For lifelong football fans, myself included, this might be a shocking question. Perhaps it seems like something only those in high academics would debate. But, with the recent death of Junior Seau, the ethicality of football has been front and center. For those of you who don’t follow the sports world, Junior Seau was a linebacker who played most famously with the San Diego Chargers, becoming a sports icon in the San Diego area. Seau retired in 2010, after playing since high school. In 2012, he committed suicide at age 43. Later, it was revealed that Seau suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a form of chronic brain damage that has been discovered in other NFL players who died, as well. For those who knew Seau, they say the last few months of his life were marked with abnormal behavior. Just this month, the Seau family sued the NFL over the brain injuries he sustained during his career as a linebacker.

My first reaction to hearing about Seau’s tragic suicide was probably similar to many others who followed the story. Though terribly sad, Seau chose to play football and knew the injuries were a risk. Sure, the NFL could have provided more medical and psychological help to its players once they retired, but it doesn’t seem like we can hold them responsible for his death, right? But, then I started reading more and more about the perils of professional football.

In 2010 Malcolm Gladwell penned what has since become a rather famous op-ed in the New Yorker comparing football to dog fighting. Gladwell recounted the story dozens of former NFL and college players who are, or were, suffering from brain injuries. Line players can suffer up to 1,000 hits in the head in just one season. All these head injuries seem to have a real and scary effect on the players. Seau’s suicide wasn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last. In 2006, Andre Waters, a defensive back, shot himself; Owen Thomas, a defensive end and former UPenn captain, hung himself; retired safety Dave Duerson shot himself in 2011; and former safety Ray Easterling shot himself just a week before Seau did. This is not an isolated incident.

But, football players choose to play football. They are never forced to play, and in fact few who desire to play at the highest levels achieve it. Moreover, they’re getting paid a pretty good sum of money, so that makes up for possible injuries and risk…right? The flip side of this free will argument is that football is, as BuzzFeed writer Kevin Lincoln wrote, “the contemporary equivalent of gladiatorial combat…killing young men slowly…our loyalty condones this and makes it not only acceptable but wildly profitable.”

Do both these arguments have merit? Certainly, no one is ever forced to play, but the cult of adoration surrounding football creates a whirlwind that becomes hard to stop. Perhaps most alarming is that these dangerous hits don’t start at the college level, or even high school. It starts in elementary school with Pop Warner. Moreover, it’s not as if the trauma of multiple hits to the head begins when a player actually makes it into professional football. It begins all the way back in elementary school and slowly builds. College athletes aren’t even paid for the risks they are taking. Should we really let children play a game we know to be dangerous and have potentially life-altering effects? And, football hits have gotten more severe over time as players get faster and bigger. Even President Obama shared some concerns about this in a recent interview, saying that although the NFL players are getting paid, “as we start thinking about the pipeline, Pop Warner, high school, college, I want to make sure we are doing everything we can to make the sport safer.”

Moreover, why isn’t the NFL doing more to help the current players and those entering the game at a young age. Rather than address the physical and psychological traumas of football, the NFL constantly finds ways to obfuscate and ignore the issue. It will be interesting to see what their reaction to the Seau family suit will be

But, even if the NFL were more open with their players about the potentially behavior-altering, traumatic nature of football, what else could they do? Short of banning football or capping how long players can play (which seems unlikely given the extraordinary pay incentives and loyal fanbase), as long as people keep watching football, football will still be played. So, do we have an ethical imperative to stop watching football? Should we demand real change in the NFL’s policies and incentive system in order to protect the players? Are we contributing to the disturbingly long litany of former NFL players who have committed suicide or been seriously affected by brain injuries?

It’s hard for me to address these questions. I have always loved football. I’ve watched games with my dad since I can remember. I have many good memories of Duke Football game days, Super Bowl parties, and Friday night games in high school. It’s not something that’s easy for me to come to terms with—yet, I can’t deny how troubling I find all the evidence mounted up against the NFL. I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that yesterday I was thinking about a lot more than what kind of wings I should get for my Super Bowl party.  

My first interaction with this elimination tactic was at my public high school in South Dakota. This is a brutal paraphrasing of what happened, but a mother was concerned that her child had gained weight despite healthy eating habits at home. Therefore, the mother blamed the school, where her child could buy soda and snacks in the vending machines and in the school store. After a tumultuous battle with the school district, the mother’s efforts were successful and no longer could you find ‘unhealthy’ food in school. Gone were the days of buying candy in the school store; gone were the days of purchasing regular chips – not Sun Chips or Chex Mix – with your lunch; and gone were the days of having a soda to get you through that afternoon sleepiness. Instead, we were presented with trail mix, Chex Mix, and sugary sports drinks as our ‘healthy options.’ It’s a far cry to call these alternatives healthy; healthier than before, but still, not truly good for you.

