "well done." Your point re "civil rights leaders" obviously is entirely correct (although I suspect you are stretching the scenario quite a bit to create a "state affiliation”). With that said, this thread’s situation does not concern civil disobedience, but rather acceptance of a significant monetary benefit (intercontinental air transportation) in contravention of well-understood and documented NCAA policies.

My point remains that if/when an individual receives the benefits of organizational affiliation (for example, a student-athlete’s scholarship, etc.), he is morally bound also to assume the duties of that “membership” (including compliance with organizational governance and rules). Further, if the responsibilities, the policies, the regulations and so forth of the organization are repugnant, or overly onerous, or unscrupulous, or illicit, or simply unacceptable the individual should not join in the first place or he should immediately resign.

This really is nothing more than common sense: join a club, pay the dues; affiliate with a team, abide by their rules; attend a university, comply with their policies; become an employee with its attendant benefits, respect the employer’s legitimate requirements; receive an advantage, fulfill the concomitant obligations. This list is endless and – much more important – it is also the way in which the world (essentially every society and nation) operates, reinforced for centuries by law, policy, regulations, statute, and plain old common sense ethics.

D.C. Devil

11-14-2010, 09:46 AM

4dd, I would agree with you that accepting the advantages and responsibility of an organization, under the vast majority of circumstances, is sufficient to fairly subject someone to the rules and discipline of that organization. In the Ayegba situation, I'd even agree that it's not fundamentally unfair to punish him with suspension for his acceptance of benefits before he was associated with the NCAA; The NCAA has to have some control over who is a member and under what circumstances.

But many of us recognize that the NCAA is a flawed organization with flawed rules and that a violation of its rules, though sanctionable, does not by itself justify ethical or moral judgment.

IMHO,Your point re "civil rights leaders" obviously is entirely correct (although I suspect you are stretching the scenario quite a bit to create a "state affiliation”). With that said, this thread’s situation does not concern civil disobedience, but rather acceptance of a significant monetary benefit (intercontinental air transportation) in contravention of well-understood and documented NCAA policies.

Understanding that the civil rights movement bears no moral equivalence to NCAA amateurism regulations, why is civil obedience different in kind than violating a unjust well-documented NCAA policy? Unless one assumes the legitimacy of the NCAA policies (which is in dispute) as against the illegitimacy of Jim Crow (which is not), the distinction you draw is question-begging. What, besides the differing fundamental injustice of the rules, distinguishes the two?

You noted that the voluntary affiliation aspect may not apply to a african-american in the south, which I'll grant. So to offer an example where the voluntary affiliation aspect is clear, what about the gay serviceman or servicewoman? If he or she engages in homosexual behavior, would that act be unethical? If you believe that sexual orientation is a fundamental liberty, I suspect you would say that it is not unethical, regardless of the U.S. Military's well-documented policy on homosexuality. And if you say that it isn't unethical, this isn't the same as saying that it is unfair or improper for such a serviceperson to be discharged (although many who believe the former will also likely believe the latter).

I will concede that "ethics" are variable and framework-specific. Those who construct a given framework may (though need not) render any violation of the rules an ethical violation. (As a lawyer, I am required to both pay my bar dues on time and not reveal any confidential client communications to another party; only the latter is an ethical requirement, thought). And so, within the framework of the NCAA, the Ayegba situation may constitute an ethical violation (though again, he wasn't an NCAA athlete at the time, so unless he lied about it later to the NCAA it is hard to see quite how).

Regardless, most of us are not inside the NCAA, do not share its ethics, and in fact have some serious issues with how it operates. That's why the mere fact of NCAA rules violation is not sufficient for us to agree that anyone here has acted unethically.

Jderf

11-14-2010, 09:56 AM

This really is nothing more than common sense: join a club, pay the dues; affiliate with a team, abide by their rules; attend a university, comply with their policies; become an employee with its attendant benefits, respect the employer’s legitimate requirements; receive an advantage, fulfill the concomitant obligations. This list is endless and – much more important – it is also the way in which the world (essentially every society and nation) operates, reinforced for centuries by law, policy, regulations, statute, and plain old common sense ethics.

