The disconnect between legal culpability and social responsibility simmers just below the surface of reporting on the Duke sex scandal. In The Duke Assault Case: A Question of Race, CNN’s January 16 special on Duke, co-hosts Paula Zahn and Howard Kurtz reminded viewers of the evidence that will be offered to exonerate the defendants if prosecutors take the case to trial: inconsistent victim statements regarding the number of assailants and nature of the assault; an alibi offered by one of the players that places him away from the scene of the crime; the lack of a DNA match to any of the players on the team. For Kurtz, this evidence sealed the case against the”accuser”whose racial identity he implied seduced reporters towards an interpretation of events that fit a familiar historical narrative – that of White men sexually exploiting Black women. Subsequent facts contradicted that script, and Kurtz offered these remarks in defense of the real”victims”marred by the scandal:
The Duke story was impossible for the media to ignore, but there was clearly a rush to judgment, which turned one woman’s shaky allegations into a racially charged morality tale. By the time journalists woke up to the fact that there was little evidence against these three young men, their reputations had been blackened.
Kurtz’s pitiful attempt to demonize the victim in this case – and through her all Black women – obscures the significance of other facts conspicuously left out of CNN’s broadcast: (1) that team members called the two women”niggers”and”bitches”; (2) one threatened to rape them with a broomstick; (3) another spoke of hiring strippers in an e-mail sent the same night that threatened to kill”the bitches”and cut off their skin while he ejaculated in his”Duke-issued spandex;”and (4) one shouted to the victim as she left the team’s big house,”Hey bitch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt.”These facts are undisputed and highlight the sick and wretched depravity of this racialized episode. The parallels between present and past are simply too numerous to ignore in the perverted claim these pampered and privileged White elites laid to the body of a Black female sex-worker. Yet if history is our guide, Kurtz is probably right – the evidence will ultimately stack against the”accuser”in favor of the accused and culpable or not, these boys will be exonerated. If brought to trial, my bet is they will be found”not guilty.”And yet, they are so far from”innocent.”Linda Martin Alcoff offers more insight into the importance of narratives surrounding the Duke case here.
–Kathleen A. Bergin
Pingback: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Awards For The Duke Women’s Lacrosse Team?
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Link Farm & Open Thread #45
What was reported as fact, and what the post presumes, is in fact disputed.
The accuser claimed that the dancers were called “n*gg*rs” when the dance ended and when she was pulled away from the other dancer and pulled into the bathroom to be raped. The other dancer denies that these things happened. The “b*tch” was supposed to have been said when she was being raped. Since the three accused deny that they were ever alone in the bathroom with the accuser this accusation of the use of that word rests only with the claim of sexual assault and kidnap (the rape charge was dropped when the accuser told the ADA in December that she couldn’t recall whether or not her attackers had used their penises during the brutal half-hour rape).
There is another claim of the use of the word “n*gg*r” against the second dancer at the end of the evening. There were several versions that the second dancer, Kim Roberts, gave to the police in a 911 call she apparently made after any argument with some of the men. The first version claimed that she was driving by the house and saw the men calling the other dancer “n*gg*r.” She changed during the call to say that she and the first dancer were walking by when the accosted both of them with racist verbal abuse. Both versions were not true, as both women had been performers at the house. During an episode on “60 Minutes” Roberts told a third version, that after she called the men a “l*ttl* d*ck white boys” that one responded by using the “n-word.”
The neighbor who was observing the argument from his house next door did not apparently observe any usage of the “n-word” but did report the comment about thanking your grandpa for the white shirt, this as the car carrying the two dancers was driving away. Roberts has never said she heard the remark, nor has the accuser. It has been suggested that the cotton shirt remark was from a Chris Rock comedy DVD but I cannot confirm that.
The “broomstick” comment was a rude comment by one of the men in the audience during the exotic dance. The driver for the accuser had reported that she had performed with a vibrator for a couple in a hotel room the previous afternoon and there is a theory that because of her intoxication she had forgotten to bring her vibrator along for this performance. In any case the comment was along the lines that she could use “this” instead. Not an unusual comment the circumstances of a strip show and exotic dance.
The skin-peeling comment was a reference to “American Psycho,” apparently on the curriculum at Duke.
It should be noted that none of the comments has ever been connected to any of the three accused in this case. It should also be noted, since this is a law professor blog, that DA Mike Nifong has recused himself from the case and is being brought up on charges for his unethical, illegal and presumably criminal behavior. In December the head of a DNA lab admitted on the stand that he and Nifong conspired to hide DNA evidence from the defense — that not only was there no trace of DNA of any of the lacrosse players but also that there were sperm fragments of four or five other men found in and around the accuser’s private places. In any other rape case, this would have been reason for any DA who believed a rape had been committed to turn his search for the rapists elsewhere. Instead, Nifong indicted the three.
Why? Nifong needed to win an election and in order to win he needed to get the large African American vote in Durham. He took the case public, made the case about rich, white, privileged kids from the North going down to Durham and raping a poor black girl.
Apparently, many people aren’t keeping up with the facts of the case. The case is about a false prosecution. Because many people presumed guilt on the basis of race, class and gender this case is still being believed by people who should know better.
Likewise, many of the claims of racial and sexual hate speech are less than advertised.
I would hope that the people here who discuss the case will make an effort to keep up with the facts of the case and will go back and note who misreported the facts of the case to them and in the future take this into account when relying on them for information.
I’m allowing the comment to post, but caution readers that “Bob in Pacifica” has not sourced or documented his recitation of “the facts.”
Pingback: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Duke Sexual Assault Allegations Astroturf