Category: Uncategorized

My friend Jamey spent a total of 6 years in prison. Today he’s free and thriving. And just a few months ago, he got married. I asked him to review NHSEB case 10, Dating After Prison. What were his thoughts?

A natural athlete, Jamey had been a star running back in elementary school. He was fast. Scary fast. “Who’s that little white blur?” fast.

Then in the 7th grade he developed chronic knee pain. No longer the fastest, his popularity and self-esteem took a hit, and he turned to substance abuse.

A couple of years into high school his knees were better, but the bad habits remained. He switched to a vocational track to graduate, and played well enough to earn a football scholarship. It was in college that Jamey got his first opportunity to sell drugs. He found that he was naturally good at that, too.

A drug dealer’s life doesn’t mesh well with the demands of higher education. And when the college experiment failed, the downward spiral accelerated. Jail time became prison time, and winning $50k from a scratch-off lottery ticket just made things worse.

The above excerpt is from Year of the Fighter: Lessons From My Midlife Crisis Adventure, my 2018 memoir on how an ethicist overcomes childhood bully shame by doing something he’d always dreamed of doing – competitively boxing and kickboxing.

Jamey was a teammate, mentor and coach at my boxing gym, Monroe County Boxing Club. He taught me how to not to not be “a moving punching bag,” how to use my endurance as a weapon, and how to push my body into beastmode and beyond.

When we met, he’d already done significant time behind bars. And while boxing kept him straight for a while, he relapsed and found himself in trouble with the law once again. The judge gave him the option to either go back to prison or to Miracle Lake, a rustic Christin rehab facility near Etowah, Tennessee. Jamey took the chance, and the experience changed his life.

He’s been clean and straight ever since, and this summer my family attended a beautiful outdoor wedding where he wed his soulmate, Petyon. I remember when Jamey and Peyton first began dating, and I was there when he proposed during intermission at the annual Monroe County Boxing Club Rumble. So when I read case 10, he immediately came to mind.

He agreed to discuss it, and explained that when he graduated from Miracle Lake and thought about dating again, he wanted to be as transparent as possible about his past.

So he shared his background on his Facebook page, regularly posting about the dark places he’d been, and how much better life was on the other side. He would also share his testimony at church, which is where he and Peyton met. As Jamey put it, “I didn’t want anyone to feel deceived. I wanted to be accepted for who I was.”

However, while he wanted church friends and love interests to know as soon as possible, he didn’t think disclosing his prison time was as important for casual friendships (see ethics bowl case discussion question #3).

“About the friendship thing, that’s not as important to reveal right up front… You wouldn’t want her to find out and feel misled. But with dudes, it may not even come up for a long time. But Peyton, she knew everything. I feel that was important.”

In contrasting the gentlemen in the ethics bowl case (Antoine and Jack – see discussion question #2), Jamey thought they were clearly different. “There’s definitely a moral difference due to the type of crime and their time in prison. One was innocent, the other admitted it.”

Jamey argued that the differing amount of time served by Antoine and Jack – Antoine, 8 years, and Jack, 27– was especially relevant.

“The longer you’re in there, away from society, the more of a criminal mind you could have. Not everyone, but someone doing that much time is definitely going to be different. Their frame of mind – someone doing that much time – it becomes truly institutionalized.”

The implication seems to be that a person would have a stronger obligation to reveal their prison time sooner when a) they were guilty, b) their crime was violent and c) lengthy prison time had altered their character in negative ways. These are all things a potential life partner would want to know. And so Jamey argues they’re better to share immediately in the interests of building trust.

However, Sequoyah High School Ethics Bowl team member Juli Brackett argues sharing prison time could and should wait until the third date. Why date #3?

First dates are often shallow chit-chat. Second dates, when they happen, suggest agreement that there’s long-term potential. But by the third date, it’s clear both parties are open to a serious commitment. The emotional attachment approaches an unspoken but significant threshold. And that’s when someone who’s been to prison should disclose it, argues Juli.

Why not share it on or before date #1? Juli argues this could sabotage what could become a beautiful happily-ever-after. If everyone shared their darkest secrets up-front, no one would get married. Waiting puts both parties in a better position to put past mistakes into context.

The up-front approach worked for Jamey. But maybe he was especially charming. Or maybe the fact that he and Peyton met at church reassured her he was a changed man.

Whether Juli’s or Jamey’s approach is morally best is arguable. But three factors that seem unarguably relevant: 1) whether the person was guilty, 2) the nature of their crime, and 3) time served and its impact on their character.

As mentioned in a previous article, it’s helpful to organize bowl cases’ key details, primary moral considerations, your team’s position and at least one objection/response using a “case summary matrix” for quick reference and review.

These are good not only for the months leading up to the bowl, but also for coaching between rounds – especially later in the bowl, when many of the cases have already been covered, so your team can identify and focus on those remaining (I’ll draw a line through each as the even unfolds, and we’ll focus post-lunch on the half dozen left).

Here’s a slightly edited version of the case summary matrix my team used for our NHSEB Regional this past weekend. Not every view meshed with my own thinking or even each team member’s individual thinking. But these were roughly the positions and considerations the team developed, studied and initially used (though few views survive the thought experiment curveballs during the judges Q&A) – hoping you find the examples and/or structure helpful.