Yes, but this list completely ignores situations where the organization is in the wrong. Yes, follow an employer's legitimate requests, but stand up against their illegitimate ones (in the case of, say, a sexist employer). Abide by the team's proper rules, but not their improper ones (in the case of, say, a racist coach).

Now, you argue that, if the person in question does not approve of certain rules, they should not participate in that organization. This can be a respectable option in many cases, but not all. And not this one. Should the athlete in question forgo his opportunity to get an American education because he would need to have a friend pay for the trans-atlantic trip? Or should he break a small rule that hurts nobody for a chance at a better life? Niether choice is unethical, but one is a lot dumber than the other. Civil rights leaders could have chosen to follow rules and live elsewhere with no hope for change. Ayegba could have done the same and never gotten a chance at an American education and all the opportunities that go with it.

If you hold the unfortunate position that he should not be allowed to play in the NCAA because he couldn't afford to pay for the trip himself, then you have to defend some harsh rhetorical territory: the player is unethical simply because he is poor. Had he not been poor, he would have been perfectly able to act ethically and pay his own way. But, because of how these rules have been constructed, the fact that he cannot afford the trip forces him to act "unethically." And we should side with the organization and not the little guy? Rather than that, I think it is reasonable to argue that this case actually has much more in common with the civil rights example raised above: a disadvantaged man reacting against the harmful rule of an arbitrary organization.

(Edit: not saying the NCAA is unethical, only arbitrary. They're understandably complicated rulebook sometimes causes unfortunate situations. And in those situations, we should not always jump to the NCAA's defense.)

4decadedukie

11-14-2010, 10:12 AM

Am I the only one confused by the tone of this discussion? 4DD believes sincerely in personal responsibility and ethical behavior, and he is a wonderful contributor to this Board. But it is his personal burden to be a fan in the college athletics world, generally outside of Duke, where behavior falls into five categories:

1. Acceptable
2. Acceptable in normal business, except for a few messy details about written rules in college sports (i.e., laws of supply and demand don't apply). This, I believe, is the case at hand
3. Low-rent, in treating oneself and others badly
4. Low-life, in being low-rent but also breaking the law
5. Either 3 or 4 combined with misogyny

Others on the Board are less troubled by #2 in the face of so much # 3, 4, and 5.

sagegrouse

Sage,

THANK YOU so much for this wonderful, gracious post.

I want to ask other DBR participants (who are concerned with these sorts of issues and who have doubted my approach) a question, based on Sage's excellent, valid conclusion: "Others on the Board are less troubled by #2 in the face of so much # 3, 4, and 5."

Isn't it likely if we -- society in general, obviously including universities, the NCAA, and so forth for college sports -- enforced a "bright red line" that consistently and fairly punished #2 (or possibly #3) violations, we would experience FAR fewer of the truly serious #4 and #5 (also perhaps, the #3) infractions? Isn’t this what we all attempt to do in nurturing and raising a child, engender self-discipline for the “minor” issues, so the really significant problems never occur? Isn’t this additionally what society tries to do in law enforcement? For example, Giuliani cracking down on misdemeanors (such as subway graffiti or public drunkenness) to reduce drastically the frequency meaningful, substantial felonies?

I believe this PROVEN concept is directly applicable to intercollegiate athletics and to ALL of its participants and constituencies.

D.C. Devil

11-14-2010, 10:27 AM

Sage,
I believe this PROVEN concept is directly applicable to intercollegiate athletics and to ALL of its participants and constituencies.

The Broken Window Theory, to which I believe you refer, has actually come into criticism in the last few years.

I would argue that we do not have a lack of enforcement of #2 type-violations to blame for the unseemly behavior that surrounds big time college sports. The problem is that the kids are providing extremely valuable services and yet their compensation is capped well below market-value. When such a lucrative but proscribed market exists, a black market will emerge.

But this is all getting a little bit OT from your OP, which raised the issue of ethical opprobrium for Mr. Ayegba and/or Georgetown. I tried to address this in my previous post. But to try to sum up my argument: I believe that we can accept and even appreciate the NCAA decision in this case without rendering ethical or moral judgment on Ayegba or the school.

4decadedukie

11-14-2010, 10:43 AM

. . . Why is civil (dis)obedience different in kind than violating a unjust well-documented NCAA policy?

