Introduction
The case of Marlene is a common predicament of varsity players in most colleges and universities wherein student-players could not balance their academic achievement and their sport performance. This issue presents an ethical dilemma both for the student and the school administration. In a student’s perspective, the dilemma is whether to prioritize their studies or the sport that they are engaged into. Looking at a school administrator’s perspective, the ethical dilemma would be whether to compromise the school’s athletic competitiveness for the sake of the school’s policy or to bend some moral rules for the foreseen benefits. A prestigious sporting event such as the NCAA could not be undermined and is considered as one of the most important school activities. Apart from enhancing the development of future athletes, the NCAA and other similar sporting events also serve as a form of advertisement for academic institutions. For the same reason, academic institutions offer academic scholarships for those individuals who can increase the school’s bid for this prestigious event. As a school administrator or a dean, for that matter, the ethical choices for Marlene’s case can be very difficult.
Situational Analysis
As a dean, weighing the implications of possible choices would be the initial approach in solving the ethical dilemma. Apparently, there are two ways on how to approach the issue. First is to impose the rule wherein Marlene would have to contend with the school’s eligibility policy. The second option would be to make sure that Marlene remains eligible by modifying her grades. Both options have their advantages and disadvantages. By strictly adhering to the school policy as in the first option, the school’s chances of bidding for an NCAA title would be in jeopardy as Marlene is one of the school’s key players. On the other hand, modifying Marlene’s grades so that she becomes eligible would be tantamount to cheating and fraud. For an administrator of an academic institution, this practice can be morally unacceptable. Not adhering to the policy, on the other hand, is definitely not an option as it would violate the organization’s constitution.
Application of Ethical Principles
There are two common ways on how the case’s ethical dilemma can be analyzed and resolved. One is to view the issue under a utilitarian perspective and the other is to view the issue under deontology. The utilitarian ethical principle posits that a decision is morally right if it is made for the good of the majority. In Marlene’s case, modifying her grades would seem to be the ethical choice because of its potential advantage for the academic institution. But the academic institution, under these circumstances, does not represent the majority but rather, it is just another individual acting on its own interest. The majority that needs to be considered under these circumstances are the members of the institution, which are the students and other stake holders such as the teachers and the parents. In such case, the question would be, does modifying or not modifying Marlene’s grade pose any concern for the stakeholders? Apparently, it does affect stakeholders in a negative way. Such actions, when uncovered, will compromise the school’s reputation and will have ripple effects on the reputation of the institution’s stakeholders. Deontology, on the other hand, posits that ethical decisions must be based on duty or obligations. As a school administrator, the dean is under obligation to impose the school policies. For the same reason, deciding to uphold the school policies in Marlene’s case would be the ethical choice under deontology.
Conclusion
After analyzing Marlene’s case, it is quite apparent that the ethical choice would be to follow the school policies regarding the student-player’s eligibility. Unless the school’s policy is officially amended, under no circumstances can the dean modify Marlene’s grades as it would pose serious implications both for the school and its stakeholders. Perhaps the school would lose their bid for the NCAA for this year but in the long run, the case would serve as a lesson for future student-athletes to balance their academic and athletic performance.
References
Eggleston, B. (2012). Utilitarianism. Retrieved March 2015, from http://www.benegg.net/publications/Eggleston_Utilitarianism.pdf
Gamlund, E. (2012, Spring). Ethics. Retrieved March 2015, from http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/MNSES9100/v14/lectures/mnses-ethical-theory-gamlund.pdf
