An interesting debate
came to the front on Ethics and the subject about the Mount Carmel Wrestling
issue with the IHSA was mentioned in the conversation. I thought it would be interesting to veer
away from baseball for a moment to give an analysis on this topic. I believe
ethics are on a decline in baseball. I
think the academies are under pressure to justify their astronomical prices
with wins. If a kid gets lessons from an
academy team, the parents expect more for that team to win because the academy
should provide some kind of advantage.
If an academy team loses, then the academy will possibly lose future
customers. So the baseball travel teams
for the academies become advertisements.
The same holds true for Catholic schools and the pressure of having a
quality athletic program exists as the schools need support from the alumni and
boosters. Mount Carmel’s ethics were challenged
and as it turned out, it seems that the IHSA exercised more unethical
behavior.
Apparent Problem
In the case involving Mount Carmel ‘s
alleged violation of Bylaw 5.162, a rival school reported that Mount Carmel’s
wrestling team did not conform to the competition limits. A typical high school has three or four teams
and only the varsity team competes in the state tournament. With this fact in mind, the bylaw referring
to competition limits was unclear as to the limits placed on the non-varsity
teams, leaving it assumable that the limits were placed only on the varsity
teams. After accusations of other
schools exhibiting the same competition behavior as Mount Carmel and rulings by
three different courts that Mount Carmel should be allowed to participate, the
IHSA (the governing body) was faced with an ethical decision of protecting the
integrity of the tournament, respecting the intent of the bylaws, and accepting
the authority of the courts.
Analysis
One troubling issue in this case is
the IHSA had allowed schools to interpret this policy in two or more different
ways. Whereas other rules specify the
limits of varsity team competition as opposed to non-varsity (Mallory, Ross,
Zakus, 2003), Bylaw 5.162 does not.
Schools with large programs allow their non-varsity wrestlers to compete
in more matches for the sake of development; this is also done in other sports
and was done by other schools at the same time that Mount Carmel allegedly
violated the rule. Another issue is that
the IHSA did or did not know that schools allowed their non-varsity teams to
compete in more than the limited amount of meets. This brings up the question as to the original
purpose of the rule. Was this rule
designed to protect the health of the athletes or to ensure competitive balance? A third issue is the involvement of the court
system. Why was IHSA so intent on
enforcing their decision of excluding Mount Carmel after the circuit court made
a ruling? Why did IHSA push the issue
through the Appellate Court and then the state Supreme Court? Does the use of
appeal suggest a contradiction to the adherence of laws that the IHSA demands
from its member schools?
What works in the system is the policing of schools by other
schools. The IHSA is unable to police
all of the schools in Illinois; therefore, it relies on the integrity of it
members and the system of reporting from other schools.
The total breakdown in an ordinarily
well-organized governing body is the Bylaw 5.162 that is unclear and the IHSA’s
apparent inability to recognize the flaw in the verbiage or lack thereof. It appears that there are questions left
unanswered in this rule. 1) If a school
has large participation in wrestling, can it divide the team in order to
maximize student participation and if so, does this count as one match or
two? 2) Is a freshman only match
considered a match for the school? We
should also take into consideration that athletic directors are over the entire
athletic program of the school. They are
familiar with rules in more than one sport.
If baseball allows for sophomores to compete in games where varsity
members do not without penalty, then it is reasonable for the athletic director
to assume, unless otherwise told, that junior varsity wrestlers can do the
same. It would appear that the purpose of this rule is to protect the athletes
from over-use. If this is the reasoning
behind the rule it is also assumable that the coaches will see to it that an
athlete does not compete in more than the allowed matches.
By looking at the persistence of the
IHSA in the court system, we are afforded insight on the ethical pedagogy of
the IHSA or the lack of ethical pedagogy.
The fact that the governing body did not get the relief it sought and
appealed to the highest court, suggests that the IHSA wanted to administer some
punishment at all cost in opposed to considering the best interest of the sum
of student wrestlers. The IHSA went so far as to postpone the Regional meet in
order to have time for the appeal (Fegalman, 1995). The disregard for the decision of the circuit
court and the appellate court makes the governing body’s action suspect of
tyrannical control and unfairness. The
cancelation of the season in the absence of a favorable ruling sustains such
accusations.
