April 06, 2006

I'll admit, I did not want to be the one to post this either. I hope due process is followed, and whoever was involved in whatever happened gets made an example of. I can't help but think that Duke isn't the only place stuff like this is happening.

posted by chicobangs at 10:56 AM on April 06, 2006

I believe they are all being punished because they are not cooperating with the police. They have decided to stand together and stand silently.

posted by bperk at 11:12 AM on April 06, 2006

Living here in North Carolina, the news coverage has been completely different. The news has been putting as much as possible on about how it ISN'T the lacrosse players who were at fault - IF they were at fault at all. They have be dregding up as much dirt on the female as possible, protecting the lacrosse team. No charges yet, because I don't think anyone wants to press the charges, they want it to go away. Plus I am sure everyone involved are afraid of the political/financial pressure that can be applied to them by the rich daddies of the accused. I have found out more information from the national news than the local news will bring forth. This has been in the local news for about 3 weeks now, I just found out last night (on Fox news) that the victim had bruises, choke marks AND broken fingernails. Response to rcade - I think they all are being punished because all were at the party. All were drinking (underaged) and rumor of drug use. All had to have had some knowledge of what was going on.

posted by Stealth_72 at 11:16 AM on April 06, 2006

I don't feel bad for the coach at all. He is not responsible for individual behavior, but he is responsible for allowing the team to develop a culture that would allow this kind of behavior to occur. A third of the team had been arrested for something prior to this incident. If the coach had crackdowned on the smaller incidents, an incident of this magnitude may never have happened.

posted by bperk at 11:22 AM on April 06, 2006

But, what else could the university do when none of the players are cooperating with the investigation?

posted by bperk at 11:26 AM on April 06, 2006

The lawyers for the defendants are acting awfully confident about the DNA tests to be conducted. If they get a match it will be game over for at least one individual, and I predict you'll see the team solidarity start to unravel at that point. If they don't get a match then I feel doubly sorry for the victim.

posted by Amateur at 11:32 AM on April 06, 2006

Other coaches routinely discipline their players for alcohol infractions and the like to set an example for the team as to what behavior is acceptable. I am not at all saying that the coach is responsible for the player's behavior. What I am saying is that a coach who has had multiple problems with a good portion of the team and has failed to discipline them for that behavior has to take some blame for things getting out of control. If you isolate any one of the incidents, it certainly is minor. But, when there is a pattern, with one-third of the team being involved, then more must be done. The coach is the first line of defense and if he can't or won't take action, then the university must. One-third of any group of students being arrested for a "party infraction" is a ridiculously high number. A football team that had that number of incidents would be deemed out of control. Is it the university's business if the players don't choose to cooperate with the investigation? I'm not backing these guys at all, but if the players feel cooperating wuold be a bad idea (or if they are being told by their lawyers not to say anything to police), why would Duke have anything to say about that, aside from wanting to make this go away as quickly as possible? The university has to act because its students have pushed for some action. While it may be in the best interest of the particular players involved to stay silent, the only interest the others players could possibly have is to either see that the wrongdoers go unpunished or to show solidarity with their other teammates. Both of these positions prevent the university from clearing anyone at all from wrongdoing. No one has come forward to say that they were elsewhere or that they couldn't have done it because they were passed out or anything. The university is left with only two options -- punish the entire team or punish no one.

posted by bperk at 12:08 PM on April 06, 2006

The university has to act because its students have pushed for some action. I disagree. The university doesn't have to do anything. Duke is choosing to punish everyone to take the pressure off the institution, and I would think that in the instance that these players are exonerated of this, the members of the lacrosse team would have a pretty good reason to file suit against the university for defamation of character. It's presuming guilt, and if you're going to decry it in the case of steroids users or people boarding boats full of hookers, you have to apply the standard equally to everyone. On preview: Thanks for the link, Y. It is exhaustive, and this story is probably the best of them. One disturbing quote: After a few minutes, everything seemed to calm down, he said. One of the women headed back into the house, saying she forgot her shoes. Someone has just been brutally raped, people are yelling racist slurs ... and you go back in for your shoes?

posted by wfrazerjr at 12:40 PM on April 06, 2006

Man, very disturbing story. But I would just like to note that maybe some of the players might be staying quiet for fear of retribution from the rest of the team. I've seen it before in high school where a kid gets jumped by 3 or more students but yet when the principle or police come to investigate nobody says a thing to incriminate the thugs who did the beating. I would wager there at least a couple of students who are struggling with this type of inner conflict. Do I stay quiet to save my own skin or do the right thing and come forward and risk a beating or worse?

