Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

The Duke Case in Perspective

March 2, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Roiling the blogosphere with opinion mostly favoring the Duke University lacrosse team players, the aftermath of the now notorious party has shaken up Duke with charges of sexism and racism on one side and outraged declarations calling for campus administrators to support "our students" on the other. The furor has distracted attention from the misogynist sexual culture on display at the party. Regardless of the outcome of the legal case against the indicted players, the question raised by an administrator regarding whether Duke intentionally or unintentionally promotes "a culture of crassness" remain.

In its coverage a Newsweek reporter wrote: "It is hard to know just how deep the culture of crassness runs at Duke, but one wonders after reading an e-mail sent from one of the lacrosse players' address an hour or so after the party." In this now infamous e-mail the author told his buddies that after the party he wanted to hire some strippers and skin them and kill them while he ejaculated in his Duke-issue spandex.

Leaving aside the question of whether a sexual assault took place at the party or whether the district attorney botched the investigation in ways that may have forever hurt both the accuser and the accused, there are some undisputed facts in the case that do not speak well for gender and racial parity in the Duke student culture. A large group of white male students at a wealthy prestigious university that claims to teach students to respect one another didn't give a moment's thought to hiring two minority "exotic dancers" to perform for them. One of the women attended the historically black college on the other side of town. The degrading e-mail message sent after the performance mirrors an evening of excess and debauchery. Based on my studies of gang rape on college campuses I suspect that there is a grain of truth in the messenger's fantasy about reliving the excitement of the evening.

The eye-witness accounts of campus gang rape I present in Fraternity Gang Rape and A Woman Scorned provide powerful testimony of the depth and breadth of the problem, including the degradation of women, the bragging, and the urge to make a record for future reference. The unfettered expression of male sexual dominance first came to my attention in the winter of 1983 when a student in one of my classes at the University of Pennsylvania who had a drinking problem went to a fraternity party where she was raped by a number of brothers in what they labeled an "express" in the minutes written for their next meeting, playing on the word "train" used for group sexual activity in which males mount a woman sequentially. According to various eyewitness and hearsay accounts of what happened that night, Laurel (pseudonym) was incapable of consent due to her drugged-drunk condition. The next day, based on what she had observed of Laurel's behavior at the party a woman friend of the brothers angrily told them that it was rape when they bragged to her about their sexual escapade the night before. The local DA for sex crimes came to the same conclusion after hearing the facts of the case.

Few of the males involved in this and the other cases that I have studied know or even care to know that legally if a woman cannot consent to sexual intercourse, it is rape. Males who feel sexually entitled see nothing wrong with taking advantage of a woman's physical helplessness or inability to consent.  A woman who gets drunk is "asking for it." This is true despite the fact that they may have made the woman's drinks "really strong to loosen up some of those inhibitions." Fraternity brothers have told me that the goal of their parties is to "get em drunk and go for it."

All of this would be classified as a felony in the Pennsylvania rape law, which states that a person who engages in sexual intercourse with a person "who is unconscious" or who "has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance," commits a felony of the first degree.

Rape is not necessarily the only offense committed in the group sexual degradation of women. I know of cases in which there was no rape but there was sexual abuse. I am not surprised that the rape charges were dropped in the Duke case in light of the absence of DNA evidence. Indeed they should have been dropped much earlier. While rape is defined exclusively in terms of "vaginal intercourse" a sexual offense refers to everything else including touching, using objects, or anal intercourse. It is noteworthy that the sexual offense and kidnapping counts have not yet been dropped.

Another case I followed closely parallels the charges in the Duke case in that it also involved members of a lacrosse team, a black complainant, alcohol, kidnapping, and sexual offenses short of rape. This case was widely referred to in the news as the "St John's Lacrosse Team Sex Assault Case." Getting a woman drunk to have sex in a show staged for one's buddies was tragically evident in the testimony heard in a Queens courtroom in 1991-2 after indictments were issued against six members of the St. John's University lacrosse team for acts ranging from unlawful imprisonment and sexual abuse to sodomy. A seventh defendant pleaded guilty and agreed to testify for immunity.

The complainant was a young black student. I call her Angela in A Woman Scorned, a book devoted to the legal and cultural history of sexual culture in the United States. She had imigrated to the U.S. with her parents from Jamaica when she was in elementary school. A student at St. John's, she accepted a ride home from school from a male friend, Michael. On the way, he stopped at the house he shared with members of the St. John's lacrosse team, ostensibly to get gas money, and he invited her inside. At first she refused to go in but upon his insistence accepted the invitation. Inside she met his roommates. Left alone in a third floor bedroom, she accepted a drink from Michael. The drink tasted terrible. Based on the symptoms she displayed throughout the evening, many involved with the case suspected that the drink was spiked with ketamine, a drug that other rape cases demonstrated caused a separation of mind and body so that the ability to feel and control one's body is blocked, but this was never proved.

After Michael plied her with three drinks, which she could barely swallow, Angela passed out.  Testimony in the courtroom revealed that Michael then proceeded to engage in oral sodomy watched by three house members. After Michael finished, these three took their turns while visitors invited over from another lacrosse team house watched. Angela was unconscious through most of it.  When she awoke, it seemed like there were five or more boys in the room. She was propped in a sitting position, but her head wouldn't stay up. The leader, who was addressed as Walter and was later prosecuted as was Michael, held her cheeks to force her mouth open so his friends could slap their penises against her face or put it in her mouth. She tried to get up several times. Once, her nails scratched Walter. He slapped her hands. She passed out again. When she came to, she screamed.  When Walter put his hand on her neck, she knew that she had to be careful not to upset him. She didn't know what he might do to her. Dazed she fell back on the couch. She felt Walter pushing her down on the sofa. One of the guys in the room left and she heard someone say, "Her pupils are dilated. She doesn't know what's going on." She was then taken to another lacrosse team house. There, for the first time in the gruesome experience, one of the players challenged the others and told them to stop.

The steps taken by the St. John's administration after Angela went to a trusted member of the administration were unusual at the time. The university turned the matter over to the police and suspended the alleged abusers, pending the legal outcome of the case. At the end of the legal proceedings, which resulted in a number of convictions, St. John's took the additional step of expelling all but one of the students who asked for reinstatement, on the grounds that they had violated the student code and displayed, in the words of the university's president, "a serious lack of respect for others and even one another." The one student whose request for reinstatement was granted had cooperated with the authorities.

Although separated by more than a decade and differing in details the overarching commonality in these cases is the use of a visibly incapacitated woman as a tool for male bonding in a game of sexual dominance.  Alcohol played a central role in all three cases.  At the Duke lacrosse party both of the exotic dancers were given cups of "a drink" after they arrived at the house while they were in the bathroom getting ready for the strip show. Only one drank the contents. The other dancer gave the cup to her partner who began acting strangely soon after.  According to the dancer who did not take the drink the accuser was sober when she arrived at the house.  It was when they began their strip show that she "began having trouble," she later told the press.

The scenario is one of privileged males proving their manhood by staging live porno shows for one another involving a wounded young woman. She is the duck or the quail raised and put in place for the hunter. Who she is doesn't matter and she is quickly forgotten after it is all over – sloughed off like a used condom. The event operates to glue the male group as a unified entity; it establishes fraternal bonding and helps boys to make the transition to their vision of a powerful manhood -- in unity against women; one against the world. The patriarchal bonding functions a little like bonding in organized crime circles -- generating a sense of family and establishing mutual aid connections that will last a lifetime.

The gender picture that emerges from these cases mirrors the double standard of the 19th century: Nice women wait to get married and elite males sow their "wild oats" on party girls who are demeaned as the males demean their own sexuality. If the males are prosecuted they defend themselves saying "she asked for it;" "she is a woman scorned;" or "she wants money." Most commentators in the blogosphere, on news programs, and in the media are convinced that the latter motivated the actions of the Duke accuser. I'm not so certain. I am inclined to think that her impaired memory and immobility provides evidence that she was incapacitated.

It is a shame that the commentary focusing on the legal issues and the alleged ethical violations on the part of the DA has obscured the broader cultural issues such as the impact of alcohol in this case and more broadly on college campuses. It is now well known that there is a high correlation between campus rape and alcohol. The 2004 study by the Harvard School of Public Health involving 119 colleges and 23,000 students establishes this beyond a reasonable doubt.  Another important finding of this study indicated that the highest rates of rape are found on campuses with a lax alcohol policy.

In its report the faculty panel charged with reviewing the Duke lacrosse culture stated that "alcohol is the single greatest factor involved in the unacceptable behavior of Duke students in general and members of the lacrosse team specifically, both on-and off campus." The report indicated also that "the university's ability to deal fully with the problem of alcohol is undermined by its own ambivalence toward drinking and the conduct it spawns." The report expressed "deep concern" with this finding saying that by its "lack of leadership in this area" the university is "implicated in the alcohol excesses of lacrosse players and of Duke students more generally." This kind of honesty provides the sort of moral leadership that can turn the tide on campus from the culture of crassness into the culture of character and gender parity.

