Mon 30 Oct 2006
Former Williams professor Grant Farred, now at Duke, asks the tough questions:
All of which, of course, begs the crucial question: What is it precisely that that these three players, and the lacrosse team in general, are “innocent” of? Racism? Underage drinking? Hiring sex workers under a false name? Homophobia? The abdication of a collective team - what happened was not a “mistake” but part of an older and widely known pattern of lacrosse behavior - and larger institutional responsibility for declaring public what precisely it is that Duke University represents?
Now if it’s me, and I see that three guys have been charged with a crime, and everything indicates they did not commit that crime, maybe I stick the word “innocent” in the toolbox for later. But that’s me.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:41 am
KC Johnson also comments.
Indeed.
October 30th, 2006 at 11:05 am
With that sort of rigorous “thought”, I’m glad he’s no longer at Williams. To illustrate, let’s flip his little rant around:
It certainly isn’t rational thought, or “innocent until proven guilty”, or a willingness to pull their heads out of their asses and actually look at the evidence.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
I agree that this entire trial is a disgraceful attempt by a prosecutor to score political points at the expense of justice.
But I think we can understand one of Farred’s larger concerns, even if it is inartfully delivered or obscured by his views on race and town v. gown issues in Durham:
Imagine if no rape was alleged that night. Would some of the other acts engaged in by the team be silently condoned by the University and the athletic department? Would you condone that if you were the AD at Duke? Farred suggests that such behavior has largely gone unpunished by the university and the athletic department and would have also gone unpunished on that night. I would guess he also feels that once this case is concluded in favor of the defendants, such raucous behavior will continue that the lack of accountability will return to the athletic department.
And that seems to be an underlying concern obscured in all of this (although I think observers are surely right to seriously question the motives and behavior of Mike Nifong and view the players as victims in a sense). While the accused players are apparently undergoing an unjust nightmare as this case is pursued, little has been said (or at least heard by me!) about whether Duke intends to punish others on that night who might not have broken laws, but engaged in activity that is not acceptable.
I’m a former college athlete who bristles at the referrals to such things “lacrosse culture” etc. And sometimes, the antics of college students are blown out of proportion. But on that night, some individuals at Duke engaged in activity that cannot be condoned by reasonable people. I’m sure Duke could be forgiven if, after a thorough investigation, it permanently suspended some of its lacrosse players or instituted a high bar to clear for reinstatement. Playing college athletics is a privilege and athletes should be held to a higher standard since they represent the school on the outside, and may have been given preference in admission.
Make no mistake, this situation is fraught with injustice to the accused on one level, but to the extent Farred is concerned about Duke making a profound statement that certain behavior by its students is no longer condoned, I hope that those specific pleas don’t fall on deaf ears.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
I don’t know about the guilt or innocence of those parties. I do know that the President and Athletic Director are quilty of gross mismanagement of their responsibilities and, in cowardly fashion, of serving up less than fully matured young people, who were assigned to be under their wings, to the overheated mob in order to deflect personal criticism.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
AC, I agree with most of the substance of your statement. My one quibble is the danger of having very broadly-worded codes of conduct without at least some interpretive canons or guidelines — I don’t think that there’s anything unethical about consenting adults hiring strippers (or going to strip clubs, for that matter), even though I have no desire whatsoever to engage in such activity.
A code of conduct that purports to govern private sexual activity between consenting adults seems like a step in the wrong direction to me, even if the only source of that authority is that at least one adult is an athlete.
Conversely, adult underage drinking might be (technically and unjustly) illegal, but I don’t think there’s anything even remotely unethical about it.
Even the student’s use of the N-word, while completely unjustifiable, was an immediate retaliation for the stripper’s prior insult about the student’s endowment connected with his race. Seen in context (and noting that it did not take place at any formal team activity in the student’s role as an athlete, but in his off-the-field role), I don’t see how that deserves anything but a reprimand if it’s a first offense.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
You raise fair points, L. I am operating from the assumption that some of the Duke individuals were in the wrong in some fashion, so if there is additional facts which alter the context, so be it.
I understand hesitation when attempting to govern private sexual matters. Although there might be nothing legally wrong with of-age people hiring adult entertainment, something about it being done in this particular situation strikes me as inappropriate. But these should all be points of discussion as duke figures out what to do.
But I think that the school and coaches could be forgiven if it attached higher expectations to its athletes. To what degree that is done and can be effective is, of course, a matter for debate and careful consideration.
