The last several weeks have seen some troubling stories about violent/criminal behavior by National Football League players. The Minnesota Vikings have the case of Adrian Peterson to deal with, as Steve Ginsberg reports. Peterson has been accused of child abuse after it was discovered his four year old son had physical injuries after being beaten with a switch. Peterson was suspended for one game, then reinstated - because the team needs him too badly it has been alleged. Further,
The NFL has been under scrutiny this season for its handling of another star, former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, who was indefinitely suspended after the release of a video showing him knocking out his then-fiancee, whom he later married. Rice is expected to appeal that suspension.
Two other players involved in domestic violence cases are also under the league's microscope, Greg Hardy of the Carolina Panthers and Ray McDonald of the San Francisco 49ers.
A Pro Bowl defensive end, Hardy was convicted of domestic violence charges during the summer but has appealed. McDonald was arrested Aug. 31 in San Jose, California, on suspicion of felony domestic violence for allegedly beating up his pregnant fiancee.
One played, the other sat out - and there's the rub.
The NFL is coming under a lot of pressure for inconsistent policies regarding player violence off the field, and a general failure to address the issue effectively. Teams are struggling for guidance in what is, among other things, a Public Relations nightmare. It's not a great situation for the players, their friends, their families either - especially when some of them have been the targets of violence.
Domestic abuse of any kind is a serious problem. However, in the face of demands for the NFL to take action including more severe punishment, there's a secondary issue that needs more attention. It's not trivial either.
More below the Orange Omnilepticon.
Be Careful What You Ask For
There is a - dare I say it? - knee-jerk response from some people calling for severe punishment by the NFL in these cases, up to and including being banned from professional sports for life. Given the horrendous nature of what's been revealed to date, it is certainly understandable. If the NFL is going to promote football as a character building sport with athletes as role models (and a multi-billion dollar source of revenue), is it too much to ask that their product not include toxic ingredients?
But what are we asking for? Are we expecting NFL teams in their role as the employer of these athletes to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury in handling these matters and impose punishment? There is criminal behavior to be sure, but it didn't take place on the field or at practice. How much power and responsibility do we want to hand employers over the private lives of their employees?
Where Are The Boundaries?
What the players cited above have been charged with is something that laws, police, and courts exist to deal with. How far into the workplace should these matters extend? When players are signed to contracts with professional teams, all kinds of contingencies might be in there. Did any of the above players have anything about arrests, and what kind of penalties might be involved - and for what?
Domestic abuse is getting the headlines here - but let's not forget how much attention has been on drugs. And to make it more complicated, there are distinctions between recreational drugs and performance enhancing drugs. Obviously, performance enhancing drugs are directly job related - but smoking marijuana during the off-season? In a state where it might now be legal? Again, where are the boundaries between work and non-work 'conditions of employment' as it were?
Anything that creates controversy and damages the commercial value image of a team is a matter of concern. Team owners have a legitimate interest in avoiding it; coaches do not want the distraction from the game. Players accept constraints on their actions in return for wages and other benefits. They have agents and the player's union to look out for their interests. It seems simple enough... but as we are seeing in practice, life is seldom clearcut. Although, the Rice video seems pretty unambiguous - which is why the League's fumbling over who saw what and when is damning in its own right.
Part of the problem is the ad hoc response of the NFL to this issue in response to public outcry. There is as yet no clear cut policy to point to and debate about. So here's some other questions to consider. If the league decides suspension or banning in extreme cases is the way to go, how is it to be applied. On the basis of criminal complaints? On the occasion of an arrest? A conviction? What if a player is cleared of all charges? What if charges are dropped, or a settlement is reached out of court between the accused and the accuser? Does the NFL have to compensate a player for league actions that no longer seem to be justified on the basis of the outcome after courts and lawyers have had their say? What if charges turn out to be mistaken, or even fraudulent?
Who decides what the standards are, and how they are enforced? This is something that is probably going to be worked out in future contract negotiations between players and teams, perhaps along the lines of some model yet to be developed. How far will they extend - to coaches, trainers, team office workers, owners as well? What kind of moral standards are employers able to legitimately impose on employees, and what recourse do employees have to challenge them?
The Slippery Slope of Morality in the Workplace
Conditions of employment is the catchall phrase for What The Boss Can Hold You Responsible For. In the Hobby Lobby case, the owners of the company have strong views on birth control and abortion - and what their employees are entitled to for medical coverage. Chik Fil A has strong views on same sex marriage, which affects employees who might be in such relationship. There are a number of people who find the idea of an employer imposing their idea of morality on the private lives of their employees problematic - so what of the NFL and how far can it go in what are intensely personal matters in situations of domestic abuse? What precedents can we live with?
The Problem of Justice
In the case of Rice and his suspension for knocking his then fiancé unconscious in an elevator, there is a problem. The woman involved is now his wife; the two of them have apparently come to terms over the incident. So, now what? If he can't work, he can't support her. It's not clear that he can go into any other line of work either. He should not be rewarded for his behavior obviously, but what kind of penalty can be imposed that falls on him alone without creating undue hardship for anyone else, especially the victim?
This is a paradox of domestic abuse, and why victims are often reluctant to press charges. Punishment may be justly applied to the perpetrator, but that does not mean the victims are left any better off, beyond the cessation of violence. As justice goes, it seems incomplete. Let's not forget the employer dilemma in this either. How hard they come down can depend on how badly they need the services of the employee in question. Life is not fair - which is why we put so much effort into trying to get our institutions to accommodate the concept.
I don't have any hard answers on this. It's not an issue with easy, black and white answers. How much say would I want my boss to have over my life outside of work? How much control would I want over the lives of my employees? Those are issues of perennial concern, and the answers keep changing over time. I'm going to suggest we look long and hard at whatever answers come out of this mess, and consider the long term results as well as the immediate demands. The quote that always comes to my mind in situations like this is: "We pray for mercy, because we would all be fools to pray for justice."