Philosophy’s Ronald Loeffler did not go looking for the role, but it found him anyway. It was actually his colleague Peggy Vandenberg who through her affiliation with the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics introduced the idea of GVSU participating in the Ethics Bowl. Peggy was not herself in a position to take up establishing a new student activity. Ronald realized that having finished a multi-year project, and since he teaches ethical theory (though his own research lies elsewhere), he was able to take up this new challenge and become the team’s faculty advisor.

“We flooded campus email shamelessly to recruit students before Labor Day,” Ronald confessed with a smile. The wide net scooped up 20 interested students for the initial meeting and many were not philosophy majors. Thirteen have stuck it out, spending three hours every Tuesday evening preparing themselves.

“It’s very cognitive—left side of the brain.”

From a number of possible ethical topics, the students practiced a format that would be unfamiliar in quiz or debate competitions. Formatted not unlike a classical oration, the students learn to express their position on the ethical question with an opening, a presentation of their main argument, a discussion of or reference to alternative views, and a wrap-up.

When teams from different universities meet, they are judged on the quality they bring to their presentations, but not—as in debate—on the clash of opposing views. 

“There are a bunch of outcome goals,” Ronald explained. “It’s not just about winning. We are talking about a very different kind of challenge. These are emotional issues that are to be explored calmly, thoughtfully, and patiently. Mutual respect is emphasized.”

Students this year took on these issues:

Should euthanasia be permitted for existential suffering? 

Should universities protect free speech even when it is racially charged, regardless of the speaker's intentions? 

Does the Goldwater Rule for psychiatrists (prohibiting them from publicly commenting on the mental health of public figures without previously having examined them) have a chilling effect on psychiatrists who feel they have a duty to warn the public? 

Does the exhibition Eric Gill: The Body serve the public good? (The exhibition featured sculptures by the renowned English sculptor Eric Gill of his own daughters, created during a time period when he sexually abused his daughters, and explicitly put the exhibited art into the context of that abuse. The theme of the exhibition was "whether knowledge of Gill's disturbing biography affects our enjoyment and appreciation of his depiction of the human figure").

Should elevated testosterone levels in professional female athletes be a sufficient reason for disqualifying them from competing? 

Trusts and corporations have the legal status of personhood. Should natural resources (such as rivers or ecosystems) be granted that status as well? 

In addition, the students had to be prepared to speak to cases about Gonzo Journalism, the ethics of podcasting, and the Keystone Pipeline. However, these cases didn't come up in the regionals.

The format, as Wikipedia explains, is:

...the moderator poses a question to the team, and after two minutes to confer, the team must state their answer within ten minutes. The responding team then has one minute to present a response to the first team's answer for five minutes, and the first team then has a chance to respond to these comments for 5 minutes with 1 minute before to confer. Finally, the panel of judges ... questions the first team, either to clarify a point, or to elicit a team's viewpoint on an ethical aspect raised in their response. The judges then proceed to evaluate the first team'' response and the second team's comment based on the following criteria: clarity and intelligibility, focus on ethically relevant factors, avoidance of ethical irrelevance, and deliberative thoughtfulness. The round then repeats this format with the second team receiving a question about a different case.

"A major distinction between ethics bowl and debate is that the students get to pick their position. The other team does not have to argue the other side, but may choose to strengthen the argument. They are making a space for reason. They must really listen, point out further connections, strengthen our ability to assess the argument.” Ronald went on to point out that critical thinking is not set aside in favor of cooperation and that the process is less like a courtroom and rather resembles how local administrations do their problem solving.

“The experience makes me optimistic that this is humanly possible. I’m struck by how our teams converged and were capable of sophisticated arguments for that convergence of views. They were strengthening the argument and seeing the weakness, and showing the potential for people to agree. Students felt this too.”

Ethics bowl had its beginnings in an ‘ethics for engineers’ course in 1993 taught by Dr. Robert Ladenson of the Illinois Institute of Technology. It has spread ever since.

The cases are all available open source which is a boon to those teaching ethics courses. 

While the Grand Valley team did not move on to the national competition after their first intercollegiate outing (November 10-11, 2017), they made a strong showing against the very teams who did progress. The Grand Valley Philosophical Fortnights newsletter proudly proclaimed their participation in the Midwest Regionals at Indianapolis and interim chair David Vessey proved an enthusiastic supporter.

“The three rounds were exhausting,” Ronald remembered on behalf of himself and his co-coach Peggy. “Twelve of the students travelled with us so we had two teams—we can seat five for a round so a couple sit out each round.”

Everyone is excited to continue and improve. Ronald has attended an aspiring coach’s workshop and the students have insisted on winter term practice sessions so they have a real opportunity to prep for fall 2018. They will pore over the major issues the cases raise and work to improve their public speaking. 

“Nationals are in Chicago. I’ve volunteered to judge and hope that some of the students will travel down to observe,” Ronald said looking forward.