F

irst, it’s just a bit of
light flashing in front
of your eyes and a

nebulous blue-black amoeba
swimming in your
vision. Then after
a bit of clouding,
your
thinking

begins to slow, with
no particular pain.
Your
reactions?

They’re
just
a

millisecond behind.
Your throw? Just
slightly to the left.
Your
hearing?

Just a bit muffled.
Sometimes you stumble out
of the area of play, wander
over to put your head in
your hands. Though it isn’t
particularly painful, you’re
taken aback by how dull
everything feels, as if a fog
descended over your face.

As
someone
who
has

experienced quick, powerful
hits to the head in close
succession,
these
are
the

immediate
symptoms
that

arise. These types of hits to
the head have brought about
a commonplace discussion on
the rise of Chronic Traumatic
Encephalopathy
cases

reported in players of football,
rugby, hockey, soccer and a
variety of other sports.

CTE is a degenerative brain

disease caused by a history
of repetitive brain trauma.
When too many hits are made
to the head in one’s lifetime, a
protein is produced in greater
quantity than normal, causing
the brain to deteriorate. It can
lead to depression, psychosis,
dementia and even death.

When
Aaron
Hernandez

— the former New England
Patriots football player who
was convicted of murder in
2015 — was diagnosed with
CTE after his suicide, much of
the world saw another reason
to question football’s place in
our society. Was the style of
play too violent? Were there
enough “checks and balances”
to ensure player safety? Only
27 years old when he died,
Hernandez’s autopsy found
he had already experienced
very progressive CTE.

With such brain trauma,

I
certainly
began
having

suspicions
correlating
his

behavior
to
his
diagnosis.

From reports, his emotions
fluctuated
often,
which

certainly could lead to crime
and
suicide.
Even
more

disturbing, previous players
found with CTE were known to
have erratic off-field behavior.
I was taken aback that much
of the CTE focus was directed
at the sport. The demise of
football
isn’t
the
question

we should be asking. CTE is
opening the door to a realm
of “neuroethics” that must

be addressed; otherwise, our
judicial system will be faced
with an extreme ethics crisis.

A
major
aspect
of
the

vast
and
quickly

developing
field

of neuroscience is
that it is still highly
correlational. With
that notion comes
a
foggy
line
on

what brain patterns
and
chemical

interactions
exactly
yield

certain
behaviors.

Nevertheless, even

without total and complete
justification for the actions,
its presentation has certainly
already made its appearance
in
courtrooms
across
the

nation.
Since
2005,
the

appearance
of
arguments

based
on
neuroscience
in

courtrooms has more than
doubled and is quickly rising.
More importantly, it shows a
major flaw in how we approach
science in the courtroom.

John Oliver’s latest piece on

forensic science highlighted
this flaw, and it certainly has
alluded to the neuroethics
that should be highlighted
in cases about CTE. The
legal practice has progressed
(in
my
opinion,
through

a realization of collective
mistakes)
developments
in

our society’s conscience that
can be highly inconsistent and
rather subjective. By contrast,
the field of neuroscience is
far more absolute, looking
for concrete statements and
conclusions based on highly
developed
and
systematic

approaches.
I
posit
that

we find the latter far more
appealing, which is why, even
with the fogginess in the
correlation between behavior
and
neurological
makeup,

it is rather convincing to
demonstrate that “science”
is
the
reason
why
such

abhorrent actions occurred.

The problem with CTE

arising in the case of Aaron
Hernandez
might
not
be

entirely obvious, but where

exactly
does
one
place

blame? Is it the NFL? Is it his
environment off the field? Or
is assigning blame even what
we should be considering?

If someone does something

abhorrent,
certainly
there

must be some blame assigned.
As a part of our societal
makeup, too often I find the
need to blame is written into
our culture. Nevertheless, I
counter that it might not be
the best way to see “justice”
in
our
legal
system.
As

David Eagleman, a leading
neuroscientist at Stanford,
explains, “The choices we
make are inseparably yoked
to
our
neural
circuitry,

and therefore we have no
meaningful
way
to
tease

the two apart. The more
we
learn,
the
more
the

seemingly simple concept of
blameworthiness
becomes

complicated, and the more
the foundations of our legal
system are strained.” The rise
in conversation surrounding
CTE, and how the disease
might have affected Aaron
Hernandez’s behavior, will
soon
be
confronted
with

questions of what and who to
blame, and a collective debate
must ensue.

Along with “blameworthiness,”

another
issue
is
that
CTE

— as well as many other
brain disorders — are found
only
after
the
perpetrator

was
deceased.
Certainly

advancements in neuroscience
technology
might
fix
this

issue, but at the moment
it leaves a possible hole in
how the legal arguments are
framed and designed. When
the
perpetrator
commits

the crime, what activity in
their youth could contribute
to issues in brain function,
leading them to commit a
crime? Did they have a disease
that has not been diagnosed?

