<p>Are you forgetting about Houston Baker, the Duke English professor who appeared on national television multiple times, and has publicly called for “immediate dismissals of those principally responsible for the horrors of this spring moment at Duke,” ?</p>
<p>“Petty as their previous misdeeds were, it contributed to the initial credibility of the accusations.”</p>
<p>So if a woman wearing sexy clothes gets raped, but the man denies the rape and says she wanted sex, has she contributed to the initial credibility of his defense via her poor choice of clothes?</p>
<p>It is hard to believe that Salem Village (Duke University) was once a normal place, but it was. Salem Village (Duke University) was once ordinary. It was a strict town. It didn’t allow merrymaking (drinking) due to its Puritan religion. (political correctness) Girls didn’t have much fun. (students)</p>
<p>The girls (woman) began to accuse other people (three Duke Lacrosse players) of being witches. (rapists) The accused witches (accused rapists) were brought to trial. During the trials, the girls (woman) went into fits and claimed that they (she) were being hurt by the accused witch.(she had been raped, sodimized, kidnapped and racially insulted by the Duke boys) Time after time this happened. (media went to town) People began to think the girls were going overboard. (dna test results came back negative) Then suddenly it just stopped. (hopefully it will) People were let out of prison, (though it cost their families a great deal of money) and the Parris left Salem Village. Ann Putnam later made a public apology. (Houston Baker)</p>
<p>…And in that village, an innocent student was allegedly raped after the witch accusations, and the village protesters completely disappeared. The poor student was left on her own without support of any of the villager support organizations. Where oh where did the village outrage go? The new witch was left alone. He was given a free pass by all the villagers. Why was that? Why is he not being hunted? Oh the shame.</p>
<p>I know that the original thread got zapped, but some posters have resurrected it from Google caches, and it’s worth perusing. At the time of the initial accusation, a lot came out about the activities of various members of the Duke Lacrosse team. (At the time no individual defendants had been identified.) Some of our student posters - from Duke - confirmed that the team had a reputation for rowdiness. Specific examples were cited. And there was the unfortunate coincidence of the “skin the strippers” e-mail.</p>
<p>Look - I have been forceful in defending the three defendants since Seligman’s alibi data was published. And I’ve been candid in my criticism of Nifong since the description of the “multiple choice” lineup was disclosed. But whitewashing the students makes no more sense than the initial sanctification of the stripper did. I think the defendants are not guilty, and I’m glad that they have the resources to defend themselves to what I believe will be a favorable outcome, and I regret the cost it will impose on their families. But constructing the same type of hysterical, “us vs. them” mentality from the other side won’t lead to a better tomorrow.</p>
<p>Simple professionalism is the cure here, not name-calling. If the DA and police had acted in an impartial, professional way from day one this would have been a non-event. It had nothing to do with “political correctness,” or drinking, or “the media” (whose involvement, ironically, probably was the best thing the students could have asked for, in retrospect.) The problem arose from one psychologically disturbed person and the lack of adherence to professional standards and lax ethics on the part of a man who turned out to be a political hack above all else - nothing more.</p>
<p>I agree with most of what you say in your post, but it has morphed into a political/idealogical debate, and this morphing has been brought on by both sides of the spectrum. Read Professor Mike Gustafson’s blog on xanga. I don’t think we can post blog links here, but he used to post on CC as dukeengr, or something like that. He has posted some really sane things regarding this morph and what it has done ideologically at Duke with some of the professors and departments.</p>
<p>I think it is telling though that there has been no call to expel the students at the party where this latest rape occured. Forget that there was an alleged rape for a second, or that it was supposedly a “black fraternity” who held this party… There weren’t any strippers there, but there were multiple controlled substances available at the house, including cocaine and oxycontin. Are there going to be felony drug charges brought? Are there not going to be any school related sanctions against the Duke students who rented that house?</p>
<p>Wasn’t oxycontin what got Rush Limbaugh into all that trouble? Isn’t that some pretty heavy duty stuff?</p>
