As described by Mueller, political representatives are said to “shirk” when they “vote as their own preferences dictate, even when this runs counter to the preferences of their constituents,” but this is only one of many real life examples of shirking. Another example is that of student-athletes shirking their academic obligations. Coach Ken Carter of Richmond High School faced this problem with some of his basketball players in 1999, but he took two significant steps to reduce shirking; Coach Carter created specific, well-defined responsibilities for his players, and he monitored them closely.
Carter obligated all of his players to sign contracts in order to be on the team. These contracts required that the players attend all of their classes, sit in the front row of those classes, and maintain at least a 2.3 GPA, among other things. Carter also received reports from teachers regarding the players’ academic performance, in order to monitor them. When these reports revealed that some players were failing to meet the requirements agreed to in the contracts, Carter first punished the team at practice, then, when that failed, instigated a lockout. Carter caught the players shirking their academic duties and held them accountable, closing the gym for both practices and games. Eventually the players’ academic performances reached a satisfactory level, and Carter reopened the gym. Carter’s goal for the season was to help his players get into college, and by forcing the players to sign detailed contracts, monitoring their academic performances, and implementing a lockout, he was able to effectively minimize the extent to which players shirked their academic responsibilities in favor of their personal preferences.
Of course, it is not as easy to create specific, well-defined contracts that political representatives must sign before taking office, and the costs of monitoring them would also be much greater than the costs of Carter monitoring his players. Additionally, the lack of competition in elections causes many political representatives to feel that they can shirk their duties to their constituents without significant consequence, a trend that is difficult to reverse without a complete overhaul of the American political system. Although there are some situations in which shirking can be avoided and/or punished through a variety of measures, the nature of the American political system makes the problem of representatives shirking the obligations of their position notably more difficult to solve.
1 comment:
The shirking involving athletics continues. A successful college football program has many roles within a university--it creates millions of dollars annually, helps increase applicants, provides valuable media coverage, and overall increases the popularity of an institution. The role of a coach, therefore is also varied. Technically, a coach's duties end when practice ends. However, for a man like Joe Paterno, his role as a coach propelled him into arguably the most important position at Penn State over the last 46 years as the head of the team. As many know, this article (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7214753/joe-paterno-firing-was-only-decision-penn-state-nittany-lions-make) brings me to tears. Besides my doubtful emotional stability, JoePa's role in this scandal can be attributed to shirking as discussed in class.
Shirking in this case can be established as Paterno's failure to perform his duty as head coach; his moral culpability in the perpetuation of long-standing child abuse is undeniable. Therefore he shirked in not performing his moral duty to protect young victims and the Penn State football program in general. The question is why? What motivation could JoePa have had to shirk in his moral duties as a coach, educator, and humanitarian? The answer is economics--it was in the best interest of PSU economically to ignore the abuse by Sandusky for almost 10 years after it was suspected. The football program over the last 61 years that Paterno has been a member of has grown to more than just athletics. It has helped increase the focus on academics and has provided a stable and enormous source of money. Therefore, it can be established that Paterno's moral shirking was rationalized by an economic interest. Additionally, because the court of public opinion has ruled that his moral duty as a humanitarian SHOULD have outweighed his interests as an agent for the economic interests of the institution, Paterno's ideological shirking was in fact punished.
Despite his moral shirking, for the sake of attempting to protect the economic interests of Penn State, Paterno's treatment by the Trustees was horrendous. After 61 years and millions of dollars, an 84-year-old man should never be fired over the phone. WE ARE PENN STATE
Post a Comment