The Duke Lacrosse Case: Cheers can't drown out painful truths
Public brawl over rape allegations reminds us of the price women sometimes must pay for being heard
by Anne K. Ream
Supporters of the Duke University lacrosse team are in a celebratory mood. The team excelled in last month's NCAA tournament. And just last week, the prosecutor who filed rape charges against three of the team's players was himself put on trial, accused of ethics violations in pursuing a case fraught with problems.
The young men who narrowly lost to rival Johns Hopkins in the NCAA championship game are indeed gifted and resilient athletes. But praising the players as "outstanding" and "upstanding" young men, as the Duke Lacrosse Booster Club did in a full-page advertisement in The New York Times, is a reminder of just how low the bar has fallen when it comes to acceptable male behavior. Legal vindication is not moral vindication, no matter how hard a PR campaign works to make it so.
We may never know everything that occurred on the night of March 13, 2006, when the Duke lacrosse players threw a team party at an off-campus house. But what we do know is troubling enough.
Photos taken at the party show two young women, hired to perform by the players, dancing at the center of a group of largely drunken and leering men. The North Carolina attorney general's report details how one of the lacrosse players held up a broomstick during the night's events, suggesting that the women use it as a "sex toy."
Another player sent a chilling group e-mail just hours after the party, musing about bringing in more "strippers" and cutting off their skin while ejaculating. Witnesses reported hearing racial slurs lobbed by party goers.
Point of View
The opinion piece above, by Ms. Ream, posted on the SATI (Sexual Assault Training Institute) website, is absolutely outrageous!
When are the undeserved slurs of these innocent players going to stop?
These three Lacrosse players were determined by the NC Attorney General to be, not just Not Guilty, but totally, completely, absolutely, without question, INNOCENT!
In my opinion, what this woman is doing, and others like her, is reprehensible. These young men, who have shown nothing but class and dignity this past year, standing strong in the face of a racist community, out for blood, have enough to do to try to repair the extreme harm that was done to them.
And I'm surprised that it's even printed on, what is supposed to be, a professional website. Is that supposed to imply that all of us who are involved in treating victims of sexual assault agree with this woman? Well, I can tell you right now, we don't.
Further more, I can tell you that among my colleagues and I, who have discussed this quite frequently, we not only disagree, but are down right disgusted by this whole fiasco.
Just because we may care for true victims of sexual assault, does not mean we automatically believe that no accuser would ever lie, or that all accused are guilty.
That is not the way our criminal justice system is supposed to work. And it certainly is not the way of the real world.
Ream: "But praising the players as "outstanding" and "upstanding" young men, as the Duke Lacrosse Booster Club did in a full-page advertisement in The New York Times, is a reminder of just how low the bar has fallen when it comes to acceptable male behavior. Legal vindication is not moral vindication, no matter how hard a PR campaign works to make it so."
Why has the bar fallen so low? Because some college kids had a party? Did a little drinking? Hired two ... ugh ... to put it nicely, "exotic dancers"?
Not that I advocate this behavior, but it's not the worst I've ever seen. In fact, almost any parent who has managed to live through their child's teenage years would probably think it's pretty mild in comparison to some of the things they've seen.
Please don't even try to tell me that those now sitting on their pedestals, looking down their high and mighty noses at the Duke Lacrosse boys, have never done anything like that when they were young.
I've lived too long in this world, and seen too many things, to ever believe something like that.
Moral vindication? I think it's Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty who are the ones who have been morally vindicated in all this mess.
What kind of moral vindication, Ms. Ream, are you looking for? For whom? A couple of exotic dancers trying to scam some college kids?
A delusional drug addict out to get a high pay off from some rich white boys?
A corrupt DA intent on increasing his pension through re-election? Which one, Ms. Ream?
Are you trying to imply that, by hiring a couple of ... ugh ..."exotic dancers", these young guys were all morally corrupt?
Well, let me tell you, on the way back from a forensic conference the other day, I passed a huge billboard.