Peggy Reeves Sanday is a professor of anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. This week, New York University Press issued a new edition of her book Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Duke Case in Perspective

  • Keep this in mind
  • Posted by Frank Hurdle on March 2, 2007 at 7:00am EST
  • I hope the author is aware that the lacrosse team had requested white dancers. Suppose the news story had been that the team had refused the strippers admittance because of their race. Then I dare say the author would be denouncing the team for being racist. So they’re racist if they let the strippers dance and their racist if they don’t. How convenient.

    I personally don’t believe the alleged victim was drugged. But let’s assume she was. Does that justify the prosecutor’s effort to frame three students by giving the alleged victim a photo lineup that was a multiple-choice question with no false answers? Anyone wanting to posit that this woman was drugged has a duty to address her tendency to pass out or engage in outrageous conduct in the past. Remember, she only made these charges when she found out she was to be put in a mental health facility on a public drunk charge.

    I agree that having strippers for a group of college males is a stupid idea. Apparently it was a common activity at Duke. The students have admitted they showed poor judgement, and have paid dearly. But, I should point out that hiring strippers is a Constitutionally protected activity, and we harshly condemn it at our peril.

    Finally, I agree that alcohol is part of the problem. In the 1980s we criminalized drinking beer as part of a national hysteria. As a result drinking went underground. Parties that were once attended by a college professor, alumni advisor or similar mature presence now had to be student-only affairs, so no responsible adult would actually SEE the drinking. At many colleges, beer that once flowed from a common keg was replaced with hard liquor from a personal flask. Without a jigger available, drinks invariably are poured too strong. The result is that students today do end up getting more inebriated, with no mature presence to discourage stupidity.

    If the author believes the alleged victim was raped, that’s here right. But it doesn’t make it right to select three lacrosse players at random to go to jail. It doesn’t make it right to refuse to review hard evidence that might indicate one player’s innocence. It doesn’t make it right to conspire to withhold evidence and then lie about it in court. And it doesn’t make irresponsible columns like this one right, either.

  • The problematic approach of this article
  • Posted by gd on March 2, 2007 at 7:00am EST
  • Perhaps it's the title, but this article seems to offer into evidence incidents that have nothing whatsoever to do with "the Duke case" as a way of suggesting that the Duke players could have engaged in heinous acts, such as those graphically described in these other cases. There is certainly a reason as to why such examples would never be allowed into a trial and they shouldn't be allowed here. While much of the article is germane, these other unrelated instances work to conflate "the Duke case" with these other cases in order to imply that the Duke students are equally guilty. This is logically and morally wrong. A better, if lengthier, title would have been "College Fraternities Sometimes Encourage Illegal Behaviors." But then of course, fewer people would read the article. Yet, the ends should not justify the means.

  • Amen
  • Posted by A. G. Rud at Purdue University on March 2, 2007 at 7:06am EST
  • Terrific commentary, especially in light of the sickening display of sham virtue by the students involved and the parents determined to "get" Nifong. So much of the commentary on the Duke case overlooks the disgraceful culture of privilege, racism, and simmering gang rape.

  • Posted by mcf on March 2, 2007 at 8:51am EST
  • GD rightly points out that this article attempts to convict the Duke lacrosse players by describing at great length completely irrelevant events that happened in other places at other times and hoping that readers will draw conclusions by analogy. Presumably the author resorts to this approach for two reasons--first, because she has studied this subject, she knows a lot about these previous incidents; second, she has absolutely no evidence with which to make a convincing case of rape, or even sexual assault, against the Duke lacrosse players because there is none other than the moving target of the several contradictory accounts provided by the accuser. It is natural for us to look at events through the lens of what we know, but in this case I think it is clouding her picture badly. If one wants to argue that all hiring of strippers represents an unacceptable objectification of women, that's a makeable argument--but then there is no reason to focus on the Duke lacrosse case rather than any of the thousands of other parties with strippers or exotic dance club performances across the country every day.

    One other note--I'm not an expert on the subject like the writer, just a moderately well-read person, but I wonder if one of her conclusions from the 80s still holds as true today--if there are a lot of men out there who still don't realize that a woman who is drunk or incapacitated can be raped, then they haven't been paying attention. This truth has been widely reported through both news stories an educational efforts, on campuses and elsewhere. (I acknowledge that knowing this on an intellectual level might not be the same as truly believing it on a more visceral level.)

  • Posted by Seahorse , What the evidence says on March 2, 2007 at 8:51am EST
  • DNA testing from two labs shows the Duke players had no contact with their accuser. Case closed. (That kind of evidence gets men who have been wrongfully convicted released from prison, but for political reasons hasn't gotten these three defendants released from charges).

    Two of the accused were miles away at the time of the 'rape', and can prove it with witnesses, photos, and documents.

    The accuser couldn't identify them in a real photo ID lineup, so finally a third lineup was 'fixed' for her to pick someone out (suprise: it was the two from the wealthiest families on the team).

    The DA has lied to the court, the judge, and the press; and even now continues his faulty recollection by denying he met with the DNA technician.

    If rape is a crime, so too is making a false accusation of rape. Maybe that deserves punishment? But instead, the defendants are STILL facing a 30-year prison term because North Carolina is too afraid to drop the charges outright; the political and financial liability is too great.

    If there is a culture of corruption in Durham, it isn't at Duke, but in the town's court and judicial system, which could let this travesty of a case run on and on.

  • And the Band Played On...
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on March 2, 2007 at 8:55am EST
  • This article is a nice corrective to the emerging consensus, fueled by the right-wing noise machine and its network of bloggers and TV pundits, that the Duke lacrosse players are somehow angelic martyrs of the culture wars. In fact, their behavior that night, even under the most generous interpretation of events, was callous and sleazy. Duke has good reason not to be proud of its lacrosse team, and President Broadhead may well have been justified in firing the coach, canceling the season, and perhaps even suspending the students even if Mr. Nifong hadn't arrived on the scene to foul things up beyond repair.

    Human beings are complicated animals, and most of us are, at various turns, both heroes and villains. As much as we like to throw around words like "character", few devils and even fewer angels walk among us. That is why the testimony of friends, relatives, former teachers, and high school coaches are of little value in these cases. They only see a small part of the whole person and what he or she is capable of under the right circumstances.

    My point here is not that the lacrosse players are monsters or even criminals. But if they are, in fact, "innocent", it is only true in the sense that they did not commit any offenses under North Carolina law. Their behavior that night would not qualify as innocent under any other meaningful interpretation of the word.

    This case, in the end, represents everything I hate about the culture wars. Culture warriors are enemies of deliberation, of nuance, of sober reflection. Instead, they are committed to shoehorning every incident, every tragedy into their hackneyed categories of good (us) and evil (them).

    To the right wing culture warrior, the lacrosse players were just innocent boys whose adolescent hijinks got a little out of hand (boys will be boys, y'know). This case wasn't about race, or class, or privilege. No sir. It was about good boys and a bad girl (always a "stripper", never a fellow college student, never a single mother, but a "stripper"). It was about the unholy--and unexplained--alliance between politically correct college professors and an overzealous prosecutor. It was about innocent young men being forced to pay for the sins of the past, real and imagined, as well as the need of heartless lefties to nail rich kids to the cross to satisfy their class/race/gender obsessions.

    And, no, I don't much care for left-wing culture warriors either. The people who showed up at the lacrosse house banging pots and pans, the protesters carrying the "castrate" sign, and the (very few) faculty members who made statements prejudging the players' guilt did absolutely nothing to help the alleged victim. These are also people whose interest in the case revolves entirely around how well it seems to correspond with their worldview. The presumption of innocence means nothing to these people because, to them, the guilt of privileged white males is already embedded in their DNA.

    To culture warriors, every action and motivation on the "other side" must be viewed in the worst possible light. Thus, the Group of 88 Duke professors who wrote the "listening statement" must be PC villains who prejudged the case against the players. And if nothing in their statement clearly supports such an allegation, heck, we can always parse the words more carefully.

    Aha! They said that something "happened" to the woman! So clearly they are accusing the lacrosse players of committing gang rape. Look! They thanked the protesters for "making noise"! So obviously they are aligning themselves with the pot-bangers and the people who carried the "castrate" sign. Bingo! One of two of the signatories of the statement made inflammatory comments about the case! So all 88 members of the group are guilty by association.

    The very first comment I ever submitted to IHE was last May, on this very topic. At the time, I asked the culture warriors to go away. Let justice take its course, let the faculty, students, and administration at Duke heal the wounds, and let all the "villains" and "victims" in this case move on with their lives.

