Recently in ethics Category

I'm frankly disturbed by the latest survey reports regarding teenagers' take on the First Amendment. This USA Today article details the results of the U. Conn. survey. Key highlights include one-third of the 112,003 saying the government should approve newspaper stories before the public sees them. Thankfully a majority of students say the press shouldn't be subjected to government censorship.

What are they teaching these kids in school? The teachers and principals in the USA Today story say that they're teaching kids about the First Amendment, but is the message getting across? What's the message?

I think part of the problem might lie in that the First Amendment isn't seen as relevant to today's youth. It's sad on many levels because the need for freedom of speech and expression has never been more important. Perhaps the best way to help demonstrate the relevance of the First Amendment is to include discussions of how it's in their daily lives. Some ideas -- Howard Stern getting fined by the FCC and his move to satellite radio, students' blogs being censored by schools, students wearing Pepsi shirts getting suspended on a school-sanctioned Coca-Cola appreciation day. The point is there's a ton of examples, they just need to be pointed out.

Part of students' apathy toward their first freedoms may be due to the fact the groups that strongly support the First Amendment, such as the Society of Professional Journalists, aren't developing persuasive arguments for their cause. When I was actively involved in SPJ, they were sponsoring writing contests with an essay prompt along the lines of "What does the First Amendment mean to you?" Doesn't your brain bubble with thoughts with such a scintillating question?

Unfortunately the problem I see is that many modern discussions involve how the First Amendment is limited by some practical concerns. Broadcast regulations, active combat concerns and the fact that primary and secondary schools can limit student newspapers are all issues that muddy the First Amendment picture. At the same time, a greater comprehension of the Bill of Rights would only help students and adults navigate their way through such muddy waters.

Innocent or guilty
ESPN ran a special called "Pete Rose on Trial". The jury and fans (voting online) said Rose should be admitted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Despite the overwhelming support for Rose's cause, his entrance into Cooperstown should be denied unless he plays by the rules.

Rose admits that he bet on pro sports, but never admitted that he bet on baseball. Many have thought that Rose while playing and coaching for the Cincinnati Reds bet on Major League Baseball and even on his own team. Rightfully people have argued that this charge has never been proven (even though MLB hired John Dowd, a former federal prosecutor, who found evidence that Rose bet on the game). However the reason why this hasn't been conclusively proven or disproven is the crux of the matter.

On 23 Aug. 1990, Rose signed an agreement with Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti in which he would be permanently ineligible to play MLB baseball (and thus can't be considered a candidate for the Hall of Fame). Considering the case closed, MLB dropped the case.

If Rose wishes to be considered for the Hall of Fame and negate the agreement that he signed with baseball, the investigation into his gambling should be reopened.

If there's nothing to the charges and he is cleared of the crimes that he's been accused of, then he could be considered for the hall. However, if he is guilty, then he should walk away from baseball like he agreed to 13 years ago.

After all, the way the discussion is framed today, Rose faces no potential loss for his attempt. However, if there is the possibility of Rose's shameful past being exposed perhaps Charlie Hustle will reconsider his bid to enter Copperstown.