The topic of domestic violence policies maintains relevant status in today's culture because of the spike in domestic violence issues with a connection to athletes. The issue ties heavily with professional athletes, but there exists a strong undercurrent of cases with ties to student-athletes. I am concerned with the direction of sports under the leadership of current athletes, who may have character issues. The issue garners my personal interest because I am a sports fan as well as currently a college student. The issue affects my values because it conflicts my interest and fascination of star athletes, with my discontent for the people who are guilty of such actions including domestic violence. My personal experience with this subject comes from reading accounts of violence issues with Jameis Winston, Johnny Manziel, and Joe Mixon, only allowing myself second-hand accounts of the incidents. I am qualified to write about this subject because I am an avid sports fan, especially concerning college athletics. I have extensively researched the issues with different athletes, as the stories become more public with news coverage. This research has made me qualified for this essay, because it has given me a baseline of knowledge for the further research on the topic.

The initial information in my research came from the article "Mark Emmert Talks Domestic Violence." The central claim of this article surrounds the explanation of domestic violence policy in the NCAA by the President of the Association, Mark Emmert. The major evidence in the article comes from quotes from a speech made by Emmert on the topic of NCAA policies regarding domestic violence incidents. The major interests at stake involve the reputation of the NCAA and of Universities, based off of their reactions and punishments given out to the student athletes. If the Universities, and subsequently the NCAA don't react properly to incidents then they run the risk of their reputation being muddied in the future. The author may not deserve credibility because of name recognition, but he creates credibility because of the company he works for and because of his direct citing of the source that he covers. The author doesn't serve to have any room for a bias because he simply reports from the mouth of NCAA President Mark Emmert.

My further research led me to the article, "Why Doesn't the NCAA Take a Tougher Position on Domestic Violence." The central claim discusses the idea that the NCAA takes a hard stance on the wrong issues, and leaves Domestic Violence Policy out to dry. The major evidence comes from the lack there of, by the lack of punishment sent out by the NCAA for cases that the article states, including Jameis Winston and Joe Mixon. The major interests at stake include the athletes themselves who are named and shown in the article, Joe Mixon and Jameis Winston. The athletes could lose their reputation to fans who never knew about the allegations in the first place, or forgot and now remember how the athletes broke the rules. The author derives her credibility from the news source she works for, The Chicago Tribune. The author manufactures her own source from her observations of the press conferences she attended for the two athletes she mentions. The bias in her reporting shows that she wants a tougher policy on infractions.

The final article I found, named "Oklahoma Stands Tall Against Racism, Weak Against Violence." The central claim that Oklahoma University has done a good job standing up and disciplining student who make racist remarks, but contrasts how the University have fallen short in their discipline of student-athlete Joe Mixon who broke the rules regarding domestic violence. The reputation of Oklahoma University owns the largest stake from this article, they are being lauded for their hardline stance against a fraternity but being called out for their treatment of a student-athlete, presumably only because his status as an athlete. The major value being called into question, originates from the status the University gives to athletes and how it can protect them from legal issues. The author gains credibility for his job status with the media company Fox Sports, his bias becomes apparent through his criticizing the University for its actions, rather than just reporting the event and telling the story. The author does take the side that the university fell short in its duties.



The research question does not appear arguable, but the argument I plan to make stems from the absence of punishment dealing with the issue. The argument I have found pits the NCAA against everyone else. President Mark Emmert claims that the NCAA does enough by leaving it up to the Universities, but all other reporters call for a hard stance by the NCAA. The different perspectives are all basically backing the idea that the NCAA needs to change policy, and that has made me firmly believe in the school of thought for policy change. I might need to revise the question to make it more arguable, as I have found most of my information on the side of change.
