Reactions to the Duke lacrosse case
The 2006 Duke University lacrosse case resulted in a great deal of coverage in the local and national media as well as a widespread community response at Duke and in the Durham, North Carolina area.
Media coverage
Initial coverage (March–April 2006)
The case attracted widespread media attention almost from the moment it became public. The apparent circumstances had an aspect of racial and socioeconomic privilege - three white men from privileged backgrounds at an elite university were accused of sexually abusing a student and single mother from a black college, who worked as a stripper and escort to make money— which made the case particularly appealing for news outlets. However, once the case deteriorated, critics saw it as a showcase of bias in the media and the university system.Among those giving extensive coverage to the matter was Nancy Grace. Before Duke suspended its men's lacrosse team's season, she sarcastically said on the air, "I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" and "Why would you go to a cop in an alleged gang rape case, say, and lie and give misleading information?" Another, Susan Estrich, said "I teach criminal law. But what are we dealing with here? The mafia, or a sports team from a first-class university. Instead, they hire them lawyers to trash the victim and the prosecutor." Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy made some of the most inflammatory claims about the case, and supported the withholding of evidence by Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, saying, "Nifong should be rewarded for respecting the defendants' rights by not leaking the type of evidence that could help him personally respond to criticism." Murphy said "I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth."
Feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte declared on her blog that people who defended the wrongly accused Duke students were "rape-loving scum". Time reported that in "late January, more ethics charges were heaped on the District Attorney in the Duke University sexual-assault case, and Marcotte attacked the news with her usual swagger and sarcasm:"
Marcotte later deleted posts on her blog critical of her statements, then later deleted the entire entry.
Reason contributing editor Cathy Young has described Marcotte as a "leader of the cyber-lynch mob in the Duke University rape hoax". In "Marcotte's eyes, the real crime of the 'independent feminists' is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault."
Other outlets that have been accused of taking an initial pro-prosecution slants included, but are not limited to:
- USA Today
- The Herald-Sun
- Rolling Stone
- New York Times
- News and Observer
- Independent Weekly wrote articles affirming the stereotypes of affluence with respect to the three accused. The only position cited was the description of the players' characters by faculty member Peter Wood.
Continuation of the case (May–October 2006)
On August 6, 2006, The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina, wrote that District Attorney Mike Nifong "promised DNA evidence that has not materialized. He suggested that police conduct lineups in a way that conflicted with department policy." The article went on to say that "he made a series of factual assertions that contradicted his own files: He suggested the players used condoms; he accused the players of erecting a wall of silence to thwart investigators; and he said the woman had been hit, kicked and strangled. The medical and police records show that the victim had said no condom was used, that police had interviewed three players at length and taken their DNA samples and that the accuser showed no significant bruises or injuries."
On August 25, 2006, amid growing doubts as to the strength of the case and the veracity of Mangum, The New York Times published a front page article by Duff Wilson and Jonathan Glater stating that the weaknesses in the case highlighted by the defense were not indicative of the strength of the case as a whole. "In several important areas, the full files, reviewed by The New York Times, contain evidence stronger than that highlighted by the defense." The Times story further indicated that "there is also a body of evidence to support decision to take the matter to a jury." This article would be widely criticized as the actual lack of strength of Nifong's case became apparent. In spite of widespread criticism, the newspaper's public editor defended Wilson, and he was permitted to remain on the case through Nifong's disbarment trial.
The case deteriorates (November 2006-May 2007)
, who had been particularly vocal in her support for Nifong's prosecution, took the night off for the show following the attorney general's dismissal of all charges, with Jane Velez-Mitchell guest hosting instead.Undaunted by the lack of DNA evidence, CNN's Paula Zahn said that "the DA would not be proceeding with this case if he didn't believe that this alleged victim had been raped." She also demanded explanations, saying, "How, then, sir, do you explain the woman's injuries... particularly some of the internal injuries?"
The Boston Globe stayed in a lead editorial: "Three members of the Duke lacrosse team may have been louts, but all the evidence suggests they were not rapists... the students have the resources to get on with their lives."
