“Reputation is so rarely proportioned to virtue.”-Saint Francis de Sales. There is no doubt that in our culture, having a good reputation is everything. It determines who your friends are, what kinds of companies will hire you, even what you can do and say, and to whom you can say or do such things. Certainly to those individuals constantly under the limelight, reputation means this, and much more. The life of a celebrity virtually lives and dies by his or her reputation. Who they date, what they say, how they dress, and what they look like on a daily basis always comes to bear on the lives of today’s celebrities. When a celebrity lies, cheats, steals, has to go to drug or alcohol rehab, or is caught doing something that society deems inappropriate, that celebrity’s reputation is adversely affected. The question that I have been wrestling with is: “Is it possible for a celebrity to repair the damage done to his or her reputation merely because they donate large sums of money to charities, or even create foundations for charitable causes themselves?” Ndomukung Suh, Mel Gibson, and of course, Lance Armstrong, are prime examples of the dilemma of the philanthropic celebrity whose reputations have been damaged by either “on-field” or “off-field” actions.
Ndomukung Suh was the second overall pick in the 2010 NFL Draft, by the Detroit Lions. Suh was known for his aggressive style of play at the University of Nebraska, where he played five years as a defensive lineman. Once he broke into the NFL, it was clear that Suh’s style of play was much more aggressive than the vast majority of the players in the league. In his first two years in the league, Suh has been fined $42,500, disciplined three times, and suspended two games without pay for, among other things, stomping on an opposing player’s arm , and kicking an opposing quarterback in the groin. While his on-field actions are questionable at best, Suh has certainly ventured into the arena of philanthropy, donating $2 million dollars to the University of Nebraska Athletics program, while also creating a $600,000 scholarship for students applying to the UNL School of Engineering, of which Suh is a 2009 graduate.
Another celebrity who recently was thrust into the court of public opinion was Mel Gibson. Gibson is an Australian-American actor, and film director who has won awards for both his acting in directing. However, beginning in 1991, and most recently in 2010, there have been instances in which Gibson has been accused of making homophobic and racist comments, investigated for accusations of domestic violence, and even accused of having Anti-Semitic undertones in his 2004 film The Passion of the Christ. There is no doubt that Gibson has made philanthropy a large part of his life. Gibson and his former wife have contributed money to many foundations and charitable organizations. Gibson has donated upwards of $6.8 million to numerous organizations.
Perhaps the best example of this dilemma is the icon of American cycling. Between 1999 and 2005, the 5’9 Lance Armstrong won seven straight Tour de France cycling titles. However, in recent months, it has been brought to light that Armstrong used doping agents, for which he has been stripped of each one of his seven Tour de France titles, and is currently under investigation by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). However, it is almost impossible to forget Armstrong’s foundation, which generated roughly $325 million from the sale of the yellow “Livestrong” bracelets. Furthermore, Armstrong, along with a number of other athletes founded “Athletes for Hope,” a charity which helps professional athletes become involved in many charitable causes.
So, ladies and gentlemen, the decision is yours, have these individuals done enough to balance the moral scales, and if not, will they ever be able to?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andersonantunes/2012/01/11/the-30-most-generous-celebrities/3/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong#Politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson#Philanthropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ndamukong_Suh
This is a very well written post about some stars who have made questionable decisions that have led people to question their morals. My comment will exclude Suh simply because I do not believe his actions on the field are too violent. This is the type of play you would find from a defensive player about 20 years ago, and I think it is okay. As for the others, I believe that at heart, they are all good people and really care about their respective fields and about causes they believe in. They all have an incredible drive to make it to the top. Being an athlete and a highly competitive person, I know the feeling of always wanting to win and be on top. I think the questionable choices that these famous figures have made all come from an excess of desire to win and get into the spotlight.
ReplyDeleteSo yes I do believe that their philanthropic actions are very admirable, but it is not enough to outweigh the career choices they have made. In the end, the choices they made are part of their personality and character and they have to be viewed and judged as a whole.
This blog posts brings up a very interesting point. While I believe that the donations made by these individuals are certainly respectable, I wish it was possible to know the motives that they had in mind at the time. For example, Lance Armstrong started the Livestrong foundation before the scandal regarding his use of doping agents occurred, which leads me to believe that his actions were not fueled by a desire to save his reputation. I'm assuming that Ndomukung Suh only obtained such large amounts of money after his time in the NFL, so it is likely that his poor reputation preceded his donations. In a case such as this, I personally find the motivations behind the philanthropy to be more questionable and perhaps fueled by a desire for positive media. Therefore, although I think it is great that celebrities and athletes give charitable donations, I think that when analyzing their character as a whole, it is crucial to attempt to delve into their true motives for giving.
