I haven’t said much of anything about the Duke Lacrosse team scandal, and the team members who were charged with sexual assault of a young black woman, and with good reason. They were entitled to the presumption of innocence until convicted. In my view, its foolish to speculate about the guilt of persons under an indictment until a public trial is concluded. However, now that all the charges have been dropped, I think it’s reasonable to make a few comments.
First, I’m glad that these young men are no longer facing the risk of jail time. That’s a terrible strain to be under for anyone. The prosecutor who charged them clearly lacked sufficient evidence to make his case, and the fact that this dragged on so long was shameful. I also appreciate the comments one of the indicted players made that he felt he was fortunate to have the financial and legal resources to oppose this abuse of prosecutorial power, but that not all people in our society do (a fact that these cases make evident).
Nonetheless, I think its useful to recall the circumstances that led to the indictment of these three men. The Lacrosse team was celebrating at a rented house by having an alcohol fueled party. Two team members called an escort service and, using assumed names, hired two escorts to come to the house for the price of $800. Some of the men at the party demanded that the money they paid be refunded when they were unsatisfied with the services the two women provided them. While accounts vary, it appears racial slurs were exchanged.
Now, we will never know the exact nature of what happened that night. But let’s be clear about one thing: at a minimum, the entire incident demonstrated a serious lack of judgment on the part of these young men. Hiring escorts under an assumed name to perform naked in front of a large group of drunken male college students (and for whatever other purposes), and then yelling racial epithets at the women in question, is highly objectionable behavior on many levels.
Yet, despite what no one denies happened that night, it doesn’t seem to have affected the job prospects of at least one of the team members who was indicted, the captain of the Lacrosse team, David Evans:
(cont.)
Exonerated team captain David Evans has been given a plum job as an analyst at New York financial giant Morgan Stanley, the company confirmed yesterday.
The firm would not say what the salary would be, but the Wall Street Journal reported it will be “well into the six-figure range” as they called the job “one of the most prestigious on Wall Street.” […]
His lawyer recently said on Larry King that he worried Evans would have trouble getting a co-op or condo in Manhattan because his name would always be associated with the case.
However, nailing down a job in one of Wall Street’s most prestigious training programs could pave the way for a lucrative career in the financial world. […]
The Journal reported that Evans got support at Morgan Stanley from CEO John Mack, a 1968 graduate of Duke and a trustee of the North Carolina university.
Meanwhile, a poll conducted by The Business Journal showed the players’ reputations have not suffered too badly after year of being dragged through the mud.
A lot of people have drawn comparisons between the situations of Rutgers Women’s basketball team, slandered as “nappy headed hos” on the Don Imus program, and the the Duke Lacrosse players who were wrongfully charged with rape by an overzealous district attorney. They assume such a comparison is a fair one: one group of white male athletes smeared by the improper actions of a prosecutor vs. a group of black female athletes wrongfully smeared by a popular radio and television entertainer. However, there really is no comparison.
The young women of Rutgers did absolutely nothing to call their characters into question other than play valiantly in defeat in their attempt to win a national collegiate championship in the sport that they loved. You cannot say that about the young men of the Duke Lacrosse team.
The Duke players held their fates in their own hands. They could have short circuited the entire incident if they had only chosen not to hire female escorts to dance and strip naked for their own personal pleasure. They could also have chosen not to hurl racial slurs at the women. I’d have a lot more sympathy for them if they hadn’t chosen to take those actions.
Was the prosecutor wrong to charge three of them for rape when he didn’t have sufficient evidence to make that charge stick. Absolutely. Were his actions in keeping evidence of exoneration from the lawyers for the Duke players a gross injustice and abuse of the legal system. No question. But these young men acted extremely poorly, and their own conduct is rightly subject to condemnation, regardless of the impropriety of the charges made against them by Mr. Nifong.
Yet despite all that, so far you don’t see any consequences in terms of their future careers for their gross lack of judgment. Quite the contrary. You see a member of the “Old Boys’ Club,” Morgan Stanley’s CEO and a Duke University trustee, John Mack, going to bat for Mr. Evans to insure that he received one of the highest paying jobs in the New York financial sector for new college graduates. Some things never change: being a white, upper class male “hath its privileges.”
When I see some white male CEO awarding plum jobs to the women of the Rutger’s basketball team as a result of the slurs and death threats that came their way as a result of another powerful white male demeaning them with racist and sexist language on his nationally televised radio and TV program, I’ll be more than happy to reconsider my conclusion that this was an another example of undeserved white male privilege. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
For those of you who may think my commentary too harsh, or insensitive, or just flat out dead wrong let me just leave you with this little bon mot, an email message sent by a member of the Duke Lacrosse team to his fellow teammates less than 2 hours after the conclusion of the now infamous “strippers” party:
At 1:58 a.m., Ryan McFadyen, a lacrosse player from Mendham, N.J., sent an e-mail message from his Duke dorm, according to a search warrant affidavit.
