<p>Berurah - very well said :)</p>
<p>If the recent sparring between Kluge and others on this thread hasn’t satisfied your cyber-appetite for discussion of the appropriate response to the exoneration of these three young men, you might want to take a look at a recent blog piece by Nightline’s Terry Moran, which is entitled “Don’t Feel Too Sorry For The Dukies.” (CC’s rules don’t permit posting a link to a blog, but you can get to this piece easily enough via google.)</p>
<p>berurah~your post #713 was completely on point, and well said! I have been in agreement with everything you said–although I always said I would withhold a comment about whether or not they were guilty until I found out more information about the case. As soon as the attorneys claimed that NO DNA would be found because none of the players had had sex, consensual or otherwise, with the dancer–that’s when I was sure that they were being falsely accused!</p>
<p>I am so tired of heaing people say that “well, they were no choir boys!” They weren’t, but then I’d like to see how many of the people saying that could swear that they, or their children, have lived perfect lives, or that they were saints in college. I don’t approve of boorish behavior, and have often told our children that they have to understand what can happen if they are not making good decisions! But I hardly think these young men needed to pay for their (and their teammates’) behavior that evening by spending a year in hell, with longterm consequences that are yet unknown. The punishment has been far, far greater than the “crime”.</p>
<p>Irish…that’s the thing…even if their behaviors that night were not the best, the consequences they have faced do not “fit” the level of anything they had done. Further, there are three guys who took the fall, whether they personally did or didn’t do (i.e., racial slur) any of those things and being the only ones whose names are all over for some things that others may have said or done. It seems that their names were picked out of a hat. We don’t hear the names of the other young men there that evening who may have exhibited boorish behavior. These three went through the ringer for any and everything that may have happened that night, whether they were still at the party or not, whether they personally did anything being admonished, and were not so different than their peers that night who we never hear about by name. While a lot of their behavior wasn’t the stuff one would be proud of, it was in the normal range for college behavior. However, as members of a varsity team, they should have had to meet certain standards and policies and if they broke any, their status on the team should be in question. That applies to any boys there or who have had misdemeanors in the past. Actually, the whole thing about the previous misdemeanors also is another thing that pertained only to certain players and I am not sure if all three of the accused kids fall under that description. I would say if you have a misdemeanor, there should be displiplinary consequences relative to it and for any repeated offenses, which may include probation or suspension from the team. Those consequences would be more in keeping with any of these “offenses.”</p>
<p>epistrophy-
Yeah, and read the gazillion responses to Terry Moran calling him a total hypocrite and complete moron.</p>
<p>jym626–</p>
<p>Just to clarify (if clarification is needed), I didn’t mention the Terry Moran blog piece because I agree with his view on this issue (or with Kluge’s, for that matter). As I’ve said more than once, I don’t. Putting it a little more precisely, I certainly agree that others have suffered much worse injustices than have these three young men. But that doesn’t mean that I believe that compassion for the suffering that these young men (and their families) have endured is misplaced.</p>
<p>But whether I agree with the Moran piece or not is really beside the point. I simply thought that some other folks might be interested in seeing how this issue was playing out on another forum. And while the majority of the responses to his piece express (often fierce) disagreement with it, not all of them do.</p>
<p>One other thing: If it gets to the point where the only people that we consider worth listening to are those with whom we already agree - and everyone else is dismissed as a “moron” - there may not be too much point in talking with other people at all.</p>
<p>That’s some article. Let’s see, because they were white and rich and privileged, we shouldn’t feel sorry for them. Frankly, I could care less their skin color or incomes. Injustice is injustice and has no color or class. In fact, these young accused men themselves said in their statements that they are lucky to have been able to afford good representation because they know there are others out there wrongly accused or could have a DA out of control like this one and it may not have turned out as well. So, the system is the problem. In our country’s history, there are more injustices to the poor or African American, but that doesn’t diminish the injustice or suffering in this case.</p>
<p>I think these families endured a lot. If using the reasoning this author uses, that is like saying…well, your kid died in a car crash in your Mercedes, but you are rich, so it isn’t as bad for you as for the poor kid in the slums who was killed. Pain is pain. I feel badly for anyone wrongly accused. </p>
<p>I also think in this particular case, the names of the wrongly accused have been put through the ringer in a hugely public way, more than in some other cases which we never hear about. </p>
<p>Yes, they have suffered. Having money doesn’t ease one’s suffering. Do others have it worse? Sure thing. Would others in this predicament who could not afford this sort of representation get the same outcome? Very well might not. None of that diminishes their pain and suffering. Will these three guys’ lives get better? I presume so and hope so. Does that take away a year of emotional suffering, loss of money, education, etc.? No. Is this the worst thing that could ever happen to anyone? No. Was it really a despicable travesty of justice that caused a lot of suffering? Yes. And yes, that is true no matter their skin color or social class. Since when do rich people not have to ever suffer? Yes, it is nice to have money, rather than be poor. But rich people do not have a lock on an easy life. They too can suffer.</p>