Want to take a guess at what was being advertised on that huge billboard, sitting right out there for all the families passing by to see? Exotic Dancers!
Now just who do you think paid for that big billboard advertising? Duke Lacrosse players? Or some morally corrupt corporation with tons of money in their pockets?
Shoot, they probably even donate money to one of your favorite charity funds Ms. Ream!
Ream: "We may never know everything that occurred on the night of March 13, 2006, when the Duke lacrosse players threw a team party at an off-campus house"
Evidently Ms. Ream hasn't been following the news too well. In case she's unaware, we do know exactly what went on at that off-campus party.
Two ... ugh ..."exotic dancers" tried to rip off some college kids.
They got into a verbal confrontation, the kids tried to get them to leave, and CGM decided to get even, score a few drugs, and get herself a big pay off in the process.
Some people should actually try keeping up with the news sometime.
Ream: "Photos taken at the party show two young women, hired to perform by the players, dancing at the center of a group of largely drunken and leering men."
Well, either Ms. Ream's vision is screwy or mine is. I saw those photos and I didn't see any drunken, leering men.
What I did see, were a bunch of bored guys, looking about as disgusted as I felt seeing those two women.
Women who, in my opinion, were the ones who were morally corrupt.
Ream: "The North Carolina attorney general's report details how one of the lacrosse players held up a broomstick during the night's events, suggesting that the women use it as a "sex toy.""
Most people, at this point, have been able to recognize that this was meant to be a joke!
Ream: "Another player sent a chilling group e-mail just hours after the party, musing about bringing in more "strippers" and cutting off their skin while ejaculating."
After all this time, knowing what we all know about the real meaning of that e-mail, and where it came from - a required student reading at that - for Ms. Ream to still be spouting such malicious nonsense is unconscionable.
Her very apparent agenda makes us all look bad.
Modified June12, 2007
My reply to Ream article
Anne Ream seems to have forgotten that there was no rape in the Duke 'rape' case. The DA dropped the rape charges in December of 2006. In April 2007 the NC AG found the three accused men innocent of the other charges - sexual assault and kidnapping. Innocent.
Championing a false accuser does nothing to further SATI simply because, no sexual assault occurred and endorsing a false accuser says your organization has no credibility.
Posted by: Old Lady | June 29, 2007 at 01:16 PM
My reply to Ream article
Anne Ream seems to have forgotten that there was no rape in the Duke 'rape' case. The DA dropped the rape charges in December of 2006. In April 2007 the NC AG found the three accused men innocent of the other charges - sexual assault and kidnapping. Innocent.
Championing a false accuser does nothing to further SATI simply because, no sexual assault occurred and endorsing a false accuser says your organization has no credibility.
Posted by: Old Lady | June 29, 2007 at 01:17 PM
Anne Ream's op ed piece on the Duke LaCrosse case is an important
reminder that rape victims have the right to be heard. If their story is
inconsistent or if evidence is lacking for prosecution, this is then no
occasion to vilify them or brand them as "liars." The case is, instead,
an opportunity to understand that the criminal justice system (either
through dismissal of cases or through innocent verdicts) has done its
job properly in its evaluation of charges. Individuals who believe
themselves to have been sexually assaulted should be treated with
dignity, and all rape victims should be encouraged to come forward to
report. The media uproar over the LaCrosse case, as Ms. Ream so ably
demonstrates, trampled on these basic legal and moral rights. We can
only hope that media coverage of another similar future event will not
repeat sensationalized allegations about either victims or alleged
perpetrators, nor brand those whose assertions do not convince as
blatant liars who themselves deserve prosecution.
Posted by: Dr. Jody Raphael | July 01, 2007 at 04:35 PM
Anne Ream has it right: The problem with rape in our justice system is not the
4-6% of false reporting but the more than 50% of under-reporting of the crime.
(Figures are Justice Dept estimates.) These statistics not only reflect a cultural
bias but are the result of that bias – an attitude that allows us to make heroes of
vulgar, violently-inclined men and degrade frightened and vulnerable women.
