Again, it pays to reiterate that the issue is wide-spread behavior of males, young and not-so young, across all rankings, classes, wealth, poverty, and colors of skin -- a group of men ambush a vulnerable woman or women and sexually assault her or them, and then some say they didn't participate and felt sorry for her. But those dissenters didn't speak up, didn't try to stop it and they don't identify those who were most vicious in leading the assault either.

One writer said that whether or not the victim was a prostitute she still shouldn't have been raped. So why did he bring up what he perceived as likely as to her occupation? This smoke screens that women of every sort have this happen to them in this U.S. by U.S. male citizens. It happens to retarded high school girls, it happens to young women in military academies, it happens at black schools, it happens at white schools, it happens at parties of cops and at parties of firefighters (who fight to keep women out of their ranks as if they were fighting a raging inferno).

All the talk of town and gown and race and class is a veil to cover up what we are seeing too often to see as an anomaly. They know exactly what they are doing. They see this as fun. Gangs of men also assault men.

Why?

Fox

I think it's fairly obvious that even the Ivory Tower is affected by real-world problems and that Duke's administration is erring in their failure to admit it.

I also was struck by one slightly discordant note in this otherwise open-eyed feature. On today's Salon front page, we read about Jong's zipless "fuck." Then we have this article about a sexual assault. If we are all agreeing to discuss this kind of adult subject matter, why the coy Charlotte York-esque asterisks in the transcription of the threatening phone call? The c**t? Presumably she wasn't accused of being the "coat" or the "curt" or even the "colt"...

If we're going to attack problems head-on, let's do it. Cunt. She was called a cunt. Which, in the hands of the caller, supports the idea of a misogynistic culture brewing at Duke (although I'm a woman and a feminist who's pretty thrilled about having a cunt, this was apparently meant as an insult). That point could have been made and further discussed had that silly little linguistic flinch been set aside.

But then again, so does UNC-CH.

GO PACK!!!!

ahem... rivalries aside, I think the elitists should be dropped off at NC Central for a nice long chat with some of the students. Perhaps that would put an end to their cocky, self-absorbed, swaggers, which come from being true a-holes. It is really easy to be the BMOC when you never set foot in an area too far off campus.

Just please don't think all of us in the big NC are like these people. Dukies do NOT speak for us, in words or actions.

And, um... GO PACK!!!!

D

A jerk is a jerk.

D

University employees want to live near campus. A five-minute walk to work is a really nice life. Nice restaurants and the good schools that professors demand are located near campus. However, these folks just do not want to take the bad with the good. Do you think I am wrong?

Yes, absolutely I think you are wrong. It's like saying the people who "choose" to take the "good" of low-cost public housing must accept the "bad" of drive-by shootings. And that's nonsense.

Loud parties at late hours of the night is called "breaking the peace." Urinating on other peoples' houses and vomiting in their flowerbeds is called trespass, public drunkenness, and indecent exposure. People shouldn't have to put up with that sort of behavior from their neighbors.

If Duke's students want to live off-campus, then they need to be prepared to accept the norms of behavior that go with living in any neighborhood in the country. They need to respect their neighbors' privacy, property, and sensibilities. This is what is generally considered as civilized behavior, and if students don't learn that in a "tier-one" university, then when and where are they supposed to learn it, especially when they obviously haven't learned it from their super-privileged families?

Being a college student is no excuse to indulge in boorish behavior.

Two thoughts: firstly, as noted previously, loutish athletes and other students are not unique to Duke, nor are economic and other tensions with local communities. If indeed these lacrosse players prove to be guilty, then Duke should expel them. Other universities should follow suit under similar circumstances, but the revenues and contributions will doubtless encourage the lax enforcement.

Secondly, and apologies for going off-topic here: the Duke Undergrad, Class of 06, may want to take another look at the annual report. As I read it, the net revenue from tuition is $260,346, and the net revenue from contributions, investment returns, and "auxiliary enterprises" is $435,603. That's excluding anything that looks health related. In addition, of the $457,446 in grants, a percentage accrues to the university to support general administration beyond the focus of the grant -- that's just standard administrative practice. So the budget certainly doesn't look like it's being balanced on the backs of undergrads.

Why go into this? Every high-end university has a group of undergraduates who assume that because someone is writing a large check for their tuition, they are entitled to the same kind of consumer indulgence as at Best Buy or Abercrombie and Fitch. Even the sincere, studious types are prone to demanding special attention based on their contribution to revenue. That may be a comforting idea to the self-involved adolescent, but purely on a monetary basis, it's crap; teaching undergrads isn't where the payoff is for large universities except inasmuch as it ensures a future generation of donating alumni, who provide money with little demand for services. (Your mileage may vary at smaller liberal arts colleges.)

The continuum of demands for privilege inevitably ends up with the generally unaccountable BMOCs.