When they take the field in Spring Training and for the rest of the 2015 baseball season, the St. Louis Cardinals will be wearing a memorial patch reading “OT” in honor of outfielder Oscar Taveras, the 22-year-old budding star outfielder who died in a car crash in his native Dominican Republic last October. Such mourning patches have become common since 1972, when the Pittsburgh Pirates moved beyond the traditional black armband to a personalized patch following the tragic death of the team’s Hall of Fame outfielder Roberto Clemente in a plane crash, as he was flying humanitarian aid to Nicaragua.

Taveras, however, unlike Clemente, died in an act of reckless stupidity that took not only his own life but that of his 18-year-old girlfriend, Edilia Arvelo, as well. Toxicology tests showed that his blood alcohol level was five times the legal limit before the crash. situation is more complex because toxicology tests showed that his blood alcohol level at the time of his death was five times the legal limit. Moreover, Taveras’, also was killed in the crash. If Taveras had lived and Arvelo alone had died, he would have been prosecuted for manslaughter.

And thus your first Ethics Alarms Baseball Ethics Quiz of 2015 is this:

Is it ethical for the Cardinals to publicly honor Taveras with a uniform patch?

ESPN’s Paul Lucas frames the issue this way:

“Should a person’s character have any bearing on whether he’s memorialized with a patch? Does the fact that Taveras was only 22 at the time of his death make a difference in this case? Is a memorial patch an endorsement of a person’s entire life or a gesture of mourning?”

NBC’s Craig Calcaterra, in his sensible discussion of the matter, notes that drunk driving has long been a problem in professional baseball. So has reckless driving generally: just this off-season, Washington Nationals star Jayson Werth was sentenced to 10 days in jail for driving over 100 MPH on the Capital Beltway. Whether a drunk or reckless driver kills himself or others is a classic example of moral luck, for whether such a driver ends up dead, a criminal, in jail, or home safe in bed and still an upstanding member of society often comes down to random factors beyond his control.

This question is interesting because it is a perfect illustration of an ethical conflict, where two or more valid ethical values are in direct opposition. A team is like a family, and loyalty, empathy, kindness and compassion argue for a family mourning a premature and untimely death of a family member, whatever his mistakes, misdeeds and flaws may be. A young man with a bright future is dead, and mourning is healthy for his team mates and friends. However Taveras died, and regardless of his own complicity in that death, one can’t deny that this was a tragedy, and that his end was exceedingly sad.

Yet a big league baseball team is also on constant public display, and the Cardinals’ uniform patch goes well beyond private mourning. It will be a constant gesture of remembrance and honor that arguably reflects on the team, St. Louis, Major League Baseball, the sport itself, and the culture. Is it responsible, under such circumstances, to honor Taveras with a patch?

Let me address Lucas’s questions first:

1. Should a person’s character have any bearing on whether he’s memorialized with a patch?

Any bearing? Sure: if the dead player was a serial killer, a virulent racist or a criminal mastermind, I think he loses the right to a patch. I wouldn’t make a blanket judgment about a man’s character, however, based on a single instance of drunk driving, even a fatal one. He was 22, and men do really stupid things at 22. If they are lucky, it doesn’t kill them. This is not signature significance.

2. Does the fact that Taveras was only 22 at the time of his death make a difference in this case?

I just answered that question. It also gives us more to mourn. His youth makes a difference, yes.

3. Is a memorial patch an endorsement of a person’s entire life or a gesture of mourning?

It depends. A patch is communication. What does it communicate? Would an objective observor see the patch and think, “Look, Major League Baseball is endorsing drunk driving,” or conclude, “Look, the Cardinals are wearing a patch in honor of that young outfielder who died”? I think the intent of the patch is obviously the latter, especially since Taveras didn’t live long enough to have much of a life to endorse.

My answer to the quiz is yes, it’s ethical. We’ve seen black armbands and patches on baseball uniforms for a hundred years, always honoring the passing of team mates or baseball greats, and I’ve never assumed that they were anything more than gestures of mourning, honoring what the players did on the field.

In 1986, the New York Yankees retired the uniform number of Billy Martin, the fiery player and manager who finally died driving drunk after a lifetime of it, and other awful behavior too. Nobody has ever suggested, that I know of, that the retired number 1 hanging in the stadium endorses being a virulent asshole, which Martin undeniably and defiantly was ( great manager, though). My suspicion is that the controversy over Taveras is mostly fueled by anti-DUI activists, who sense an opportunity to raise awareness of the dangers of drunk driving. That’s fine; the conversation and debate is healthy.

The Cardinals, however, should wear the patch.

______________________

Sources: ESPN, NBC Sports