“To whom it may concern,” the message read, “tommrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome.. however there will be no nudity.” The message said that he would kill the strippers and cut their skin off for sexual gratification “in my duke issue spandex.” The message was signed “41,” his jersey number.
What he really wrote was that he would ejaculate while cutting off their skins, but the New York Times thoughtfully spared their delicate readers’ sensibilities by employing a euphemism. I’ll certainly be curious to see what sort of job opportunities come Mr. McFadyen’s way when he graduates from Duke in a few years. Won’t you?
False rape accusations hurt everyone. We will never really know everything that happened that night, but in the eyes of our culture it was just boys being boys.
True, after a fashion. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t condemn such behavior. The right wing makes a big deal out of porn and other “deviant behavior” in our society yet these young men are their heroes. And that is not just hypocrisy, it’s a failure on the part of all of us who allow such conduct to continue without speaking out. It is precisely the behavior of boys (and men) like these which funds the sexual slave trade throughout the world.
You’re right, of course. I guess I didn’t make clear that I was being snarky.
Ah. My bad. My snarkometer must be running on low tonight.
Dear Steven D . . .
I realize I have no “snark meter.” I think, if you are as I, when numerous people seem to be attacking it is challenging to know that anyone might be attempting lightheartedness. I wrote of this yesterday and wow, was I slammed.
I experience that in recent decades Americans are snide, rude, and crude. This style passes for humor. I have not watched a “situation comedy” in decades. They are filled with such “laughs.” I am told that if my own writing were more snarky more would read it. I long for political humor that is not demeaning of a person or group. I think there is infinite material. The absurd logic exhibited in this Administration alone provides volumes.
That the Duke lacrosse players are seen as “good boys” and given the limelight for what I believe is awful behavior is almost humorous, were it not so sad.
I invite you to read and reflect. Please share your thoughts.
War of Words. Bloggers, Broadcasters, Rappers Code of Ethics
I fear that what we accept is what we live. I often write that what goes on in our homes is evident in the streets, in our acceptance of war. As I type, I hear in the background Alec Baldwin’s words to his eleven year old daughter. Yikes!
Dear Steven D. . .
I thank you for writing this!
I am grateful for your perspective. Phew!
I invite you to read my missive on the topic.
You’re welcome. And thank you.
Dear Steven D . . .
It was my great pleasure to express my sincere appreciation!
I was slammed for saying that these young men were not saints. My empathy for the woman also received reprimands and rebukes. The question of how dare she file charges came up again and again. I repeatedly responded rape, by definition, need not involve vaginal intercourse. Oh, there was so much more, inclusive of how women strip for it is their passion, a career they choose for their personal thrill?
When I saw your diary, I was scared to read it, fearing the worse; yet, your title eased my mind. As I read, I could have kissed you. I would have were you here. I did not realize how much the boys paid for the “service.” I am more certain of how I feel. I truly thank you that fact and for sharing other details, I had not yet read.
Ps. Thanks for the link. That was very well done. I concur in your commentary and your conclusions.
Dear Steven D . . .
I thank you for reading my thoughts. I am grateful. I appreciate you kind words.
I love that you are an empathetic soul and understand as I do, inequity is rampant.
show “a serious lack of judgment” by performing “naked in front of a large group of drunken male college students”?
Durham has a large poor population and the privileged white students at Duke are smack dab in the middle of them. It is an old story that women who have no other prospects than working at a donut shop turn to stripping for money to support themselves. She has 3 children.
The media continued to call the Duke students boys through the whole thing which infuriated me. It was ‘the boys vs. the stripper.’
Apparently, via several Duke parents, what the ‘boys’ were doing was having a ‘pig party’ where they hire black strippers to laugh at them.
job because you need the money is a difficult situation.
A false allegation of rape is a despicable crime.
She is severely mentally impaired. It was the DA’s responsibility to ensure that the charges had merit.
by the accuser or Mr. Nifong or both, the fact remains that there was a false accusation of rape here.
Or there wasn’t enough evidence to bring charges.
Even though the DNA evidence cleared them, they must really be guilty because…
Well, because you want them to be.
That’s the brand of justice Alberto Gonzalez likes.
I didn’t say they were guilty – just that they weren’t exactly innocent either. Your brand of justice would be to punish the 22 year old mother for being a stripper.
I don’t have anything against 22 yr olds or mothers or strippers. Or any combination thereof.
My beef is with false accusers.
And their apologists.
I guess your stern judgement of her in your comment upthread was unintentional.
to work. College dorms may not qualify. She absolutely used poor judgment.
Regardless, and for the last time, the only crime here was a false accusation.
Yes, i do feel sorry for those poor kids who hired a black stripper just so they could harrass her and scream racial slurs. Not a crime though – you are absolutely correct about that.
We should be clear that they “allegedly” screamed racial slurs at the woman, even if it seems very probably. We should also consider that perhaps it was a screaming match involving ill considered behavior on both parts — e.g. perhaps the slurs were flying both ways given the women involved appear to be hardly above reproach.
All that said, I feel sorry for boys re what happened afterward — but with extreme reservations. Don’t go looking for trouble, it’ll find you soon enough is as old as the hills, and these fella’s put themselves in the situation.
Their documented, known actions that evening are hardly gentlemanly or anything any respectable parent would like to learn of their children. With three boys of my own, I can say that I’d be very disappointed.
We should be clear that they “allegedly” screamed racial slurs at the woman, even if it seems very probably. We should also consider that perhaps it was a screaming match involving ill considered behavior on both parts — e.g. perhaps the slurs were flying both ways given the women involved appear to be hardly above reproach.
Why are these women “hardly above reproach”?
Because they’re strippers? Anna Nicole Smith was a stripper, was she too “hardly above reproach?”
Because they’re poor? Because they’re African-American?
Why? Why? Why?
False accusations of rape were my basis. Nothing more.
Perhaps I should have said “woman” rather than “women”, but the second didn’t deny the allegations, did she? To my knowledge, no. But that’s my point.
Allegedly, nothing. Many neighbors were quoted as saying they heard the men yelling racial epithets.
What a bunch of morons…
Well then outlaw stripping in college dorms, but the fact that their are safer places doesn’t mean they could get a job at one of them.
Aquittal doesn’t mean false allegation however. It simply means their wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute.
Ed J, I ask this not to snark but to promote critical thinking.
Step away from the “false” accusation for only a moment. I say “false” because the people who declared it “false” – the NC AG, the new prosecutor – had a major political motive to nail Nifong, since he was a complete screw-up and this case stank on the evidence. So I am not at all convinced that the accusation was “false” only that Nifong’s successors had a dirty diaper of a case and an idiot to blame it on.
Step away and pretend that the accusation was never made or was not made specifically as it was. What kind of people talk this way? What kind of straight men find this form of heterosexual experience – ripping skin off and jacking off to it – normal? I have not a lot of straight men, a lot of lacrosse players, and a lot of men who have seen strippers. They don’t talk that way. Something was horribly, horribly wrong in that house and $400,000 was spent to bury that something.
Am I wrong?
1 & 2: Clearly someone with problems. I’m willing to bet that it was not received terribly well by many of the players, as well. In my experience there are idiots like 44. They are part of a group, but not necessarily liked by the majority. A lose screw, no doubt.
No doubt there were a few problem folks in the group, which was definitely not helped by a college policy prohibiting the organization from limiting membership. Anyone who wanted to join was allowed — much to the chagrin of most members. Bad apples were the extreme minority, yet the sullied the entire reputation of the house. Their behavior was disliked by the majority and never rewarded.
Yet there was loyalty of friendship with these same folks from the majority. For what its worth, many of the worst actors were from shitty family situations (abusive) and dealing with serious personality problems masked by alcohol abuse (the latter, of course obvious in hindsight).
re the incident, the majority of members were angry about the spray painting. The individual who hung the mannequin claimed he did it not as any statement, but because he thought a mannequin hanging from the front porch would contribute to the zany atmosphere of a Toga party. Few members really paid attention to the what was spray painted on said mannequin. The college consequently banned the Frat for the year.
The offending members (in this incident or other acts of stupidity) were still accepted as “brothers”. While much of the membership felt wrongly persecuted as a group for the actions of a few, the membership also felt punishment should have been reserved for those individually responsible. Members prone to stupidity were generally looked down upon. A contradiction of sorts, yes.
But to the point, the subculture didn’t find it acceptable or support it. In fact, generally the word would sink in that it was “f’d up”. My response to the whole brotherhood mentality, however, was to drop football, play Rugby and deal mainly outside the fraternity.
Sorry about the rambling… lots to say, no time to edit.
It wasn’t a dorm; it was a private off campus party. Does that change your assessment?
It’s not a safe job anywhere, but it pays the bills, and often pays well, like it or not.
The fact that there is no dna evidence is evidence of a lack of evidence, not a false allegation. They could have failed to ejaculate, used a condom, or the evidence had simply been to degraded by the time the tests were made.
