What If the Duke 3 Had Been Black?
by
William L. Anderson
by William L. Anderson
DIGG THIS
Throughout
the Duke non-rape case, blacks (and some whites) in Durham have
repeatedly asked the same question: What if the three white Duke
lacrosse players charged with rape had been black athletes at nearby
North Carolina Central University? For the most part, the standard
answer has been that they already would have been railroaded into
a conviction or would be languishing in jail, unable to post bond.
Yet, given
the history of athletes and rape charges, I have serious doubts
about the standard answer, and I believe that we need to examine
this question up front, as opposed to making speculations. Granted,
the Duke 3 are white and no blacks have been charged in this
case, so one can argue that I only am speculating, but I think there
is a recent history of similar charges that can provide at least
a partial roadmap to see what might have happened.
It is my opinion
that had the accuser in the Duke case made such charges against
black athletes, the case would have developed much differently than
it has for one important reason: the black community of Durham would
have demanded that District Attorney Michael Nifong pay attention
to the huge amount of exculpatory evidence that exists – instead
of trying to explain it away with half-truths or outright conspiracy
theories. Nifong does not even have to acknowledge that such evidence
exists because the most influential and politically powerful blacks
in Durham demand that it be ignored.
My claim, obviously,
is not going to be popular with many people, so I have much explaining
to do. Thus, I will start at the beginning, and I also will deal
with a well-publicized case in Chattanooga last year in which six
black football players for the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga
found themselves charged with the gang rape of a white UTC female
freshman.
Claims and
arrests
Because the
female accuser in this case alleged three black males raped her
12 years ago (in a case that never was pursued because police figured
the claims were not credible), she certainly would be capable of
claiming rape by black males today. Thus, I begin by assuming that
the accuser tells police that three black football players from
NCCU have raped her.
Because of
the way the rape laws in North Carolina are written, if a woman
makes an accusation of rape, the police must investigate.
However, the circumstances under which she made her claim against
the Duke 3 – she was about to be committed to a psychiatric unit,
since it was obvious she was drugged – police very well might have
been skeptical. As one follows the Duke case, one finds that in
the early hours after the accuser made her statements, Durham police
were skeptical.
For example,
the police did not come to the house where the party took place
for two days (they came to visit on March 15), and the white lacrosse
players have related that police told them that nothing was going
to come of this, as the police did not believe the charges – and
the accuser – to be credible. However, within a few days the charges
gained speed as feminists at Duke heard the news, and the atmosphere
exploded at NCCU as well. From there, Nifong fanned the flames,
and was able to form an important alliance with Duke feminists,
the local NAACP, people at NCCU, and other black activists.
Had the accused
athletes been from NCCU, it is doubtful that the political alliances
that have pushed the Duke case from the start would have been put
together. While no doubt some of the feminists at Duke would have
made some noise, their reaction simply would not have been as intense
as it was when white Duke males were accused. I suspect that some
of the feminists at NCCU might have had a candlelight vigil or two,
but the overall reaction would have been much more cautious.
The reason
for my saying that is that over the years, various black communities
have developed what I call "b.s." detectors when it comes to criminal
charges. Blacks – in most situations – have come to be skeptical
of the police and prosecutors, and for good reason. They are more
likely to be wrongfully identified, and there is deep resentment
in the black community for what has happened to them in the past.
Therefore, had the accuser in the Duke case said that three black
men raped her, I suspect that blacks in Durham would have been pretty
suspicious of the charges.
Furthermore,
had the woman claimed that three black Duke athletes had
raped her, I suspect that the black community still would
have had the b.s. detectors working. While there is great resentment
in Durham toward Duke University, the resentment generally is directed
toward white Duke students, not the blacks.
In the case
of the accuser, she had a past that made people suspicious. Kristiana
Bennett, who was preparing a sympathetic story about the accuser
for the NCCU newspaper, found by talking to the woman’s neighbors
that her credibility definitely was in question. However, she realized:
Not only
did she and her fellow students instinctively trust the accuser,
they understood the political implications of doubting her. This
case was about much more than the facts, which were still in question.
Furthermore:
…in the course
of her reporting, Bennett found people who said unflattering things
about the accuser. They offered the kinds of details that defense
attorneys hired private investigators to find, and Bennett wished
she had never heard them.
In ordinary
circumstances, this would have been strong ammunition to shoot down
the entire thing, and no doubt her detractors in the black community
of Durham – the people who knew her – would not have been so reluctant
to come out publicly against her. But the Duke case was and is different;
the accuser is black and the athletes she was accusing of rape were
white and wealthy and went to Duke.
As the Washington
Post pointed out in a May 7 story, the accusations are symbolic
in the black community in Durham. In fact, as the exculpatory evidence
came in, evidence that would be devastating in an ordinary rape
case, the blacks in Durham pointedly ignored it or declared it to
be invalid
When Nifong
promised that DNA tests would identify who was "guilty" of rape,
the fact that the DNA tests were negative only heightened the community’s
anger, since it cast doubt on what had to be true. Thus,
the word came out that perhaps someone at Duke University Hospital
must have tampered with the DNA samples, even though no one offered
proof.
Still others
insisted that the young men must have worn condoms, although a very
thorough examination had found no condom residue, and the woman’s
stories, though very inconsistent, all had the same information:
no one wore condoms. Feminists chimed in that the very fact that
the woman first claimed that 20 people raped her, then five, and
then three, with the cast of characters changing with each story,
was proof that she was raped, since a woman who has been
traumatized by rape is not going to have a clear memory.
