A party with strippers, an alleged interracial rape, white college boys, a prosecutor running for an upcoming election and a prestigious university rocked in controversy; put all this together and you have the Duke lacrosse case that began a year ago this month.
“This was a slow motion, legal lynching… these boys were unprotected,” author Christina Hoff Sommers said at a panel discussion at the Independent Women’s Forum (INF) in Washington D.C. last week. The panel, entitled “What Went Wrong At Duke,” also featured Jeffrey Toobin legal analyst for CNN, Stuart Taylor columnist for the National Journal, and Allison Kasic of INF.
In the midst of the court case and the alleged charges against the three lacrosse players— an even bigger debate swarms around the treatment of the boys by the students, faculty and administration of Duke University. Some members of the lacrosse team received death threats, there were multiple protests on campus which included hanging “Wanted” signs with various players faces on them, the team’s season was cancelled, one player received a failing grade with no explanation, which he believes was linked to being on the team. The sad part is that this all occurred before there was any decision of their guilt or innocence.
“It’s not surprising,” Allison Kasic said. She claims the Duke administration seemed to have a “guilty until proven innocent” type of mentality. “They really jumped the gun… every shred of evidence pointed towards their innocence,” Kasic pointed out. “The administration did not stand up for its students or seek justice.”
One of the most controversial acts by the faculty was the “Group of 88” ad (http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm) published in the Duke Chronicle a month after the case broke. The ad called the situation a “social disaster” and promoted the protest. “To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.” Since the case has progressed, the “Group of 88” has renamed itself “Concerned Duke faculty” and written a new ad (www.concerneddukefaculty.org), claiming the former editorial was misunderstood—stating they only hoped to bring light to the racist and sexist issues on campus and that they did not support every protest that happened on campus. However, they will not offer an apology for the first ad.
But Taylor still does not buy into it, “They (the faculty) are malicious!”
Sommers, a former Clark University professor, claims that faculties are very “left” of the mainstream. “They’re in a world unto themselves… a little private world and any correction of them they think is against academic freedom.” She also stated that Duke is notorious for having extreme faculty in the English and Ethnic studies departments.
A Duke parent present in the audience did not hesitate to voice her opinion, “I have a lot of anger towards the administration… the buck stops with the President, and he should be leading the school academically and intellectually.” She did report that despite the negativity towards the lacrosse team that over 4,000 people showed up at their first game last week in support.
Presently, the case has been delayed as ex-prosecutor Mike Nifong has requested to be taken off the case and asked the North Carolina Attorney General’s office to appoint a special prosecutor. This request was made after the North Carolina Bar Association filed an ethics complaint against Nifong. A spokesperson from the Attorney General’s office said the special prosecutors could be finished with their investigation in several weeks.
Wendy Cook is a staff writer for Accuracy in Academia.
