I’d like to discuss two seemingly unrelated items in the news lately. First, the “scandal” involving consensus all American
linebacker for Notre Dame, Manti T’eo, and second, the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade,
the Supreme Court decision that made abortion a constitutional right.
For those of you who don’t follow sports, Manti T’eo just
finished what was arguably the greatest season ever for a defensive college
football player, winning 7 national awards as the nation’s best defensive player,
and finishing second in the Heisman voting, the highest finish ever for someone
playing only defense. Part of what made the season so compelling was that his
girlfriend from Hawaii died from leukemia after the second game of the season. Story after story was written about
T’eo managed to fight through this tragedy, putting the commitment to his team
over his own grief and depression. The game after T’eo received the news of her
death, the Notre Dame student body dressed in leis during the game as a sign of
their solidarity and prayers for him.
Except that, as it turns out, this girl never existed. Someone
had been “cat-fishing” T’eo on line for months, they had become intimate, and
he believed he was in a real relationship with this girl, even though he’d
never met her in person. In
December, the girl who had supposedly died called him, and he realized, much to
his embarrassment, he had been duped. To protect himself from looking stupid,
he didn’t tell anyone, not even his parents at first, and lied about it a few
times in subsequent interviews, as if she had been real. And then Deadspin, an on-line gossip
site, broke the story that the girlfriend and her death were a hoax.
The media reacted with outrage. Without a shred of evidence,
they claimed T’eo had invented the story to gain sympathy and improve his
chance at winning the Heisman trophy. There were stories written that compared him to Lance
Armstrong, the disgraced cyclist who had cheated his way by using steroids to
win 7 straight Tour de France races, or to other athletes who beat their wives,
or used drugs, or killed people and got away with it. They demanded to know more, probing every facet of his life.
The public was fascinated by the
story, ratings were up, newspapers and magazines were selling, so they pressed
as deeply into a 21 year old’s personal life as they could, interviewing
friends, family, team mates, acquaintances, trying to get into the juicy, lurid
details. A young man had been
tricked, he admitted as much in embarrassment, but the media demanded more.
What in the world does all this have to do with Roe vs.
Wade? Forty years ago, the Court
struck down a state law that made abortion illegal in Texas on the basis that
the law violated the privacy rights of the mother. By framing the question as
“privacy,” the Court begged the question in assuming there was only one
person’s rights at stake and not two: the mother’s and the baby’s. But that’s precisely the issue!
No one disputes a mother’s right to remove her appendix or tonsils or sore
tooth. But in the case of
abortion, a baby is not merely the appendage of the mother—the developing child
in the mother’s womb has his own organs, his own arms and legs, his own, unique
DNA. As the saying goes, I have
the right to swing my arms around wildly if I want to, but that right ends
precisely at the front of someone else’s nose. That’s why it’s a ridiculous argument to say one can be
“personally opposed” to abortion but “cannot impose” this view on others: If
you substitute abortion in that mantra for any other crime that violates the
civil rights of others, you can see how silly that is: I am personally opposed
to rape, but I cannot impose my views on rapists who disagree with me. I am
personally opposed to torture, child abuse, robbery, theft, and beatings, but I
can’t impose my beliefs on torturers, abusers, robbers, thieves or thugs. The
whole point of law is to protect the civil rights of others, especially the most
vulnerable, those who can’t defend themselves. We’ve failed tragically as a country in protecting babies’ lives
in mothers’ wombs because we’re confused about what privacy is…..and what it
isn’t.
And that’s how I believe the Roe/Wade decision and the Manti
T’eo story are linked. Both cases involve the issue of liberty and privacy, and
how far we can go in either direction without violating the other. In T’eo’s case, I believe the drive for
ratings pushed the media, in the name of liberty and freedom of the press, to
dig too deeply into the life of a senior in college, violating his privacy. In
abortion, the notion of privacy is elevated to such an extent that the liberty
rights of the baby are trivialized and held forfeit.
But this tension between liberty and privacy is a tension we
feel as well. When we see some one doing something wrong, how much rope should
we give him, respecting his privacy, or how soon before we intervene? It’s an
issue for the school, too: If we hear about something you did at a party off
campus on Friday night, what should our position be? It may surprise some of
you to know that unless JPII’s name is involved, I don’t think it’s any of our
business. We simply pass on to parents what we heard, and then it’s up to your
parents how they handle. We care about you, and worry if you’re involved in
dangerous behavior, but ultimately, that’s between you and your parents—it’s
not our business, unless the school’s name or reputation is sullied by your
behavior. Two examples to clarify: Suppose we got word that four of you were
drunk at someone’s house this weekend, what would we do? We’d simply tell your
parents, and leave it at that—your parents can handle it with your from there,
and how they do so is not our business. Second example, at my old school, about 15 guys got into a
fight with 15 kids from another school at a local park. I and the other
principal were called by the police, and the incident was reported in the
newspaper the next day, identifying the two schools. In that case, the school’s
name was involved, so we took disciplinary action in addition to whatever else
their parents did. That’s our policy here.
But what about you? When do you intervene when your friends
are doing things that worry you? A
couple of quick thoughts: First, how close is this person to you? Our
obligation to act is higher if this person is a close friend vs. a facebook
friend or mere acquaintance at school.
Think of the analogy of family: If a young brother were doing something
like smoking pot or drinking too much, we’d have little problem confronting him
or her. So too do the obligations of friendship require us to move quickly and
effectively to help our friends. Second, does that person’s behavior put other people at risk?
If so, we must instantly intervene, lest innocent people are hurt by our
inaction. Third, these aren’t easy decisions. I think it’s good instinct on our
part to want to respect other people’s privacy. But it’s an equally good
instinct to care for others and be concerned about them. If you’re not sure
what to do, don’t suffer through that alone. Talk to a trusted adult, a trusted
teacher, your parents, or a friend’s parents. They may be able to help.
May God give us the courage to act, the patience to respect
others’ privacy and the wisdom to know the difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment