The Morality and Politics of Justice Project
Should College Football be Banned?
Should College Football be Banned?
Will Klumpenhower
Football is a staple of American society. People across all ages and demographics love and enjoy the game. Thousands play it in all leagues and ages. It is the most popular sport in America across all levels, including the NFL, NCAA, high school, and youth leagues. No one loves the game more than the athletes that play it. Love for the game brings schools, cities, and states together. People, despite other differences they may have, are united in their passion for their team.
A successful sports team can lift a city to new heights. But people that do not understand all the benefits to a community the game can provide are threatening to destroy this common ground for millions of people. They wish to take away the player’s choice to represent their school or their city.
Football is a dangerous game, but that is why it attracts us. We want to watch our local heroes lay it all on the line for the glory they receive in their triumph. The players know the risks. They are not misinformed about why they play the game they play with such passion. Their love for the game overcome any concerns the dissenters may have. As Steelers linebacker Greg Lloyd once said after delivering a big hit, “I was dizzy, my head was hurting, and my eyes were watering. It felt good.” Why do the players say such seeming irrational things? Because they know that they have helped the team, and therefore themselves, by their sacrifice. They live for these moments.
No one can tell the players what they are supposed to feel about the game. These players have played football from a young age because they love it. No one who has not felt the energy of a pregame ritual, the irrational drive to keep playing with nothing left in the tank, and the glory in victory, has any right to say whether this game should or should not be played. They have neither the right nor the privilege to explain to a team of brothers why they cannot play the game they love, knowing the potential consequences, of their own free will.
Some people will want to ban this game at the collegiate level, simply because the coaches get paid exuberant amounts and the players get paid nothing. There is no reason to overreact and try to ban the game altogether when far simpler solutions exist. A set salary limit for coaches could easily be enforced, without threatening the game’s existence.
There is also the issue of whether it is morally right to ban a sport that is, for the most part, producing positive effects in our culture. Even if it was producing more negative effects than it actually is, it may not be right for us to ban it. A libertarian view on the issue would argue that as long as it does no harm to anyone else, it should be allowed. Since the only harm that could possibly be done in the college arena is to the fully aware players, the banning of the sport would seem to not only be an unreasonable course of action, but possibly an immoral one.
There is an outcry now to ban college football, but imagine the outcry if it were actually banned? To be honest, way more people care about the game than the potential risks, including the players. There is absolutely no reason to abolish a staple of American society over an issue so easily fixed without overreacting. Football is such a positive presence in our society for it to be taken away.
Will Klumpenhower
Football is a staple of American society. People across all ages and demographics love and enjoy the game. Thousands play it in all leagues and ages. It is the most popular sport in America across all levels, including the NFL, NCAA, high school, and youth leagues. No one loves the game more than the athletes that play it. Love for the game brings schools, cities, and states together. People, despite other differences they may have, are united in their passion for their team.
A successful sports team can lift a city to new heights. But people that do not understand all the benefits to a community the game can provide are threatening to destroy this common ground for millions of people. They wish to take away the player’s choice to represent their school or their city.
Football is a dangerous game, but that is why it attracts us. We want to watch our local heroes lay it all on the line for the glory they receive in their triumph. The players know the risks. They are not misinformed about why they play the game they play with such passion. Their love for the game overcome any concerns the dissenters may have. As Steelers linebacker Greg Lloyd once said after delivering a big hit, “I was dizzy, my head was hurting, and my eyes were watering. It felt good.” Why do the players say such seeming irrational things? Because they know that they have helped the team, and therefore themselves, by their sacrifice. They live for these moments.
No one can tell the players what they are supposed to feel about the game. These players have played football from a young age because they love it. No one who has not felt the energy of a pregame ritual, the irrational drive to keep playing with nothing left in the tank, and the glory in victory, has any right to say whether this game should or should not be played. They have neither the right nor the privilege to explain to a team of brothers why they cannot play the game they love, knowing the potential consequences, of their own free will.
