Role-model Writers

I mean, let's give Roethlisberger credit. At least he wasn't packing a firearm like so many of his athletic brethren do when they are out taking the air these evenings.

That’s Frank Deford’s response to Roethlisberger’s suspension as a result of his alleged sexual assault. Now, I agree with most of the rest of the article—athletes shouldn’t be held to a higher standard than anyone else simply because they’re famous and talented, any more than we should excuse their foul behavior for the same reason. They’re people, and they run the gamut of human frailty and strength in each league, from curling to cricket and football to football. If the public doesn’t like the behavior of its premier athletes, it needs to vote with its wallet (which, I suspect, is exactly what Goodell was hoping to avoid by suspending the quarterback; reputation is everything in sales, and Roethlisberger—or any QB, really—is the face of the team and therefore of the league. A face with “Schmuck” practically tattooed on the forehead).

No, my argument with Deford has nothing to do with his logic, and everything to do with his thoughtlessness. At least he wasn’t packing a firearm. So, comparatively, sexual assault, in which you hurt someone else, is less harmful than, say, carrying a weapon and shooting yourself? We can give him credit because the only protection he had were two bodyguards, and his only potential weapon was his own 240-lb frame? Just how much more do you need to be a threat to the average 5’ 4”, 125lb—145lb 20-yr old college girl? A hundred pounds of muscle and a Glock would have made it less fair in the assailant/victim ratio?

I’m not saying he did it, though she did have to be treated at the hospital, and he did apologize, which implies guilt if not crime. I’m not saying she wasn’t drunk out of her mind, though that’s no excuse for poor behavior on either side. I am questioning that we’re supposed to give him credit because the stupidest thing he did was look at a female who was obviously intoxicated beyond the ability to consent, something college freshmen are briefed to avoid like plague (even if they don’t), and still took advantage of her, because he’s BR the Badass.

If nothing else, that’s on the same level of stupid as those who are packing, unless he was smarter than the guntoters because he picked an activity and a victim that he knew wouldn’t hold up in a criminal investigation. Unless we’re supposed to credit him for being smart enough to pick a crime with grey areas, rather than a clearcut illegally-concealed firearms charge. Give him credit because he’s a smart thug. I don’t think either of those is what Deford wants to say, but that’s certainly how it reads, and I’m not the only one who got that impression.

I know Deford’s a better writer than to miss that, but he seems to have become so caught up in his own wordplay that he gave readers ammunition to call him a rape apologist. If he wants people to pay attention to the point, he needs to pay attention to the words he’s using, or he risks becoming the wrong kind of role model for writers, commenters, and journalists. Unfortunately, we already have enough of that sort.