Debates, Casebooks, and Classic Arguments

238 Pages·2017·4.11 MB·English

PA R T
6
Debates,
Casebooks, and
Classic Arguments

CHAPTER
18
DEBATE
Should “Study Drugs”
Be Banned?
Many researchers over the past decade have examined the use of so-called
study drugs on college campuses. For example, a 2009 National Survey on
Drug Use and Health indicated that college students used Adderall at twice
the rate of eighteen- to twenty-two-year olds who did not attend college.
According to a 2009 survey in the Journal of Attention Deficit Disorders,
56% of students with legitimate attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) prescriptions reported having been asked to give or sell their
medication to other students. The anecdotal evidence is disturbing as well.
In “A Ban on Brain-Boosting Drugs Is Not the Answer”(p. 640), Matt Lamkin
describes two student journalists who walk into the University of Wisconsin
library, tap a random undergraduate on the shoulder, and are “connected
with an Adderall supply in less than a minute.” In some cases, people even
fake the symptoms of ADHD to obtain a prescription.
Why are such drugs so popular? What are their dangers? What should
be done to regulate them? The first two questions have relatively simple
answers; the last question, however, is more difficult. Drugs like Ritalin and
Adderall can help students focus and improve concentration. Essentially,
these medications function as performance-enhancing steroids for the
brain. However, their use also has downsides. When taken by healthy peo-
ple, drugs like Adderall can cause insomnia, high blood pressure, and para-
noia as well as other problems. Moreover, in most states, distributing or
using another person’s prescription is a felony. In addition, study drugs
raise ethical issues along with legal questions: some colleges, for example,
view the use of these medications as a form of academic cheating. On the
other hand, how are they different from stimulants such as caffeine, energy
drinks, or products like Five-Hour Energy? And, if so-called study drugs
really improve cognitive functioning, might it make more sense to encour-
age their use, as several scientists proposed in a 2008 issue of the presti-
gious journal Nature?
The popularity of study drugs suggests an irony, too: substance abuse
on college campuses is usually associated with escapism and recreation.
For comprehension quizzes,
seebedfordstmartins.com/practicalargument. 637
638 Part 6 Debates, Casebooks, and Classic Arguments
What does it say about contemporary students—and about our society as a
whole—that their new drug of choice enhances cognitive functions rather
than numbs them? The two writers whose essays appear in this debate try
to answer such questions. David Alpert sees the use of study drugs as an
“unmistakable wrong” and argues that colleges must discourage them
through honor codes. Matt Lamkin agrees that these drugs are a problem
but contends that the proper way to handle them is not to ban them outright
but to reaffirm the value of an education and to discourage students from
seeing the college experience as a “competition for credentials.”
This article is from the January 20, 2012, edition of USA Today College.
CHANGE HONOR CODES TO INCLUDE
ABUSE OF NONPRESCRIPTION DRUGS
DAVID ALPERT
Universities should use their respective honor codes to prohibit the abuse of 1
performance-enhancing drugs in order to stem a growing epidemic among
college students.
Last September, the Duke University Office of Student Conduct amended 2
the Academic Integrity Policy to ban the abuse of academic performance-
enhancing drugs without a prescription. The use of drugs like Adderall, Ritalin,
Concerta, and others intended for sufferers of ADD and ADHD without a pro-
per prescription is already against the law—so, why would Duke altering its honor
code make any sort of impact on the abuse of these study drugs? And why
should other universities follow suit?
To answer this question, and refute any possible counter-arguments, it’s 3
important to consider honor systems in greater detail. While honor codes vary
broadly across institutions of higher education, there are some basic central
tenets shared across the board:
Honor systems are aspirational, seeking to foster a community of trust 4
and instill individuals with recognized institutional values—they do this mainly
by prohibiting lying, cheating, and stealing. They rely on elected or appointed
students to enforce honor systems.
Honor codes and systems also differ significantly from the legal system. 5
Between speeding, under- 6
age drinking, and the rec-
“Many college-aged students
reational use of drugs like
marijuana, many college-aged show varying degrees of respect
students show varying degrees for the law.”
of respect for the law. While
Chapter 18 Should “Study Drugs” Be Banned? 639
these behaviors may be as commonplace as cheating on a test or plagiariz-
ing a paper, they don’t come with the same stain on a student’s character.
This is in part because students were born into a legal system, while they
chose to enter into an institution with an honor system. This subtle dis-
tinction is an important one, as the college experience is prone to allow, if
not spark, some behavioral and intellectual rebellion against a student’s
origins.
