The Veil of Ignorance in the Sports World
Christopher Edward Wallace
Troy University
Author Note
This paper will serve as a mean to identify Rawls’s theories within a case of Disruptive Justice within the sports reporting world.
Table of Contents
1. Cover Page
2. Table of Contents
3. Abstract
4. Title
5. The Case of the Overtime Sports Editor
6. John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance Applied
7. Using the Veil of Ignorance to Solve the Issues with all Parties
Rawls Theory of the Veil of Ignorance puts the user in a state of being that subtracts them from all knowledge of age, ethnicity, race, sex, and sexual orientation. In referencing being an editor for a newspaper, it is important to always remain impartial to your coworkers and those under you. Given a situation where a worker is keen on obtaining overtime that puts an organization at a financial disadvantage, this paper will address how to professionally approach the worker, step into their shoes, and solve the issue from their point of view that also maintains their correct hourly wages. The point is to seek a balance of finances between other workers and the sports editor.
The Veil of Ignorance in the Sports World
In today’s society, it seems to be extremely difficult for one party to relate to understand one another when it comes to how a policy affects a vast majority. This idea can be seen in a multitude of subjects such as politics, sports, healthcare, academics, etc. There always seems to be a two-party system of struggle within these subjects in pursuit of “justice”. “As a thought experiment, the Veil of Ignorance is powerful because our usual opinions regarding what is just and unjust are informed by our own experiences. We are shaped by our race, gender, class, education, appearance, sexuality, career, family, and so on. On the other side of the Veil of Ignorance, none of that exists. Technically, the resulting society should be a fair one.” (The Fairness Principle: How the Veil of Ignorance Helps Test Fairness.)
For example, within politics, the most popular parties to rally against one another are the Republican and Democratic parties. Each partly claims to want the best for the US and put the best policies in place to protect its citizens and bring economic success. The issue that stems from this ideology is that both sides want to enact legislation that does not completely or fully meet the needs of the other. In most cases, completely disregards how those legislation would affect the other.
Let us also look at academics. How may a policy to close dorms on an international college campus amid a pandemic affect international students? For those students who are natives to that present country, a dorm closure would not pose that many issues to their way of living. On the other hand, for those international students whose countries have shut their borders due to the present pandemic, this would cause financial and systematic issues in obtaining a residency. This inclusive policy would affect the student body, but one party would still have differentiating lasting effects.
With these ideas and scenarios in mind, we are then faced with problem to how to fix situations such as these where both parties are satisfied. Most people would argue that some sense of compromise must happen. Even then, a big point is still being missed. This is where Rawls theory of veil of ignorance comes into play. This is theory describes how to practice the relationship of equality. What this theory does is remove the user of the principle from the current situation at hand. The user does not know their age, ethnicity, race, sex, or sexual orientation. When depraved of that knowledge, you force yourself in position making the most unbiased and educated choices. You are forced to take all parties into consideration since you can apply to any at that point. Rawls was keen on the distribution of fairness. “Rawls provided a framework to help seekers make just and justifiable decisions. His exercise requires decision makers to ignore their actual status in society and start in an “original position” that places a participant behind a “veil of ignorance,” which means the decision maker does not know “his place in society, his class position or social status : : : his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like” (Rawls, 1999, p. 118).
The Case of the Overtime Sports Editor
Now let us examine this principle within a more realistic scenario. We will observe a case in which I am an editor for a suburban newspaper with 25,000 subscribers. I have an editorial staff of 10 with a sports editor who covers junior and high school sports. I am then faced with an issue where my sports editor is accumulating too much overtime. He builds award-winning material for the newspaper but accumulates more overtime than fellow coworkers. This is so much so that the other coworkers are limited 5 overtime hours compared to his 30. But now, I have a new hire that must be justified. In this situation, I must solve a multitude of issues within the general issue of justification of a new hire. I must take into consideration satisfying my current sports editor and making sure that he is being paid his correct wages. Next, I must create a way to fairly disperse even wages among all employees. Then I must justify the new hire to the organization by providing evidence that the hire will not be a financial liability but an asset to the company.
So, to solve these issues, we must first identify those who are presently suffering from the problem at hand. The parties suffering are the workers receiving less overtime compared to the sports editor, the new hire, and the financial stability of the organization as a whole. I must come to a solution that proves to be the benefit and satisfaction of all parties involved. The challenge will be justifying altering the sports editor’s time. This will have to be done in a way that justifies company financial standards as well as accrued overtime.
John Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance Applied
Applying the veil of ignorance to enact a policy would mean that I am completely removed from this entire situation. I will then be forced to put myself within the shoes of the sports editor, his coworkers, the new hire, and the organization as a whole when determining the effective policy to put into place when adjusting hours. It’s important to take into account the effects of a policy before applying it. “Because institutional and organizational policy affect multiple stakeholders, there are infinite possibilities for the implementation of the veil of ignorance exercise.” (M. Sanger and C. F. Rossiter p.384).
If I am in the sports editor’s position, I will believe that I am performing the best in the entire section. I have produced award-winning columns, I take my own photographs, and produce and lay out the pages and headlines myself. I understand that my quality of work is elite and has benefitted the newspaper in a way that has brought successful exposure and popularity. I have attained a sense of “pride” within my position and image and feel that the extended overtime is something I deserve despite the repercussions that may follow it. I am in a sense of entitlement.
If I am in the coworkers’ point of view, I will feel as though I am neglected by the organization. I will also feel that the sports editor is being given an unfair increase of wages through overtime that is not equal to my own. Because my hours were cut to compensate for the sports editor’s, I will suspect that there is a sense of favoritism aimed at the sports editor.
If I am the new hire, I will feel pretty nervous about my role. Will I have a stable job? Will I be treated correctly if hired? Will I be compensated correctly? These will be questions I will ask based on given knowledge of the present workforce now. As someone new, I will be weary of being controlled by the sports editor in an overbearing matter and whether the company wants to invest in my ideas and work ethic.
If I put myself in the organization’s role as a whole, my sole concern will be to keep wage spending as low as possible while also maintaining fair pay and moral among the present workers. “When we participate in Rawls’s thought experiment, the objectivity of our participation depends on the extent to which we can keep our own beliefs, motives, and actions bracketed out of the imagined original position.” (Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments p.113)
Using the Veil of Ignorance to Solve the Issues with all Parties
Now that we understand what it is like from every parties’ point of view in this situation, we can draw solutions to the solve the problem. The greatest block to a compromise in this situation is that the sports editor wants to do all the work himself since he believes that he gets the work done in the most efficient way that is satisfying to him. This mentality blocks his coworkers from participating in organization affairs, which limit their overtime but increases his.
My solution to this issue his hold clinics or classes in which the sports editor will teach his workflow and work ethics to his coworkers and new hire. If the biggest issue is that the sports editor does not trust anyone else to compose pages, headlines, and take pictures, I will make him advise those under him how to do so that they may help him in a way that makes it more efficient and causes the workload to be handled in a timely manner that does not accrue excessive amounts of overtime for anyone. This will do two things: it will bring down company expenditures by lowering overtime across all parties due to all sports work being handled in a team effort quickly and efficiently and it will justify the new hire by training him assist the sports editor in a way that is appeasing to him.
The sports editor should be satisfied as work will still be handled “his way” but done in a fairer manner that benefits all parties in a way where overtime (if needed) is spread evenly amongst employees. Much like Rawls, the aim of this paper has been to seek justice for all parties. “Rawls calls his conception “justice as fairness.” His aim in designing the original position is to describe an agreement situation that is fair among all the parties to the hypothetical social contract.” (Original Position, 3. The Veil of Ignorance,
Bibliography
ANDERSON, B., SWANSON, L., & IMPERATI, S. (2014). Veils and Cloaks of Ignorance: Under-used Tools for Conflict Resolution. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 30(1), 45–88.
Freeman, S. (2019, April 03). Original Position. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/
Roberts, C. (2012). Public Relations and Rawls: An Ill-Fitting Veil to Wear. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 27(3), 163–176. https://doi-org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.1080/08900523.2012.700207
Sanger, M., & Rossiter, C. (2011). Creating In-Depth Learning Experiences by Using Rawls’ “Veil of Ignorance.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31(4), 378–386. https://doi-org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.1080/08841233.2011.597679
The Fairness Principle: How the Veil of Ignorance Helps Test Fairness. (2020, March 01). Retrieved August 31, 2020, from https://fs.blog/2017/10/veil-ignorance/