Perception is Reality

Thorough Thursday: Michael Vick

The whole Michael Vick debate has been raging since 2007 when he was arrested and subsequently sent to prison. (for a ridiculously long time) Upon his release, he immediately stated his plans to reenter the NFL and those plans were met with expected resistance. Various animals rights groups did what they always do, protest, and many Americans felt that playing in the NFL is not a right, but a privilege, one that Vick is no longer worthy of. Vick had to engage in the PR strategy of showing sincere contrition for his acts in order to gain readmittance. So weeks pass, he plays for the Eagles now, but the same sentiment still exists because just yesterday, when news came out that Vick will star in a new reality series called the "Michael Vick Project" set to air on BET, everyone was up in arms again, saying that Vick is lucky to even be in the NFL, he doesn't deserve to be promoted on TV.

The idea playing a professional sport in America is a privilege and not a right is proposterous, yet pervasive among American sports fans, and I am bothered by that and continuously wonder why. Why do we hold athletes to such high moral standards? Better yet, why do we punish athletes more harshly when they break the rules? One need look no further than the cases of Plaxico Burress or Michael Vick to see that when prominent athletes get in trouble, especially black ones who seem a little arrogant, we as a society like to rule with an iron fist. Legally, we throw the book at them and socially we demonize them. I simply do not understand why.

For there to be this much opposition to Vick having a reality show, it implies that what he did to those dogs makes him a bad person, unworthy of fame or fortune by any means. But if Michael Vick were torturing rats, raccoons, or opossums, sure PETA would be upset, but he would have never spent 2 years in Leavenworth for it. The masses would not have cared, and I not even sure if he would of been breaking any laws by doing so. If Michael Vick were a plumber, who was arrested and convicted of dog fighting, served a prison sentence, and tried to regain his plumbing license,...no one would stand in his way. But because he earns his living as a quarterback, he shouldn't be allowed to make a living anymore? And his attempts at coming back to the field in which he makes a living are met with protest and vehement hatred?

It all boils down to the whole higher standard idea. The notion that prominence and wealth should be accompanied by greater moral and social responsibility. Well I think that makes no sense when it comes to pro athletes. Politicians, elected officials....yes they should held to a higher standard, because they literally work for the people, represent our issues and dedication to the community they represent is in their job description. Teachers, priests....yes they should be held to a higher standard in the course of doing their job they provide the framework and develop the mindsets of children who are impressionable and are dependent upon authority figures. Athletes...NO, because they do not work for you. They work for themselves to put food on the table for their families, and for the organization to put trophies on the wall and generate a profit. Just because their table is in a mansion does not mean higher moral standards should apply. It's time we stop being so appalled by athletes that don't embody the a Utopian sense of values and responsibility, and simply be impressed by the few athletes that do.