While the march of the 2007 Duke men's team to the NCAA final game generally received extensive and favorable coverage, a number of sportswriters published negative stories about the team. Washington Post columnist Mike Wise wrote "t's hard to embrace everyone as a victim. With all due respect to those 'INNOCENT' bracelets worn around Durham this year, this isn't "To Kill a Mockingbird II." Chicago Tribune columnist Philip Hersh commented, "The idea that the Duke lacrosse team's success is a feel-good story makes me ill... it would be a bigger mistake to believe means Duke's lacrosse team was innocent of assault against common decency."
Sportswriter John Feinstein stated on the syndicated sports talk show The Jim Rome Show in May 2007, "I think they're guilty of everything but rape," and, "I really don’t want to hear that they’re victims and martyrs, and that their lives have been ruined." Feinstein, who in March 2006 had demanded the revocation of the scholarships of every Duke men's lacrosse team member, and who continued to describe the team as "out-of-control", added "I don't think I've been proven wrong."
After proclamations by the North Carolina Attorney General, Roy Cooper, that the three students were "innocent" in April, USA Today columnist and incoming Bennett College President, Dr. Julianne Malveaux, commented in an interview on National Public Radio a few days later that they were "hooligans," that they had lied, and that they "did not deserve an apology."
The Duke Chronicle noted the closing of the case, and stated, "There are other members of the Duke community, however, from whom we have not heard These are the voices of the range of individuals, from students to professors to community members, who responded to last year's allegations not with moderation but with extreme, inflammatory and unfounded statements."
Response
Duke faculty groups
Soon after the allegations were made, 88 Duke professors from the Trinity College of Arts & Sciences placed an ad in The Chronicle. The advertisement, spearheaded by faculty member Wahneema Lubiano, referred to the circumstances surrounding the allegations as a "social disaster", and quoted primarily anonymous individuals citing racism and sexism in the Duke community. The advertisement concluded, "We're turning up the volume To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard," and "These are the students shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman." Notable signatories included Houston Baker, Miriam Cooke, Anne Allison, Cathy Davidson, Ariel Dorfman, Michael Hardt, Alice Kaplan, Claudia Koonz, Pedro Lasch, Walter Mignolo, Mark Anthony Neal and Alex Rosenberg.In three departments, more than half of faculty signed the statement. The department with the highest proportion of signatories was African and African-American Studies, with 80%. Just over 72% of the Women's Studies faculty signed the statement, Cultural Anthropology 60%, Romance studies 44.8%, Literature 41.7%, English 32.2%, Art & Art History 30.7%, and History 25%. No faculty members from the Pratt School of Engineering or full-time law professors signed the document. Departments that had no faculty members sign the document include Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics, Genetics, Germanic Languages/Literature, Psychology and Neuroscience, Religion, and Slavic and Eurasian Studies.
In January 2007, many months after the initial print of the ad, a new letter was posted at the Concerned Duke Faculty website, signed by 87 faculty members, which stated that the original ad was misinterpreted. The letter states that the intent of the original ad was to address issues of racism and sexism in the community and not to prejudge the case.
In January 2007, lacrosse team member Kyle Dowd filed a lawsuit against Duke University and visiting associate professor and signatory to the original ad, Kim Curtis, claiming that he and another teammate were given failing grades on their final paper as a form of retaliation after the scandal broke. The case has been settled with the terms undisclosed except that Dowd's grade was altered to a P.
Dowd's mother emailed another original signatory, Houston Baker, who continued after the charges had been dropped to accuse her son and the others of being "hooligans, rapists" and called her "the mother of a farm animal."
Another signatory, Thavolia Glymph, said she was disappointed because, "since the DNA results were returned Monday, we moving backwards." The DNA results indicated that there was neither any sexual nor physical connection between the stripper and the players she accused.
Seventeen faculty members of the economics department sent a letter showing support for the players on January 6, 2007, saying, "We regret that the Duke faculty is now seen as prejudiced against certain of its own students," and telling the players that they are more than welcome to enroll in their courses.