The debate that I have centered my paper around is whether or not the Neutralization Theory can be applied to the rationalizations athletes have when it comes to committing acts of academic dishonesty. One side of the debate is Storch with is study of the application of Neutralization Theory directly to academic dishonesty among athletes. The other side of the debate comes from Bouville who insists that Neutralization Theory can not be applied to academic dishonesty, regardless of who commits it. Obviously the Storch argument is one of the center pieces of my paper; however the Bouville piece provides an interesting insight. In that piece he writes about how academic dishonesty cannot be studied in terms of Neutralization Theory because students know that cheating is wrong. One of the articles that I have found that discusses the key concepts of Neutralization Theory says that Neutralization Theory is contingent on the fact that the individual knows the difference between right and wrong. Bouville's argument about Neutralization Theory did get me thinking though that maybe students cheat because they think they are expected to and even though they know its wrong, that's why they still do it. After thinking about this, I started thinking about the public perception of athletes and how that must affect the athletes. Maybe the athletes get involved in bad behaviors because they feel that that is what they are expected to do. They are not expected to succeed morally, but rather to get involved in bad behaviors such as academic dishonesty or maybe something much worse. Using this idea and the Neutralization Theory, I feel that the two sides of the Neutralization Theory debate can almost be meshed in a way while introducing a new concept of public perception of athletics into the mix.
Here is the link for the transcripts from the FSU cheating case: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/sports/20091015-ncaa.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was reading a shorter version of Bouville's argument online, which could make a good source. I do not think you have accurately represented his argument.
ReplyDeleteYou say that his argument is that "academic dishonesty cannot be studied in terms of Neutralization Theory because students know that cheating is wrong." Actually, if students did know that cheating was wrong, that would not be inconsistent with Neutralization Theory at all. After all, people who use neutralization theory know that cheating is wrong but claim that in their case it is not wrong because of some higher authority or because of the norms of their colleagues or because of their special status as an athlete, etc. According to neutralization theory, the cheaters know that cheating is wrong and even admire non-cheaters. But they just think that their situation allows cheating.
Bouville claims something a bit different. For one thing, he argues that cheaters may be different from criminals because while criminals know right from wrong and admire honest folks, "no evidence has been provided to show that cheaters really admire the honest students" (7) or that they even know that cheating is wrong! Really, you need to find evidence from what the cheaters say to make that claim. If they simply say that they did nothing wrong because it is done all the time or it is allowed, then they have not even acknowledged that there is a more normal and acceptable (let alone admirable) alternative. And there I think he has a very strong point. He also shows that students sometimes do not even recognize that what they are doing is wrong or do not stop to question the behavior themselves -- let alone try to justify it.
I think you have to spend some more time with Bouville's argument, because it may even turn out to be the more correct argument. For instance, if the culture of college athletics is so thoroughly corrupt, athletes themselves may no longer be able to distinguish right from wrong....
I think you should suspend judgment until you have looked at the FSU material more closely. I will take a look myself. But before you look, first get yourself clear on what you are looking for -- and remain open to the possibility that Bouville might actually be correct, and be able to recognize if he indeed is correct....
Thanks for providing the link to the FSU material. It is fascinating and I think you have to read the whole thing. It seems like a lot of pages, but it is double spaced with wide margins and not even a lot of lines on each page. I read through page 100 in about 30 minutes while watching American Idol... :-) It is fascinating and I think it is open to interpretation. But I think it may support Bouville.... Consider this, from counsel for FSU (you can locate this with a word search):
ReplyDelete18 We had some students that were very
19 forthcoming and said, you know, tf that is your
20 definition of inappropriate actions, then, yes,
21 I did that, We had others who said no, I didn't
22 do that.
That hardly sounds like a recognition on the part of athletes that what they did might be seen as wrong....and there is no evidence that they tried to justify it.
Also, you really have to read the testimony of Dr. Monk (p. 84ff) that essentially explains the methods used in the class as designed to help learning disabled students. Essentially, she simply denies that what was done was wrong or constituted cheating. It was simply a pedagogy designed to help students with learning disabilities to succeed in a college course.
How do you interpret that?