Your post is excellent and thoughtful; I sincerely appreciate your ideas and effort!

I perceive a fundamental and critical difference because in many (most) civil rights issues, the victim has no (or essentially no) ability to voluntarily associate himself with an organization, whereas every potential student-athlete has the ability simply to decline to participate in intercollegiate sports, if he finds team, university, conference and/or NCAA polices and regulations to be too unjust, onerous, or demanding. To illustrate, the 1960s Birmingham Afro-American teenager realistically had few alternatives to living in a horribly segregated and terribly discriminatory culture. However, a youngster who believes that the NCAA’s rules are unfair (for example, wants to be paid for playing intercollegiate football or basketball, beyond traditional compensation) can merely refuse athletic scholarship/team participant offers. It is my opinion that this presents a SIGNIFICANT difference; voluntary association requires the obligations of compliance, because the individual does not have to affiliate initially and he can always resign. In essence, don’t join if the organization’s policies are not acceptable.

D.C. Devil

11-14-2010, 11:01 AM

Your post is excellent and thoughtful; I sincerely appreciate your ideas and effort!

I perceive a fundamental and critical difference because in many (most) civil rights issues, the victim has no (or essentially no) ability to voluntarily associate himself with an organization, whereas every potential student-athlete has the ability simply to decline to participate in intercollegiate sports, if he finds team, university, conference and/or NCAA polices and regulations to be too unjust, onerous, or demanding. To illustrate, the 1960s Birmingham Afro-American teenager realistically had few alternatives to living in a horribly segregated and terribly discriminatory culture. However, a youngster who believes that the NCAA’s rules are unfair (for example, wants to be paid for playing intercollegiate football or basketball, beyond traditional compensation) can merely refuse athletic scholarship/team participant offers. It is my opinion that this presents a SIGNIFICANT difference; voluntary association requires the obligations of compliance, because the individual does not have to affiliate initially and he can always resign. In essence, don’t join if the organization’s policies are not acceptable.

I agree with your point about 1960s Birmingham, but I don't think that it applies to the example about the gay serviceman or woman.

But if we could go back to Ayegba for a moment, I fully respect your opinion that his acceptance of the plane ticket means that he needed to be punished. And if you accept that he does need to be punished, the 9 game suspension does seem fair.

But from an ethics standpoint, doesn't it matter that the kid took the plane trip before he filed an application with the NCAA clearinghouse -- perhaps even before he knew about the strict requirements of amateurism? In THIS case, why is there a need to call the kid's ethics into question? There's no indication that he knowingly broke the rules and he's serving his punishment now. I think this question is separate from any discussion about the NCAA's legitimacy or fairness. Even if we ascribe the wisdom of Solomon to the NCAA bylaws and regulations, I would hope that we could agree that Ayegba's violation here doesn't constitute an ethical lapse.

4decadedukie

11-14-2010, 11:01 AM

"Should the athlete in question forgo his opportunity to get an American education because he would need to have a friend pay for the trans-Atlantic trip?"

I apologize, but I am too rushed (granddaughter's birthday celebration, and I am very late) to respond to your post with the thoroughness and rigor it deserves.

However, I do not believe that the youngster's American college education was necessarily entirely dependent on NCAA intercollegiate athletics. Potentially, he could have gotten that same education in some other manner(s). Even if it were, individuals can live wonderful lives without an American college education.

EXPEDIENCY -- noncompliance with policies, regulations and laws for personal gain -- is the crux of our discussion. I know this is a LONG STRETCH (and I absolutely do not intend it to be insulting), but the Soviet official who knowingly did terrible things to obtain major advantages (pay, party status, privileges, an entirely better life for himself and for his family) violated universally accepted moral precepts for personal gain. That's conceptually similar (although I willingly admit it is too great a streatch).

Sorry, I have to run.