The Duke Lacrosse Team case and the public response to it is a glaring example
of the problem.
As Ms. Ream points out, more than legal debate, opinions and social values are
the real story here. The full-page ad in the New York Times, which was
purchased by the Duke Lacrosse Team “Booster Club” after criminal charges
against some of the team’s players were dropped, calls for a “standing ovation”
and offers “congratulatory praise” for the team, referring to the players as
“outstanding” and “upstanding” – all for surviving unfounded allegations of rape.
Oddly, the ad also applauds the team’s win of the ACC Championship, as if
athletic prowess somehow further exonerates these young men from allegations
of any wrong-doing.
And if you read or watch the news, the general public seems to agree, holding
up these men as heroes who prevailed against a terrible villain – a poor minority
woman and single mother who is putting herself through college by working as
a stripper (a stripper hired by affluent frat boys and college athletic teams to
dance at their parties). Yes, many consider working as a stripper to be immoral.
But do the men who hire them have immunity from moral judgment? And these
men did far more than simply hire a stripper.
Ms. Ream’s article describes the hostile environment into which this woman
entered on the night in question – facts that were reported by witnesses and
detailed in the Attorney General’s report. Yes, in this case, the accusations of
rape were ultimately revealed to be unfounded. But what else was revealed? We
know for sure that among this team of players, there are those who enjoy
violent fantasies about women (as evidenced by an email sent by one young
man who suggests skinning women alive while ejaculating). We know, at the
least, that these men are entertained by threatening and degrading vulnerable
women. This behavior may not be criminal, but it is deplorable, and it is
dangerous.
Despite this knowledge, the public enthusiasm for disparaging the victim and
blindly cheering the winner has been raging unabated in recent weeks. What
does this say about us as a society? And more importantly, what does this say to
future rape victims who want justice but must face a community eager to add
insult to injury? In considering this last question, let’s remember that
conservative figures estimate that 1 in 5 women will be the raped or sexually
abused in their lifetimes. We are not speaking just of strippers. We are speaking
of our own sisters and daughters. So, please, let’s talk to our brothers and sons
and teach them not just the legal definition of right and wrong but also the
moral standard. Let’s teach them values that will truly make us proud.
Posted by: H. Kaplow | July 01, 2007 at 04:40 PM
Quotes from the H. Kaplowe comment-
"Anne Ream has it right:"
– "a poor minority
woman and single mother who is putting herself through college by working as
a stripper "
Typical "facts" as only seen printed by the incompetent media.
The prosecuter has been disbarred,is being tried for contempt,civilly sued, the 3 men declared totally innocent,and the Durham PD under internal investigation. But wait, that does not fit the template needed, so the real facts are ignored and PC gibberish is used. Oh to be so educated,morally superior,and yet so unwise.
Posted by: Rullie | July 14, 2007 at 08:20 AM
So what Dr. Jody Raphael is saying is that the one form of deliberate, vicious slander which should always remain 100% legal is false accusation of rape.
If you destroy someone's reputation and disrupt their life and put them at risk of losing their liberty by falsely accusing them of a murder that never occurred, you should be and will be held responsible.
If you destroy someone's reputation and disrupt their life and put them at risk of losing their liberty by falsely accusing them of an arson that never occurred, you should be and will be held responsible.
If you destroy someone's reputation and disrupt their life and put them at risk of losing their liberty by falsely accusing them of a theft that never occurred, you should be and will be held responsible.
But, Dr. Raphael suggests, if you destroy someone's reputation and disrupt their life and put them at risk of losing their liberty by falsely accusing them of a rape that never occurred, that's okay. Simply pretending that a rape occurred, no matter how obvious it is that it did not, automatically makes you "a rape victim" who has a "right to be heard". I'm sorry if Dr. Raphael doesn't think this is an accurate representation of her views, but it's inevitable from her decision to use the Duke Lacrosse Hoax as a platform for expounding those views.
Posted by: Antaeus Feldspar | November 23, 2008 at 11:49 AM