(Later, the
New York Times would insist that the woman had told a "consistent"
story, its information coming from a report by Durham Police Sgt.
Mark Gottlieb, who compiled a 33-page report mostly from memory
several months after the accuser levied the charges. The "consistency"
story also was said to be "proof" of a rape; feminists and police
have not tried to explain why there were both a set of contradictory
stories, and also at the same time consistent stories; they just
say that everything is true, and is "proof" that there was a rape.
In other words, any story will do when police and political activists
are trying to engage in an obvious frame-up.)
Even on the
surface, the information is devastating, and I contend that in ordinary
circumstances, people in the black community would have seen through
the nonsense. While there might have been accusations at the beginning,
it is doubtful that police and prosecutors would have been willing
to take black defendants to trial with a huge amount of exculpatory
evidence in the mix. There is little doubt the black community in
Durham would have protested it vigorously – and rightly so.
The Chattanooga
Case
In late October,
2005, a black female freshman at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga
claimed that six black UTC football players gang raped her. She
claimed to have tried to fight them off, but that she was overpowered.
In the days
following the charges, the rape crisis machine went to work. There
were the obligatory candlelight vigils, campus meetings on sexual
abuse, and the like. The UTC football coach kicked them off the
team, and after the six were charged with rape, UTC expelled them
as students.
There are a
number of differences with the Duke case. For one, there actually
was sexual intercourse and the DNA to prove it. No one was denying
sexual contact, as is the situation in Durham; instead, the young
men claimed the sex was consensual.
Other differences
exist, too. First, unlike in the Duke case where bond was set at
$400,000 apiece, the UTC players had much lower bonds. Second, there
were only charges, and the prosecution had to face a preliminary
hearing, something that Nifong deftly avoided before having a grand
jury indict Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans.
While preliminary
hearing exist only to determine whether there is enough prosecutorial
evidence to send the case to the grand jury, Jerry
Summers, the UTC players’ attorney forced the prosecution to show
its hand. Even though the prosecution was able to take advantage
of rape shield laws by convincing the judge to keep out evidence
that the female student had spoken of her many sexual encounters
on her Facebook website, Summers was able to demonstrate that the
young woman had initiated sexual contact with a number of the players
and had engaged in sex with some of them long before the night in
question.
(A person who
is much closer to the story than I am told me that the girl had
engaged voluntarily in sex, but later her friends criticized her.
She later changed the story to claiming a rape. The judge at the
preliminary hearing simply did not buy her story.)
After the judge
dismissed the charges, the prosecution declined to take the information
to the grand jury, despite the fact that grand juries almost always
indict when prosecutors demand they do so. In other words, had the
prosecution in Chattanooga wished to carry the case farther, they
realized that they could lose at trial and decided not to take it
any farther.
Not surprisingly,
the black community, from the churches to the NAACP, sided with
the players. Most important, no one really protested the judge’s
decision to throw out the charges. There were no marches, no speeches,
nothing. The case simply disappeared – as well it should have.
Had the charged
athletes in Durham been black, my sense is that the black community
would have stood behind them, especially given the accuser’s reputation
and the exculpatory evidence. I seriously doubt that community activists
like Victoria Peterson would have claimed a conspiracy to tamper
with DNA evidence had it exonerated black defendants.
No, the refusal
of the black community in Durham to let go of their insistence that
the Duke 3 raped the accuser is the simple fact of racial politics.
Here is their chance to nail some white males at Durham, and they
certainly are not going to permit DNA or other exculpatory evidence
to stand in their way.
Therefore,
as I
pointed out in another article, the various civil liberties
groups in Durham like the NAACP and the ACLU have decided to abandon
literally everything for which they have stood in the promotion
of justice in order to try to railroad the Duke 3 into a conviction.
Irving Joyner, a law professor at NCCU, suddenly has given up his
usual support for changes of venue in racially-charged cases, claiming
that because he believes a Durham jury would be more likely to convict,
therefore, the trial must be held in Durham.
The real problem
here is that racial politics, as well as the politics of entitlement,
have clouded the judgment of many Durham residents. As I stated
previously, I have no doubt that blacks in Durham in an ordinary
rape case would have recognized the situation for what it was and
would not be pressing for trial and conviction. Indeed, blacks have
been railroaded in courts of "justice," and they rightly have had
a historical reluctance to believe everything a prosecutor and the
police might say.
Unfortunately,
that is not the case here. And unfortunately, the black rush to
judgment and their insistence on ignoring DNA evidence and other
things that point to innocence ultimately will embolden other prosecutors
elsewhere to force through cases that not long ago would have been
ignored or not seen the light of day. The U.S. justice system runs
on precedent, and should this case proceed to trial and conviction
(wrongful conviction, I would add), ultimately it will mean that
innocent blacks males in the future will be wrongfully convicted
of rape or worse.
Yet,
I doubt anyone in Durham really is listening or is willing to understand
the ramifications of what Nifong and others there are doing. We
are seeing the
politics of entitlement at work, and in this case, there exist
many people in Durham who believe that they are entitled to a conviction,
even if it is wrongful. Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans are not real
people to them, only political symbols that must be destroyed at
all costs, and if this madness is permitted to continue, innocent
blacks in the future also will suffer prison sentences or worse.
Right now, however, the representatives of the NAACP and people
like Joyner really don’t care about that; they just want to see
people go to prison, even if they committed no crime.
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
|