posted by njsk8r20 at 01:07 PM on April 06, 2006

I wouldn't be surprised if this leads to some clashes between Duke students and some of the locals around the Durham area. There has been a simmering resentment for years between the "Dukies," many of whom are well-heeled and protected from life's unpleasantness by their economic stature, and the Durham locals, nearly 15% of whom live below the poverty line. In fact, nearly a quarter of the workers in Durham County make less than $25,000.00 a year, and the median household income in 2000 (last year I could find) was less than $45,000.00. It's a common problem in many college towns, made worse here because many folks associated with Duke University are of the opinion that their solid waste results in no olfactory unpleasantness, and are lily white in a largely black community. This incident and its fallout could be a trigger for even worse upheaval.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 01:17 PM on April 06, 2006

bperk: One-third of any group of students being arrested for a "party infraction" is a ridiculously high number. Not to nit-pick, but the article you linked to above stated that about 1/3 of the players have been charged with some sort of infraction, not necessarily arrested for such infractions. That leaves open the possibility that the players were only issued a citation and there is also the possibility (as would be the case even for an arrest) that charges were dropped in some instances. The fact that the article asserts that most of the charges resulted in plea bargains suggests that there was something to them, but the language is a bit more ambiguous than you are making it out to be. wfrazerjr: I disagree. The university doesn't have to do anything. Duke is choosing to punish everyone to take the pressure off the institution, and I would think that in the instance that these players are exonerated of this, the members of the lacrosse team would have a pretty good reason to file suit against the university for defamation of character. It's presuming guilt, and if you're going to decry it in the case of steroids users or people boarding boats full of hookers, you have to apply the standard equally to everyone. I don't know that the university has an obligation to not presume guilt. I hear your point regarding the inconsistency in certain commenters here taking differing approaches on when guilt should be presumed and whether there is inconsistency or hypocrisy in such situations. However, the university is not a court of law and it's not a governmental entity and doesn't necessarily have an obligation to presume innocence or not act arbitrarily. Assuming that certain activities (e.g., even being at a party with underage drinking, irrespective of involvement in that drinking) are forbidden under school policies and those policies are being applied here, its the university's prerogative to do so. We can question the fairness of whether the university is singling out these students for a draconian application of school policy (assuming, again, that there is some policy or code of conduct violated here) when other violations of the same policy that do not have the corresponding media attention are not punished, but that is a different issue than presuming guilt. I, for one, don't have a problem with a school holding its athletes to higher standards than it does it other students. I also don't have a problem with application of a bright line rule (like if you are at a party where there is underage drinking or where there are strippers you are subject to suspension, regardless of your involvement) that creates incentives for students to err on the side of caution and not come anywhere close to the line, and even if that rule leads to a presumption of guilt in certain circumstances. It's not clear (at least to me) whether any such policies, codes of conduct or rules are applicable here, though, so it's hard to get a good handle on whether Duke is acting within its rights or is even acting fairly, but it seems a number of commenters on this thread are making bold pronouncements that may not be warranted in light of what we know and don't know.

posted by holden at 01:26 PM on April 06, 2006

Holden, I agree with most of your sentiment. My question would be -- is Duke conducting its own investigation in this case? I ask because there haven't even been any charges filed yet and the entire team has been disciplined. bperk, lowering the death penalty on the entire squad for the alleged actions of three players (notwithstanding the earlier suspensions for other violations and infractions) is a presumption of guilt, and saying, as you did, that "the lacrosse team as a group has behaved badly" is almost assuredly incorrect, unless you believe every single member of the team was involved in this. As for the names, no, the names of the three alleged offenders haven't been released, but what difference does that make? The entire team has been punished, which labels them all as possible rapists. How is that fair?

posted by wfrazerjr at 01:36 PM on April 06, 2006

fraze, the bad behavior that I believe the lacrosse team is most assuredly guilty of is not cooperating with the criminal investigation. Whether or not any of the charges are true or not, they certainly get the benefit of the doubt. The lacrosse team is preventing these charges from being cleared up by stonewalling. The university may never have taken the drastic action it has taken if the few people involved spoke up and explained what did and did not happen. At least then, whatever punishment, if any, would have been directed to the responsible parties.

