PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THE ATTACHMENT
USE SCHOLARLY SOURCES
PLEASE USE APA FORMAT 7TH EDITION BOOK
PLEASE SEE RUBRIC
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
DISCUSSION 7.1 MORAL COURAGE
Jan Kemp was a former student and loyal employee of the University of Georgia
until the early 1980s. An English professor, Kemp and some of her fellow faculty
members complained to authorities that nine members of the college football team
who had received failing grades in an English class were allowed to pass so they
could be eligible to play in the Sugar Bowl against Pittsburgh. Kemp was
subsequently demoted and then dismissed. She filed and won a lawsuit against the
university, which awarded her $2.5 million for lost wages and mental anguish. The
university president eventually resigned, and the athletic director was found to
have been engaging in a pattern academic misconduct for the athletes, which led to
the university tightening its standards. This may seem as if Kemp’s “whistle
blowing,” as this action is called in the vernacular, had a happy ending; however,
Kemp’s initial dismissal and loss of career status, in addition to the death threats
from those who reviled her for intervening, haunted her; she said it caused her
much emotional turmoil to the point of suicidal thoughts.
Kemp’s actions are one example of moral courage in sport. This week, you examine
the work of Rushworth Kidder and others who explore the concept of moral
courage. You examine three key elements of moral courage: endurance, principles,
and danger. You will learn what each means in terms of moral courage and explain
how they are demonstrated in a sport example of your choosing.
Goldstein, R. (2008, December 11). Jan Kemp dies at 59; exposed fraud in grades of
players. The New York Times.
> Use the Learning Materials and the following videos to help you with this
discussion
Instructions
For this Discussion, review Kidder’s Moral Courage Model depicted in Mullane
(2015, p. 23) in the Learning Materials. Then, with these three concepts illustrated in
the model’s Venn diagram in mind, research an example on your own that you
believe illustrates moral courage in sport.
Post a description of your chosen example of moral courage:
• How were the principles of Kidder’s Moral Courage Model used?
• Which of the concepts was demonstrated the strongest, and which the
weakest?
Justify your responses. Then, explain how you would apply the concepts in this
model to your career.
• PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources
expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller
or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student’s post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’ posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates’
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates’
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and
responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and
respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