Except, didn’t they find the ejaculate of two other unknown males (not from Duke) in the accuser when tested?
Amen to the rest of your thoughts.
Dear Ed J . . .
Being Black in a society that is not colorblind is challenging. Not all have the opportunities White America takes for granted. If only America acted on the idea of equality.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php
http://www.hr95.org/tulia.htm
Guilty/innocent…The Duke players are no different those others who have been wrongly accused or wrongly imprisoned. Being affluent does not make your day in court any different than those above.
Well, they sure weren’t wrongly imprisoned.
If you read what I wrote, I condemned the prosecutor who filed charges he couldn’t support. Maybe you missed that part.
It is very rare for a prosecutor to ever be brought up on ethical charges and rarely disbarred. What applies to other attorneys in an ethical sense, usually does not apply to prosecutors. I would bet those who prosecuted in the links above did not face any ethical charges.
One reason the prosecutor in the Duke rape case is facing ethical charges is the affluence of those whom he charged.
Oh yeah? I’m sure OJ’s money had nothing to do with his aquital. <GreatBigSnark>
Money is in fact the main determiner of how the so-called justice system metes out punishment, from who gets arrested in the first place, to the percentage of convictions, to the length of sentance and the facilities one is imprisioned in. Money not only talks, it screams.
And while I do not deny the privileged their humanity, I also don’t pretend that they don’t get all sorts of free passes to be assholes of the first order. Like for example, not learning their lessons about the inherent risk of flouting societal mores. Or if, like Georgy boy, they did manage to learn anything, it will likely only be to practice more “discretion” when getting their rocks of by degrading their fellow human beings.
It doesn’t take white privilege to hire escorts to dance nude for your entertainment, or to degrade into whatever the hell that situation degraded into. I hope we can all agree that Assholedom of the First Order defies socio economic status and ethnicity.
No doubt money helps in the justice system, and poor and minorities get the shaft regarding much of it, but let’s keep some perspective, too.
Evans should fit right in at Morgan Stanley. The Wall Street financial firms have the same outlook on the world as the Duke lacrosse team does. I’m sure the MS CEO recognized that in a new graduate too.
Dear VizierVic . . .
Wow!!! I thank you for sharing. This says it all.
No, I think you’re wrong about that. There is an underlying logic to the insults hurled at the Rutgers women and the praise slathered on the Duke men. The logic is the code of correct gender behavior.
Female athletes who do not femme up their behavior and appearance at all times are in violation of the requirements for their gender role. Male athletes displaying sexual prowess (in this case by purchasing women’s pornographic performances) are adhering to the requirements of their gender role.
Running afoul of femininity was the Rutgers women’s “crime,” while correctly performing masculinity was the Duke men’s triumph — and, in the cultural logic of gender norms, their “innocence” of rape charges is a celebration of men’s continued natural right to demonstrate manliness by buying women.
Yes, I suppose that is the underlying narrative. But in my eyes, they did nothing wrong. I still remember the first I heard of the Imus slurs. I watched the NCAA women’s college championship game, and I could see where Imus was going immediately. The Tennessee team (the ultimate champions) was mostly comprised of African Americans as well, but some of them (including their star player) had lighter brown skins and straighter hair than some of the Rutgers players. So it was a cheap shot on many levels.
I think Imus thought would get a pass from some in the black community because he implied the other women were “prettier” because of their lighter skin and straighter hair. In some warped way I imagine he thought that if he “praised” the other team’s “better looking” black players he could get away with making the Rutgers players out to be unattractive, thuggish and too dark skinned.
The irony is that women play the game as hard as men, but without nearly the same level of animosity generated when male egos fueled by testosterone come into conflict on the court. You don’t see nearly as many cheap shots, hard fouls or verbal confrontations (much less fist fights). They play a great game at a high level with tremendous poise and dignity. It’s fun to watch, and for me just as entertaining as watching men play.
What also alarms me about the Duke situation was the reaction from the Duke Administration and Professors calling themselves the “Group of 88”, citing this incident as emblematic of sexism and racism on campus. I was hoping to read there petition, but from what i can tell it was removed from Duke’s servers back in November of 2006. I’ve heard its been wrongly interpreted as a pre-judgemnet of the players, and that recently the group of 88 had another letter explaining their initial meaning, while refusing to apologize for the initial letter.
Anyone have a copy???
Here’s the situation: the Duke lacrosse team members had long, long been known to be arrogant and there were long standing behavior issues, on and off campus. Simmering resentment about the athletic privelege at Duke is no doubt a big part of it – and particularly with respect to the lacrosse team, race and wealth is an issue as well.