posted by bperk at 02:22 PM on April 06, 2006

If the Coach is resigning, the season has been cancelled, and all the players are standing together and not cooperating with investigators, then that says to me that there were probably major problems with the Lacrosse program before this event occurred. If the program was squeaky clean and the Duke administration respected the coach and the way he ran this program, then this would have transpired differently. The public and media probably believe this crime occurred and want to believe it occurred because there has been a strong link between athletes and violence in our country. The stats on the web site for National Coalition Against Violent Athletes paint that picture. Violent acts by athletes occur at a much greater rate than the general population. (see http://www.ncava.org/stats.html )

posted by bailzzz at 03:03 PM on April 06, 2006

This is typical ''team'' mentality. If anyone knows something and is keeping silent for the ''team'' they are as guilty as the people who commit the crime. As for the coaches, in many cases they are responsible for making the players feel that they (players) are above the law and will be protected, especially is they have above average ability. As for the university, education on that level is big business and they have their reputation to protect, at any cost. A good reputation means students attending at a high tuition fee which equals M-O-N-E-Y.

posted by joromu at 04:55 PM on April 06, 2006

It's presuming guilt, and if you're going to decry it in the case of steroids users or people boarding boats full of hookers, you have to apply the standard equally to everyone. The swift cancellation of the season and firing of the coach suggests Duke is a lot more interested in covering its ass than anything approaching justice.

posted by rcade at 06:53 PM on April 06, 2006

Rcade: The swift cancellation of the season and firing of the coach suggests Duke is a lot more interested in covering its ass than anything approaching justice. The coach resigned. The cancellation came as a result of the coach's resignation. Before, the coach resigned, the season had been suspended indefinitely. Semantics, I know...but Duke University has had a very quiet approach to this scandal. I think the first official statement came at least a week after the initial allegations were made public. Mostly, the University has been dodging the big questions. I live and go to school in Chapel Hill so I'm still a little shocked by the whole situation, and I'd prefer the whole dirty mess hadn't happened. The past cannot be changed and I hope whoever is responsible (be it rapists or false police reports or something entirely different) is punished accordingly. Now it seems obvious from the evidence released that *something* happened and I think everyone should wait for DNA results and for charges to be filed before accusations are made.

posted by TarheelGirl at 07:59 PM on April 06, 2006

for the comment that wfrazer.jr made. until you have been in this situation you don't know what you would do. i would you feel if it was your daughter, mother, or sister. if it never happened to them and all of a sudden it did. they may do something more stupid than that.

posted by SALT at 08:54 PM on April 06, 2006

I got my britches scared off. When I heard "Duke cancels lacrosse, " I misunderstood. I thought I heard "Buick cancels Lacrosse." With 47 more payments left, one can imagine the memories that I might have had regarding my ownership of a 1959 Edsel.

posted by Bud Lang at 02:13 AM on April 07, 2006

The sad part about that, forrestv, is that I agree with you. But I hope that wouldn't be the case.

posted by wingnut4life at 06:53 AM on April 07, 2006

Anderson Cooper, who is covering the story on his blog, gets torn a new one by SpoFi's own spitztengle.

posted by smithers at 08:07 AM on April 07, 2006

bperk, you're still ignoring the basic premise of my argument -- no charges have been filed and we have no idea whether these players are being told not to say anything by their lawyers or if they are actually stonewalling out of some stupid team loyalty. It's the job of the prosecutors in the area to handle possible obstruction of justice charges, not Duke University. Chico, I'd have them not label the entire team as rapists, which is what they have implicitly done. It's an ugly situation for Duke, yes ... but if they wanted to get a handle on this, they had plenty of opportunities earlier when all the complaints were being filed by neighbors. They failed, and now to compensate, they are overreacting. That sounds like a horrible thing to say in a possible rape case, but again, we don't know the facts behind the case yet. In the eyes of the law, there is no rape right now, because there are no charges. For the Smithers link: Not a bad piece, but I can't get behind a guy who insists on using multiple question marks for emphasis.

posted by wfrazerjr at 09:05 AM on April 07, 2006

[T]he odds of this happening in a lacrosse program with a lot of self-entitled rich kids flying more or less under the national media radar are worse than in Duke's marquee sports program. Something in the above ("self-entitled rich kids") gets at a big question for me when I read about these stuides of sports and violence. Is there something inherent in the culture of male sports that leads to this type of behavior, or can it be explained more appropriately by other factors (entitled status more generally, education level of athletes, tendency of more testosterone-fueled sociopaths to participate in sports, etc.)? Perhaps the literature in this field addresses the issue, but a lot of the statistics I have seen draw correlations between athletes and violent crime (basically showing that athletes are more likely to commit violent crimes) as if that is proof that sports culture leads to violence, without controlling for (or even acknowledging) other factors that may better explain or otherwise help explain what makes someone more likely to commit a violent crime.

posted by holden at 09:52 AM on April 07, 2006

If Duke expelled or suspended them, then that would be overreacting, but sports are an extracurricular activity.

posted by njsk8r20 at 10:15 AM on April 07, 2006

bperk, you're still ignoring the basic premise of my argument -- no charges have been filed and we have no idea whether these players are being told not to say anything by their lawyers or if they are actually stonewalling out of some stupid team loyalty. It's the job of the prosecutors in the area to handle possible obstruction of justice charges, not Duke University. You are assuming that they are being punished for the allegations instead of the behavior they admit. There are a couple of reasons that I feel that this is not a case of punishing them before they are determined to be guilty. First, the lacrosse team admits that their behavior at the party (i.e. hiring strippers and serving alcohol to underage folks) was ill-advised. As a direct result of that ill-advised behavior (i.e. a drunken party with hired strippers), the entire lacrosse team is being investigated for rape bringing a whole lot of negative attention to Duke. Second, Duke is unable to decide which, if any, of the players are at fault for this party because the players remain silent. The university either is going to punish the entire lacrosse team for the party or punish no one since there is no way to know who was responsible for what. The university cannot send a message that if you stick together and keep your mouths shut, you will escape punishment. It may very well be the case that the players have been advised to keep their mouths shut -- most of them seem to share the same legal counsel. However, that does not absolve Duke of the responsibility for making sure that behavior that falls below university standards are adequately punished. Finally, I don't know what an adequate punishment would be for an out-of-control party, but four games and the ACC tournament doesn't sound too terribly harsh. However, that punishment would be ridiculously lenient if the university was, as you suggest, attempting to punish them for gang rape.

posted by bperk at 10:40 AM on April 07, 2006

I wasn't trying to discredit spitztengle at all. I thought he did good job calling out the BS. I was more concerned with certain media outlets making the situation worse by just mentioning "the only black player on the team is not getting DNA tested." without giving the reason why.

posted by njsk8r20 at 11:17 AM on April 07, 2006

I want to bring something else up, which I'm sure I'm going to be absolutely crucified for, but I'll do it anyway. It comes from an article I linked above, and it's something I haven't read in any other coverage of this. The victim has been called a "stripper" or "exotic dancer", but in that interview with her, she says: The accuser had worked for an escort company for two months, doing one-on-one dates about three times a week. "It wasn't the greatest job," she said, her voice trailing off. But with two children, and a full class load at N.C. Central University, it paid well and fit her schedule. I'm just going to say this -- doesn't "escort service" generally mean "prostitute"? I'm not saying this to excuse whatever happened at the party -- the right to say "no" at any time stands for any person -- but wouldn't it make it a heck of a lot more difficult to prove this if the victim had been hiring herself out as an escort? Okay, go ahead and start lambasting me now.

posted by wfrazerjr at 11:30 AM on April 07, 2006

I'm just going to say this -- doesn't "escort service" generally mean "prostitute"? I'm not saying this to excuse whatever happened at the party -- the right to say "no" at any time stands for any person -- but wouldn't it make it a heck of a lot more difficult to prove this if the victim had been hiring herself out as an escort? Not really because the character and past behavior of rape victims is usually inadmissible in court. The reason for this is the perception that a woman who dresses provocatively or has given herself freely in the past is frequently judged more harshly than the accused. However, I don't think escort necessary means prostitute, but it certainly could. The only reason you should be lambasted for your statements is that you seem to be a little bit focused on her actions. You mentioned the shoe thing and now the escort thing. The woman ended up in the hospital and it certainly appears that she was raped. Questioning her credibility for no apparent reason (unless you think she might have a vendetta against them) seems a little premature. While the guys involved certainly deserve the presumption of innocence, she also deserves the presumption that she isn't making up a rape charge to stick it to the man.

posted by bperk at 11:43 AM on April 07, 2006

The article wasn't really clear about the timeline, but I think the assault took place when she went back in to get her shoes. But yeah, if they were that upset and scared enough to leave in the first place, then it does not make sense to go back inside just for a pair of shoes. And about the escort/prostitute thing, I thought the same thing as wfrazerjr when I read that, but the medical report said here injuries were consistent with a rape.

posted by njsk8r20 at 12:18 PM on April 07, 2006

I'm not sure who you are quoting bperk, it looks like a cross between what I said and what fraze said, which are based on two different timelines. This is the way I see it, Just moments after she and another exotic dancer started to perform, she said, men in the house started barking racial slurs. The two women, both black, stopped dancing. "We started to cry," she said. "We were so scared."... ...Bissey saw two women arrive and, after they were in the house 20 minutes, come out. As they got into a car, men shouted, Bissey said. At this point, there was no assault. There is no reason for the woman not to be thinking rationally (unless she was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs). The best thing to do would be to leave. After a few minutes, everything seemed to calm down, he said. One of the women headed back into the house, saying she forgot her shoes. When she went back into the house, by herself, is when I think the assault happened. Of course, if all she is guilty of is poor judgement, that does not mean she deserved to be assaulted, and it wouldn't excuse anything criminal that happened to her.

posted by njsk8r20 at 01:39 PM on April 07, 2006

if they were that upset and scared enough to leave in the first place, then it does not make sense to go back inside just for a pair of shoes. posted by njsk8r20 at 12:18 PM CST on April 7 skater - just a pair of shoes? Some women pay more for shoes than I paid for my last car. Shoes are very important and I could see someone going back for them. Would you have gone back for your board?

posted by skydivemom at 06:28 PM on April 07, 2006

njsk8r20, you comment itself was priceless. However, I do have to agree with skydivemom's first comment, because girls spend outrageous sums on things that have more practical versions at a much lower price (like spending $100+ dollars on pants that match with one shirt when you can just get blue jeans and put on any shirt. Makes no sense to me).

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:15 PM on April 07, 2006

Also, no one uses abec rated bearings anymore... Oooh, skater fight, skater fight! So what happens now? Someone gleams the cube or something?

posted by wfrazerjr at 09:00 AM on April 08, 2006

However, I do have to agree with skydivemom's first comment, because girls spend outrageous sums on things that have more practical versions at a much lower price (like spending $100+ dollars on pants that match with one shirt when you can just get blue jeans and put on any shirt. Makes no sense to me). YYM, you obviously don't have a wife or girlfriend with a taste for designer jeans.

posted by holden at 07:30 PM on April 08, 2006

Defense lawyers are saying DNA tests done on the victim have come back negative for any member of the Duke lacrosse team. Also, CNN's Nancy Grace is an absolute disgrace. I have no idea of her credentials or why CNN thinks she should have her own show, but I have never seen a more biased host. This shrieking harpie makes Bill O'Reilly look like Edward R. Murrow.

posted by wfrazerjr at 09:28 AM on April 11, 2006

Also, CNN's Nancy Grace is an absolute disgrace. I have no idea of her credentials or why CNN thinks she should have her own show, but I have never seen a more biased host. This shrieking harpie makes Bill O'Reilly look like Edward R. Murrow. She has always been like that. She is so biased that it is hard to believe that she was ever involved in the legal system.

posted by bperk at 10:40 AM on April 11, 2006

You think Ed Murrow wasn't biased? I know, that was terrible how he criticized McCarthyism.

posted by bperk at 04:40 PM on April 11, 2006

This whole controversy is out of control...the DA should never have gone public in such a broadcast way as his story and the woman's story now seem to be unfolding...Looks like a bunch of "boys" hired a couple of strippers (gross, yes, but unfortunately not too uncommon on college campuses)...One woman arrives so inebriated that she is not able to perform. These "boys" get pissed and shout inappropriate remarks (again, not very nice but we all remember what the playground was like as a kid). They try to take their money back because she "danced" for a couple of minutes and they contracted thru the agency for a couple of hours. She and the other dancer leave after being yelled at and they know they didn't live up to their end of the contract (they don't go to the hospital or the police station but to a Kroegers?) and then in retaliation, cry rape. Rape is an assault on all of us, regardless of race, religion, status, income level, education and yes, believe it or not, gender....I see a Tawana Brawley case all over and its disgusting!!!! (oh, I am female by the way!)

posted by rollingthunder at 11:57 AM on April 13, 2006

Put the pieces together...listen to the 911 tapes...When they called 911 the first time from the car,why didn't they tell the operator what had occurred...The team is being silent on the advice of legal counsel...no DNA with something as violent that claims to have taken place anywhere and no delay in time (she didn't shower, change clothes, etc)...How can this possibly have occurred, it makes absolutely no sense!

posted by rollingthunder at 05:03 PM on April 13, 2006