Along the lines of expectations, that reminds me of my football recruiting visit to Williams one December. I ws hosted by some upperclassmen who decided to enjoy one or two beers before heading out to the basketball game that evening on campus.
When we arrived at the game, the guys made every attempt to avoid Dick Farley, who was also there, for fear he might smell alcohol. Now remember that these guys were over 21 and not even remotely close to intoxication. Seems like the expectations for Williams football players’ behavior off of the field was made quite clear by Coach Farley and others in control of the athletic program. I think anecdotes like that coupled with the commendable sportsmanship of Williams players that I observed firsthand in our annual contests might indicate why Williams has a very successful, and respected, athletic program. It also might indicate how high expectations of athletes, both on and off the field, can often lead them to deliver results the college can take pride in, including the won-loss record.
October 30th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
AC,
I think plenty of folks on the Duke campus with concerns such as yours saw an opportunity in the incident to open a dialogue amongst the various college and Durham constituencies, and build something constructive out of the situation. I think plenty of others had more selfish agendas. I have no problem believing the town-gown relationships in Durham border on the poisonous, or that elements of the lacrosse team were heavily and noisily racist and homophobic, or even that white privilege is a root cause of many of those ailments. Those are all problems which ought to be addressed in the community, whether by discussion or engagement or protest. But they are not altars on which to sacrifice any number of innocent men. I see plenty of room to pursue the broader cause of social justice without slagging this trio as racists, evidence be damned.
October 30th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
I agree with that, Ben and I certainly don’t mean to suggest that this trial is anything other than an injustice. My view is different from Farred’s; given the information I’ve seen, I think the rape charges should be dropped and the criminal investigation closed.
I only agree with Farred in that he suggests conversations regarding whether Duke has control of its athletic program and athletes have been obscured here (and in no small part due to this trial) and should be revisited. But to me this trial is not the vehicle for that.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:16 am
The Duke lax team was out of control. The coach had little to no modulating influence on the team. Prosser, the head coach, specifically recruited highly talented players who were a step or two below the level of those players that Princeton, Hopkins, and Virginia recruited. I am not talking about lacrosse abilities or even academic abilities, rather that Coach Prosser could not draw in the top recruits to Duke as Duke had no tradition or stability at the top echelon of the game. He could not compete with a Dom Starsia at Virgina, Tierney at Princeton, or Petramala at Hopkins and took the best players he could get and be damned the costs. Well the costs were a team with little off field structure or consequences. They were the bad boys of college lacrosse. How Duke allowed this as well as having Coach K’s traditions is a slight enigma.
That being said, from everything I have seen from the interviews, I do believe that the accused are probably innocent of these specific charges, however the overall behavior of the team helped lead to what has essentially become a death penalty to Duke lacrosse. It will take a long time before it rises to the same level.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:31 pm
You are completly misinformed about this Lacrosse team. MANY of them had a choice to go to Hopkins or Princeton and they chose to go to Duke. That said, you are also VERY misinformed about the team being out of control.
I will never agree with the one racial slur that was said but besides that, what exactly do you think the Lacrosse team was doing that made them so out of control?
Underage drinking…OK… so what campus does that not happen…public urination…I would ask ANY guy about that..adults included…and the response would overhwelming be that they too have engaged in that behavior…a guy thing…oh well.. but hardly criminal. Hire strippers…22nd time on the Duke campus alone (Documented) for the 2005-2006 school year…a crime…do not think so. Noise violation…does not make for good neighbors but certainly not a crime…and lets also keep that in perspective…happened 2 times. Show me anything that these boys are doing that makes them out of control. You need to get the facts straight before putting that misinformation out there, for everyones sake, including your own.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:24 pm
I agree with Duke Mom. My criminal law professor bragged in class about getting arrested for public urination. His comment actually had a point, though, as he mentioned that women usually contest their arrests under the necessity defense (based on dirty bathrooms), at which point police drop the charges.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:55 pm
The actions by the Duke lacrosse player leadership involved abysmally poor judgment even for 20 year olds - the party never should have occurred - it did not pass the smell test. However, 20 year olds can be forgiven abysmal judgment in certain circumstances, but the President, the AD and the Head Coach shouldn’t be. They were obligated to have slapped the arrogance out of the lacrosse team long before the party. The President and the AD should be given an opportunity to resign for their gross derelictions of professional duty. Unfortunately the President and the AD will emerge smelling like roses, and the players have and will become scapegoats.