With more flaws rising

in the legal structure, the
questions on CTE certainly
make me question the future
design of law. To address
these
issues,
one
must

recognize that the law is
currently
designed
as
an

adjustment to the present.
The structure of our legal
system is to take an issue that
is presently occurring and
push the discussion through
the courts until the doctrine
modifies to the norms. Let me
suggest that the legal system
begin questioning ways it
can adjust its viewpoint from
adapting to the present to
developing for the future:
to the questions of free will,
what or who is to blame and
what it means to be human.

R

ecently, U.S. Attorney
Joon
Kim
dropped

a
bombshell
on
the

college basketball world. Four
assistant coaches from Power
Five
programs
—
Auburn

University’s
Chuck
Person,

the
University
of
Southern

California’s Tony Bland, the
University of Arizona’s Emanuel
“Book”
Richardson
and

Oklahoma
State
University’s

Lamont Evans — were charged
in
various
cases
involving

corruption and bribery. Six
other
individuals,
including

an Adidas executive, financial
planners and agents were also
implicated. Federal authorities
allege the men negotiated deals
designed to illegally funnel
recruits
to
specific
college

programs, then to agreed-upon
apparel companies and agent
services
once
the
athletes

turned professional.

While some have been quick

to point fingers at individuals
and programs as roots of the
problem,
it’s
the
ultimate

failure of the NCAA that has
enabled such alleged rampant
corruption to take place. Not
only has the NCAA created a
system that empowers higher-
ups to exploit college athletes,
but its capability to efficiently
regulate the system has proven
borderline anemic.

Throughout
its
history,

the
NCAA
has
remained

steadfast in its commitment to
“amateurism” and the concept
of a “student-athlete,” often
taking unpopular measures to
preserve their reputation. For
instance, in the past month
alone it suspended a Central
Florida backup placekicker and
a freshman Texas A&M cross-
country runner for using their
athlete “likeness” to profit off
their
respective
images
on

personal YouTube channels.

Such
nitpicky,
trivial

rules have come under fire
from players, coaches, fans
and pundits alike. Even Jim

Harbaugh,
University
of

Michigan football coach, got in
on the action after unknowingly
committing a minor infraction
in
2015
—
dismissing
the

violation
by
quoting
Oscar

Wilde in a tweet that stated,
“Thought of the day: ‘No good
deed goes unpunished.’”

Concurrently, the landscape

of collegiate athletics has been
rife with scandals of massive
proportion.
Most
recently,

the University of Louisville’s
basketball
team
employed

strippers on recruiting visits
(and
subsequently
forfeited

the 2013 national title). And for
decades, the Ed Martin booster
situation has plagued the Fab
Five’s legacy. There have been
countless other cases which
have highlighted the pervasive
use of illicit recruiting tactics
to garner commitments from
high-profile players. Therefore,
it was alarmingly ironic to
hear William Sweeney Jr., the
assistant director of the FBI’s
New York office, refer to the
Bureau’s Sept. 26 charges as
contributing to “a ‘pay-for-
play’ culture that has no place
in college basketball.” Clearly,
such a culture has already
manifested itself deep within
the sport’s identity.

Unfortunately, this underbelly

largely stems from the NCAA’s
staunch
unwillingness
to

allow athletes to tap into the
billion-dollar
college
sports

industry,
thus
generating

incentives to facilitate back-
channel
transactions
with

third parties. Because recruits
cannot profit off their name by
signing autographs, receiving
a portion of jersey sales or any
other endeavor that leverages
their athletic status for financial
gain, the door is wide open for
organizations to capitalize on
a player’s long-term potential
by compensating them now. By
making a relatively small bet,
whether it be through a bribing
a coach or directing payments

to the recruit and his or her
inner circle, companies can
secure future gains with the
promise of returning the favor
in the form of lucrative apparel
deals, sponsorships or mere
association when the athlete
eventually turns professional.
Right or wrong, the unpaid
collegiate system has produced
this opportunity, and as long
as it’s available, people will
take advantage.

What’s more is that even

with a system whose flaws are
widely recognized, the NCAA
has limited abilities in how it
can actually pursue wrongdoing.
As a private institution, it has
no subpoena power or formal
legal authority, thus severely
hindering the extent to which it
can acquire necessary and useful
information to aid investigations.

This weakness was exposed

by
the
FBI’s
process
of

gathering facts to formulate its
allegations. The FBI used a pro-
athlete financial planner who
was close to the scandal “to get
an undercover agent into hotel
rooms, meetings and deals.” As
a result, it was able to record
intimate
conversations
and

confidently implicate numerous
figures.
Such
an
operation

is squarely outside the legal
jurisdiction of the NCAA, and
epitomizes its inherent inability
to take necessary measures to
purge the system’s offenders.

Therefore,
though
the

ongoing FBI investigation may
topple some notable coaches,
programs and other entities,
its implications may also have
long-lasting effects. Perhaps
when it’s all said and done,
after realizing how much the
system perpetuates a pay-to-
play and then fails to regulate
it, people will finally demand
real change in the NCAA. Until
then, we can at least enjoy
watching it crash and burn
before our very eyes.

N

early two weeks after
Hurricane
Maria

hit
Puerto
Rico,

destroying much of its critical
infrastructure — most notably,
95 percent of the electrical
grid
—
President
Donald

Trump
visited
the
island.