<p>epistrophy wrote:
</p>
<p>I truly agree with this. I think this also applies to this forum. I much prefer to read thoughts and opinions, even if they are at odds with one another. The posts that are harder to stomach are ones that go after the poster. </p>
<p>In terms of this latest discussion on this thread, I just want to say that I value what Kluge has to say and many, many of his posts on the old very long thread, as well as this one, were very informative. I really have enjoyed Kluge’s posts. I just didn’t agree with Kluge on this latest subtopic, but still value what he has to say. </p>
<p>The thread is interesting, in part, due to the variety of points of view. The discussion is best, however, when folks stick to opinions rather than going after the person behind them. I’m just saying this generally speaking, not just about any recent posts here, but about all threads on CC. I get real uncomfortable when folks go after one another, and get personal about it.</p>
<p>
Right…or if someone who’s expressing an opposing opinion is characterized as “sneering.” I totally agree, epistrophy.</p>
<p>Food for thought…would <em>anyone</em> here tell a mother who has lost a baby to stillbirth that her grief is not/should not be as great as someone who lost a young adult child because she didn’t get to know the child for as long? I wouldn’t. IMHO, it is both disrespectful and irrelevant to compare anyone’s personal circumstances as part of a “competition” with anyone else’s.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Well said in #727 Soozievt. This latest difference of opinion has had me thinking about one of my very dear friends and close professional associates, father of two children in college. The oldest (she just graduated) was diagosed with stage 4 cancer very early in her freshman year, and, for the past 5-6 years, she has been on rather a wild ride of it - going back and forth from remission to discovery of new cancer to yet another surgery to more chemo and then the thankful return to classes and so on. </p>
<p>This has been a rather trying experience for her parents, as you can imagine. Over the past several years I have taken calls from my friend all hours of the day and night as he’s gone through the latest with doctors, waiting for test results, etc. On several of these calls he has begged me to pray, convinced that “this time” he was not going to be able to bring his daughter home, or, if he could, it would be to bring her home to die. Even though she is now in remission, their “relief” will last only as long as the next scheduled check-up, which for them so far has meant that new cancer is discovered. </p>
<p>The so-called “good” news is that my friend is a career federal agent in a three-letter agency; his wife is a career school teacher, and their combined benefit packages and employer policies have afforded them a LOT of time off work (with no loss of income) that they have been able to use to assist and support their daughter. In addition, his federal government benefits package has allowed access to excellent medical care. Beyond that, his position in the intelligence community has given him access to connections to people, organizations and resources that the majority of people would not necessarily be able to have, or, it would take quite some doing AND substantial political relationships to get to those connections.</p>
<p>In all of our conversations, with him being very upset and just simply beside himself, and me offering whatever response would help him - never once would I have ever said “yeah, but, at least you have plenty of health insurance - lots of people have no health insurance or” or “but at least you can take time off work - most people would not be able to take the time off work let alone use the government-issued transport” or “yeah, but at least your societal and professional positioning gives you access to things most people don’t even know about” - etc.</p>
<p>All of those things are true, of course. He has managed to come through this with no degradation to his family’s financial well being. But for me to have said so to him, especially as he’s pacing the hall or in some hospital waiting room, would have been inelegant, impolitic, obnoxious even. And, though he would almost certainly quickly admit it all himself, the facts would do NOTHING to mitigate his stress and great, great grief, worry and dispair.</p>
<p>Bottom line, when something horrible happens, it is of little value to consider the concept of “well it could be worse IF this or IF that or IF something else”, because such consideration does little to mitigate or somehow “make whole” the harm of what has happened, when you’re the one it happened to.</p>
<p>epistrophy,
Not sure whay you felt the need to “clarify” anything to anyone here. Of course not everyone disagreed with Terry Moran-- I never said everyone did. You pointed out Terry Moran’s opinion. I was merely pointing out the many, many, many dissenting opinions posted right below his article (and the terminology they used), which you neglected to mention. None of us here need to be reminded that everyone is entitled to their opinion, or that the purpose of these discussions is to share/voice them. Not sure why the obvious is being restated. </p>
<p>I give you credit for pointing out where you share kluge’s opinions, and where you differ. As soozie pointed out, depending on the topic, all of us may at one time agree, and at another disagree with the opinions of any given poster. That’s another given. But with all due respect, I think to imply that this wasn’t your opinion, but to say “gee look at what Terry Moran said” is merely distancing oneself from an opinion, but it served to rekindle the fire of a discussion that seemed to have hit quiescence, while failing to show that there were two sides to that discussion on his blog, as well as here.</p>
<p>I think both sides of this argument had been eloquently voiced here, and LTS’s poignant story of the child of the FBI/CIA/NSA employee is a compelling story that restates the personal pain people suffer in many different circumstances. I think this discussion has hit the “beating a dead horse” stage. What I believe most of us are reacting to, on this side of the discussion, is not that there are many, many, many examples if the injustices that have happened to people of all race, income level, religion, etc., but to trivialize the impact that this experience has had on the lives of the Duke students is distasteful. And from that opinion, you also wisely distanced yourself.</p>