    I renew that call today. Culture warriors of the left and right, pot-bangers and bloggers and talk radio gasbags: please go away. This is not about you and your "cause". It has never been about you. All you are doing is making things worse. That's all you ever do.

  • Remain calm -- all is well
  • Posted by B.D. on March 2, 2007 at 8:55am EST
  • Will MTV's "Spring Break" show scenes of alcohol-fueled debauchery in Florida? Only a 99%.9 probability.

    Do taxpayer-funded colleges, sensitive about their public image, try to deter drunkeness with social marketing programs that claim "only a few bad apples" cause all campus-alcohol destruction? As sure as campus parking tickets generate revenue.

    Did IHE just have a column recently advocating the *lowering* of the drinking age? Yes.

    Is alcohol a problem for young people? Of course.

    Alcoholism is a serious problem. Prohibition was tried, and created La Cosa Nostra.

    Today, with "helicopter parents" hovering and moral relativism, no campus leader has the spine to publicly state "excessive drinking by students is wrong and a problem for society."

    As for this, " .. the misogynist sexual culture on display at the party .."

    What of the *misandry* on display at most campuses? As with Dr. Larry Summers? That is torturing actions and language ("well, some boys enjoy sports, but all should be required to [insert fad-of-the-month]).

    All the frickin' academic studies in the world (and tax dollars to pay for them) leave lost simple, basic principles: being kind to one another, sharing, cleaning up, and living "a balanced life."

    Not drinking a 12-pack on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. Not walking about with "a chip on one's shoulders," for females and males.

  • Posted by BB on March 2, 2007 at 8:55am EST
  • The author of this article, while bringing in cases outside the main topic, has made the point that for any group, male or female, white or minority, to use someone else in a degrading way as a means of creating a bond, or right of passage, is wrong. The simple idea of hiring a stripper for a male bonding experience is wrong-maybe not illegal as one of the comments indicates, but wrong. We have somehow lost sight of what is civil and not civil in society. Even if the Duke players are not guilty of any illegal act, they are guilty of an incivil act.As the author inidcates in her article, the administration of St. John's made the right decision-remove those who do not act civily to others. That is what an educated person is supposed to do.

  • Posted by LTC8K6 on March 2, 2007 at 9:01am EST
  • Your "undisputed facts" are in fact, disputed.

    Even a cursory examination of the information available will confirm this.

  • Not about guilt or innocence of Duke case
  • Posted by IHE Reader on March 2, 2007 at 9:21am EST
  • GD/Frank, the article isn't about the author thinking the Duke players are guilty, it's about "the culture of crassness" and males thinking that a woman incapacitated is 'free game' even if they helped get her incapacitated. It's about a groups' influence on all group members to participate in something that alone someone might not do and finally it's about the impact of alcohol on morality and decision making skills. Surely, the two of you cannot argue with that!

  • Posted by R.F. on March 2, 2007 at 9:26am EST
  • My only comfort in reading about this new book is that at least one lacrosse player has not hesitated to use the court system for civil redress.

  • Duke Hoax
  • Posted by DMcG on March 2, 2007 at 11:11am EST
  • "Alcohol played a central role in all three cases." The false accuser from the Duke lacrosse party admitted taking a muscle relaxant and drinking at least 44 ounces of beer ON HER OWN.

    The scenario is one of healthy young males proving their manhood by staging a simulated live porno show for one another involving two woman. It is an outrage that you, who should know better, objectify a woman as a helpless animal. She is a 28 year old professional sex worker - nearly 10 years older than the students - and by the way, they students had no idea of what her personal background was - they just knew she was employed by an "Escort" service, she was late, sloppy, and unstable.

    "The patriarchal bonding functions a little like bonding in organized crime circles — generating a sense of family and establishing mutual aid connections that will last a lifetime."

    Sort of like college sororities, or adult lesbian women who have sex toy parties, or latex fetishists who do things in the privacy of their own home with multiple partners, right?

    The gender picture that emerges from your faulty analysis of this case mirrors the double standard of the 21st century: gender-challenged women sow their “wild oats” on party girls and are glorified as they both demean their own sexuality.

    The young males in the present case who have been falsely prosecuted have NEVER defended themselves saying “she asked for it;” “she is a woman scorned;” or “she wants money.”

    The defense has pointed out (after being forced to do so by a criminal who is a prosecutor) that the false accuser's stories have changed to fit the new facts whenever the old 'facts' are controverted.

    Who cares that many commentators in the blogosphere, on news programs, and in the media are convinced that the latter motivated the actions of the Duke accuser.

    "I’m not so certain. I am inclined to think that her impaired memory and immobility provides evidence that she was incapacitated." SHE ADMITTED SHE INCAPACITATED HERSELF, SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

    "It is a shame that the commentary focusing on the legal issues and the alleged ethical violations on the part of the DA has obscured the broader cultural issues such as the impact of alcohol in this case and more broadly on college campuses."

    THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE FALSEHOOD.

    SHAME ON YOU. As an 'educator', you have been lazy, and far too fast and loose with facts.

    Your continued distortion of reality only serves to lessen the value of any positive and helpful messages you may have.

  • Posted by ellbee , more junk on March 2, 2007 at 11:55am EST
  • Regardless if I like the article or not, I am really hopeing that folks who write these types of articles get their facts right. The credibility of the writers would increase many-fold. The only example of wrongness with this article that I will point out is the lacrosse players did not hire minority strippers. They specifically asked for a white woman and an hispanic woman. (ok hispanic is considered a minority.) Would that make a difference to anyone if they indeed did show up? The legal hiring of strippers is not a law breaking event. Common sense would have said to the lacrosse players to tell the strippers to leave because they were black and that was not what they asked for. Now how many here would have yelled disscrimination (or even sued) in hiring strippers, finding out they are black and then telling them to leave. Would anyone be interested if the women were white and the same accusations came out? I doubt anyone here would have heard about it. Hey, how many heard about the real DUKE rape 2, black on white rape? So go figure. If anyone was really interested about solving the campus problems that are perceived, they would not do it so sensationally as this article does just to have people read something that has errors in in.

  • Posted by wayne fontes on March 2, 2007 at 12:10pm EST
  • In a article of this length I find it very revealing that the author left out the following facts.

    1) The alleged victims hair was analyzed for drugs after the party and none were found.
    2) By her own admission she had mixed alcohol with prescription drugs prior to arriving at the party.
    3) She passed out at the strip club where she worked 3 days before the party and had to be carried to her car.
    4) In the days after the night in question she visited 2 hospitals attempting to get more prescription drugs for her nonexistent injuries.

    Given these facts why would you insinuate the Lax team drugged her? Since the timeline of the evening and the DNA evidence prove that no assault took place what would be the purpose of what you insinuate anyways?

    Readers of this column should know that Peggy Sandy has updated her book to include the Duke -nonrape . I wonder if this column is simply an attempt to flog book sales.

  • duke rape case
  • Posted by william seale on March 2, 2007 at 12:10pm EST
  • The professor scorns the students for hiring a stripper, yet forgets to mention that the stripper is in the sex business, which is apparently okay. What in the world would she do without clients?

    I found this repetitive and whiney.

    WS

  • Every 2 1/2 Minutes
  • Posted by Brian , Asst Prof at Large Midwest U on March 2, 2007 at 1:50pm EST
  • William finds the article about rape culture “whiney.” R.F.’s “only comfort” is that one of the accused is getting litigious. And then there’s DMcG who hysterically screams in all caps “she got herself drunk!” or something to that effect, as if that’s somehow relevant. Likewise, wayne weighs in with four details that supposedly prove the victim deserved it, she was too drunk, and therefore not the ideal rape victim for which he would feel sympathy.

    The attitudes revealed in comments are emblematic of the rape culture Sanday is addressing. R.F., DMcG, ellbee, and wayne are doing a wonderful job of perpetuating victim-blaming rape myths. Patriarchy thanks you.

    These posts prove Sanday’s central point that cultural attitudes about men, women, and sex create a culture that tolerates sexual objectification & violence. The breezy attitude that many of the posters seem to have about rape, and their automatic alliance with the accused IS the rape culture to which she’s trying to draw attention. Listening to Michael Savage or reading some of the comments here, you would think that the supposed false accusation against these Duke students is the Worst Thing Ever – forget the real travesties of justice (Padilla, mandatory minimums, the recent political purge of federal prosecutors & CIA black sites come to mind), save the (rich/white) boys! Every 2 1/2 minutes a woman is sexually assaulted in the US. One in six women are victims of sexual assault. So, let’s focus our passion where it belongs: protecting a small group of men.

