"As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football. We further ask the NFL, [Atlanta] Falcons, and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country."
White goes on further to say that Vick made a mistake and should be allowed to prove he has learned from that mistake. This means that the NAACP (at least the Atlanta Chapter) believes that Vick shouldn't be permanently barred from his profession because he has learned from his mistake and we, society, should aid his rehab.
Now contrast this with another story from a while back. The Detroit chapter of the NAACP called for Don Imus' resignation from his radio program following his comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. There was no talk about a suspension that would (to steal language from above) let him learn from his mistakes and move on, but only of termination.
Why is this? I agree both Vick and Imus were wrong in their actions; I think dog fighting is wrong and I think Imus' racial comments were wrong. Is what Imus did that much worse than what Vick did? I don't think so. In fact, what Imus said is not even illegal, just socially unacceptable. Vick broke the law and will likely spend time in a federal prison. Yet his crime is something that he can learn from and move on from. Imus' "crime" isn't.
Imus had several decades under his belt in his given profession; Vick has five or six. Yet the NAACP is all about ending Imus' career, yet giving Vick a second chance.
Is it because Imus' infraction was racially based? Is that why the NAACP wanted his termination? Because the infraction is against what the NAACP is trying to stand for?
Or is it because Vick is an African-American and that is the class of people the NAACP is trying to protect and promote? Would the color of one's skin be a valid reason why one individual deserves the benefit of rehabilitation and another doesn't.
Or is there another reason I can't think of? I don't have the answer to these questions. Granted, this happened by two different chapters of the NAACP, but I still believe the questioning is valid. I think if one of these gentlemen is worthy of rehabilitation, then they both are. Both of these men made a mistake and both should be able to learn from their mistake, including taking a suitable punishment, and continue with their careers.
Damn, Duff! Well said!
ReplyDelete~Finn