<p>EDIT:
** clarifying**-- the terms “hypocrite” and “complete moron” were terms used by posters in Terry Moran’s blog. I would have quoted them directly but as epistrophy stated, not sure if that is allowed here.</p>
<p>No, Berurah, disagreeing with another’s opinions isn’t “sneering.” This:
is sneering.<br>
This:
is sneering. </p>
<p>Glad we had an opportunity to define terms here.</p>
<p>^^Obviously, I disagree. But, kluge, feel free to characterize me and my commentary any way you wish–though it appears that you already do.</p>
<p>btw, one could certainly make the case that you are “sneering” at the plight of the LAX players and diminishing all that they’ve gone through. As in, Too Bad, So Sad. But I would never use such a childish and pejorative term to describe your views.</p>
<p>As an aside, I did enjoy people in Terry Moran’s blog questioning if he had accidentally misspelled his last name, and that the final vowel was not an “a” but rather another “o”.</p>
<p>soozie~good posts here!</p>
<p>Deep breath guys…let’s stick to talking about points of view, not one another. My request isn’t directed to anyone in particular, but just overall. CC’s Terms of Service with regard to courtesy and staying away from being personal should be adhered to. Thanks…</p>
<p>(I have a hard time reading when people go after one another as posters, rather than sticking to points of view)</p>
<p>I might further add that I can understand if one feels under personal attack, the temptation to respond in kind. But if that happens to anyone, it is better to report it, rather than go after the poster on the forum, as tempting as that may be.</p>
<p>Regarding the assumption that everything is now going to be “fine” for the three young men, in my opinion, there’s still quite a difficult road ahead. Considering just Evans, for example, it’s great that he’s headed to Wall Street, and that the CEO of Morgan Stanley has paved his way. </p>
<p>Think for a minute though what Evan’s first professional job might be like. First of all, everyone will know who he is. And I’d guess that somewhere in the northeast, some human resource director is complaining to friends or family something like “I had like 500 resumes from 4.0 grads of top schools, all with great recommendations etc. and no criminal history and they MADE me extend the job offer to this Evans guy”. Consider further the human resources person who has to call all the other candidates and tell them they didn’t get the job (or more likely send the form letters I guess). Imagine, then, his first days at work - perhaps he walks into the employee cafeteria and everyone stops talking, or other people who did not follow the case closely assume “where there’s smoke there’s fire” or “something must have happened in that house” etc. </p>
<p>Imagine, too, how his immediate supervisor is going to feel. It’s hard enough to be a manager and to have a subordinate who has a connection to the top officer of the company, even if that subordinate is a very nice, good person, highly competent and a strong performer, and the connection to the top officer tenuous and based on benign circumstances. Imagine how much more difficult to have Evans as a subordinate. </p>
<p>Maybe it won’t be this way at all - maybe Evans is welcomed with open arms, fits in perfectly, and he gets to construct his career just like every other newly minted college grad at their first job. But considering all that has happened, it’s hard to imagine that this will be very easy for him. He doesn’t get to start out “even” like everyone else, and it’s easy to imagine that he will have to constantly be proving himself, over and over - or - worse - he’ll be given breaks and have people make things easy for him in ways that he does not want.</p>
<p>Count me as one who did assume that where there was smoke there was fire. I never would have predicted the total moral collapse of a seemingly benign DA. Shows to go ya.</p>
<p>But on the smoke question, as a parent of a boy who was accused of sexual harassment because he stood next to the harasser in a cell phone photo; (ie no guilt whatsoever–no awareness that the other boy was making sexual advances to the teacher)–this is the reality of boys in packs. </p>
<p>That smoke sticks to them if they stay in the pack when the pack, or anyone in the pack, misbehaves. That is the reality of western male society-- in my opinion. </p>
<p>I drilled my boys to try to keep their wits about them when their pack of boys decided to behave in a sleezy manner–because I know the sleeze turns to destruction more often than not. I drilled them to avoid participating in ANY sleezy group dynamic–to leave if possible–to assist a victim if there was one. For the most part, they followed my instructions.</p>
<p>Still, one of mine got nabbed–in school and in uniform and completely innocent of the charge but stupid enough to stay around for what he assumed was a laugh–now remembered by the school admin as one of ‘those’. Nothing he could do about it except live and learn.</p>
<p>Evans should have left before the stripper arrived–as many frat boys did. I am sure he knows that now.</p>
<p>Cheers, I do believe theses boys would be the first to tell you that they have learned a LOT of lessons. I recall in an interview a long time ago on 60 Minutes how Reade was saying he regrets even GOING to the party. I think they learned the very very very very hard way of some mistakes in judgement that they won’t be making again. I’m sure nobody could have predicted anything remotely like what has happened but they did make some poor choices in general that they likely will think twice about making in the future. What a way to learn some basic lessons though.</p>
<p>Sometimes, just putting yourself in a situation where you personally are not doing anything wrong but where there is a chance of guilt by association or guilt for having been present, is a lesson to teach kids. I can think of one time in college with my younger child where that came up though she wasn’t involved in anything but had merely just arrived at a location where someone else was doing something against the rules.</p>