  • She hurts her own cause
  • Posted by viejita del oeste on March 2, 2007 at 1:50pm EST
  • Like many one-issue scholars, this writer takes only the facts that support her theory and pretends not to have heard of any of the contrary evidence. It doesn't give me a lot of respect for her so-called research. In seventh grade we learned about this method of propaganda, called Stacking the Deck. This kind of sloppy scholarship is harmful because it is so easy for those who are not already in agreement to discount her findings. The reason the Duke lacrosse case is so well-known is because of the egregious overreaction and lack of professionalism displayed by the authorities. Their misconduct has given every out-of-control adolescent an excuse to think he (or she) is the one being mistreated.

  • Got calculator?
  • Posted by B.D. on March 2, 2007 at 2:40pm EST
  • " .. One in six women are victims of sexual assault .."

    That is more than 25 million.

    Where's your data to back up that number? Are they all self-reports? Any with law-enforcement data to back them up?

    If no verifiable data -- where next?

  • Posted by Creepy Feminist , Extend the Metaphors to One's own Fishbowl on March 2, 2007 at 2:40pm EST
  • If so-called "feminist" scholars want to explore the "old boy" implications of statements such as the one made below, they might turn their attention to an issue that, unlike the Duke case, has received little academic attention since it became public knowledge: According to multiple sources, Jacques Derrida wanted UCI to halt its investigation of a Russian studies professor, Dragan Kujundzic, who was accused of sexually harassing a 25-year-old female doctoral student. So he tried to use his archives as leverage to derail the case.

    Though I do understand the impulse on the part of feminists who were close to Derrida to defend his actions, I wonder if any of these women would have a word of understanding for the young men involved in the Duke case. To me, it's the same sort of "patriarchal bonding" in both cases.

    "The event operates to glue the male group as a unified entity; it establishes fraternal bonding and helps boys to make the transition to their vision of a powerful manhood — in unity against women; one against the world. The patriarchal bonding functions a little like bonding in organized crime circles — generating a sense of family and establishing mutual aid connections that will last a lifetime."

  • yes, millions
  • Posted by Brian , Asst Prof at Large Midwest U on March 2, 2007 at 4:45pm EST
  • Law enforcement data in the form of prosecution numbers and clearance rates are unreliable as a measure of incidents of sexual assault because sexual assault is a *vastly* underreported crime.

    Part of the reason it’s underreported is because victims fear that their accounts won’t be taken seriously. Your immediate suspicion that my statistics were wrong exemplifies the attitude that rape isn’t a serious problem and that if they’re self-report data they must be flawed because women are unreliable, hysterical, and likely to fabricate rape stories when talking with survey researchers. Your attitude – shared by many – helps explain rape as a uniquely underreported crime. You’re part of the problem. Congratulations.

    The statistics I cited were from the National Victimization Survey from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice. (n=134,000).
    http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html
    http://www.rainn.org/docs/statistics/ncvs_2005.pdf

  • Posted by lm on March 2, 2007 at 4:45pm EST
  • Congratulations Peggy. You figured out how to make your opinion piece sail to the top of the search engines. Mention Duke lacrosse! Fact checking is not necessary when your goal is so worthy - to stir up moral outrage against rapist oppressors! The ends justify the means.

    The more tripe like this I read, the more I am convinced that all that is needed is for parents to tell their daughters if they have so little respect for themselves as to drink to the point of passing out in front of strangers, or if they are stupid enough to accept a drink from a stranger, then they might as well put a tip jar next to where they pass out. Parents should also tell their sons that real men do not take liberties without permission - a man who has to rape to get sex isn't much a of a man, is he?

    Midwest professor: you are sorely mistaken about the motivation of those following the case. I ask you this: you are accused of rape. You are calm because YOU know it is a mistake (for simplicity, let's pretend it really is) and you look forward to the DNA test results. The results show that many men partied with your accuser - just not you. You are charged anyway because you were seen in the area. Holding a beer.
    If you feel that is reasonable, then here's hoping you haven't left a trail of broken hearts, angry ex's, a bachelor party stripper unhappy with the measly $5 tip, a student
    flirt you rebuffed, or a resentful co-worker. It would be their word against yours and science won't help you if Nifong gets away with this.

    Finally, the release of innocents from prison should be celebrated. How can anyone celebrate if the same people saying "Innocent man freed - not his DNA!" are the same people saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

  • Continued Defiance
  • Posted by KC Johnson , Professor of History at Brooklyn College on March 2, 2007 at 4:50pm EST
  • I know nothing about the other cases Sanday describes; I do know more than a bit about the lacrosse case. Based on her portrayal of the lacrosse case, I have little confidence in how she interprets other matters.

    It’s also good to see UnApologetically Tenured remind us of his/her comments from the spring, which haven’t exactly stood the test of time: that after dozens of improper statements from the DA; and after nearly 100 Duke professors publicly denounced the players’ character in one forum or another; and after the potbangers did their thing outside the lacrosse players’ house, the “right-wing culture warriors” needed to remain quiet, so matters can proceed.

    Who are these “right-wing culture warriors” that UnApologetically Tenured so excoriates? Susan Estrich, who has penned at least five columns criticizing the DA’s case? Duke law professor Jim Coleman, who has given dozens of interviews defending the players? Criminal defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt, who has written more than 50 posts on the case? The ACLU@DUKE, which sponsored a forum shining light on Nifong’s misconduct?

    I doubt many people were surprised to see faculty who revere the race/class/gender trinity rush to judgment. And it’s probably not too surprising that only one of the Group of 88 has apologized—no one likes to admit they’re wrong. But it amazes me that members of the Group continue to bring attention to their springtime statements (as in a comparable January statement from 87 “concerned Duke faculty,” or a column from Bill Chafe late last week) now that the case to which they attached their hopes has collapsed.

    I suppose that being unapologetic means never having to say you’re sorry.

  • Number of women rapes
  • Posted by Former academic on March 2, 2007 at 5:10pm EST
  • BD, Here's another report:

    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210346.pdf

    OK, this estimate is that only 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. That's still a large enough amount for me.
    Both the Dept. of Justice and the FBI keep statistics on sexual assault and estimate that very few women do prosecute, so the law enforcement statistics will be much lower. I don't think the FBI would inflate statistics to make the issue seem bigger than it is. You might not trust the DOJ or the FBI, but the statistics are there whether you believe them or not.

  • Posted by Samwise on March 2, 2007 at 5:10pm EST
  • Peggy writes, "It is a shame that the commentary focusing on the legal issues and the alleged ethical violations on the part of the DA has obscured the broader cultural issues such as the impact of alcohol in this case and more broadly on college campuses."

    I think this statement is characteristic of the direction leftist commentary has taken since the case began to break down. In other words, its not important whether the accused are technically innocent, what's important is that the accusation fits our prevailing stereotypes about rich white men!

    Similarly others comment here, "So much of the commentary on the Duke case overlooks the disgraceful culture of privilege, racism, and simmering gang rape." -AGRud

    Brian writes, "The attitudes revealed in [right leaning] comments are emblematic of the rape culture Sanday is addressing... [They] are doing a wonderful job of perpetuating victim-blaming rape myths...
    These posts prove Sanday’s central point that cultural attitudes about men, women, and sex create a culture that tolerates sexual objectification & violence. The breezy attitude that many of the posters seem to have about rape, and their automatic alliance with the accused IS the rape culture to which she’s trying to draw attention. " He ends with, "One in six women are victims of sexual assault. So, let’s focus our passion where it belongs: protecting a small group of men."

    As much as the left is trying to spin skeptical commentary as a bunch of crazy people who don't care about rape, I think its pretty clear which side of the argument is broadly interpreting the known facts in order to fit within their stereotypes. They got an idea in their heads, and the more that the evidence contradicts their interpretation, the more nutty and confused they sound, because they've already tried, convicted, and executed these men for the crime of being on the wrong side of PC fence. Appeals to the broader cultural issues are transparent attempts to distract attention away from all the holes in the prosecution's case.

  • Posted by bob on March 2, 2007 at 5:45pm EST
  • If the story is supposed to be about the Duke case, why not discuss the evidence? It shows that the charges are false.

    If the story is supposed to be about something else, why mention the Duke case?

  • Here We Go Again
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on March 2, 2007 at 8:00pm EST
  • I'm not really interested in getting into a spitting match with Professor Johnson. My comments, both above and last spring, speak for themselves. The right-wing culture warriors have poisoned the atmosphere surrounding this case, and continue to do so to this day. The fruits of their labor can be seen in some of the vile comments that have appeared on this thread.

    The warriors have unfairly hounded a distinguished group of scholars whose only sin was to try to turn a tragedy into a teaching moment. And if their timing was bad and their words were sometimes careless, their intentions, as a group, were in the best traditions of the academy. They do not deserve the vitriol that has been heaped upon them.