4decadedukie

11-14-2010, 05:00 PM

I owe you three responses:

a) I do not feel comfortable discussing the issues associated with homosexual and lesbian military personnel (i.e., "Don't ask, don't tell" and so forth) on DBR, due to the Board's structures that constrain "public policy" matters. When I have the time (and that is unfortunately not likely to be early this week), I will reply to your questions and issues by PM.

b) You said: "I fully respect your opinion that his acceptance of the plane ticket means that he needed to be punished. And if you accept that he does need to be punished, the 9 game suspension does seem fair." I agree that a nine-game suspension seems quite reasonable.

c1) You also said: "Doesn't it matter that the kid took the plane trip before he filed an application with the NCAA clearinghouse -- perhaps even before he knew about the strict requirements of amateurism? In THIS case, why is there a need to call the kid's ethics into question? There's no indication that he knowingly broke the rules and he's serving his punishment now." I understand your point, and it clearly has merit.

c2) However, for the purpose of this discussion, let's presume that the kid had no idea of the applicable NCAA regulations, when he accepted the free trip to the US. Under those circumstances, it is my opinion that the fully ethical thing for him to do -- once he became a serious candidate for a Division I student-athletic scholarship -- would have been to ascertain the applicable policies, to explain the situation to the NCAA fully and to request their guidance. By doing this, neither he nor the University could not be accused of any untoward conduct and the NCAA might have rendered a more-lenient judgment.

pfrduke

11-15-2010, 12:00 AM

c2) However, for the purpose of this discussion, let's presume that the kid had no idea of the applicable NCAA regulations, when he accepted the free trip to the US. Under those circumstances, it is my opinion that the fully ethical thing for him to do -- once he became a serious candidate for a Division I student-athletic scholarship -- would have been to ascertain the applicable policies, to explain the situation to the NCAA fully and to request their guidance. By doing this, neither he nor the University could not be accused of any untoward conduct and the NCAA might have rendered a more-lenient judgment.

I ask this because I honestly don't know - is that different than what happened here? I haven't seen it made clear in any of the stories on it whether the NCAA had to root this out, or whether it was disclosed to the NCAA.

By the way, let's all remember that our own Nolan Smith was suspended early last season for violating an NCAA rule (playing in an unsanctioned game over the summer). I'm not sure whether you think that reflects on his (or Coach K's) ethics or not, but it's not like Duke is free from this sort of thing.

4decadedukie

11-15-2010, 07:07 AM

I ask this because I honestly don't know.

I don't know, either.

By the way, let's all remember that our own Nolan Smith was suspended early last season for violating an NCAA rule (playing in an unsanctioned game over the summer). I'm not sure whether you think that reflects on his (or Coach K's) ethics or not, but it's not like Duke is free from this sort of thing.

Fine point; I must admit that criticizing Georgetown's ethics is MUCH easier for me than scrutinizing Duke's.

rogermortimer

11-15-2010, 12:33 PM

As an alum of both Duke and G'town, and a former scholarship athlete at Duke, it is my feeling that both Duke and G'town are in the "right" camp and do try to do things by the book.

Do they fall short at times? Sure. But in the world of the big time business known as college basketball, they certainly are on the high end of the compliance scale. Both athletic departments are in the minority where whatever one thinks about their athletes, by and large they are indeed student athletes, a far cry from the athletic factories that abound (I don't want to pick on the SEC, but that is a great place to start).

As far as whether the NCAA rule book constitutes a form of ethical guidance, I don't see the rule book as a source of ethics. Indeed, some of the rules don't even make sense, and require a full time person within athletic departments to constantly interpret them. But I think the non-abstract point to be made is that hewing to rules, however, arbitrary they may appear, does count, and that repeated failures to follow the rules, practically speaking, will indeed call the ethics of an institution into question, if only because it reflects a pattern of carelessness or disregard for the athletic organization to which the institution derives a great deal of benefit. We can all agree that the Georgetown's and Duke's of the world don't want compliance problems, even the minor ones that can be plausibly explained.

By the way, my heart is with Duke, but when I attended graduate school at Georgetown 25 years ago it was hard not to respect John Thompson. Although not the coach Coach K is (there has never been a better coach in Division 1 than Coach K), he was a great coach and had a similar stubborn insistence as Coach K on doing things right. I find Thompson's son a bit more flexible and easy going, but he has much the same attitude. In any event, if one is looking for fault in the NCAA basketball world, Duke and Georgetown would be two of the least likely places to come across truly fertile ground.