Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: So my school is considered kind of a sports powerhouse, ranking at least top 15 in every sport (football, soccer, track, swimming, golf, baseball, basketball, wrestling). A decent amount of people get recruited and/or get scholarships every year. The two in question here is Jack, let's call him, who got a full ride to Oklahoma for football, and me, a recruited swimmer for Emory.

So, recently, a whole thing happened, and Jack was caught with weed in his locker. It was a big thing, and he ended up getting rescinded. 

Some of my friends asked my opinion of this, since I'm also recruited, although I didn't get a scholarship. Personally, I think he got what was coming. He always goes out, parties, drinks, and does weed pretty often. All this is common knowledge. All of this is also against the rules, but none of the students really cared.

Personally, I don't think a guy who goes out, parties all the time, and does a bunch of unhealthy shit (for being a teenager), he doesn't deserve a scholarship. That's what I told them. They all said I was being harsh. But I don't think it is. There are rules against weed, there are rules against drinking. He broke them. Those are the consequences.

So, am I the ashsole for this opinion?

saying a football player deserved to lose his scholarship for smoking weed