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:40 am
What arrogance? The Lacrosse Team is not in the least bit arrogant. Quite the opposite actually. They are an extremely close bunch. Did they make a mistake…obviously… because they made the grave mistake of hiring strippers, but in no way are these boys arrogant.
Should the coach been punished..NO WAY! He was just the university scapegoat. They have mishandled this situation from the first moment they heard about it and are trying to keep the pressure off of themselves by still saying UNTRUE things about these players.
The courts will decide…no doubt…if the university followed procedure properly. Those boys were thrown under the bus to say the least!! Law suits will most certainly follow the trial !
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:01 pm
They were arrogant by staging and attending the party in the belief that the ordinary requirements of civil behavior and self-protective caution did not apply to them and therefore were unnecessary.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
I think Duke mom goes a little too far … it’s been well documented that the Duke players, as a whole, are no angels … one of the three indicted players was after all on pre trial probation for another violent incident, the team as whole was supposedly (from what I’ve read) well known for rampant drinking, property destruction, public urination (not just isolated incidents, but repeated events), disrespect for neighbors etc., and of course some of the racist remarks were inexcusable, even in a drunken, argumentative setting. But to fair, that behavior is hardly unique among high-profile sports teams on college campuses, and I’m sure is a lot more innocuous than, say, behavior of certain division I basketball or football teams.
All of those issues should have been constructively addressed. But it is people like Farred and his cronies who will now make that impossible. Because whatever misbehavior that these young men engaged in, that absolutely pales in comparison to the mind-boggling evils perpetrated (and well documented by K.C.) by Nifong, the media, and certain portions of the Duke faculty. The complete disregard for criminal procedure and constitutional protections, the eagerness to indict / condemn behavior based not on evidence but rather on race and class, the utter lack of objectivity in reporting, and the blatant bias of certain segments of the Duke faculty have completely overwhelmed the relatively minor infractions of the Duke lacrosse team.
So, to say that the team had no culpability and did nothing wrong is overly apologetic. But Farred et. al., and no one else, are to blame for those issues now rightfully playing a secondary role in a drama that presently centers on far greater injustices. Because, on the balance, the team and in particular the three accused members of the team are more victims than victimizers, and they have suffered disproportionately to the real, but relatively minor, misbehaviors they did engage in.
Who can blame the Duke campus for rallying behind the team? If members of the team hadn’t been slandered and subject to unconstitutional criminal investigatory tactics, I guarantee you the campus would still be, first and foremost, upset with the lacrosse players and demanding that behavior patterns be forcibly altered. But Duke students are smart enough to realize that their energies are best served to help remedy the greater injustice. Particularly when all the people who have power in the situation — prosecutors, faculty, and the media, in particular — are lined up to smear and attack some of their fellow students.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:13 am
Thank you Jeff Z. for that pithy summation of the events surrounding the allegations wrapped in an enigma …….I have no doubt that there are plenty of nice young men playing lacrosse at Duke, but I do hope that they have some arrogance or it will an extremely long season playing reigning NCAA champ Virginia, always tough Maryland, and a rising North Carolina team. College atheletes simply don’t succeed without some arrogance…even at Williams and the other NESCAC schools.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:25 am
Civil behavior…you have got to be kidding. Oh my..they hired a stripper. MANY MANY groups on the Duke campus hire strippers. Even the loved basketball team had just hired strippers two weeks before the lacrosse players. Unfortunalty for the lax players, they had one that set out to destroy them with her lies along with DA Liefong.
No one ever said they were angels… BUT most certainly not the ‘bad’ boys the DA or the university has made them out to be. READ THE DUKE ISSUED REPORTS. They were actually found and written up to be a good bunch of guys. NO ONE will EVER excuse the one racial slur about’Your Daddy…’ but besides that, their behavior was pretty normal college activity!
Hard working, determined but again..not arrogant!
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:23 am
“Normal” in society or on campuses of today is not necessarily, in my view, civil. Hiring strippers as they did and for the purposes they did is loutish, low-brow and very close to lowest common denominator. The players, especially their leadership, ought to be ashamed of their conduct.
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Appears that in the south it IS a pretty normal thing to do…hiring strippers, especially on college campuses. Even the females hire strippers!! Personally do not get it but… certainly not civil disobedience.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:59 pm
My brother, a boy of the North, matriculated at Duke in the 1960s. When he returned home at Christmas time of his freshman year, he was heard to say, “Duke University - where dumb northerners go to outsmart smart southerners”. It appears that his observation continues to hold after over 40 years.