Money is the ultimate equalizer. The names on Ryland Hall and Mitchell-Freeman should be changed. One would be hard pressed to come up with moral reasons to keep the names as they are now. However, moral reasons are not what are being considered. The Board of Trustees does not want to send the message that if you donate money that your name could be stripped from your contribution at a later date. Whether that view is personally motivated or not is irrelevant. It exists and is likely here to stay. The Board of Trustees is in charge of maintaining the well-being of the University, i.e. its finances. To that end they are doing a pretty good job. The “simplest” fix to the issue at hand would be for someone exceptionally rich to donate a vast sum of money on the condition that the names are changed. The hard part is finding that person. Odds are if any of the current/past donors cared enough then it would already be done. I have heard arguments that the Board of Trustees should listen to what the students want as ostensibly we are the heart of the university. That is unlikely to happen. Instead, we should aspire to do better when we are in their position. When we are on the boards of organizations and universities in the future, we should try to put aside our egos and listen to the student body and generation we are affecting. Will this happen? That is hard to say, only time will tell.

On a related note, the timing of the name changes was poor at best. It was done on a random Wednesday, the day after the email was sent out. The process of research and decision making took a decently long amount of time, so odds are people would not notice if the decision had been delayed a few more months to the end of the semester. This would have reduced negative publicity and given the University more time and options to deal with the backlash we now know with the benefit of hindsight was inevitable. I am not advocating for pushing the problem further down the road, but instead a more conscientious effort to apply whatever decisions were made. Ryland is not even done being renovated so the University certainly had time to make a decision on that building. With regards to Mitchell-Freeman, as a resident, I still catch myself calling it Freeman Hall. It is ingrained in my mind and it will take time for that to change. If the change had been made over the summer, then the next set of residents would naturally call it by its new name. That does not mean that people who currently live in the building and others around campus get a free pass in calling it Freeman, but instead those individuals who refer to it most would be more easily be able to set a positive example. Long story short, the whole process was a mess and the University has a lot to learn

I will preface my blog post by stating I am against all prescription drugs being unrestricted. In the first section, when Dr. Flanigan writes the “risky access” part, why does Danny not just get a second opinion? For something as nuanced as diabetes treatments, doctors usually have different views on how to best proceed. Further, Danny is not a doctor. How would he know what type of insulin to purchase? The amount? Usage? Some of you might say that he could use the internet, but I counter that the internet can be very misleading. He would most likely come upon the wrong answer, possibly causing terrible harm to himself. While I guess it is his choice to do terrible harm to himself, it does not seem like such a good idea. Another point of contention I have is when Dr. Flanigan states, “Even if an institutionalized right of self-medication did cause more anxiety for all patients, widespread low-level unease wouldn’t necessarily outweigh the anxiety and fruition that is borne by patients who would take advantage of medical option that they presently lack under prohibitive regimes” (582). The easy counter to the statement is that the widespread low-level unease for all patients might actually outweigh any benefits that other patients would garner. We can not know the answer because, as the Effective Altruism reading pointed out, QALY’s and WALY’s are an inexact science at best. Dr. Flanigan’s statement also provides a significant reason why all prescription drugs will never be unrestricted entirely; Too many people would be negatively affected by it, so they will not vote for it. I personally would not trade having more anxiety for others to have the ability to take advantage of previously unattainable medical options. Granted, I have always had great relationships with my physicians and have been recommended to some of the world’s best in their respective fields. That likely skews my views in favor of physical control and many members of my family being doctors.
A particular part of Dr. Flanigan’s work seems especially relevant during these COVID times. If antibiotics become unregulated, then ‘superbugs’ would likely become more apparent. Considering the past year, I would not be surprised if said actions resulted in a pandemic. Why would we risk that? Sure, the paper touches on public health risks usurping certain rights, but that is after the fact. Why be reactive when we could be proactive in preventing another pandemic?
I do not know enough about the inner-workings of drug prices and insurance coverage to have a fully informed opinion on what would happen to those markets if prescription drugs were unrestricted. However, I hypothesize that drug companies and insurance companies would lose money, which makes all of this unlikely because whether we like it or not, money talks.

