It strikes me as odd that somehow the idea that a bunch of rich, white jocks may have been completely railroaded by an overzealous prosecutor seeking re-election is much less newsworthy and/or interesting than the idea that a bunch of rich, white jocks may have raped a black stripper.
In case you haven't been following this, or somehow managed to avoid hearing about it initially, the basic story is that a black stripper alleges that she was gang raped by 3 white lacrosse players from Duke after she finished "performing" her "dance" routine at a party held in a house rented by some co-captains of the lacrosse team.
When the story initially broke, it was framed as a maelstrom of pertinent social issues: race, privilege, class, etc. The alleged perpetrators are all rich white jocks attending a snooty prestigious private university. The alleged victim is black and is reportedly working her way through a local, and much less prestigious, college by working as a stripper.
The local prosecuter, Michael Nifong, was engaged in a very close re-election campaign and, it has been alleged, desperately needed to gain ground with black voters -- or at a minimum not alienate them. He went after the alledged perpetrators with a vengeance and got three members of the lacrosse team indicted. He also narrowly won his re-election bid.
Well . . . it has appeared in numerous recent accounts that the alleged victim's story does not seem to be holding together and, in fact, was far from coherent and/or consistent from the outset.
In short, the case seems to be falling apart. And not from any technical lack of evidence or anything like that. It appears to be falling apart because it appears that it simply may never have happened at all.
This has not been completely ignored by the press so I don't want to overstate the case. There's an article about it in this week's Newsweek (a follow-up to the cover story -- with cover pictures of the alleged perpetrators Newsweek ran awhile back).
Still, I think it's an interesting statement about how quick the media and we, as media consumers, are to jump on a story that seems to embody class and racial stereotypes and how comparatively little attention is paid when the initial story appears to be dead wrong.
If it turns out these rich white kids did not rape or even molest this young woman, they have been extremely unfairly treated and, I expect, will feel the repercussions to some extent for the rest of their lives. I suppose you could take the position that it's not entirely undeserved because that's the risk they ran by inviting strippers to their party in the first place. I could understand that position, I suppose.
But I find absolutely repulsive the idea that these kids, all of them, may have been manipulated by Mr. Nifong for purely political reasons. I hope that angle generates as much investigation as the initial story. And if it turns out Mr. Nifong knowingly jumped the gun on this one for political gain, I hope he gets indicted for something.
Rich white males are just as entitled to justice as anybody else in this country.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 59
SO much easier than doing something worthwhile.
I'm not a fan of rich white boys, but this was very, very scary.
Nifong reportedly refused the meeting and went right ahead with the indictment.
(cue Uriah Heep)
Good article. I like how you focus not on the crime (?) itself, but on the handling and mishandling by the D.A. Interesting angle.
(I do warn people though: do not hold this man's lack of integrity against the woman. Wait and see what the real story is first.)
(And if I may be so bold as to answer Nancy's question on behald of Lorraine: "No way in hell.")
Not exactly. What I'm really saying is that the fact they are rich white jocks is not quite enough, in and of itself, to lock them up and throw away the key. Maybe it should be, but as far as I know it's not.
So far, it's looking like the dancer straight out lied. She may not be responsible for Nifong's bad behavior, but she is certainly responsible for her own.
I'm just putting that out there.
Jake: "On the team? Or in the alleged rape?"
There is the "there" to which I had implied that you went.
Stereotypes, and our reaction to them, play a huge role in this whole thing.
Rich white jocks are stereotyped as drunken party boys worthy of reviling.
Black stripper chick's stereotypes are more complex. One stereotypical view might be that she is worthy of compassion because she's trying to better herself by stripping her way through college and the only reason she's stripping is because society has unfairly robbed her of other options. Another stereotypical view of her might be that she's a stripper and therefore probably a drunk, a drug addict and completely looney.
To me, it's interesting how quickly people grabbed onto the more favorable stereotype of the alledged victim. I'm sure that's impacted by how easy it is for most people to not give two hoots about rich white frat party boys.
Yes. I thought you would follow my example.
I'm also going to throw something else out.
The accusation of the alledged victim...if it proves to be all a hoax the real damage done is for the next woman who is raped. I believe there has been some debate on this site about people claiming to be victims of something or their children are missing or whatever. When confronted with evidence pointing to the contrary they seem to shrink back and play as if people are picking on them. The larger issue for me is that there are parents who do have missing children, there are women and men who are raped, and there are a various mixture of people suffering...but when people start to claim experiences that are either not their own or no longer theirs the voices of those truly needing help are drowned out.
If the stripper lied, she should be charged. If the DA lied or created this whole thing for votes, he should be charged. No question.
Did you guys scare Lorriane off?
A few weeks later, another black girl in the dorms recieved a note on her door telling the "niggers" to "get out."
The Black Student Union threw a huge anti-racism protest where they repeatedly threatened a white student reporter sent to cover the story, simply because she was there and she was white.
As it turned out, the watermelon was carved by three girls who knicknamed their group tripple threat. The watermelon started to go bad, so they put it outside their room, eventually it got kicked and moved until it ended up being by the black girl's room.
Then they found out the note was forged by the girl that was in that room because she thought they weren't getting enough attention on campus. Instead of SFSU saying, "hey, this is kind of fucked up guys, you're going to make up racial problems and then say you aren't being treated fairly," and then punishing the girl that forged the note, they decided that because people thought they needed to go to this extent just to bring attention to the racial problem on campus (that really didn't exist) that we needed to have a racial summit and better coverage of the Black Student Union.
Personally, if I were black and involved with all of that, I would be pissed because that just makes black people look bad and makes it look like there are no racial problems anymore. My black friends at the school felt the same way.
Now how are people going to feel about black girls that claim they've been raped by white frat boys? This kind of stuff drives me nuts.
I pause, should I post this...should I not...should I press post...should I not...press.................................................can always delete..........................................
Cat, I am curious about the origins of your bias in favor of college streakers.
Granted, I'm not a fan of sex offenders but I have questions about the Constitutionality of making people register long after their crimes have been punished. If I believe my sex offense history, many who had to register had to do it after their sentenses were served.
It's one of those issues where I don't exactly know where I stand. If I had a child I would want to know if the next door neighbor was an offender. As far as Cat's example, I don't care if people streak (I think it's kind of funny) but labeling people for life as a sex offender for such an activity is like giving the death penalty to people who steal an orange.
As far as labeling convicted pedophiles for life, I'm ok with that. Unless I'm mistaken the recidivism rate for that type of criminal is extremely high.
Cat- friend of mine got busted for indecency when he got off his motorcycle and went to the side of a closed gas station at night to take a piss. Unfortunately there was a patrol car parked nearby in the dark looking for speeders. I guess they got bored. Anyway, he is considered a sex offender too........stupid. I think there are degrees of danger assigned.
As for the rapists and pedophiles......I couldn't care less if tagged for life.
Oh Gawd, I feel a poem coming on.
"Ugh!" "Arugh!" Ooomph!"
I'm having some trouble squeezing this one out.
Maybe it's the location. I'll go to the bathroom. I do some of my best work there.