These characteristics of honor systems make them a useful first step 7
towards combating the illegal usage of prescription drugs. The use of these
drugs without a proper prescription unequivocally constitutes cheating. While
Adderall and Ritalin abusers often see their use as a “victimless crime,” there
are, in fact, many victims, and they are all around the abuser. The abuser’s
inflated grades unfairly skew grading curves and grade point averages. Those
who abstain from taking the drugs may end up with lesser grades, which in
turn hurt their chances of securing everything from graduate school accep-
tances to internships and post-grad employment.
Student enforcement of honor systems will push the issue of prescrip- 8
tion drug abuse from its current moral grey area to a more unmistakable
wrong. Without overstating the importance of honor codes, or the amount
of purchase they hold on a college campus, there is a stigma that accompa-
nies violating a shared honor code that does not always come with breaking
the law.
An honor code provision also seems to be the best way to limit the use 9
of these drugs by students who are “legally abusing” them; procuring pre-
scriptions by either faking the symptoms of ADD/ADHD or seeking out
physicians with a known proclivity for dishing out the meds. While techni-
cally these students would not be in violation of the honor code ban, they
may still feel certain pressures to better align their behaviors with the values
of their university.
Some argue that the stories of prescription study aid abuse are overblown 10
and sensationalized. However, research from the University of Kentucky sug-
gests that 34% of all undergrads there have used study aids illegally, and that
percentage is almost doubled among upperclassmen.
Others may counter that the honor code is not the best avenue through 11
which to attack this problem. However, it seems to be the most balanced
approach. Unlike more extreme measures, like random drug testing, an honor
code ban on the abuse of these drugs is feasible, because it is neither a
significant financial drain, nor does it stir any privacy concerns. More moder-
ate policy choices by a university administration, such as issuing some sort of
advisory to students and families about the dangers and legalities of the drugs,
would also be less costly, but they would not go far enough in instilling the
cultural change in institutional values so critical to the re-leveling of the
academic playing field. And until other universities follow Duke’s lead by rec-
ognizing their moral responsibility to take charge of this issue, the stain of
suspicion could blemish all our records.
640 Part 6 Debates, Casebooks, and Classic Arguments
(cid:2)READING ARGUMENTS
1. Alpert points out that honor codes “differ significantly from the legal
system” (para. 5). How are such codes different from laws? Why is
this ethical distinction important to Alpert’s argument?
2. According to Alpert, those who use study drugs see their use as a
“victimless crime” (7). Does he agree with them? Do you? Why or
why not?
3. In what sense is Alpert’s essay a causal argument?
4. Where does Alpert address arguments against his position? How
effectively does he present and refute them?
This essay is from the Chronicle of Higher Education. It was published on February 27, 2011.
A BAN ON BRAIN-BOOSTING DRUGS
IS NOT THE ANSWER
MATT LAMKIN
The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism recently described an 1
experiment in which two student journalists at the University of Wisconsin
at Madison tested how quickly they could “score” Adderall—a prescription
stimulant designed to treat attention-deficit disorders but often used by
healthy students as a study
aid. The reporters walked
“The reporters . . . were connected
into a campus library, tapped
a studying stranger on the to an Adderall supply in less than
shoulder, and were connected one minute.”
to an Adderall supply in less
than one minute.
While rates of drinking among college students have been relatively steady 2
in recent years, nontherapeutic use of prescription drugs has soared—now
second only to marijuana as a form of illicit drug use. Research by Alan D.
DeSantis, a professor of communication at the University of Kentucky who has
studied ADHD-stimulant use in fraternities, suggests that 34 percent of the
university’s undergraduates have used stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall as
study aids. According to DeSantis, that number rises the longer students are in
college, and nearly 60 percent of Kentucky’s juniors and seniors have used
“neuroenhancers.”
Concerned observers of this trend, most notably at Britain’s Academy of 3
Medical Sciences, have characterized the use of “study drugs” as a form of
Chapter 18 Should “Study Drugs” Be Banned? 641
cheating, akin to the use of steroids in sports. Having diagnosed the problem
as an issue of unfair competition, the academy has called on universities to
consider banning the use of cognition-enhancing drugs by healthy students.
This past October, Wesleyan University did just that, amending its student
code of conduct to recognize “misuse” of prescription drugs as a violation of
the college’s prohibition against receiving “improper assistance” in completing
academic work.
The sense that this practice qualifies as “cheating” reflects an intuitive dis- 4
comfort with healthy students’ using drugs to improve their academic perfor-
mance. But the instinct to view the problem as a form of unfair competition is
itself a manifestation of the debased educational culture that has rendered
these drugs so attractive to students. Simply calling the use of study drugs
“unfair” tells us nothing about why colleges should ban them. If such drugs
really do improve academic performance among healthy students (and the evi-
dence is scant), shouldn’t colleges put them in the drinking water instead?
After all, it would be unfair to permit wealthy students to use them if less
privileged students can’t afford them.
If our key concern is fairness, making study drugs available to all students 5
could actually do more to promote that goal than banning them. Of course, to
the extent that such drugs pose health risks, it’s prudent to restrict their use.
