Examining the Double Standard

 He was a respected NBA star. He endorsed everything from shoes to food to clothing to beverages. He portrayed himself as a family man and was heavily marketed to children. And now, he was an outed adulterer. Maybe more.

 His reputation was now in the hands of those he'd spent years trying to charm: the media. They could report and morally analyze this sex scandal so relentlessly that it would become impossible for one to hear his name and not think of the wife he betrayed. Or they could sweep the story under the rug, giving it such minimal coverage that few would hear of it. Fortunately for Michael Jordan, they choose the latter.

 That's right. Michael Jordan. An unfaithful husband who used bribery to cover up an affair. Yet still the most revered athlete ever.

 That Kobe Bryant's July 6 arrest and impending rape trial have made for the most analyzed sports story in years is appalling. When the more famous Jordan admitted, in October 2002, to having paid fledgling actress Karla Knafel $250,000 to keep secret an extramarital relationship, slim press coverage ensued.

 "But MJ wasn't charged with rape! " one might say. True. But the Kobe story was about more than crime. It was about the fallibility of a hero. After admitting to adultery on July 18, Kobe was barraged with criticism for betraying his family. Said columnist Terry Pluto: <<<

 "Guilty or not, Kobe was wrong. "

 Such condemnations were nonexistent when the Jordan scandal broke. The online search ["Kobe Bryant "+adultery] turns up over five times more matches than ["Michael Jordan "+adultery] does.

 No one should be surprised. Throughout his career, Jordan has taken little heat for his often classless behavior. From retiring three times to preventing fellow legend Isaiah Thomas from competing for his country in the Olympics, Jordan has shown himself to be a selfish egomaniac with little respect for teammates and less for opponents. Yet the smoker and compulsive gambler has appeared with children in "Be Like Mike " Gatorade commercials and starred in a cartoon movie. Maybe a sex scandal or volatile personality can ruin the public image of a mere mortal, but for media darling Michael, it's nothing to worry about.

 In short, there's a double standard here and almost everyone knows it. And what a paradoxical concept that is. For it seems that if everyone knows that a double standard exists, then it no longer should. But there exist today countless examples of self-evident hypocrisy. Citing statistical likelihood, car insurance companies charge higher rates for males than females. If conflicting evidence led them to reverse this system, however, and charge higher rates for females, or if African Americans were charged higher insurance rates than whites, then there would be protests and boycotts across the nation.

 Similarly, as the search for chemical and biological weapons in Iraq was proving frugal this summer, President Bush was called a liar for his claim that Iraq possessed a weapons network capable of mass destruction. Yet the integrity of the United Nations, France and Syriawho all concurred with the United States on the issue--was never questioned. Nor was former President Bill Clinton's, even though he said this in 1998: "If we fail to act, Saddam Hussein will go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

 Double standards are most evident in matters of perceived racism. Chicago Cubs manager Dusty Baker claimed this summer that minority players are better suited to playing in hot conditions than whites are. His comments actually provoked some interesting biological discussions. But no discussion was needed about one issue; had a white manager made similar comments, he would have provoked an instant firestorm and lost his job.

 So the question remains; why, when everyone knows a double standard exists, does it exist? Why do people view actions differently based on who engages in them?

 The easy route is to blame the media. And they certainly are in part responsible. But there's another reason. It's that a minority can drastically affect public opinion by working hard or being loud.

 If car insurance companies charged higher rates for females than males, feminist groups would make noise until the policy was changed or the industry's reputation tarnished. If a white manager were to draw racial distinctions between the abilities of athletes, civil rights groups would audibly fuss. But few activists concern themselves with the plights of males or whites, and so the campaigns needed to alter one's public reputation rarely occur when possible discrimination by the minority does.

 It follows that one's fate is often decided by one's enemies. That has seemed especially true this summer. Perhaps the boos that showered Kobe Bryant as he was named 2002 All-Star MVP in his hometown of Philadelphia, PA, should have convinced him to avoid trouble at all costs. They didn't, and he would eventually learn that he was not Michael Jordan--the recipient of a two-minute standing ovation in the same arena. He had too many enemies. He couldn't shrug off immoral behavior like a three-pointer.

 Nathan Carleton is a Trinity junior. His column appears every other week.