    I suppose Professor Johnson fancies himself some sort of hero here. But the truth is that we would be where we are today with or without him and his allies. The players had the resources to hire top notch attorneys. And while the culture warriors were all getting bent out of shape about the legally irrelevant statements of a few professors, the lawyers were doing the real work of the case. I can only hope their work, as well as that of the N.C. Attorney General's office, results in justice for all involved, wherever that justice is eventually found. If it does, however, it will be no thanks to the noise machine.

    So if Professor Johnson wants to get his kicks by bizarrely adding a gratuitous capital letter to my "pen name", I hope it makes him smile. No doubt he thinks that by doing so he is proving something to us. On that point, at least, he is more correct than he knows.

  • Posted by KC Johnson , Professor of History at Brooklyn College on March 3, 2007 at 4:25am EST
  • The defense attorneys who UnApologetically Tenured so celebrates appear to have a different view of the Group of 88 than he/she does.

    The defense's change of venue motion is here:
    http://www.newsobserver.com/content/news/story_graphics/20061215_dukelacrosse.pdf

    Far from seeing the work of the Group of 88 as in "the best traditions of the academy," the defense lawyers listed the actions and statements of the Duke faculty as one of the four reasons a change of venue was needed. To my knowledge, this is the first time in American history in which the behavior and statements of students' faculty was cited as a rationale for a change of venue in a criminal case.

    One of the Group has already been sued for grade retaliation; other lawsuits against Group members have been widely rumored. Indeed, even most Group members have abandoned UAT's "teachable moment" explanation for their statement; they now simply claim that they were "supporting" their students, as if professors and departments take out full-page ads every day of the week with anonymous student quotes to show "support" for their students.

    This case has shown a bright light on the actions of "victims' rights" advocates such as Sanday or Wendy Murphy; or defenders of the academic status quo like the Group of 88 or UAT. (It's unclear whether UAT is a member of the Group of 88.) The next time Sanday comments about allegations of gang rape, or a Group of 88 member comments about the need to protect civil liberties, it will be worth evaluating those statements through the prism of their positions on the Duke case.

  • scholars
  • Posted by wayne fontes on March 3, 2007 at 4:25am EST
  • Unapologetically Tenured said:
    The warriors have unfairly hounded a distinguished group of scholars whose only sin was to try to turn a tragedy into a teaching moment.

    Perhaps the readers would like to hear some of the distinguished scholars own words as they tried to teach their students

    At Duke University this past spring, the bodies left to the trauma of a campus brought to its knees by members of Duke University's Lacrosse team were African American and women. I use the kneeling metaphor with deliberate intent. It was precisely this demeanor towards women and girls that mattered here. The Lacrosse team's notion of who was in service of whom and the presumption of privilege that their elite sports' performance had earned seemed their entitlement as well to behaving badly and without concern for consequence.
    Prof. Karla Holloway published this in August, three months after the facts of the case were known. No use letting the facts get in the way of a scholarly metaphor

    Thavolia Glymph, AAAS assistant professor, said she is disappointed with the community because "since the DNA results were returned Monday, we [have been] moving backwards."
    I would suggest to the Prof. That longing for a woman to have been raped and her own students to be responsible falls south of the baseline I hope my fellow humans maintain.

    The lacrosse team - 15 of whom have faced misdemeanor charges for drunken misbehavior in the past three years - may well feel they can claim innocence and sport their disgraced jerseys on campus, safe under the cover of silent whiteness. But where is the black woman who their violence and raucous witness injured for life? Will she ever sleep well again?
    Houston Baker’s question was answered by the alleged victim who passed out at 610 Buchanon (silent whiteness?)

    “Regardless of what happened inside of 610 N. Buchanan Blvd, the young men were hoping to consume something that they felt that a black woman uniquely possessed. If these young men did in fact rape, sodomize, rob, and beat this young women [sic], it wasn’t simply because she was a women [sic], but because she was a black woman.”
    Since the Lax players requested one White and one Hispanic dancer I guess they really weren’t “hoping to consume something that they felt that a black woman uniquely possessed“. Nice to know where Prof. Mark Anthony Neal stands though

    Within the terms of the responses to the incident, I understand the impulse of those outraged and who see the alleged offenders as the exemplars of the upper end of the class hierarchy, the politically dominant race and ethnicity, the dominant gender, the dominant sexuality, and the dominant social group on campus. Further, this group has been responsible for extended social violence against the neighborhood in which they reside. In short, by a combination of their behaviors and what they represent in terms of social facts, and by virtue of their relation to the alleged victim, for those who are defenders of the victim, the members of the team are almost perfect offenders in the sense that Crenshaw writes about.
    Prof. Wahneema Lubiano points out how a white, heterosexual, privileged, lacrosse playing male fits her profile of a rapist

    I could go on……

  • This Shouldn't Be About Me, But...
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on March 3, 2007 at 9:35am EST
  • One of the tactics of the right-wing culture warriors is to cast aspersions on the motives and integrity of their adversaries. So let me just say for the record:

    1. I am not a member of the Group of 88.

    2. I have only set foot on the Duke campus once in my life.

    3. I have not, to my knowledge, ever met or spoken to a single member of the Group of 88.

    4. For that matter, neither have I ever met nor spoken to Professor Johnson.

    That having been said, let me add that I was not "celebrating" the lacrosse players' defense attorneys. I was simply pointing out that these privileged young men, unlike the vast majority of alleged victims of prosecutorial overreach, have the resources to arm themselves with first-rate legal firepower. Thus, the culture warriors, however much they might like to think of themselves as heroes, are superfluous--and quite unhelpful--players in this drama.

    As for the change of venue motion, the right-wing noise machine has done more to taint the potential jury pool than any group of academics, advertising in a student newspaper, ever could.

    If we're lucky, the circus will soon leave Durham, justice will be served (either by acquittal, conviction, or dismissal of charges), and everyone at Duke will go on with their lives. If we're unlucky, innocent bystanders will have their reputations ruined, frivilous lawsuits will tie everyone down for years to come, and the pundits and gasbags will be emboldened to pursue their scorched earth tactics in perpetuity. If we're very unlucky, victims of sexual assault will read nasty comment threads like this one and wonder if it's even worth filing charges against well-heeled perpetrators.
    Professor Johnson is obviously not to blame for the repulsive comments made by other contributors to this thread. I hope he would join me in condemning them. In the meantime, however, it would benefit everyone concerned if people could tone down the anger, vitriol, and self-righteousness that seem to attach themselves to every discussion of this case.

  • Bearing False Witness
  • Posted by Jonathan Cohen , Professor of Mathematics at DePaul University on March 3, 2007 at 9:40am EST
  • From the very beginning the Duke lacrosse case was about bearing false witness. The accuser's story never made sense. The second dancer said the accusation was "a crock". The policemen who first encountered her story didn't believe her. There were no visible injuries to back up her story. By her own admission she had been drinking and taking a drug that contained a warning to not combine with alcohol. The accuser did not ever give a coherent or sonsistent account of what happened.

    From the outset the students vociferously denied the accuser's story. They volunteered to take lie detector tests, they cooperated with the police and willingly submitted their DNA. They had incontestable physical evidence that one of the accused wasn't anywhere near the house at the time of the alleged rape.

    Bearing false witness is a particularly awful transgression. It undermines the trust that holds society together. There is a reason that its prohibition is one of the ten commandments.

    Something very awful was done to the three accused students and common decency and honesty demands that this be acknowledged. They were harassed on the campus and at their home, they were publicly and repeatedly denounced by a substantial number of Duke faculty members. They were pilloried in the national press. Their picture was displayed on the cover of Newsweek. And the continuation of this travesty could easily be costing the families hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in legal fees.

    A lot of people have dismissed the injustice done to the accused because "they are priviliged white boys who can hire expensive lawyers". In other words, if the charges are false, the year of villification unjustified, their suspension from school unwarranted, that is all okay because they can bancrupt their families to establish their innocence and clear their good name. Is this any reasonable person's vision of social justice?

  • So Much Certainty, So Few Facts
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on March 3, 2007 at 10:10am EST
  • I assume that Professor Cohen is, at least in part, referring to me when he talks about those who "dismissed the injustice done to the accused because 'they are priviliged white boys who can hire expensive lawyers'". I have done nothing of the sort. Nobody, not even the most obnoxious among us, deserves to be falsely accused of a heinous crime.

    In the context of the current conversation, however, it is not inappropriate to point out that the accused players are, in fact, priviliged white boys who can hire expensive lawyers. It is relevant because it explains why the pundits and bloggers who parachuted into Durham to pounce on their latest political football are of no use to anyone. It is relevant because it touches on larger issues of crime and justice, and should give us pause to reflect on those victims of prosecutorial overreach who are languishing in prison because they did not have the resources that are available to these players. Perhaps the time and efforts of people like Professor Johnson could be better spent on their causes.