The
Real Problem
The real problem is inconsistent
ethical standards of the IHSA. If one is to endorse a deontological approach
to ethics, he or she should consider the different possible interpretations and
ambiguities of a rule. If there are
varying interpretations connected to the ambiguities, the court system is
designed to make final interpretations.
The appeal system is designed for those situations where it is believed
that a judge made the wrong decision.
Refusing to accept the judge’s decision in the circuit court as well as
the appellate court suggests that the IHSA does not subscribe to a
deontological ethical approach in its governing but insists that member schools
do so while accepting the authority of the IHSA. This is the source of its inconsistent ethical
endorsements. In the words of Mike Ficaro, Mount Carmel’s attorney, “I guess
the IHSA is above the law.” (Hanley, 1995). The IHSA is not above the law and for such
doubt to be casted on the integrity of the governing body in relationship to
the legal system, suggests that the IHSA is also inconsistent in it prescription
to consequentialism as it canceled the season despite the apparent successful
abiding of the rules by other members.
If one follows the principles of utility, it is clear that the harm of
canceling the season for almost a thousand wrestlers was greater than allowing
a small group of wrestlers to compete after the IHSA was “proved arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious by the
supreme court, the appellate court and the circuit court,” (Hanley, 1995).
There are two types of utility according to Jeremy Bentham
and J.S. Mill: act utility and rule utility. (Mallory, Ross, Zakus, 2003)
Whereas act utility suggests that we adhere to ethics that cause the greatest
good for the masses, rule utility suggests that we follow and create the rules
that would better serve the masses. In
this situation, the rule did not serve the masses in that it caused confusion
in the interpretations and if it was clearly designed to protect athletes from
the harm of over-indulging in a violent sport, it should have been written clearly
as to not allow for various interpretations. If the IHSA followed the path of act utility
then it could have investigated the claims as to the legitimacy of the
wrestlers who participated in the fifth meet and verify if they were or were
not the same varsity members who competed for the state championship.
Alternatives
The IHSA could have used the
following alternatives. 1) Juxtapose
this Bylaw with others to compare and determine if there is an
inconsistency. If there is
inconsistency, the governing body should consider the athletic director’s
reasons. 2) The IHSA could have solved
the problem by isolating the wrestlers who were involved in the fifth meet and
made those specific athletes ineligible.
3) Allow Mount Carmel’s varsity member to compete and defend their three
time state champion status. In light of the accusations, rulings should assume
that athletic directors and school principals are concerned of the best interest
of the students and that any misunderstanding due to possible ambiguities are
incidental. A) Athletes involved in wrestling are allowed a maximum of four
competitive tournaments regardless of class. This will allow schools with large
student bodies to maximize student participation and schedule more competitions
for the team, but not for the participants.
B) Bylaw 5.162 will be reviewable and modified at the soonest possible
opportunity to reflect the intentions of the law. The intent of this law should be for the
primary concern of the athlete’s health and not to punish or reprimand athletes
to give rival schools advantages on technicalities.
Recommendation
There
is no reason why the season should have been cancelled and hundreds of student
athletes harmed and prevented from the pursuit of their goals. The third alternative listed above appears to
be the best solution for this matter. In
this, a very utilitarian approach to the resolution is used allowing the
maximization of happiness for the greatest amount of people and an official
interpretation of the rule with the promise to clarify it for future seasons. This
interpretation should have been emailed to athletic directors and posted on the
official IHSA web site explaining the intent of the rule. Such a determination would
have saved thousands of tax dollars that would have also caused for longer term
happiness for those who were not involved directly in the wrestling dilemma.
Fegelman,
Andrew. (February 17, 1995). Judge Favors
Mt. Carmel. IHSA Will Appeal. Chicago
Tribune. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-02-17/sports/9502170367_1_appeal-illinois-supreme-court-carmel
Hanley,
Reid. (February 28, 1995) IHSA
Cancels Class Aa Wrestling Tournament
IHSA Ruling Body Decides To Pull Plug Rather Than Include Mt. Carmel. Chicago Tribune
28/sports/9502280062_1_illinois-supreme-court-circuit-court-ruling-appellate-court
No comments:
Post a Comment