One of the most recent ethical dilemmas in American sport is the Title IX lawsuit of Hernandez vs. Baylor University. This is without a doubt one of the most prominent Title IX lawsuits to be filed in the 2000s. The lawsuit filed by Hernandez specifically states that she was raped by a player on the Bears’ football team, and that the university police refused to accommodate to her specific needs following the incident, simply because the rape occurred off-campus. Also, the lawsuit claims that the university failed to properly train their employees on the appropriate responses to sexual assault, and other Title IX policies. Perhaps the most outstanding piece of information in this case is that the university was aware that the player involved,
…show more content…
Yet again, the victim was declined due to the fact that the university claimed to be “powerless”. Expanding on this, the lawsuit also implies that the university failed to properly train their employees, officers, and investigators on how to properly respond to allegations of sexual assault, which is one of the major requirements of Title IX. Simply put, Hernandez and her team of attorneys claimed that Baylor University failed to comply with Federal laws relating to Title IX. The fact that it was hidden that Elliott was a sex offender, compliance with the law does have an affect on the ethical analysis of this situation. Looking at this case through the different lenses of the three ethical theories highlights the viewpoints of both sides. These lenses are comprised of the utilitarian theory, deontological theory, and the humanistic …show more content…
According to Title IX, the university is only required to take action if the incident is reported on campus. This portion of the case relates best to the deontological theory simply because the university focused on their duties, even though it was obviously not in the best interest of the victim for them to do so. With this being said, it is possible that the actions of the university could be found ethical by the deontological theory. However, under the provisions of the deontological theory, the coaches and school officials involved should have felt an intrinsic obligation to meet the needs of the victim after the incident occurred. Instead, the university failed to do as much as return a phone call to the victim’s family. Title IX states that, “…maintaining a safe learning environment is critically important for female students” (Dudley, 2016). Baylor refused to do so, and as a result Hernandez’s grades began to drop, and she then later lost her academic scholarship. Even though the incident happened off-campus, my opinion is that the university still had the moral obligation to ensure Hernandez’s needs were met during the ongoing investigation, regardless who was handling the case. Regardless of the circumstances, Hernandez was still a student at Baylor, and therefore it was their
Yet again, the victim was declined due to the fact that the university claimed to be “powerless”. Expanding on this, the lawsuit also implies that the university failed to properly train their employees, officers, and investigators on how to properly respond to allegations of sexual assault, which is one of the major requirements of Title IX. Simply put, Hernandez and her team of attorneys claimed that Baylor University failed to comply with Federal laws relating to Title IX. The fact that it was hidden that Elliott was a sex offender, compliance with the law does have an affect on the ethical analysis of this situation. Looking at this case through the different lenses of the three ethical theories highlights the viewpoints of both sides. These lenses are comprised of the utilitarian theory, deontological theory, and the humanistic …show more content…
According to Title IX, the university is only required to take action if the incident is reported on campus. This portion of the case relates best to the deontological theory simply because the university focused on their duties, even though it was obviously not in the best interest of the victim for them to do so. With this being said, it is possible that the actions of the university could be found ethical by the deontological theory. However, under the provisions of the deontological theory, the coaches and school officials involved should have felt an intrinsic obligation to meet the needs of the victim after the incident occurred. Instead, the university failed to do as much as return a phone call to the victim’s family. Title IX states that, “…maintaining a safe learning environment is critically important for female students” (Dudley, 2016). Baylor refused to do so, and as a result Hernandez’s grades began to drop, and she then later lost her academic scholarship. Even though the incident happened off-campus, my opinion is that the university still had the moral obligation to ensure Hernandez’s needs were met during the ongoing investigation, regardless who was handling the case. Regardless of the circumstances, Hernandez was still a student at Baylor, and therefore it was their