    Of course, I lack Professor Cohen's psychic powers, so I cannot pretend to know whether or not the players are guilty of the charges that are still pending. I assume that we will learn this in due course. If, in fact, they are innocent of all charges, then of course I would agree with Professor Cohen's argument that they have been treated cruelly by the accuser, the judicial system, and anyone else who has spoken specifically of their criminal culpability.

    Jerilyn Merritt, of whom Professor Johnson speaks positively above, has devoted much of her time to pursuing justice for people who have been wronged by prosecutors and law enforcement. She does not, to my knowledge, cherry pick cases on the basis of whether or not they help further her side in the never-ending, soul-draining culture wars. Others should follow her example.

  • UT KEEPS DIGGING
  • Posted by Al on March 3, 2007 at 1:50pm EST
  • I'm consistently amazed at UT's ability to write a response to a comment with such verbosity and never actually address any of the points made in the comment.

    To cite just the recent example, Cohen cites numerous facts that demonstrate the weakness of the claims against he lacrosse players (facts that were evident from the beginning and would have given any reasonable person pause before they took out a full page ad in the campus newspaper promising to "turn up the volume" and thanking the protesters for "making noise" and "not waiting" for the legal process to determine the guilt or innocence of their own students).

    UT does not even attempt to address any of those points. Instead, he simply sniffs that he lacks Cohen's "psychic powers" and "cannot pretend to know" about the veracity of the charges. Such a response may allow UT to proceed with his ritual denunciation of the dreaded "right wing noise machine" without actually having to worry about such concepts as facts and logic, but it certainly does not make for a persuasive argument.

    >>Professor Johnson is obviously not to blame for the repulsive comments made by other contributors to this thread. I hope he would join me in condemning them.

    In a cursory review, I saw some comments that I thought were misplaced, but none that I would characterize as "repulsive." Which comments in this thread, specifically, are you referring to.

    Also, speaking of repulsive comments, what did you think of Houston Baker's comments regarding the lacrosse players? What about Professor Glymph's comment that the lack of a DNA match to the accused Duke students was a "step backward"? What about Professor Curtis' accusation that two students in her own class might be accomplices to a rape?

  • Posted by ASD on March 3, 2007 at 1:55pm EST
  • "the accused players are, in fact, priviliged white boys who can hire expensive lawyers."

    Still, that part isn't a crime and at the end of day I can't escape the impression that's what angers the people who still supporting this case the most.

    You don't need psychic powers at this point to determine whether these guys are guilty--In any other case, where an accuser can't identify the accused in the original identification, changes her story about how many people were involved, changes her story about whether the other woman she was with was involved in it (or actually helped the guys out), has descriptions of these people that don’t match photos of them taken the same day, has at least one of the accused being able to document literally every minute where he was when she said this occurred, has the other stripper contradicting her story, changes her story on whether whe was physically raped/abused by a broom/not raped at all, has photos showing that the injuries that she said happened that evening were present before she came there (and has been changing whenever one part is proved false: e.g. it happened for 30 minutes. What? They can show where they were for 20 minutes of that? Okay, it happened for 6 minutes...) I can understand the trauma of this affecting somebody’s memory, but come on. As long as we’re talking about privilege and the benefits of it, here’s my argument: if the accused weren’t athletes at Duke, there never would have been an indictment here much less a decision to go this far with the case.

    It also never would have even been a news story. Case in point--how big of a news story has this been? http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=5055441
    Now what is more common and more representative of the problem, wealthy athletes as prestigious universities raping people or an assault one night at a club?

    As it stands right now, one of these guys has lost his job, and the rest of them are going to have to put down on every application for every job and school they apply for the rest of their lives that they were accused of rape, something they likely didn’t commit. That’s why the faculty, the prosecutor, and everybody else who jumped on these guys at the start to advance an agenda, no matter how noble it was, without evidence was irresponsible in doing so.

    Making a false accusation about this (crying wolf this loudly in this case) will be much more damaging at the end of the day to progress in stopping rape than anything the Duke players have done. We can establish they're elitists snobs, and even sexist elitist snobs--we still need to show they raped somebody before we send them to jail or, here, just ruin their lives.

  • Posted by ASD on March 3, 2007 at 3:55pm EST
  • Sorry, bad link

    http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=5055441

  • So Here's a Question
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on March 3, 2007 at 3:55pm EST
  • If the remaining charges against the players are so self-evidently baseless, then why didn't the new prosecutorial team dismiss them in the first hour after they were handed the case?

    Again, I have no idea what happened in Durham that night. Neither do any of you. Not only might the players be completely innocent, but they, like all of us, deserve the presumption of innocence. But that doesn't mean that any of us *knows* what happened.

    (I hope this post was short enough for Al, whose faculties are evidently taxed by statements exceeding three paragraphs.)

  • Define 'privileged'
  • Posted by B.D. on March 3, 2007 at 3:55pm EST
  • Truth is always the first victim of war, including political ones. As in: when did working-class become "privileged?"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902029_pf.html

    Two of the three Duke players families are working-class (upper-middle-class). Comfortable, but not wealthy. Oops!

    (Also, those families being financially drained by the alleged prosecutorial misconduct in this matter. As if the U.T. crowd cared.)

    Similarily, the Duke case in 2006 has no correlation with the author's 1992 book. The former involved professional sex workers, the latter female college students.

    As for this, " .. "You’re part of the problem .."

    No -- just have multiple data sources. Instead of just a single questionable one. Good luck, trying to become competent researchers.

  • Posted by Al on March 3, 2007 at 8:15pm EST
  • >>If the remaining charges against the players are so self-evidently baseless, then why didn’t the new prosecutorial team dismiss them in the first hour after they were handed the case?

    I am sure that they want to go through the evidence thoroughly, conduct their OWN investigation (they probably have as little faith in the Nifong line-up procedures, Gottlieb's months-after-the-fact notetaking, Dr. Meehan's testing, and the other aspects of the Durham County investigation as the rest of us), and be absolutely sure they have not missed ANYTHING. I would do the same thing (and, in fact, have done the same thing) under similar circumstances.

    Additionally, the NC NAACP's "reminder" to the AG that he is dependent upon the black vote to get elected probably has added to the caution on the part of the AG's office.

    That being said, I am very confident that the case will be dismissed, possibly before the upcoming hearing.

    >>(I hope this post was short enough for Al, whose faculties are evidently taxed by statements exceeding three paragraphs.)

    Actually, if you are going to respond to comments made by others, my preference would be for you to respond to what the commenters actually wrote (as I have done above by answering the question you have posed), regardless of the number of words it takes you. If, on the other hand, you are simply going to regurgitate a variation of your "right wing noise machine" talking point, then, yes, shorter is definitely better.

    And, to repeat from my previous post:

    In a cursory review, I saw some comments that I thought were misplaced, but none that I would characterize as “repulsive.” Which comments in this thread, specifically, are you referring to?

    Also, speaking of repulsive comments, what did you think of Houston Baker’s comments regarding the lacrosse players? What about Professor Glymph’s comment that the lack of a DNA match to the accused Duke students was a “step backward"? What about Professor Curtis’ accusation that two students in her own class might be accomplices to a rape?

  • Posted by stm60 on March 4, 2007 at 12:16am EST
  • UT,
    I usually enjoy your posts a lot and respect your view. However, I think you are reaching here - and getting a bit more personal than usual, usually you are the one people are nasty to, not the otherway.

    Personally, I anyone who wants to help fix the system should stop bending over backwards to find something to make the students look bad ("well... ah, they may not have done a brutal, violent, three orifice gang rape but by golly they sure were doing some underage drinking")and use this case to help society.

    I suspect that many if not most middle and upper middle class americans don't think that justice makes many mistakes. Here we have something other than some poor inner city black ("who probably is guilty of something anyway"). Why in the world aren't people using this to show that "it could and does happen to your kids". Instead of surrending it, as you seem to believe, to the left. (Personally I dont' believe this is a right and left or otherwise bipolar issue and I know a lot of progressives who are disgusted at the event)instead of trying so darn hard to find something to pin on these students. I have read statements that seem to equate violent gang rape and public urination. It makes the speakers look silly.

    My advice to someone wanted to battle, well whatever it is someone like Ms. Sandry wants to battle here, would be to back away and choose another issue. They sounds like trying too hard and so are fodder for the 'rightwing' as you put it.

    I'm a lawyer. I've followed this case closely for several reasons and I (not to say it is a lock) can't see anything that would indicate a sexual assault took place. It is not unusual at all to me that the new team has not yet pulled the case. There is A LOT of politics in play and there may even be pressure to 'find something'small. Who knows, stranger thangs have happened in America.

