...rape is sport?!

This story is getting a lot of press. It was on the "ticker" on ESPN last night (during the Duke/UConn women's bball game), and ESPN.com has a good amount on it.

One article mentioned that the majority of the players come from the wealthy-and-white (my words) suburbs of NJ, NY and CT. I went to the Duke website, and lo and behold, the lacrosse roster for this year is gone, and last year's mentions only seniors and a few others who I am guessing were not on the team this year.

Eeeenteresting. I can understand the University wanting to protect the privacy of the underage-drinking stripper-hiring athletes (perhaps people were using the roster to contact the soon-to-be-accused), particularly since the victim claims that she was attacked by three men, rather than the entire team. (Who knows, perhaps some team members will claim that they were not even present.)

However, to some degree you have to question whether hiding the identities of those who participated in the party is best. As a former college athlete, I remember various stories that emanated from men's teams involving strippers, prostitutes, etc. It's about time this issue got national attention, and hiding the names of those who participated in this behavior will only hinder the development of an attitude that such actions are not correct.

Katherine:

It seems you think the names of the accused should be made public - what about the victim? Should we know her indentity as well?

PS - Lynn:

the story says the strippers left the party but were persuaded back after an apology by one of the players - in your sotry, you suggest that the strippers were not allowed to leave in the first place...

Right now the story is an allegation. The lacrosse team members accused are innocent until proven guilty. So having the story covered on the first page as a crime story, and continued in the section that makes the story a story (vs. just a small news item) - that the accused are collegiate athletes - is a reasonable editorial decision.

Regarding the Julia Childs quip - specious reasoning. Murder and rape are wholly different crimes. A woman committing a violelnt crime is more newsworthy than a man - any editor would agree. Papers are in the business of not just reporting the news, but *selling* the papers.

Please, please, please presume innocence until they are proven guilty in a court of law, and then use their (then proven) actions to investigate the broader sociopolitical issues. Using the word "allegations" once in the article and then going on to treat it as conclusive is not adequate.

Please do not even talk about who would or would not have "deserved what she got" until a jury has decided that she/they did in fact "get" it, and from whom.

Not only is the presumption of innocence the foundation of our civilization (the good, humane part), but also it was not long ago (and probably still is) more likely to cut the other way in terms of race and class... it's been a while, but isn't that the plot of To Kill a Mockingbird? To say nothing of the rape trials of the very wealthy William Kennedy Smith and Kobe Bryant, and O.J.'s murder trial?

Isn't the loss of the presumption of innocence why there are so many innocent people on death row in this country? And why most of them are poor, and *not* white?

Lastly, it may be an interesting area for commentary after the fact, but it is a) pointless and b) highly circumstantial in terms of the rape charge to bring up the race and class issues. By your logic, should a lower-class, minority-race man who rapes a well-off white woman be acquitted because she's the one privileged in our society? And while the use of a racial slurs, once proven, would make you a bigot, a boor, and an unwelcome addition to any workplace, it does not make you a rapist, anymore than the lack of use of racial slurs by a defendant means he should get off.

Likewise, that Thomas Jefferson took advantage of his position as a wealthy white man to have sex with his slaves does not mean we should dispose of the presumption of innocence in this country.

I really think it is not worthy of comment that the NYT story about the rape allegations involving the Duke lacrosse team continued in the sports section.

What is truly comment-worthy, and highly appropriate, is that the story *began* on the front page.

"Lastly, it may be an interesting area for commentary after the fact, but it is a) pointless and b) highly circumstantial in terms of the rape charge to bring up the race and class issues. By your logic, should a lower-class, minority-race man who rapes a well-off white woman be acquitted because she's the one privileged in our society? And while the use of a racial slurs, once proven, would make you a bigot, a boor, and an unwelcome addition to any workplace, it does not make you a rapist, anymore than the lack of use of racial slurs by a defendant means he should get off."

The issue of race here is not pointless as the circumstances of racial animus during the rape may prompt hate crime charges in addition to the rape charges. This has been suggested by the Durham DA.

Your analogy is nonsensical. Experience shows that in the circumstances you state, a minority male raping a well-off white woman, aquittal would hardly be probable. To bolster your argument, you might have cited the Kobe Bryant case as a converse to this one: where the alleged black rapist is monied and the victim is white and of a lower income level. Kobe got off because money often buys better legal representation, which may happen in the Duke lacrosse case (and on the record, I think some coercion happened in the Bryant case, but now we'll never know).

Always have been, always will be. Pampered and indulged pseudo-warriors that can pretty much get away with murder. You can call them "alpha males" if you're on their side of reality and you can call them "goons" or "bullies" -- no difference.