Now, mass recipe re-engineering in companies such as PepsiCo and Kraft is seeking to eliminate the ‘unhealthiness’ before it is presented to consumers. As discussed in this Wall Street Journal article, Frito-Lay (yes, the company that makes your beloved barbecue potato chips, Doritos, and Cheetos, among other snacks) wants to make half of its products with only natural ingredients by year’s end. This means no more artificial ingredients. Their ‘natural’ fleet of chips won’t contain MSG, but rather “molasses, malted barley flour and paprika” the article states.

So, where is there ethics in this? First, I think it should be pointed out that I’m hesitant to call potato chips – natural or not – healthy: yes, they are less bad than before, but it’s a stretch to call them good. By stamping ‘natural’ and ‘better for you’ all over their new products, which Frito-Lay will undoubtedly do in marketing this new fleet, they are giving consumers the idea that eating chips is now good for you. Frito Lay and similar attempts to move to fewer artificial ingredients is relatively better, but it’s not an absolute good. If snackers think they are making a healthy choice by eating these chips, then they are going to think it is ok to eat them when in reality there are much healthier choices. Moreover, these advocates are never going to completely eliminate all ‘unhealthy’ foods and artificial ingredients, so why not take a more realistic approach? And finally, what gives other individuals the right to say what I can and cannot eat? The fundamental problem I have with both scenarios is that instead of promoting healthy eating habits, advocates are seeking to eliminate our options. If they presented me with healthy and unhealthy options but I had proper eating habits in my arsenal, there would be no need for Frito-Lay to tell me their chips are made of ‘real food’ because I would choose the truly healthy option such as an apple.

My belief that people have the right to choose the healthy or unhealthy option was my rationale for my lobbying efforts to get some healthy options put in vending machines on campus. There is no reason to get rid of all the traditional junk food in a vending machine, just have a few healthy options for those who want to make that choice.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0]

It is understandable to be in a state of shock right now. Most people are. What can you say to something like this? Is it good music? Is it bad music? What makes music good? And can I laugh at her?

Black’s song ultimately holds its place in society directly as a result of how conventionally bad it is, which also forces us to question how exactly we judge people on the internet. Is it alright to laugh at a person who may be following her dreams simply because she produced a very poor quality music video? Is it alright to laugh at the girl below due to her equally unusual method of perfecting her singing?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2xzWbRwOio]

Just because Rebecca Black’s “Friday” is a horrible song lyrically and perhaps even musically, does its somewhat catchy beat and mostly useless message make it a good piece of music? I don’t think so. And does it have to be respected? Absolutely not, in my opinion.

I think that no piece of information needs to be completely respected as if it were a person on the internet. When watching these videos, we laugh because they represent something funny, not because we are trying to hurt those involved in the creation of the video. As long as people are not criticizing the person directly (which unfortunately happens all too frequently), and thus harming that person, I don’t think there is anything wrong with laughing at a teenage girl having fun fun fun fun!

What do you think?

[polldaddy poll=4825651]

Photo credit: Decafinata via Flickr

Remember when smoking was good for you? Well, not anymore. At least that’s what most people would tell you, and they tend to readily blame Hollywood for glamorizing the act of smoking. Recent studies further reinforce this claim. A recent article published in The Economist discusses the discovery of increased brain activity (in the form of mirror neurons) for smokers when they view a movie in which people are smoking. The article quotes Scott Heuttel, a neuroscientist at Duke, who says, “This study builds on a growing body of evidence showing that addiction may be reinforced not just by the drugs themselves but by images and other experiences associated with those drugs.”  The writer goes on to suggest that people will come out in protest against movies that feature characters who smoke.

Is pretending smoking doesn’t exist really the right answer? First, it’s unreasonable to ask Hollywood to only feature society-approved acts in their films. (And who is “society” anyway?) Movies are often meant to serve as an escape from reality, not as a boring replication of what you can see in your own town for free. Dictating what can and cannot be showed in theatres could seriously hurt the movie-making industry.

But my real issue with removing smoking from films is that it’s an inconsistent request. If people wish to prevent the showing of disagreeable social acts, will they also attempt to ban murder, crime, violence, prostitution, etc.? These acts all add intrigue to the plot, and regardless of whether you approve of the acts themselves, they are often entertaining on the big screen.

You may argue that the aforementioned acts are so blatantly wrong that preventing viewers from seeing them is unnecessary. Fair enough. But what about gambling, premarital sex, and even obesity? The study of mirror neurons also supports an increased desire in obese people to eat when they view others eating. So should we stop showing people eating in theatres? Obesity can be just as harmful as smoking. And it is undeniably a significant problem in this country. Or maybe we should stop them from showing skinny people, because this just encourages eating disorders? On the flip side, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong has done a lot of research suggesting our neurological makeup influences our morality. So maybe seeing people doing “good” in movies can alter viewers’ moral decisions outside of the theater.

I support informing youth through programs such as D.A.R.E. and Health in schools. I appreciate eating in a smoke-free environment when I go out. But please, leave my movies alone.