A01: LTE–mica

The article“the N.F.L. Continues to Face Questions Over Video of Ray Rice” outlines all the details of that infamous night in which Ray Rice was involved in domestic abuse. From what is understood, Rice and his then fiancé were both intoxicated and having an argument. The video shows her spitting on him as well as his response—a blow to her face. Was his response wrong? Yes. Should he be punished? Definitely.

The issue is not the fact that the NFL punished him, but more so it is the fact that he was punished for the same crime twice. I may just be a first-year nutrition student, but even I know that is wrong. I believe the courts call it “double jeopardy.” Rice was suspended for two games, which was the NFL’s original rule for such an offense as his. Now, about 6 months later, he is being suspended indefinitely because a tape of this incident surfaced. It makes you question, is Rice’s new punishment because of his crime or is it in response to the publics outrage and opinion?

The NFL now changed their rule to a six game suspension in the case of domestic violence because they want the public to know they do not condone that kind of behavior. In other words, the NFL needs the public to know that they are completely innocent in all of this. So if the rule is a six game suspension, why is Rice facing a lifetime ban? I understand Rice has a job in the public eye, and he is a role model to young children; however banning him from the NFL is not going to solve anything. It will not help take a stand against domestic violence; it will just keep the NFL out of this controversy and all of its drama.
There are many other things the NFL can do; they could suspend Rice for the six games. They could send him to anger management classes or to a therapist. Why not even levy a heavy fine on the guy on top of everything else? That would ensure he would learn from his mistake, and it maybe even ensure he does not let his anger get the best him again. The NFL could support Rice in this time and assist in making him into a better person, rather than just giving up on him and firing him from a job that he has dedicated his life to.

Rice’s punishment is not a result of the NFL’s conscience or deep moral code; it is an effort to save face and keep the public’s respect.

This entry was posted in 123 Uncheck this box!. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A01: LTE–mica

  1. mica1comp says:

    Thank you for the feedback. I am comfortable with this degree of criticism; it will only help my writing. The question I have is, to get not just a C but an A or B grade, should I chose a different article to write about? Or is it to late for that?

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      A grades can be earned on any topic, mica, provided the writing is strong. You did set yourself a hurdle, but the way over may be to go around. Don’t take a familiar tack on this subject; it’s too hard to make your remarks sound original and necessary. But there’s plenty of uncharted territory.

      Forget re-hashing what the NFL did wrong. That’s been done to death. Concentrate instead on what they should do right, this time, and the next time a star football player is caught abusing a family member. You appear to have ideas about that already.

      Is zero tolerance appropriate for an employer? Can the league (which is a loose coalition of teams with owners who set their own policies) actually enforce a “one strike, you’re out forever” policy over all its players? Can it dictate policy to its franchisees (the owners of the teams)? Is the appearance of guilt enough to suspend or ban a player? Or does the league have to wait for a criminal conviction before it can act? All of these are very important questions for anyone who wants to seriously address the problem (or earn an A on an essay).

      Of course, this is just a suggestion. If you have a better idea for a fresh angle, go to it. But don’t switch subject matter choices at this hour, please. I’m not likely to trust that strategy.

      Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    Mica the risk you take when you decide to weigh in on a very hot topic as a course assignment is that we have all heard or read all the available opinions on the topic. In particular, the odds of getting a letter published in the NYTimes on the Ray Rice debacle would be very long. Your professor is likely to be just as demanding that you find a unique perspective that can’t have been overheard.

    An “issue” is not a problem, so calling something “the issue” doesn’t identify that you consider it a problem. Clarifying that you know it’s wrong saves you; otherwise we wouldn’t know.

    It’s obvious the NFL was caught without a clear policy or firm penalties for domestic abusers, but they’re not exactly the judicial system and therefore there’s no established appeal process to overturn a penalty on the grounds of double jeopardy. That could be part of your unique reaction, mica: that we keep trying to apply the laws of the land to a football club that doesn’t have to play by the same rules.

    You asked two rhetorical questions in your first paragraph, for which you don’t have a license. You get a temporary pass for those because you answered them immediately. But you’re not allowed to use them as you did to end your second paragraph. It’s not an argument to ask a question.

    Your point that the NFL wants to appear righteous is no doubt correct. And while I agree the ban won’t “solve anything” if by that you mean undo the wrong he committed, but if he is a role model as you suggest, the lifetime ban does send a clear message to kids that punching your fiance is a quick ticket to unemployment.

    No doubt anger management will be part of a negotiated package too, but what is all this nonsense? What is an employer doing sending its employees to classes for his home life? When did the Commissioner become the chief justice?

    My overall advice would be to eliminate all inconsistencies in your recommendations, and to craft a response less familiar to everyone who has listened to this topic being debated. You’ve burdened yourself with an obligation to be unique.

    Are you comfortable with this level and degree of criticism, mica? I would appreciate your specific feedback.
    Grade recorded.

    Like

  3. davidbdale says:

    mica, I was hoping to help you by categorizing this post in two categories: your username, and A01: LTE, but the post is locked because you’re currently editing it, or WordPress thinks you are. Remember to hit those Category buttons before you update.

    Like

  4. mica1comp says:

    Feedback provided. —DSH

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s