More than a decade after the first suspicions arose and categorical denials began, Lance Armstrong has finally come clean. Armstrong’s televised confession sheds light on more than just a sportsman with a tainted legacy. He claims that the win-at-all-costs attitude that helped him overcome cancer was what turned him into a doping machine.
At first, this sounded like a poor, empty excuse. But similar motivations exist in all spheres and sections. Cutting through a cross-section of events in the past year alone reveals the alarming rate at which this same trend has been prevalent in academic circles. Over 100 students were caught cheating at Harvard. Respected journalists such as Fareed Zakaria and Margaret Wente were found plagiarizing. Dongqing Li, a professor at the University of Waterloo, is facing suspension for lifting sections of text from other papers for his own publication. While all of these incidents signal a lack of ethics in the way research is conducted, it also sends out some telling signs about the mindset and attitudes that underpin these actions.
A lesser known, and even lesser documented activit,y among this string of misdeeds is the use of neuro-enhancing drugs to boost academic performance, the subject of the Tribune’s Nov. 26 feature. In the absence of a policing mechanism in academic circles, is it alright to use drugs such as Ritalin or Provigil when an important exam or a scholarship is at stake? The final choice rests with the user. However, it’s imprudent to ignore the fact that such decisions are also heavily influenced by peer and societal pressure.
The Tribune story included an interesting observation from an athlete who claimed that, in competitive sports, players “are paid to be unnatural.” The Armstrong story makes me wonder whether, if someone is too good to be true, perhaps he or she isn’t true at all in the first place. It also demonstrates our overwhelming need to push human boundaries by any means. At a time when the question of doping was obviously doing rounds, I wonder why the Tour organizers continued running the event year after year with so much aplomb! Just winning a grueling race one time isn’t enough. After all, would we have noticed Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor and one time wonder? The truth is his story it would lkely not have been the fairytale we all witnessed. But at the same time, it would have never had cause to devolve into a horror show either.
In academia, however, the lines of right and wrong apparently blur. There is no explicit rule that forbids students from taking these drugs. Yet, the thought of academic performance becoming contingent on drug use is simply unacceptable. The mind is the most potent part of a human and developing intellectual capacity has to be on one’s own effort. Piggybacking on a pill may not be illegal, but it definitely creates an unsustainable atmosphere by artificially raising the stakes. Can anyone performing well on these drugs ever rid themselves of self-doubt or be sure of their own potential?
Competition at some of the most prominent universities is indeed cut-throat. Developing strategies that typically suit one’s natural pattern of learning and recollection are techniques that help. Succumbing to peer pressure and adopting such unhealthy practices can produce great results in the short term, but life extends beyond the realms of academia. The purpose of true education is to act as a scaffold and a guide in the world beyond the walls of the university. It is precisely for this reason that within these walls, we must stick to walking on our own two feet.