His statements there, which
should have contained at the
very least traces of empathy,
were as ego-driven as usual.

Almost
immediately
upon

arrival,
he
complained
the

territory
had
“thrown
our

budget a little out of whack”
and lauded island officials for
the relatively low death toll —
which, at 16 deaths, was much
lower than Hurricane Katrina’s.

Later, he praised Ricardo

Rosselló, governor of Puerto
Rico, saying, “He’s not even
from my party, and he started
right
at
the
beginning,

appreciating what we did …
Right from the beginning, this
governor did not play politics.
He didn’t play it at all. He
was saying it like it was, and
he was giving us the highest
grades. On behalf of our
country, I wanna thank you.”

I’m not sure what complete

failure of conscience causes
someone
to
see
a
natural

disaster in terms of “grades”
or — as he did with U.S. Rep.
Jenniffer González-Colón, the
territory’s
Republican
non-

voting
representative
—
to

request further praise, now that
he and the media were there:

“Jenniffer, do you think you

can say a little bit (of) what
you said about us today?”
Trump asked. “And it’s not
about me. It’s about these
incredible people, from the
military to FEMA to first
responders. I mean, I’ve never
seen people working so hard
in my life. Perhaps you could
say, congresswoman?”

I’m not sure why, at this

point, I find myself freshly
disgusted with each instance
of cold-blooded narcissism.
What else, from a former
reality television star? The
drive to seek attention is
threaded into the deepest
parts of his personality and,

for Trump, there has ceased to
be a line too far. Everything —
even a major natural disaster
that affected more than three
million U.S. citizens — is a
chance to capture a few more
seconds of media spotlight.

For some time now, I’ve

debated whether or not the
media’s critique of Trump is
useful in any concrete way —
if it’s actually accomplishing
something, or if it simply
exists to validate the opinions
of
people
who
have
long

since
come
to
hate
him.

This particular instance of
ineptitude, though, leads me to
believe that the media has been
forced into a role it hasn’t held
since the advent of 24-hour
cable news: that of an educator.

Much in the same way

“The
Learning
Channel”

stopped learning quite some
time ago, our major cable
news networks have drifted
further
and
further
from

actual news. No one wants to
pay for dry analysis and Wolf
Blitzer reading sleepily from a
teleprompter, but they’re more
than willing when it’s coverage
of scandal, the horserace or
political squabbles.

Even
our
president
isn’t

immune to this effect. He
reportedly loves the television,
with
the
Washington
Post

estimating that, on an average
day, he consumes five hours’
worth.
Furthermore,
unlike

former
Presidents
Clinton

and Obama, he watches it for

current coverage of himself —
not as an escape from it. Our
media institutions are thus
faced with the unfortunate
task of educating the president
through the only thing he has a
sustained attention span for.

If President Trump prefers

to
receive
intelligence

briefings condensed to one
page with “killer graphics,”
it may be useful to take
those lessons to heart when
tweaking
news
broadcasts

for
one
vitally
important

viewer.
Commentators,

instead of scoring unnecessary
extra
points
with
viewers

who
already
share
their

political alignment, might try
coaxing Trump into learning
something. Fox News and CNN
seem to have a united interest
in ensuring that the president
is minimally educated for the
job, even if they have to go
about it in different ways.

Cable news pundits rarely

do
original
journalism,

preferring to repackage the
work
of
print
journalists.

They are thus enabled to
participate in our national
effort to soothe the president’s
wildly
unchecked
ego
by

providing careful discussions
that guide him toward more
stable, researched positions.
His advisers might not be able
to make him read more than
a page, but I certainly believe
Sean Hannity, Wolf Blitzer and
other journalists are capable of
reading to him.

Whether
it
bruises
our

national pride or not, we owe
it to Puerto Rico and those
who will face similar and
greater struggles in the future
to make sure the president
knows how to act in his office.
With any luck, he’ll eventually
internalize
the
ideas
that

people are not responsible
for
natural
disasters,
aid

distribution is not a proper
method of winning support and
that we expect him to pursue
praise through competence,
not performance.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, October 9, 2017

REBECCA LERNER

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

EMMA KINERY

Editor in Chief

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY

and REBECCA TARNOPOL

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

A report card for Trump

HANK MINOR | COLUMN

Neuroethics changes the game

DAVID KAMPER | COLUMN

Hold the NCAA accountable

RYAN WOOCK | OP-ED

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns

Samantha Goldstein

Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Anurima Kumar

Max Lubell

Lucas Maiman

Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

Ashley Zhang

Ryan Woock is an LSA freshman.

Hank Minor can be reached at

hminor@umich.edu.

David Kamper can be reached at

dgkamper@umich.edu.

DAVID

KAMPER

Everything...
is a chance to
capture a few

more seconds of
media spotlight.

SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK

The Opinion section has created a space in The
Michigan Daily for first-person accounts of sexual
assault and its corresponding personal, academic
and legal implications. Submission information
can be found at https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak.

CTE is opening

the door to
a realm of

“neuroethics”
that must be
addressed.