ReplyDeleteI understand the point that you're trying to make regarding celebrities trying to renovate their image by participating in philanthropy. It seems like every celebrity has a charity that they started themselves and it's nearly impossible to know whether they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart or for more self-serving reasons. However, there is no doubt in my mind that their donations help the community better than them spending it on a Learjet or Ferrari. I think the example of Lance Armstrong and his charitable giving/connection to Livestrong is fascinating. I remember when they first began producing the Livestrong bracelets them being the "it" thing to wear. I'm sure if we did a poll of our class at least half of us wore one at some point. Now with Armstrong admitting to using PEDs, most people have stopped wearing them. For me personally I have continued to wear mine as I don't view it as supporting him but for those fighting cancer.
ReplyDeleteI think this brings up a very philosophic discussion of the worth of a person’s life. A karma-driven viewpoint would state that if the good done by the donations outweighs the hurt done in personal life then they are redeemed. However, I want to return to the podcast about the man who gave out $5 to families during the Great Depression. In another instance, it may have been ok for him to give out his name, but the good he did was dependent on the families’ abilities to maintain their dignity. Like this, I think the discussion should always be focused on the people receiving the charity rather than person giving it. Who am I to judge if a celebrity is a “good” or “bad” person? Far be it from me, who has definitely made mistakes in the past, to judge someone who happens to be famous. Whether a celebrity donates a lot or a little to charity, the question I will be asking is not “How does this make me feel about the celebrity?” but rather “Am I encouraged by the good of this donation, or do I feel that this donation was wasted?” and lastly “How can I adjust my own actions in light of the good/bad that this celebrity has done through this donation?”
ReplyDeleteI don't think that people should be judged based on whether they are "good" or "bad". Everything that they have done should be weighed, and if they were to be labeled it should be somewhere along a scale of not solely good and bad. Somebody like Lance Armstrong should definitely be criticized for lying about and using PED's, but also commended for raising millions of dollars for cancer. As a result, in discussion of Lance Armstrong I would say that he is a man that has lied and cheated on a tremendous scale as well as done great things in support of cancer. No where would I mention one outweighing the other because everybody will have their own opinion on if it does. Labeling people in only two categories is a near impossible task, and as somebody who has always been non-religious, I wonder how someone would view this in terms of heaven and hell.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, a celebrity cannot fully repair the damage done to his/her reputation based on philanthropic contributions alone. They must do something that directly relates to the incident that hurt their reputation in the first place. For example, if Lindsay Lohan all of a sudden cleaned up her act and started living a normal life, I and many others would respect her for making this change. She’d no longer be the person who descended into madness, but a woman who worked through a low point in her life and overcome the hardships involved. She’d be an inspiration for others who have the same problems. However, if she just gave money to charitable organizations, most people’s opinions of her wouldn’t change at all.
ReplyDeleteIn deciding between different cases, I think we must also look at motivation, as Laura stated, and timeframe of the giving and offense. Making donations after having one’s reputation hurt would seem to be directly related to trying to improve the situation. If the donations happen before a single incident, such as going into rehab or being caught smoking weed, then I would say that the two are separate events, and that the incident should not affect the generosity. However, if the person makes these donations during the same time that a scandal was being hidden, there is a possibility that this person was trying to assuage feelings of guilt. This may have been the case with Lance Armstrong, but, regardless of that possibility, he should still be commended for having such an impact on America and the fight against cancer. No amount of money spent on his part will bring back those titles, so his reputation will be forever tarnished in some manner. So no, I don’t believe these individuals have done enough to balance the moral scales, since they haven’t corrected the initial problem, but this doesn’t mean that they haven’t done good things or are necessarily “bad” people.
First off, I must agree with everyone that this was a very thought provocative post, well done Max.
ReplyDeleteInitially, after I read your post I couldn’t thinking about a similar point made in Peter Singer’s book when he questioned if it was okay to donate large sums of money if everyone knows you did. Personally I feel like it doesn’t matter if you’re name is all over it as long as it is going to helping people for a greater cause. In the same effect, does it matter if someone donates large sums of money if you may just be doing it to protect their public image? I certainly don’t believe so because in cases of Ndomukung Suh, Mel Gibson and Lance Armstrong they all provided financial assistance to helping people. And at the end of the helping others is what philanthropy is all about.
In addition, not to say kicking someone in the groin or Anti-Semitism is okay but no one is perfect, especially when it comes down to celebrities. The reputations of celebrities are often magnified so when they do bad things it looks really bad. Lance Armstrong may have used steroids and cheated to accumulate fame and wealth but athletes use steroids all the time and rarely do you see them raising over 300 million dollars for a foundation! Lance may have broken the rules of cycling but he has also helped others suffering from cancer.
But in response to Adam, when he said “… I wonder how someone would view this in terms of heaven and hell.” I’m actually someone who is very religious and I believe that there is no way to “tip” the moral scale for the after-life. I believe whether you’re good or bad person, there is no real amount of money that absolve you of things you have done wrong.