YouTube, Calvin Johnson—and Equity?

In Christian Foundations of Law class we have been studying equity. Equity is the system of justice that was developed in England as an alternative or supplement to the sometimes rigid rules of the common law. English chancellors, such as Thomas More, sought to bring fairness or substantive justice when the letter of the law might work hardship.

A discussion of equity—while fascinating to me, the teacher!—can strike students as a little bit dry. I got a little help, though, in week 1 of the NFL season, from Lion wide receiver Calvin Johnson. Most of you know the story or have seen it on YouTube. Johnson came down with what appeared to be a game-winning touchdown against the Chicago Bears. As he rolled over in the end zone and got up, he left the ball on the ground. The catch was disallowed by an NFL rule that requires receivers to have complete control of the ball during all parts of the catch, including the roll-over.



The play seems obvious: Johnson caught the ball; he did not juggle it or trap it. The defender did not knock it away. Johnson purposely left it on the ground as he got up. It looked like a touchdown.

But the NFL rulebook is clear. This is not a catch by rule—a rule that perhaps seems a little rigid and harsh in the context of this play.

Johnson’s predicament has provided a great way for my class to consider both the importance and challenges of equity. The spirit of the NFL rule is to ensure that a ball is actually and fully caught. When applied to Johnson, though, the rule seems to disallow a fully caught ball. Some—like Jaguar coach Jack del Rio—have argued that referees in such an instance should have the discretion to set aside the rule and apply the spirit of the rule. Others, like ESPN’s Mike and Mike have warned that giving referees such discretion is dangerous. When is that discretion to be used? How often? Might the discretion itself be abused?

To students of equity—and now my Christian Foundations students—these arguments sound pretty familiar. The same arguments were made at key points in British history to develop and restrain the application of equity—minus the NFL context, of course!

Here are some tentative conclusions I have reached about equity:

1. The idea of equity is sound. Sometimes true justice requires setting aside rules and making exceptions. Jesus seemed to appeal for equity at times as against the legalism of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. See for example Matthew 23:1-4, 16-24; Luke 6:1-11.
   
2. Giving a judge or anyone, however, complete discretion to “do justice” has its own dangers. I trust Jesus more than I do fallen human beings to be able to appropriately set aside rules and do justice. Historically, the Puritans sought to severely limit the jurisdiction of discretionary courts like Chancery (the English court charged with dispensing equity). They did so based both on their belief in humans’ fallen nature and their unpleasant experience with discretionary courts like Star Chamber. Puritan lawyer John Selden argued: “Equity is a roguish thing; equity is according to the conscience of him that is chancellor….It is all one as if they should make the standard for the measure a chancellor’s foot.”
   
3. The solution? Equity must be applied, but applied with checks and balances. The English system did a pretty good job with this. One could go to Chancery and seek an equitable remedy. But only as a last resort. One could not go to equity unless there was no adequate remedy at law. In addition, the chancellor could not simply “do justice.” He did not have unfettered discretion. Like the common law, equity itself developed some principles, procedures, and maxims to be followed. Yes, they were more flexible than those at common law. But they ensured that even equity was applied in an even-handed and consistent way.

What should happen to Calvin Johnson? I am waiting for my students to give me the final answer when we finish this discussion tomorrow. Regardless of how the discussion turns out, thanks to Calvin Johnson for giving us a textbook example of both the need for and dangers of equity!