But that seems like an argument about safety, not fairness. While safety is a
valid concern, it is one that might be overcome by better drug design. If we are
still troubled by the idea of a study drug that is safe and universally available,
we have to look for other sources of our discomfort.
The word “cheating” has another meaning, one that has nothing to do 6
with competition. When someone has achieved an end through improper
means, we might say that person has “cheated herself” out of whatever rewards
are inherent in the proper means. The use of study drugs by healthy students
could corrode valuable practices that education has traditionally fostered. If,
for example, students use such drugs to mitigate the consequences of procras-
tination, they may fail to develop mental discipline and time-management
skills.
On the other hand, Ritalin might enable a student to engage more deeply 7
in college and to more fully experience its internal goods—goods she might be
denied without that assistance. The distinction suggests that a blanket policy,
whether of prohibition or universal access, is unlikely to be effective.
Instead, colleges need to encourage students to engage in the practice of 8
education rather than to seek shortcuts. Instead of ferreting out and punishing
students, universities should focus on restoring a culture of deep engagement
in education, rather than just competition for credentials.
Students take cues about what to value—what types of achievements and 9
undertakings are worthwhile, which elements of character are important,
which modes of behavior are honorable—from the cultures of their colleges
and in the wider society. We live in a society that exalts competition and its
monetary rewards. High-school students compete for college admissions.
642 Part 6 Debates, Casebooks, and Classic Arguments
College students compete for grades, then for jobs. Employees compete for
promotions, and their employers compete for market share. Within that con-
text, “just saying no” to drugs that might confer a competitive edge can start to
look crazy—or at best apathetic.
If our goal is to promote students’ engagement in education, we should 10
realign student incentives with the appreciation of education’s internal bene-
fits, so that students are not rewarded for taking shortcuts. In drug-policy
terms, this is a “demand reduction” strategy that works by draining study drugs
of their value.
It is not an undertaking that can be accomplished in one fell swoop. 11
Rather, it requires a series of smaller steps that gradually reshape the character
of higher education over time—by, for example, de-emphasizing standardized-
test scores in admissions decisions in favor of criteria that reflect deeper forms
of student engagement, like essay writing and participation in internships,
clinics, practicum courses, and extracurriculars. Adderall may raise test scores,
but it is unlikely to help students develop interesting résumés.
If universities instead choose to enact blanket prohibitions on the use of 12
study drugs by healthy students, it would be more sensible to enforce such a
policy through honor codes than through measures such as urine testing, as
the Academy of Medical Sciences has proposed. Unlike a policing approach,
honor codes ask students to internalize values that are important to educa-
tion and to character in general. Although students who violate honor codes
face sanctions, the primary aim is not to deter improper conduct with threats
but to persuade students that to breach the code is to betray themselves. If
colleges believe that enhancing cognition with drugs deprives students of the
true value of education, they must encourage students to adopt that value as
their own.
(cid:2)READING ARGUMENTS
1. What purpose do Lamkin’s first two paragraphs serve?
2. In part, Lamkin’s essay is a response to researchers who have com-
pared the use of study drugs to “the use of steroids in sports” (para. 3).
Is this a valid analogy? Explain.
3. Lamkin devotes several paragraphs to defining the word cheating.
How does he use this definition to make his case against banning
study drugs?
4. In what sense is this essay a proposal argument? What does Lamkin
propose? How realistic are his proposals?
Chapter 18 Should “Study Drugs” Be Banned? 643
(cid:2)AT ISSUE: SHOULD “STUDY DRUGS” BE BANNED?
1. In making their arguments, both Alpert and Lamkin try to establish
that study drugs are a legitimate problem. Why do they need to do
this? How does each writer establish this premise? Which writer do
you think makes the more convincing case? Why?
2. Both Alpert and Lamkin want to reduce the abuse of study drugs. In
what respects are both of their essays ethical arguments?
3. Lamkin writes, “If such drugs really do improve academic perfor-
mance among healthy students (and the evidence is scant), shouldn’t
colleges put them in the drinking water instead?” (para. 4). Does this
seemingly frivolous question make a serious point? If so, what is
this point?
(cid:2)WRITING ARGUMENTS: SHOULD “STUDY DRUGS”
BE BANNED?
Both Alpert and Lamkin suggest that cultural change is necessary to reduce
the use of study drugs. However, Alpert focuses on individual students and
honor codes, while Lamkin focuses on academic culture and a “society that
exalts competition and its monetary rewards” (para. 9). What do you think
are the causes of study-drug abuse? Which writer’s analysis seems more
accurate? Do you see this problem as an issue of individual responsibility or
as a symptom of a society that gives the wrong “cues” about the value of an
education? Write an essay that presents your position on this issue.