    Anyway, a long statement. I do have one pet peeve that is related to teaching. And that is the way these people are called "privileged young men". What does that mean? Are they exempt from class? Did they get to skip lacrosse practice? Did they not get arrested? Not get dragged all over the press? From what I heard they certainly did not need help getting into school.

    I don't know of a single professor, associate, TA or anything that would change how they work with these students.

    Anyway, late and i"m sure this is full of typos.
    Take care. And nobody here so get too worked up over it in anycase. Its finally getting resolved.

  • Condemning the Repulsive
  • Posted by KC Johnson , Professor of History at Brooklyn College on March 4, 2007 at 12:16am EST
  • UnApologetically Tenured did not define what she/he considers the "repulsive" statements. But if he/she is defining as "repulsive" an author's writing that acknowledged gang rapes provide "perspective" through which to interpret the actions of three people who are almost certainly innocent of a "crime" that almost certainly never occurred, then I share UAT's condemnation of "repulsive" statements.

    As to the impact of the blogs on the case, quite a few articles (in Slate, New York, Duke Chronicle, for instance) take a different view than does UAT. Indeed, in a December 28 letter to the state bar, DA Nifong himself singled out a blog (http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/) for hurting his efforts to shape public opinion. But UAT might have sources on the ground in Durham that can back up his/her opinion on the issue.

  • Still a Conscientious Objector in the Culture Wars
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on March 4, 2007 at 8:55am EST
  • As s/he often is, stm60 is quite correct. There really is no reason to make this personal, and I will try to keep that in mind. There is certainly enough pettiness around here without me adding to the mix.

    With respect to the substance of my remarks, let me try to make my position clear. I have no personal interest or stake in the outcome of the Duke lacrosse case. I am pulling for neither side. If the players are innocent, I want them acquitted. If they are not, I want them punished. I will be satisfied with either result so long as it is arrived at in the proper manner.

    I have said before that I am no fan of Mr. Nifong. His carelessness and ham-handedness have served neither the alleged victim, the accused students, nor the people of North Carolina very well. I am glad that he is no longer involved in the case.

    But I find it disturbing to see so many people claim that they somehow know that the lacrosse players are innocent of all the charges against them. In fact, they don't know and they simply aren't qualified to pass that sort of judgment. Of course, I understand that the special prosecutor, having inherited the case only six weeks ago, needs time to decide what to do next. Still, the fact that the case remains unresolved in early March suggests that it is not as much of a "slam dunk" as many wish to believe.

    I also recognize that political factors are going to come into play any time an elected official is involved in a heavily publicized case. Nevertheless, I reject the cynical notion that politics explains everything. And if the new prosecution team fails to dismiss the remaining charges against the players, I refuse to assume that it necessarily has anything to do with supposed threats made by the North Carolina NAACP, as was suggested earlier.

    Further, I have nothing against privileged white males. For all anyone knows, I may be one myself. Based on my experience, stm60 is absolutely correct in suggesting that very few, if any, professors take race and privilege into account when dealing with the students in their classes. I certainly don't.

    My main problem with this case is, and has always been, with the right-wing culture warriors and their scorched earth tactics. People who have never expressed the slightest concern about prosecutorial overreach suddenly start talking like ACLU attorneys when it suits their ideological purposes. As I noted above, the Group of 88 Duke faculty have been hammered mercilessly for what was, at worst, a clumsy and ill-timed effort to reach out to their students at a moment when many of them felt vulnerable.

    I look forward to the time when this case is finally resolved, and we can all get back to talking about Ward Churchill again.

  • Correction & praise
  • Posted by B.D. on March 4, 2007 at 1:20pm EST
  • " .. with supposed threats made by the North Carolina NAACP .."

    As someone from the RTP who actually reads and considers multiple sources of data -- it was the "New Black Panthers" in the neo-lynch mob (e.g, "castrate," "we'll get you") outside the Durham County Courthouse.

    http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/433625.html

    And whose actions was cheered on by members and supporters of the Duke "Gang of 88."

    Relatedly:

    " .. My main problem .. (is) with the right-wing culture warriors and their scorched earth tactics .."

    Are we going to have a debate about the Clintons now?

    " .. People who have never expressed the slightest concern about prosecutorial overreach suddenly start talking like ACLU attorneys when it suits their ideological purposes .."

    Is that like left-wingers suddenly finding FBI information "reliable?"

    " .. As I noted above, the Group of 88 Duke faculty have been hammered mercilessly for what was, at worst, a clumsy .."

    Clumsy is a good explanatory term. Also in this vein: "biased, knee-jerk, one-sided, simple, naive, unfair, unjust, irrational, bumbling, incompetent, bush-league ..

  • Posted by Al on March 4, 2007 at 1:20pm EST
  • stm60:

    I generally agree with most of your comments and appreciate you contribution.

    The question that I and others have is why have so many of their own professors sought "so darn hard to find something to pin on these students," while saying absolutely nothing about (or actually praising or encouraging) the multiple acts of prosecutorial misconduct, the death threats, the welcoming of a racist hate group to Durham by Nifong's major supporters (and the group's threat to come to Duke to "interview" the lacrosse team), the "wanted posters," the "castrate" sign, the chants of "they must be rapists," etc.?

    Unfortunately, cases of sexual assault, including cases involving gang rape by athletes, fraternity members, or other students, occur with disturbing frequency on and around college campuses. In no other case that I am aware of, however, has such a case prompted dozens of professors, and even entire academic departments(!), to take out a full page ad in the campus newspaper promising to "turn up the volume" and thanking protesters for "making noise" and "not waiting" for the justice system, particularly based upon such limited and questionable evidence. What was it that induced so many smart people to take such irresponsible, and apparently unprecedented, action against their own students?

    UT:

    >>I also recognize that political factors are going to come into play any time an elected official is involved in a heavily publicized case. Nevertheless, I reject the cynical notion that politics explains everything.

    Who said that politics "explains everthing" with regard to the actions of the AG's office? My comment, in fact, made exactly the opposite point. Again, you are responding to arguments that no one is making.

    >>My main problem with this case is, and has always been, with the right-wing culture warriors and their scorched earth tactics.

    That your "main problem" is with the "right-wing culture warriors" is, unfortunately, no surprise. Perhaps if you would put your personal (and unwarranted) animosities aside for a moment, you might be able to look at this case with greater clarity.

    Also, who, exactly, are these "right wing culture warriors" and what, exactly, are the "scorched earth tactics" you are you referring to?

    Finally, I have asked you these questions twice already and have never received a response, so maybe the third time will be a charm:

    In a cursory review, I saw some comments that I thought were misplaced, but none that I would characterize as “repulsive.” Which comments in this thread, specifically, are you referring to?

    Also, speaking of repulsive comments, what did you think of Houston Baker’s comments regarding the lacrosse players? What about Professor Glymph’s comment that the lack of a DNA match to the accused Duke students was a “step backward"? What about Professor Curtis’ accusation that two students in her own class might be accomplices to a rape?

    Regards,

    AC

  • An Important Lesson That Nobody Will Learn
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on March 4, 2007 at 6:31pm EST
  • I think I've said most everything I planned to say here, but I did want to respond to another one of stm60's points. S/he says:

    "I suspect that many if not most middle and upper middle class Americans don’t think that justice makes many mistakes...Why in the world aren’t people using [the Duke case] to show that 'it could and does happen to your kids'."

    As I have mentioned previously (on another Duke-related thread), I would be absolutely delighted if this case causes the average American to think twice (or even three times) before automatically believing every charge of guilt leveled by a police officer, a prosecutor, an Attorney General, or a President. If the advent of DNA evidence has taught us anything, it is that the number of people wrongly convicted of serious crimes is much greater than most of us in the middle and upper classes would have ever imagined. If the actions of Mr. Nifong result in a doubling of the ACLU's membership rolls, at least something positive will have come out of this debacle.

    But I doubt that any of this will happen. Far too many people think they already know how to distinguish between "innocent" and "guilty" suspects (and I am not simply refering to race). To these folks, the lacrosse players look and sound innocent; the typical criminal suspect does not.

    When I tried before to extend this discussion to include the constitutional abuses perpetrated by the current administration in Washington (abuses against the presumption of innocence that go far beyond Mr. Nifong's feeble efforts), I was shot down by the usual suspects. I similarly found few takers when I suggested that we should focus at least some of our attention on the victims of prosecutorial overreach who lack the resources to defend themselves adequately. Many people, it appears, are only moved by injustice when it serves their political agenda.

    And this, in a nutshell, is what bothers me so much about the culture warriors. They are not interested in considering this issue in a broader context, unless that broader context refers to their tiresome and endless campaign against liberal college professors. By trying to paint this case as one of "political correctness" run amuck, they are making it much less likely that Middle America will seize this opportunity to re-think their view of law enforcement.