And if the text is too small or you’d like to use the editable file, just email (matt (at) mattdeaton.com) – happy to share.

The following guest case analysis by DePauw IEB team member, Marko Mavrovic, concerns a controversial practice at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington.

Evergreen College created the “Day of Absence,” a tradition to emphasize the lack of inclusion of people of color on campus. Students and staff members of color would leave campus for the day to emphasize their importance to the university. In 2017, however, the self-segregation of people of color shifted to an encouraged segregation of white people. The event organizers requested that white members of the university remove themselves from campus for the day. This was to show solidarity with minority students and to dismantle white supremacy by having whites relinquish control of white dominated spaces. Understandably, some were not pleased with this request. One of whom was Professor Bret Weinstein, who wrote in emails that the request was a “show of force” and an “act of exclusion” directed towards white students, something that would promote the opposite of an inclusive university.

Moral Dilemma: There are several moral dilemmas in this case, but the main dilemma is whether the goal of an inclusive campus environment justifies exclusionary, albeit temporary, practices against one race of people. The issue of free speech constitutes another, minor moral dilemma.

Motivations for the 2017 Day of Absence: The case highlights that the request for white members of the university to leave campus was done in part so that whites could relinquish their control of white-dominated spaces. Presumably, an additional motivation or justification for this request was a desire to have white students and faculty endure the feeling of exclusion that many marginalized peoples and ethnic minorities experience during their lifetime.

Day of Absence is not the only means – and may not even be the best means – of achieving the desired end. If the goal is to integrate historically underrepresented people or racial and ethnic minorities into the wider community, it seems a day of segregation is not the best way of achieving that goal. Asking white faculty and students to leave simply because they are white is not the means by which a community is going to become fully integrated.

There are other and possibly better ways of addressing this lack of inclusivity. Why is it important to understand that alternatives exist? Because opponents of Weinstein accused him of racism and being against the efforts to make a more inclusive environment simply because he was protesting the Day of Absence. Weinstein was not protesting the goal, he was protesting this specific way in which was the school sought to achieve the goal. Even the previous incarnation of Evergreen’s Day of Absence seems preferable to the 2017 versions because a group of students willingly removed themselves from campus to illustrate their importance to the university. Asking and encouraging other people – based solely on their skin color – to leave campus is detrimental to that goal.  One example of the numerous alternatives to address the so-called equity gaps would be hold a forum in which historically underrepresented people or racial and ethnic minorities air their grievances and the campus community engages in actual, active dialogue to come to a collaborative solution. Another alternative is a course on historical marginalization, so that students are aware of societal ills of the past and how they inform the present. However, the presence of alternative means does not itself make the Day of Absence impermissible. Such a principle would be hard to defend. One would have to demonstrate that the means work against achieving the desired ends.

The Illogical Nature of the Day of Absence: It may be worth stating the obvious: inclusion by exclusion is logically contradictory. The expressed goal of Evergreen’s Day of Absence is to emphasize the lack of inclusion of people of color and address the “equity gaps” of the school’s community. But it is important to remember that words have meaning. The adjective “inclusive” refers to not excluding any section of society or party involved in something. Asking or encouraging white students to leave campus, as the Day of Absence did in 2017, is an act of exclusion. It is the opposite of inclusion. It is akin to saying Addition by Subtraction. P and not P. While this argument focuses the logic of the linguistics, the contradiction illustrates how asking certain people to leave campus is not a viable way of ensuring all people are integrated on campus.

A Temporary, Not Permanent Measure: One way of responding to concern that the Day of Absence is “an act of exclusion” is to point out this is a temporary and unenforceable measure. It is not a permanent demand of the segregation of white people and people of color. It is rather a demonstration to foster some reflection and create empathy for the “inclusivity” cause. Yet it is more than reasonable to take a principled stance against any act of exclusion based on immutable characteristics of a person, regardless if the act is temporary, unenforceable, or exhibitionist in nature.

Freedom of Speech? While I maintain that freedom of speech is not a main focus of this case, the case does invite further consideration of it. Weinstein expressed his thoughts on the matter and he should be able to do so as he is a member of the university community. Actions that affect the community of which one is a part should allow for opinions of support or disapproval. Just as Weinstein should be permitted to protest the Day of Absence, we believe that the students that disagree with him should be able protest his expressed opinion. But those students should not be violent or prevent him from expressing his opinion, (i.e. threatening him, barricading his office, searching for his personal spaces); doing so would be a limitation of free speech.

— Marko Mavrovic

As a high school ethics bowl coach, I’ve found that it’s between rounds one and two, and two and three, that a team will be most eager for and receptive to feedback – more malleable and open to modifying their approach. Once you get past round two, some fall into tacit roles, and their question response pattern becomes difficult to adjust.

Below is an example of feedback I provided my team between rounds 1 and 2 during a recent bowl in Tennessee. Notice how I emphasized both what they were doing well, and opportunities for improvement.

Last, know that sometimes no matter how clearly you convey your suggestions, teams will still forget to consider and respond to a possible objection, continue to say, “In our opinion…” and continue to go overboard in thanking the judges. All you can do is coach. How well the respond is largely on them.