For the record, let me say that I think that the NCAA's position on Cam Newton is the ethically correct decision. The NCAA has ruled that since there is no evidence that Cam Newton knew what his father was doing, Cam Newton should not be punished and ruled ineligible to pay for Auburn. That decision fits in with all of our concepts of justice and morality. An individual is morally responsible for his own actions. There is no evidence, at the moment, that Cecil Newton, Cam's Father, had any contact with Auburn or made the same offer to them to get Cam to pay if Auburn gave Cecil Newton money. So I think that the position is the better position.
But the problem is that the NCAA has a rule on its books that states that if a parent, relative, friend or adviser violates the rules and asks for "favors" for an athlete, that athlete is ineligible. I do not know when that rule was made but listening to the sport talk shows it is apparently a rule that has been there a while and a rule that is well known. Reggie Bush and USC history has made the rule well known.
So here is one of those great problems of where the rule, the law, and the justice and fairness are in conflict with each other. It is in the middle of such situations that one realizes that all those who preach "law and order," those who claim that somebody broke the law and has to be punished, do not understand the realities of life. We are always living in societies that try to provide structure to community living by the "rules" and yet the reality of our human life together is always different and more complex than the rules. Justice is not always found in rules and law.
The Stupid in this class is the effort that the NCAA is making to try to justify the ruling that they made. The effort to pretend that they do not have a rule about this and to avoid enforcing that rule on Cam Newton. There is apparently evidence that Cecil Newton did shop his son around to colleges in the SEC. That would make Cam ineligible under their rules. The knots that the NCAA is twisting itself into to try both to defend the ruling and to look like they are following the rules is just silly. It just continues to make a mockery of their whole efforts to police the problems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment