Duke Lacrosse: A 'Meaning' in Search of a Scandal
by
William L. Anderson
by William L. Anderson
The Washington
Post columnist Anne Applebaum – who, for the most part, tends
to be much more thoughtful than most writers on the national scene
– once tried to put the entire lacrosse affair at Duke University
into perspective in her April 26 column by labeling it a "scandal
in search of meaning." Alas, she is far too generous with the
accusers and those who have been the driving force of what is unmistakably
a case of prosecutorial misconduct and lies by police and District
Attorney Michael Nifong.
Indeed, if
there is a scandal here, it is a scandal of justice, as lawyers
and investigators are uncovering (using police reports and other
"official" documents) the web of deceit that has become
the bedrock of the rape charges against the three Duke athletes.
Yet, there is also a secondary scandal, that being the actions of
a number of Duke faculty members and the black leaders of Durham,
North Carolina, and the NAACP. Without the feminist-black alliance
driving the politics of this case, there most likely would have
been no indictments, as the evidence clearly demonstrates that Crystal
Gail Mangum was not raped by the Duke athletes or anyone else.
(One needs
to read all of the documents
to understand how police and prosecutors willfully sought indictments
that they knew were false, covered up exculpatory evidence, and
engaged in criminal behavior in their pursuit of this case. Lest
anyone think that the prosecutorial situation in the United States
is one in which prosecutors actually seek justice, read the Duke
material in all its horror, and realize that prosecutors across
the United States have closed ranks in defense of Nifong. Thus,
the official "justice" system in this country perpetuates
lies and more lies.)
Yet, there
is an even more disturbing aspect to what has happened in Durham,
and that is the laying bare of the real agenda of the left: the
destruction of all individual rights and the imposition of
what the left calls "collective rights," which are nothing
more than a sham. If the left continues to gain power, and if the
statements of the demonstrators in Durham are an indication of the
mindset of leftists, then people charged with crimes of "political
incorrectness" will not be permitted to defend themselves,
publicly or in a court of law. Once upon a time, leftists were the
ones who were most vocal in defense of individual rights, at least
where the courts were concerned, but that is no longer the situation.
Between the "conservatives" who call for more police power
and "leftists/liberals" who also call for more police
power – at the expense of individual rights – there are few people
left to defend what rights remain.
That is why
I call the Duke affair a "meaning in search of a scandal."
Feminists and those who consider themselves to be "civil rights"
advocates already have a certain view of the world, one that holds
that white males are the source of all oppression, and that all
relationships are nothing more than the manifestation of white male
power. Thus, incidents like what supposedly happened at the off-campus
party at Duke are "proof" of the veracity of the feminist
worldview.
There is no
denying that feminists and other such leftists abhor individual
rights. For example, the Seattle City Schools website, until recently,
declared that one aspect of "cultural racism" was promoting
individual rights instead of "collective rights." (Protests
have led to the abandonment
of that site, and an attempt to change it. One anxiously awaits
the next wave of nonsense from officials from the leftist government
schools of Seattle.)
Furthermore,
attacks on Candice
E. Jackson and Wendy
McElroy for promotion of an individualist
view of feminism further demonstrate that modern feminism and
the present-day "civil rights" movement cannot ideologically
coexist with a view of individual rights. And from what I can see
what is going on in Durham, North Carolina, it is clear that individual
rights are on the losing end.
Reaction
of Duke Faculty and Local Activists
The following
account from the Marxist Workers
World gives a good picture of the aftermath of when the
first charges against the players were leveled:
When the
violently racist nature of the attack was finally revealed to
the public on March 24, community outrage was swift and immediate.
Durham residents quickly set up listserves and message boards
in order to coordinate community response and planning. On March
25, a silent demonstration was held in front of the lacrosse field
to protest Duke’s match against Georgetown, holding signs bearing
strong messages such as "Don’t be a Fan of Rapists."
As it turned out, Duke forfeited the Georgetown match at the last
minute, in anticipation of mounting public anger. Later that night,
community members held a candlelight vigil in front of the house
at 610 North Buchanan to express support for the victim. The very
next morning, activists from across the Triangle gathered in front
of the house and staged a "Cacerolazo "wake-up call—a
traditional form of protest used by women in Latin America to
publicly shame rapists and batterers. The participants banged
on pots and pans while powerfully chanting calls for justice and
solidarity.
Afterward 88
members of the Duke faculty, representing 13 departments, ran an
advertisement condemning players and calling for them to confess.
One of their leaders, Houston
Baker of the English Department and the holder of an endowed
chair, wrote the following in a letter to the Duke Administration:
There can
be no confidence in an administration that believes suspending
a lacrosse season and removing pictures of Duke lacrosse players
from a web page is a dutifully moral response to abhorrent sexual
assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege
loosed amongst us.
How many
mandates concerning safe, responsible campus citizenship must
be transgressed by white athletes' violent racism before our university's
offices of administration, athletics, security, and publicity
courageously declare: enough!
How many
more people of color must fall victim to violent, white, male,
athletic privilege before coaches who make Chevrolet and American
Express commercials, athletic directors who engage in Miss Ophelia-styled
"perfectly horrible" rhetoric, higher administrators who are salaried
at least in part to keep us safe, and publicists who are supposed
not to praise Caesar but to damn the unconscionable ... how many?
Before they demonstrate that they don't just write books, pay
lip service, or boast of safe citizenship ... but actually do
step up morally, intellectually, and bravely to assume responsibilities
of leadership for such citizenship. How many?
How soon
will confidence be restored to our university as a place where
minds, souls, and bodies can feel safe from agents, perpetrators,
and abettors of white privilege, irresponsibility, debauchery
and violence?
Surely the
answer to the question must come in the form of immediate dismissals
of those principally responsible for the horrors of this spring
moment at Duke. Coaches of the lacrosse team, the team itself
and its players, and any other agents who silenced or lied about
the real nature of events at 610 Buchanan on the evening of March
13, 2006. A day that, not even in a clichéd sense, will,
indeed, always live in infamy for this university.
A responsible,
and in many instances appalled and yes, frightened
citizenry of Duke University is waiting ... and certainly more
than willing to join considered actions by bold leaders to restore
confidence in a great institution and its mission. Today I polled
my class whose enrollment is predominantly women and white. All
said that nothing had happened in terms of this university's response
that had left them anything but afraid. The shame of this is unconscionable.
Still, these women will surely sleep better this evening than
the black woman injured at 610 Buchanan Boulevard by the white
lacrosse team's out-of-control violent partying will ever again
rest in her life.
Indeed, according
to Baker and his fellow Duke faculty members, mad rapists were running
amok on campus, apparently terrorizing fellow students. In other
words, the charges being made simply had to be true; there
was to be no dissent. (Not all Duke faculty members have been so
slavish in their adherence to the Gospel of Houston Baker and Mike
Nifong; I have received one email from the wife of a Duke faculty
member who believes that Mangum’s charges are nonsense, but it seems
that the sane and reasoned voices at Duke have pretty much been
silenced by those who believe that charges, no matter how ridiculous,
always are true, at least if the people being charged fall into
a "politically incorrect" category.)
Writer K.C.
Johnson in Inside Higher Education, wrote in criticizing
the Duke faculty:
More disturbingly,
the group of 88 (faculty members) committed themselves to "turning
up the volume." They told campus protesters, "Thank
you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard." These
demonstrators needed no encouragement: They were already vocal,
and had already judged the lacrosse players were guilty. One student
group produced a "wanted" poster containing photographs
of 43 of the 46 white lacrosse players. At an event outside a
house rented by several lacrosse team members, organized by a
visiting instructor in English Department, protesters held signs
reading, "It’s Sunday morning, time to confess." They
demanded that the university force the players to testify or dismiss
them from school.
To put it another
way, they wanted confessions without proof of guilt. I suspect that
many, if not all, of the signers of the advertisement say they are
against the war in Iraq and are abhorred by the allegations of torture
committed by U.S. interrogators to gain information from captured
"insurgents." However, in seeing how they reacted to the
charges against the lacrosse players, I also believe that they would
have supported the use of torture or any means necessary to gain
"confessions" from these young men.
Economist Thomas
Sowell has written that leftists – and especially leftist academics
– view the world in abstract fashions that cause them to demand
a certain order be imposed upon an unwilling world. Thus, the American
university was the citadel of support for communist regimes that
were murdering people by the millions because those academics believed
somehow that if communist authorities murdered, imprisoned, and
tortured enough people, that communism would suddenly bloom into
full flower.
Now that the
rape allegations are imploding and the prosecution’s case has become
an obvious con job, one would hope that the Duke faculty members,
the feminists, and the civil rights advocates who have been pushing
for arrests and convictions will take another look at their position.
Unfortunately, the early results are not encouraging.
For example,
the local NAACP – which never complained when Nifong gave 71 interviews
to news outlets and regularly was making public statements calling
the lacrosse players "rapists" – suddenly became advocates
of limiting the rights of defendants when the players’ lawyers became
vocal. After the defense began to lay out documentation questioning
the charges, the NAACP demanded that lawyers be gagged from making
further statements. (However, it turned out that the NAACP did not
have the legal standing necessary to ask a judge for a gag order.)
In other words, the local activists suddenly decided that a person’s
right to mount a vigorous defense should be denied. Like the feminists
on the Duke faculty, they are selective in their view of "rights."
Local activists also have maintained
a website which "supports" the "victim"
in this case; in other words, the facts be damned. The woman made
allegations, and that is all that is needed. (Yes, I believe in
free speech and they are free to say what they like, but this also
is a case in which three young men face life in prison for crimes
they did not commit. At some point, that should be taken into consideration.)
I would like
to be able to say that the revelations by defense attorneys are
enough to sink the case, and if anyone in authority in North Carolina
actually were interested in justice, that would be the case. However,
as I
have previously written, North Carolina is a state where prosecutors
rule and the rights of defendants are systematically crushed. One
can hope, but I have no confidence in the State of North Carolina
to do what is right.
In
the Duke case, we have witnessed a number of crimes, but all of
them have been committed by the police and prosecutors, as well
as by Mangum herself. These crimes cry out for justice, yet from
this vantage point, Nifong and his cohorts very well may be able
to obtain wrongful convictions, given the state of justice in the
state where they practice that entity once known as law. One always
can hope to the contrary, but Nifong already knows that he is invulnerable.
The "justice system" of North Carolina will protect him,
and the press will adore him as another "prosecutor as hero."
William
L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him
mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland,
and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute.
Copyright
© 2006 LewRockwell.com
William
Anderson Archives
|