    One more point: I really would prefer to wait until this case is concluded before making too many loud noises about the lessons it teaches us about out-of-control prosecutors. Because if it turns out that the players are found guilty of at least some of the remaining charges, those words will be thrown back in our face by people who like to accuse civil libertarians of coddling criminals and shackling the police.

  • Posted by ASD on March 4, 2007 at 9:41pm EST
  • "But I doubt that any of this will happen. Far too many people think they already know how to distinguish between “innocent” and “guilty” suspects (and I am not simply refering to race). To these folks, the lacrosse players look and sound innocent; the typical criminal suspect does not."

    UT, having read this far into the thread and having seen a number of posts here that list the reasons they believe the accused aren’t guilty--saying that those who support the Duke players are doing so merely because they look innocent is being willfully blind.

    I’m not discounting the possibility that some do, but could you please toss out a link or a citation if you’re going to write that after reading the reasons everyone has given you.

    "When I tried before to extend this discussion to include the constitutional abuses perpetrated by the current administration in Washington (abuses against the presumption of innocence that go far beyond Mr. Nifong’s feeble efforts)..."

    Please list them.

    "And this, in a nutshell, is what bothers me so much about the culture warriors. They are not interested in considering this issue in a broader context, unless that broader context refers to their tiresome and endless campaign against liberal college professors. By trying to paint this case as one of “political correctness” run amuck, they are making it much less likely that Middle America will seize this opportunity to re-think their view of law enforcement."

    They’re painting this as political correctness run amok because it’s political correctness run amok. I’m sure they would be happy to address other issues, but saying the other side isn’t addressing other issues is something I could level during every single debate I ever get into when I don’t want to defend a position on a specific topic. My opponents could do the same thing. At some point it metamorphoses from pointing out hypocrisy in my opponents to trying to attack them on an issue without addressing it.

    "One more point: I really would prefer to wait until this case is concluded before making too many loud noises about the lessons it teaches us about out-of-control prosecutors."

    But you’re more than willing to lend support to other loud voices drawing other lessons from it in the meantime--among them this article. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    To continue on AI's point:

    "I saw some comments that I thought were misplaced, but none that I would characterize as “repulsive.” Which comments in this thread, specifically, are you referring to?"

  • Posted by KC Johnson , Professor of History at Brooklyn College on March 4, 2007 at 10:25pm EST
  • If and when the charges are dropped, I'll hold open a space on Durham-in-Wonderland so UnApologetically Tenured can then offer his/her opinions about what the case says about out-of-control prosecutors. In the Civil Rights Era, it was not the normal position of activists to wait for rigged Southern procedures to obtain convictions before speaking out about prosecutorial misconduct.

    As someone who has been very critical of the DA, I would have been disappointed had the special prosecutors not thoroughly investigated the case--including re-interviewing all witnesses. I suspect a political firestorm would have erupted had they not done so. It surprises me to see UAT suggest that because the special prosecutors are conducting a thorough investigation--in effect, doing their job--that their thoroughness could be used to suggest that a semblance of a case against the players exists.

  • Repulsive
  • Posted by Former Academic on March 6, 2007 at 10:16am EST
  • Actually, I find the comment questioning that 1 in 6 women are raped to be repulsive. BD mocks the statistics and, to me, subtly implies that numerous women "make up" stories of rape (mention of "self-reports" and lack of law enforcement evidence).

    I haven't heard much evidence to support the accuser's claim, so I admit, she may have made her story up or given false information. However, that doesn't mean that most women make up stories about rape to get back at men, which seems to be a common myth. A women has to be nearly crazy to do so -- to have friends and others doubting her story, to be blamed for being out late or drinking provocatively, for having her sexual past dragged out as relevant, etc. No wonder so few women do report rape. This case is not going to encourage women who have been raped to come forward.

    I mentioned the FBI in my previous post because I would think many right-wingers would trust this evidence -- it's hard to make the case that the FBI is a bastion of so-called "radical feminism." The FBI estimates that perhaps 2% of rape reports are fabrications -- a similar percentage to fabricated reports of robbery and other crimes. The VAST majority of rape claims are not made up, and for every claim of rape, 4 or 5 go unreported. It is possible that this woman is lying, but implying that many women lie about this is offensive to me.

  • Hot Air
  • Posted by gak on March 7, 2007 at 8:15am EST
  • All I hear from these women are how misogynistic we men are. The idea that Ms Sanday is going to put the rape in perspective without actually admitting that one took place or even questioning it is priceless. The first thing she want to do in her article is to set aside
    1) did the rape take place
    2) did the DA screw up

    Ms Sanday, THAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE OF THIS CASE RIGHT THERE. the answers are no and yes respectively. The more I watch the college level professors rant, the less I want to send my kid to school in the states.

  • Posted by Mommy on March 7, 2007 at 8:25am EST
  • This is an irresponsible article. Had Ms. Sanday had the interest in learning all of the actual facts of the Duke lacrosse case-- and been intellectually honest-- she would have quickly seen that it does not fit into her "Fraternity Gang Rape" context at all. This is the kind of shoddy and agenda-driven scholarship that erodes respect for the academy.

  • Posted by Rand on March 7, 2007 at 11:46am EST
  • The Duke/Lacrosse incident has changed my views radically. I once believed that the faculty and administrators at the elite universities must be brilliant and their reasoning abilities far beyond my comprehension. I thought the accusation was false when the 911 caller was identified as the second dancer. I also doubted that the players would have any desire for these two women under any circumstances. Logic seems difficult for some of the highly educated.

  • To unapologetically tenured
  • Posted by Rand on March 7, 2007 at 12:51pm EST
  • I haven't heard much about the accused being elevated to martyrdom. I did notice that a prostitute with a felony conviction for trying to run down a police officer was elevated to an exotic dancer, mother of two, now three, children. Let's just disregard the admitted alcohol and drug use and prior bizarre accusations of rape (startling similar to the present one).

  • Try this parallel to the Scottsboro boys
  • Posted by Jack Denver on March 7, 2007 at 2:56pm EST
  • "Regardless of the outcome of the legal case against the indicted boys, the question raised by the KKK regarding whether being black intentionally or unintentionally promotes “a culture of crassness” remain."

    In other words, we can still draw conclusions that fit into our pre-existing belief system even if the alleged "facts" in a particular case don't pan out at all.

    Of course you can only draw certainly politically correct conclusions, using examples in which the villains are white males and the victims are females and preferably minority. That such crimes are exceedingly rare in comparison to, for example, rapes by black males of white women, must be scrupulously avoided. This is why there can be no mention of statistics, only the dredging up of decades old anecdotes.

    And in the anecdotes given, is there to be no thought of the personal responsibility of the victim? Obviously no one deserves to be raped, but in tort law we have the concept of "contributory negligence" - the defendant who strikes the pedestrian with his car might be 70% responsible for talking on her cellphone and not paying attention, but the pedestrian might be 30% responsible for walking out into traffic without looking both ways. Is going to a frat party and getting blind drunk just an "alcohol problem", just a medical condition like having a heart murmur, or is there to be some recognition that the victim has partly contributed to her plight? Does taking your clothes off for a living just make you a "sex worker" ,just another job or is there to be some consideration given to whether this makes you perhaps less credible than someone who has made a different career choice?

  • Rand at 12:51.
  • Posted by c. thomas kunz on March 7, 2007 at 5:50pm EST
  • A slight correction. Although the false accuser was originally charged with multiple felonies in the stolen taxi/attempted rundown of a cop, she plea bargained the charges to misdemeanors.

  • Wow...
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on March 8, 2007 at 6:50am EST
  • This conversation has turned in a decidedly ugly direction since I last looked in.

  • More repulsive comments
  • Posted by Former Academic on March 8, 2007 at 9:35am EST
  • There are statistics regarding race and rape from the Dept. of Justice, and they show that in 88% of forcible rapes, the victim and rapist were of the same rape. The DOJ writes that the racial distribution of arrestees for rape is 56% white, 42% black, and 2% other. The DOJ also says the victims of rape are about evenly divided between blacks and whites. Since white rapist arrestees outnumber black ones, if anything, this seems to mean that more white men are raping black women. There are tons of statistics out there.

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/soo.pdf

    Enough of this victim blaming. Rape is a crime. I suppose you could say someone carrying a wallet in his back pocket on a subway contributes to his pickpocketing, or that someone wearing an expensive suit is advertising that they've got money, and therefore responsible for his mugging. A women can make herself more vulnerable by being drunk, but rape is still a crime and deserves punishment. Should a woman not be allowed to dress how she pleases because men supposedly can't control themselves? In fact, old women are raped, babies are raped, women completely covered by clothing are raped. It's not about clothes or women's actions -- rape is most often planned and a crime of power, only related to sex in that these men find sexual arousal in having power over someone else. The majority of women who are raped don't come forward because of victim blaming -- others telling them they are responsible.