Some people will want to ban this game at the collegiate level, simply because the coaches get paid exuberant amounts and the players get paid nothing. There is no reason to overreact and try to ban the game altogether when far simpler solutions exist. A set salary limit for coaches could easily be enforced, without threatening the game’s existence.
There is also the issue of whether it is morally right to ban a sport that is, for the most part, producing positive effects in our culture. Even if it was producing more negative effects than it actually is, it may not be right for us to ban it. A libertarian view on the issue would argue that as long as it does no harm to anyone else, it should be allowed. Since the only harm that could possibly be done in the college arena is to the fully aware players, the banning of the sport would seem to not only be an unreasonable course of action, but possibly an immoral one.
There is an outcry now to ban college football, but imagine the outcry if it were actually banned? To be honest, way more people care about the game than the potential risks, including the players. There is absolutely no reason to abolish a staple of American society over an issue so easily fixed without overreacting. Football is such a positive presence in our society for it to be taken away.
Project Reflection
Project Description
In the Morality and Politics of Justice Project, we had to pick a social issue in our modern society and defend both sides of it. We first needed to state our own opinion on the topic, to see where we personally stood and hopefully make other people see where we were coming from. After this we were assigned to find the most compelling argument for each side and defend it as best we could. This was the hardest part for most of the class in general and myself in particular. It can be hard to find the best argument against what can sometimes be a very personal issue. I had trouble for another reason: no one was advocating to keep college football, since the voice to remove it isn't nearly as strong as some other prominent issues. Another difficult part in this process is applying a branch of philosophy to our issue, especially mine, since it isn't as much of a moral issue as some others. After we wrote these two arguments we either made an art piece or wrote an op-ed in favor of our side of the issue. I wrote an op-ed since I have dubious artistic talent in comparison to my peers.
Writing Growth
I struggled somewhat with my op-ed during the project. As the deadline for the project steadily advanced, I felt an ever-increasing feeling of apathy from everyone who head my topic. I felt like neither my peers or the newspapers I planned on submitting it to would care about my issue. College football just isn't too big of an issue in Durango, I got down on myself and struggled to find motivation to write. I actually feel like my best arguments for my op-ed were conceived by my spiel at the exhibition. When I actually starting to people who cared about my issue, I was able to convey my thoughts more clearly than I had ever been able to in my op-ed. I also felt like people actually genuinely started caring about the issue when I talked to them, while I could barely convince myself in my writing. I actually feel like my op-ed could have been a lot better if I had written it after the exhibition.
What have you learned about ways to engage people in thought-provoking dialogue on these issues as opposed to simply parroting what their political party/friends/parents believe?
I found it easiest at my exhibition to make the people coming in play on my terms. I started off by stating the problem in a nutshell and what is being done to try and fix it. I didn't state my personal opinion until they asked. When I introduced my project this way, it forces them to think about the issue rather than my personal opinion on it. They can then ask honest questions to clarify what the issue is about and why some solutions will or won't work. I think this worked much better than what I was planning on saying in class, which seemed a little to much like I was just stating my opinion on the issue. Before you state your opinion, you have to make the listener care about the issue, otherwise they don't care. I felt like I was able to connect with everyone who came by with he exception of one, who seemed like he just didn't care about the whole issue at all and was just there to be polite, and I can't really blame him for not wanting to hear about an issue he doesn't care about.
What was most challenging for you about this project and/or presenting your perspective at exhibition? What did you learn about yourself in working through this challenge?
The most challenging part of this project was the feeling that no one cared about my topic. Animas is not big into major sports such as football, baseball, soccer, etc. Until the exhibition, I had not met a single person who actually sounded interested in the slightest about my topic. I didn't, and still don't, think that the Herald or Telegraph will care one bit about my op-ed. I would have done an art piece if I had any art talent at all, and maybe I still should have done one anyway, since I could have whipped up something in Photoshop easily enough. But the underlying problem behind all of this is that I didn't feel comfortable writing about an actual controversial issue. My opinions differ with almost all my peers on almost every political issue. I'm one of those people who won't speak up for myself on a political issue very often, especially if the vast majority of my peers disagree. I have silenced myself in my humanities classes so much that the only way you can tell that I disagree is if I shut up. I have heard stories of one of my friends getting booed by parents at his humanities exhibition for stating his opinion. The fear of this happening to me is the reason I have primarily written about football in all my humanities classes at Animas. The problem with this is that no one really cares about football in comparison to the other issues that my peers have chosen, but it's better than the alternative any day of the week. Students and teachers, for the most part, want to hear your opinions, unless they happen to disagree with their own.
