The NFL’s Long Game: Do We Thank Injustice for the Change It Creates?

BY RACHEL BUTLER

“If this is a seminal moment for domestic violence and the way we handle it as a society, then that’s not a burden for us to be that poster boy— it’s not. Now, I’m embarrassed about it, but five years from now if things have changed significantly for the better, I’ll be proud of it,” Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti said in a recent interview.

Bisciotti was referring to his own handling of the domestic violence charges leveled against Ravens running back Ray Rice, as well as to the responses of the the larger National Football League (NFL) administration. Bisciotti and other league administrators have been the focus of a great deal of media attention over an apparent attempt to cover up a video, which shows Rice punching his fiancée (now wife) in a hotel elevator . The league also faced criticism for its inconsistency in punishing Rice—his initial two-week suspension was changed to an indefinite ban after the NFL faced media backlash for its laxity. Four other NFL players are also currently facing domestic violence charges, and public criticism has surrounded the punishments the NFL doled out (or didn’t dole out) in response to those cases.

In his interview, Bisciotti tried to put a positive spin on the NFL’s and his own poor handling of the situation, saying that it may lead to significant change “for the better.” On his show Last Week Tonight, John Oliver aptly paraphrased Bisciotti’s statement: “Really, you should all be thanking me. I’ve handled this situation so badly, I may have actually instigated social progress.” If someone accidentally instigates progress through some wrongful or unjust action, does that mean we should thank that person for what he or she did? John Oliver presented a pertinent analogy to Bisciotti’s sentiment: “Think of it this way: you don’t get to Rosa Parks without Rosa Parks’ bus driver, and that is me. You should be thanking me.” Will the failures of Bisciotti and the rest of the NFL administration lead to positive change five years from now? If so, should we be thanking them?

As a society, we don’t usually thank someone who causes an injustice. However, it is true that high-profile injustice, such as one involving the NFL, can lead to greater public awareness of the issues at hand and in turn lead to social change. A specific incident of injustice that gains a high profile often serves as the catalyst for social change, demonstrated in shifts in societal attitudes or in legislation. One needs a specific incident in order to create a resolution that can be applied to that general type of conflict. This is how Supreme Court cases work—using a specific case of injustice, the court rules on how all cases relating to that type of injustice should be handled. The domestic violence cases leveled against current NFL players won’t go to the Supreme Court and create any actual change in legislation. However, the cases are high profile enough that they may be able to create change in our society’s attitude towards domestic violence simply by publicizing the issue.

The current issues with the NFL are certainly bringing domestic violence, a crime that is usually relatively ignored by the mainstream media, to the forefront of public consciousness. In fact, following the release of the Ray Rice video to the public on TMZ on September 8, the National Domestic Violence Hotline received 84% more calls than usual. Call volume rose every time a new domestic violence accusation against an NFL player hit the news. The hotline was unable to answer almost 50% of the chats, calls, and texts sent during these surges. These surges indicate a corresponding surge in awareness of domestic violence in the wake of the allegations against NFL players, at least on the part of those actually involved in domestic disputes who had a need for the hotline.

If the allegations against NFL players led to so many people reaching out for help against domestic abuse, could this scandal actually be a step towards a more just and open societal attitude towards domestic violence? The NFL has been taking some steps to rework their policies. In response to the stress on the hotline and its probable link to the NFL players involved in domestic violence, the league publicly committed to supporting the hotline, pledging to provide the resources for the hotline to handle as many callers as possible. Furthermore, the league hired four women to create new policies on sexual assault and domestic violence for the organization, which is significant not just for policy change but also because it increases gender diversity in the league’s management. The driving force behind these actions is probably damage control for the NFL’s image rather than a genuine desire to combat domestic violence, but the efforts may still lead to positive results in practice. Since the NFL’s mistakes—coupled with its actions in the wake of those mistakes and the publicity of both—may be helping to combat domestic violence, should we be thanking Steve Bisciotti?

We typically don’t thank people who cause an injustice, even those who try to correct it, because of their motives. We don’t thank Rosa Parks’ bus driver, because he did not have what we now think of as justice in mind when he called the police to have her arrested. Similarly, Steve Bisciotti probably didn’t have the social change that his actions might cause in mind when he tried to cover up the severity of Ray Rice’s assault on his then fiancée . The motives behind the league’s efforts at damage control are similarly questionable—Roger Goodell’s visits to and support of the hotline seem more like a media ploy than a genuine gesture, as he was also supposedly complicit in the cover up of Rice’s and other players’ actions. If it were only the results that mattered and motives were irrelevant, then we might be thanking the players who committed crimes of domestic violence for sparking the whole scandal in the first place. The ends do not justify the means, especially if one doesn’t have the ends in mind. Just because the unjust actions of NFL players and administrators may spark social change does not mean we should be thanking them.

However, though it seems evident that the scandal has caused some shifts within both the NFL and society at large as of now, whether or not it will create lasting social change “5 years from now,” as Bisciotti postulated, has yet to be seen. Domestic violence has been thrust into the national consciousness over the past few weeks due to its exposure in the media, which tends to sensationalize the crimes and the ensuing scandal rather than discuss the issue of domestic violence in general. The increased volume of calls to the hotline may be linked only to the current media exposure, and could likely fall after the scandal stops getting so much news coverage. The NFL’s partnership with the hotline may also break apart as soon as the backlash against the league dies down. The league’s employment of four women to create new policies is slightly more encouraging for the prospect of lasting change, but the new policies have yet to be created or implemented.

In order for real change to be made, the NFL has to continue supporting the hotline and other domestic violence support systems, and has to meaningfully alter its own policies. Furthermore, consumers of the media need to remain aware of domestic violence even after it fades from headlines, requiring a shift from sensationalizing the current scandal to using it as an educational jumping-off point for the issue of domestic violence at large. If the NFL does succeed in creating change within itself in terms of its attitude toward domestic violence, it could catalyze much broader change, as the high publicity of the NFL affords the organization great influence on the public consciousness, as we have seen during the scandal. If this scandal leads to improvements in how we address domestic violence as a society, the NFL still won’t be deserving of gratitude, but it may be a few steps closer to earning forgiveness.