Legalize academic doping?

In the spirit of  triple-venti lattes, abundant stress and 24-hour library marathons,  I thought I’d weigh in an issue that seems to be “popping” up  (sorry, couldn’t resist)  everywhere: academic doping.

A few days ago, seven heavyweight academics published this article in Nature, calling for the legalization of “brain-enhancing” drugs. Apparently, prescription drugs, such as Ritalin and Adderall, have been all the rage in universities for years, common among students trying to get an edge on the competition:

Yet one survey¹ estimated that almost 7% of students in US universities have used prescription stimulants in this way, and that on some campuses, up to 25% of students had used them in the past year. These students are early adopters of a trend that is likely to grow, and indications suggest that they’re not alone².

The medication,  which is widely prescribed to ADHD patients, has the ability to enhance concentration and memory, while also decreasing fatigue. Short-term side effects range from nausea to hallucinations and even seizures. Long-term side effects are currently unknown.

Now that I’m in the throes of the exam season, I could see how these drugs would be incredibly appealing to anybody trying to learn an entire semester’s worth of course material in 24 hours (ahem). The real key for me is the question of safety.  We don’t really know what the long term effects of taking these drugs are- that’s certainly a legitimate reason not to use them. I suppose if you’re willing to potentially mortgage off future mental capacity for some small present gain (clearly, there are many who would make that trade-off), then who am I to oppose that. I can’t really think of any good reason why they should be banned, if they are really as safe as any other drug.

Well, actually one- they’re wholly unnecessary. But I suppose, so are alcohol, caffeine and sleeping pills.  But, I think that might just be a general criticism of society itself- the fact that certain students feel the need to resort to cognitive enhancing drugs speaks volumes about all the wrong types of competitive pressures inherent in academic environments.  Now,  I can’t say from personal experience, but from what I understand, the drugs basically make you more efficient at performing monotonous tasks (such as rote memorization). What you would gain in that arena, you lose in the ability to think conceptually and creatively.The fact that this could convey some sort of advantage is a bit sad, in itself. Why are we memorizing and regurgitating, anyway?  I suppose school (at least not my program) isn’t exactly built to instill intellectual curiousity. That, I would say, is the real problem.

Anyways,  I do worry, however, that legalization and open access to these drugs, would place unnecessary pressure on everyone to be on them.  An abstention might certainly be conceived as a disadvantage. Can’t help but conjure up some Brave New World type imagery- what could be less interesting than an army of robotic studying machines?

Addendum to campus controversies: media spin

One more comment on these issues:

I’m generally a fan of the Globe and Mail’s reporting, but I really have to question their coverage of these issues. I’m not really sure what criteria they’re using, but in my opinion, neither of these stories were worthy of national press coverage- and definitely did not qualify for front page material. The “conversation cop” article seems merely intended to mock Queen’s (deservedly so), but fails to actually mention the underlying problem of intolerance on campus. That’s the real story worth reporting. Thumbs down to the G&M failing to promote intelligent discussion of important issues.

Campus Controversies, Pt. 2: Big Brother Alert

So the second Queen’s-related article in yesterday’s G&M bears the headline: “Conversation cops step in to school students.” Apparently, the university has hired student facilitators to call out those who use politically-incorrect terminology in conversations:

The initiative, believed to be the first of its kind in Canada, is part of a broader program begun at the school this fall to foster diversity and encourage students to think about their beliefs.

This is among the most ridiculous stories I have ever read. Queen’s must be the butt of all jokes right now- and rightfully so. Critical reactions can be found here and here.

This program is wrong on so many levels. It is likely to be completely ineffective. Censoring a student’s speech will not make him change his opinion. If anything, the same conversations will continue to occur, just behind closed doors. It is ludicrous to think that a complete stranger could even begin to change anyone’s behaviour. These sorts of actions should rightfully come from friends or other people we know and respect. Not to mention, the question of what exactly can be considered “inappropriate.” Is a glib remark worth censoring? The most likely outcome of this program is a backlash of defensiveness and resentment- sure to lead to an exacerbation of the underlying problem.

What is particularly startling about this solution is the way it essentially trivializes this underlying problem. The recent spate of racist and discriminatory incidents on campus are completely unacceptable and deeply troubling. This is a real and legitimate issue for Queen’s that deserves a credible response. I’m still dumbfounded at how these incidents could even occur among an ‘educated’ student body, in this modern age of tolerance. Isn’t racism just so passé?

If the university wants to really change it’s culture, it needs to do more than just appoint some kindergarten hall monitors. It has to start with actually trying to attract a more diverse student body (both in terms of socio-economic standing and cultural diversity). Maybe even include a question about diversity on every supplementary application. No, it’s not going to change any opinions (and obviously students are very familiar with the art of BS), but it might force some prospective candidates to actually reflect on the importance of tolerance and cultural understanding. It would also reinforce the university’s commitment to admitting a student body that celebrates diversity, not shuns it.

Ironically enough, while the national media seems obsessed with discussing the homecoming debacle ad nauseum, it has yet to report on Queen’s supposed “culture of whiteness.” Luckily, the press has mostly covered the conversation cop program as hilariously misguided censorship. Although it’s debatable whether this “culture of intolerance” is actually pervasive or just perpetuated by a small few- there is no denying its negative implications on the university’s reputation, should word get out. Ultimately, Queen’s needs to take immediate steps to solve the underlying problem- and that involves far more than bringing out big brother.

Campus Controversies: Homecoming kyboshed

Picture credit to stephentaylor.com

Starting to hit busy season here, so I had to slow down on the blogging- only so much you can procrastinate, when things are literally due “tomorrow.”

Anyways, I opened my Globe and Mail today, to see not just one but TWO articles about Queen’s in the front section of today’s paper. Unfortunately, neither headline was positive.

The first article discusses the recently announced cancellation of Queen’s fall homecoming. In its place, the university will organize a mini May reunion for alumni. As expected, the decision prompted a massive outcry from current students and recent alumni- the overwhelming majority of whom feel that this is a drastic overreaction on the part of the administration. My initial reaction is to think this is much ado about nothing. But, I also think that part of me lives in Kingston, and thus is massively divorced from the perceptions of the real world. Whether fairly or unfairly, I think the national media coverage of the event is decidedly bad for the reputation of the school. Admittedly, the Aberdeen street party has gotten a bit out of hand- anywhere outside the context of Queen’s, it would be considered the unacceptable behaviour of hooligans. Ideally, we’d be able to all have fun, without the necessity of riot police, arrests, trips to the emergency room and people passed out in bushes, foaming at the mouth.

The sense that current students are “entitled” to this party is utterly ridiculous. The “don’t cancel homecoming” facebook group is 800 students strong, with the majority bemoaning the loss of their beloved street party- not the other homecoming traditions. It’s really the alumni that have the right to complain. Canceling fall homecoming seems like it’s punishing the wrong people. Alumni deserve the opportunity to come back and participate in this historic tradition.

This seems like a shot gun decision on the part of the administration, especially considering its implications on alumni donations, in a time when the university could really use them. Can’t say we didn’t get fair warning though- no one seemed to believe that they would really cancel the event altogether. Arguably the administration needed to take some kind of action: the reputational damage of someone dying at a homecoming event would be impossible to mitigate. However, there had to have been other, more fair and nuanced solutions. Homecoming in the winter, perhaps? An Aberdeen street party seems far less likely in the midst of a -20 degree weather.

Anyways, I can’t shake the feeling that this whole fiasco is just a bit silly. Definitely not national news. Just another example of a small minority ruining the fun for everyone else.