In the Morality and Politics of Justice Project, we had to pick a social issue in our modern society and defend both sides of it. We first needed to state our own opinion on the topic, to see where we personally stood and hopefully make other people see where we were coming from. After this we were assigned to find the most compelling argument for each side and defend it as best we could. This was the hardest part for most of the class in general and myself in particular. It can be hard to find the best argument against what can sometimes be a very personal issue. I had trouble for another reason: no one was advocating to keep college football, since the voice to remove it isn't nearly as strong as some other prominent issues. Another difficult part in this process is applying a branch of philosophy to our issue, especially mine, since it isn't as much of a moral issue as some others. After we wrote these two arguments we either made an art piece or wrote an op-ed in favor of our side of the issue. I wrote an op-ed since I have dubious artistic talent in comparison to my peers.
Writing Growth
I struggled somewhat with my op-ed during the project. As the deadline for the project steadily advanced, I felt an ever-increasing feeling of apathy from everyone who head my topic. I felt like neither my peers or the newspapers I planned on submitting it to would care about my issue. College football just isn't too big of an issue in Durango, I got down on myself and struggled to find motivation to write. I actually feel like my best arguments for my op-ed were conceived by my spiel at the exhibition. When I actually starting to people who cared about my issue, I was able to convey my thoughts more clearly than I had ever been able to in my op-ed. I also felt like people actually genuinely started caring about the issue when I talked to them, while I could barely convince myself in my writing. I actually feel like my op-ed could have been a lot better if I had written it after the exhibition.
What have you learned about ways to engage people in thought-provoking dialogue on these issues as opposed to simply parroting what their political party/friends/parents believe?
I found it easiest at my exhibition to make the people coming in play on my terms. I started off by stating the problem in a nutshell and what is being done to try and fix it. I didn't state my personal opinion until they asked. When I introduced my project this way, it forces them to think about the issue rather than my personal opinion on it. They can then ask honest questions to clarify what the issue is about and why some solutions will or won't work. I think this worked much better than what I was planning on saying in class, which seemed a little to much like I was just stating my opinion on the issue. Before you state your opinion, you have to make the listener care about the issue, otherwise they don't care. I felt like I was able to connect with everyone who came by with he exception of one, who seemed like he just didn't care about the whole issue at all and was just there to be polite, and I can't really blame him for not wanting to hear about an issue he doesn't care about.
What was most challenging for you about this project and/or presenting your perspective at exhibition? What did you learn about yourself in working through this challenge?
The most challenging part of this project was the feeling that no one cared about my topic. Animas is not big into major sports such as football, baseball, soccer, etc. Until the exhibition, I had not met a single person who actually sounded interested in the slightest about my topic. I didn't, and still don't, think that the Herald or Telegraph will care one bit about my op-ed. I would have done an art piece if I had any art talent at all, and maybe I still should have done one anyway, since I could have whipped up something in Photoshop easily enough. But the underlying problem behind all of this is that I didn't feel comfortable writing about an actual controversial issue. My opinions differ with almost all my peers on almost every political issue. I'm one of those people who won't speak up for myself on a political issue very often, especially if the vast majority of my peers disagree. I have silenced myself in my humanities classes so much that the only way you can tell that I disagree is if I shut up. I have heard stories of one of my friends getting booed by parents at his humanities exhibition for stating his opinion. The fear of this happening to me is the reason I have primarily written about football in all my humanities classes at Animas. The problem with this is that no one really cares about football in comparison to the other issues that my peers have chosen, but it's better than the alternative any day of the week. Students and teachers, for the most part, want to hear your opinions, unless they happen to disagree with their own.