I took the Religion IAT, and I am not surprised with my results. We live in a Christian-centric nation where Christmas is months long and Easter is a cultural phenomenon. Having a slight automatic preference for Christianity over Islam was what I expected going into the test. Additionally the order of preference for most respondents (I just analyzed the three different tables given) of Christianity first, Judaism second after a steep drop off, and Islam third was unsurprising. The only part of the results that I found at least moderately surprising was that the highest percentage of respondents that showed little to no automatic preference came between Islam and Judaism. While Anti-Semitism is very prevalent, it usually does not receive the same media platform that Islamophobia does. I figured that more people would have a preference towards Judaism simply because it was not Islam, i.e. the better of two bad options, as a result of the media that most Americans are surrounded by. However, it is also likely that people despise both religions equally leading to the no automatic preference. Long story short, America is a Christian country, even if it is not official, and I am not surprised about it.

Lying is bad. Or, that is what I at least was grown up being told. As the reading pointed out, almost everyone has responded to the question “How are you?” by replying with “fine,” “ok,” or something similar. Odds are, however, you were not fine. You may have been amazing, but you did not want to make anyone feel bad by sharing the success that made you happy. Alternatively, you may have been having a crappy day but did not want to talk about it. Either way, you lied. Does that make you a bad person? Probably not. White lies are usually seen as, at the very worst, being morally neutral. While other types of lies, such as blue and red, skew more towards being immoral, there is no rule stating that one must be honest. 

The reading brings up the possibility that humans are genetically predisposed to lying. While it somewhat seems like a copout to cover up for humanity’s fondness for deceit, it does make sense. So long as they do not get caught, liars tend to do better daily. There have been countless stories about a fake prince/princess or wealthy heir/heiress that took advantage of their lavish image, despite being in heavy debt, to garner the favor of others. It does all come crashing down at some point. When the lie catches up with them, but up until that point, their life is good. To use an unpopular example, take COVID-19 vaccines. The lack of centralized vaccination eligibility requirements has created a loophole system that allows an individual who is motivated enough to acquire a vaccine ahead of their place in line by lying. Claiming residency in another state, lying about a medical condition (smoking is a common one to lie about), or lying about a profession have all been used to significant effect. Those individuals are, without a doubt, better off than those who have not been vaccinated. They are less likely to die, be in pain, suffer financial hardship, etc., than those who are not vaccinated. In this case, lying is morally wrong, but it worked. If homo sapiens are predisposed to lying, does that make all of us terrible people? I do not think so. I believe a more nuanced viewpoint is needed. Humans are likely predisposed to lie, but we must also recognize that the world is continuously evolving. While still highly effective, lying is not as needed as it may have been in the past. It does not hurt to lie a little, as long as one does not lie to himself that one is not being entirely truthful.

Cheating or breaking the rules is typically seen as morally wrong. Does this mean that supporting a beloved sports team that broke the rules is also morally wrong? Typically, saying “Go Saints!!!” would be morally neutral. There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about rooting for a specific team. However, the Saints were accused and “convicted” of targeting opposing players with the intent to injure in what is now commonly called “Bountygate.” Paying someone to intentionally injure someone else is pretty clear-cut in being immoral. Therefore, it is logical to say that the Saints are immoral or, at the very least, were immoral at that time. Controversy does not arise from calling the Saints immoral, but it certainly does when calling their fans’ decision to root for them immoral. Supporting a racist organization such as the KKK is immoral, even if an individual is not a member. Logic would follow that supporting an immoral organization is in itself an immoral action. Ignorance, however, could be fans saving grace. There was no way for fans of the Saints to have known what was transpiring behind closed doors. They cannot be blamed for rooting for their team when they did not know about the immoral actions. However, once the allegations came to light, if they supported the team’s actions or downplayed them, then that would make them immoral.

What about an individual cheating by, for example, utilizing performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs)? Working under the assumption that cheating is wrong, then using PEDs is clearly immoral. Is it immoral to root for a player after they have been convicted of using PEDs? One can never be certain that a player is playing without them once they are convicted the first time. And does having an immoral player on a team make the entire team immoral? I say no unless the team was aware of the doping and attempted to hide it. The effects of doping can carry on for decades after the initial rule-breaking. Hall of Fame voting is thrown for a loop. The statistics of every player who ever faced the doper must be looked at with a new lens. And, arguably most importantly, earnings could have been negatively affected in so many ways. Whether or not a fan is immoral for rooting for their team of choice is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. However, it is interesting to jump down the rabbit hole and truly think about the morals of certain aspects of sports fandom, at least before we are all drawn back into the action.