Maybe they learned their lesson? (Just kidding - I’m actually not that naive.) :)</p>
<p>I am supportive of the sentiments expressed by Professor Evans. If such events occurred in classes last spring they should be exposed and discussed. On the other hand, this, too, may be an example of things getting blown out of proportion in the retelling.</p>
<p>I would hope that lots of college kids have learned some lessons out of this whole mess… Namely, don’t put yourself in a situation that can lead to disaster! Unfortunately, because kids all think they are teflon and invincible, they will continue to do STUPID things! I just pray and cross my fingers that my kids will make it through to adulthood without blundering to big (or publicly ;))</p>
<p>Here is a really balanced article that is a good read:</p>
<p>“(Raleigh, NC-AP) March 1, 2007 - Attorneys for the prosecutor who headed the Duke lacrosse rape investigation say their client didn’t intentionally break any ethics rules.”</p>
<p>:rolleyes: Is it ok for a DA to break rules if doesn’t do it intentionally? :o</p>
<p>KC Johnson has some great explanations of the very long response that Defendent Nifong’s lawyers had to file yesterday on his durham in wonderland blog. My favorite is that Nifong has said that he doesn’t recall that he rejected any of the lax defense counsel’s requests to meet with him about their clients’ alibis, etc. He is the most amazing liar!</p>
<p>Our own DukeEng93 (Michael Gustafson) also has some great comments on his xanga blog. </p>
<p>In the meantime, we are just 2 weeks shy of the 1st anniversary of the Hoax–when are the special prosecuters from the NC Attorney General’s office going to do something about dismissing this whole thing??</p>
<p>No, it’s certainly not “ok” whether it’s intentional or not. </p>
<p>But this distinction - between breaking rules “intentionally” and doing so unintentionally - will presumably make a whole lot of difference to the ethics folks. All kinds of significant distinctions in the law - regarding, for example, how an offense is classified (for instance, murder vs. manslaughter), what sentences are available, etc. - focus on the individual’s state of mind when he committed the act(s) in question. The act and resulting harm may be essentially the same irrespective of the person’s state of mind, but questions of this sort bear heavily on issues of culpability, gravity, and the appropriate penalty. (As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, “Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.”) In this case, the difference between “intentional” and “unintentional” could have a huge impact on the result.</p>
<p>As others have commented previously, the most damaging accusations here may well be the ones concerning Nifong’s alleged lies in connection with this ethics investigation. And this relates, in part, to state-of-mind issues. It’s difficult (even in this post-Clinton era) to claim “I lied unintentionally.” In addition, if someone can be shown to have lied in connection with an investigation, it’s easier to infer that other wrongful acts - which might otherwise have seemed ambiguous on this point - were committed intentionally as well.</p>
<p>I went to the Duke/Maryland Lax game in College Park on Friday night. It was a great game, and I am so glad I went. About 6,000 people were there, quite a few cheering for Duke–I sat with some Lax parents I knew, and William Anderson, a prof from Frostburg State U., who has been writing extensively about the case for lew rockwell. </p>
<p>I had the opportunity to meet and chat with Rae Evans. She is so gracious and such a strong person–I can’t even imagine how I would be if I was in her shoes. She seems very upbeat about how things have progressed over the last few months, and expects the AG’s office to “do something” very soon. By that I expect she meant that they think the case will be dropped altogether. I certainly hope so!!! </p>
<p>There were some fans on the Maryland side who had signs that said “No Means No” and they chanted that a few times. But they were not in evidence much beyond the first half. There was a small, obviously drunk, group of students sitting about 10 rows in front of the Duke Lax parents who were shouting some obscenities along with the “No Means No” chants at the very beginning of the game. A Maryland Alum went down to try to quiet them, and then went to get Security officers. The young men were escorted out when they continued their behavior. It was a minor incident. No other protesters, and most everyone was very friendly.</p>
<p>^…Not only a contrast in the investigation, but let’s look at the contrast in the actual alleged “incidents”. This one appears to have really taken place and there were credible witnesses. The other one was based on a series of lies that kept on going…</p>