I’m part of a dedicated pickleball group that meets twice a week at 6 a.m. for two hours at a local gym. Players range from 35 to over 60 (like me), and we rotate through doubles matches on three courts. The gym advertises this time as “open play,” meaning anyone of any skill level can sign in and play. But in reality, that level is high.
Our group’s challenge is the presence of one woman who is kind and well-meaning, but whose skill level is far below the rest of us. It’s not about her age or gender — she appears to have a neurological deficit affecting her reaction time. No one wants to exclude her, but we struggle to enjoy competitive play when she’s on the court. We make an effort to include her, but privately, we wonder why she hasn’t realized that she’s out of place.
Would it be kinder to gently suggest she join a less competitive pickleball session, rather than our continuing to accommodate her with quiet frustration? While it’s an open session and we have no right to ask her to leave, everyone wishes she would. When I joined, I knew I needed to improve to keep up, and I did. No one believes she can. — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
You say that you may be dealing with someone who has a neurological deficit. Encouraging people with disabilities to participate as widely as possible in social life should be one of the goals of a decent society. Sometimes this will require patience. But the terms of participation need to be openhearted and respectful.
That’s not the climate you’re describing. Let’s suppose that, as you suspect, this woman really isn’t going to improve. I agree that it’s not ideal for her to be the object of unspoken resentment and disdain. If she chooses to leave, though, someone else will become the worst player. Will that person then be pressured to leave, too? It sounds as if your group isn’t engaged in an “open play” session — you’ve formed an unofficial competitive club with an implicit skill requirement.
If this is indeed the situation, consider working with the gym to create a separate high-level session so that expectations for those in your group are clear upfront. Or establish a rotation system that naturally sorts players by skill, as in a “ladder” where wins and losses determine court placement. If all else fails, you could have a discussion with her and acknowledge that the early-morning group has evolved into a more competitive session. You could suggest that she might get more out of the beginner-friendly sessions that the gym offers.
Still, I hope that you’ll decide that this isn’t necessary. Playing this sort of game with people of different levels of ability is itself a kind of challenge — and amateur sports are about mastering challenges while having a good time.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from Victor Poleshuck, a reader who asked about altering a board game. He wrote: “My grandchildren love playing Monopoly. The board game has become a great way for me to interact with them, and also a great way for them to see capitalism in all its imperfect glory. The problem: One of the cards a player may draw when landing on Community Chest is ‘Bank Error in Your Favor. Collect $200.’ Right when we first started playing the game together, I removed that card from the set. I did so because it taught the wrong lesson. The proper thing to do when there is a bank error in your favor is to report it and return the money. … My grandchildren have discovered the deletion and believe I am silly and old-fashioned. After all, it’s just a game, they say. I stand by my belief that the card should not be in the game; we learn all kinds of lessons from gameplay, and ethical decision-making should not be dismissed so easily. How tightly should play reinforce ethical behavior? Is a game a place where you can and should live in a different ethical world?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “I wonder whether your moral focus here is a tad narrow. We’re talking about a board game called Monopoly. Players succeed by dominating market segments and extracting ruinous rents. … It’s a world where incarceration is utterly normalized and rapacity is rewarded. And what troubles your conscience is the prospect that the bank gets shortchanged? … Games indeed exist within their own imaginative space, where competitors engage in chilly strategy and conflict without carrying its lessons into real-life morality. Removing this random cash-injection card will only make it a bit harder for trailing players to catch up. So put it back. You can even use it as a moment for conversation, and ask your young reprobates what they’d actually do in that situation. Just don’t lose sight of the bigger picture here. If your grandkids are still willing to play with a sermonizing card snatcher, they must really love you. Roll the dice, but I’d say you’ve already won.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
I loved the Monopoly letter, and loved the Ethicist’s witty and charming response even more. I’m going to be intermittently smiling over it for the foreseeable future. I hope the letter writer can explain every bit of the response to those kiddos. It ought to inspire some great conversations, and maybe even some new board game play. — Ingrid
⬥
Whenever I find myself getting too uptight about games my 7-year-old plays, I think back to my own childhood and remind myself to chill out. I shot thousands of video game ducks with my NES Zapper gun. We played “war” all around the neighborhood. Games were just games; I learned pacifism, integrity, fairness and compassion by observing the adults I trusted as they navigated the world. — Marley
⬥
The best game of Monopoly I ever played was one that we finally made interesting by agreeing to let players be enterprising and creative. Someone bought Free Parking, another Jail. A very rich player bought Go and collected $200 from each player every time. The game ended when one player was caught robbing the bank and another was seen setting fire to his heavily insured houses. — Jenny
⬥
I married into a family where games can, and do, result in lifelong grudges. Various moments of brutality within the rules and cheating outside the rules have lingered in family conversations for decades. Are all games like this? No. Are all families like this? Also no. But it’s a mistake to treat imaginative space as entirely separate from real life — especially for a game like Monopoly, whose precursor, “The Landlord’s Game,” was designed by Elizabeth Magie to demonstrate the negative real-world consequences of monopolies. — Brian
⬥
The writer’s interpretation struck me as a bit hasty. “Bank Error in Your Favor. Collect $200” can also be understood as the bank having made an error to the detriment of the account holder, and it is now returning the funds properly owed. In either case, there is an opportunity for the letter writer to have a discussion with his grandchildren about its potential meanings. No doubt, the card should be returned. — Erik
Kwame Anthony Appiah is The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. To submit a query, send an email to [email protected].
The post Can We Ask a Disabled Woman to Leave Our Pickleball Group? appeared first on New York Times.
