Shots In The Dark: At Duke, WTF?

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

At Duke, WTF?

No one seems to know quite how to handle the news that there's no DNA match with the alleged rape victim and anyone on the Duke lacrosse team. In some quarters there seems to be a sense of disappointment, as if people want there to have been an act of violence in order to punish a group of athletes, or rich kids, or white people, whom they dislike.

Here's what one neighborhood resident had to say, according to the Duke Chronicle: "From what I understand, the DNA results aren't necessarily proving anything," said a Durham resident who wished to remain anonymous. "The neighborhood would like to see something-one or more found guilty." [Italics mine]

It will be interesting, if this case turns out to be a fraud, to go back and look at some of the journalism which has as its implicit foundation the idea that the lacrosse players are guilty. (You know who you are, Allan Gurganus and David Brooks. Are you still so sure that it was a tale of "lust gone wild"?)

Of course, we still don't know what did or didn't happen, and the Chronicle also has an interesting article about the implications of the DNA test results.

"The fact that no DNA was found doesn't end the inquiry-especially if there is an assertion that the rape involved the use of a prophylactic," said [lawyer Ed] Shohat, whose daughter currently attends Duke.

But the argument in the other direction seems slightly more compelling; Shohat also says that "the DNA tests [are] a major blow to the prosecution. The prosecutor took his investigation public with the DNA tests, and now in essence he has to eat the results."

Which brings me to a journalistic issue I've thought about quite a bit: I believe that, in cases in which rape is charged but the accusation is far from clear-cut, the media should name the accuser. Why? Because in protecting the name of the accuser, the media is essentially making a judgement that she is telling the truth, that she has in fact been raped, and that the accused are guilty. But false accusations of rape do occur. (Particularly when celebrities and athletes are involved.) And false accusations of rape can leave a stigma on the accused that is perhaps worse than the stigma associated with being raped. Since we are no longer so sure that all accusations of rape are fundamentally true, we must consider that there are times when it's appropriate to name the accuser.

I know that this is a highly subjective standard. If I were an editor, I wouldn't have named, say, the Central Park jogger. But as the days go by, I would give serious thought to naming the woman who has alleged this rape....especially if there are more indications that her story is untrue.

It's a tough issue. Your thoughts?

¶ 8:09 AM

Comments:

so, why should this woman be punished by having her name plastered everywhere? There's certainly no evidence of fraud. Or does "innocent until proven guilty" only apply to men?

And make no mistake, publicizing this woman's name would subject her to serious abuse. Even if she DID somehow frame these guys, it's NOT the media's role to punish her.

I just don't understand why you'd want to make it even more difficult for women who have been raped to come forward. Now, I'm happy to extend anonymity to the guy who wrote that e-mail, too, if you want some gesture of equality, but putting that woman's name out there is pure vindictiveness. Or do you really think there's been a national wave of high-profile false rape accusations that need to be deterred? The fact that you have to go back almost TWENTY YEARS to Tawana Brawley makes me think that this is NOT a problem -- especially when compared with the actual problem of rape.

# posted by Anonymous : 10:58 AM

This post has been removed by the author.

# posted by richard : 11:34 AM

I take your points, but still think the issue is more complicated.

First, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of anonymous accusations, which is to say, we know who the accused is, but we don't know the accuser. That inequity troubles me.

Second, you're wrong about how common false accusations of rape are. According to this Salon article, the FBI found that 10% of rape accusations are "unfounded." A Washington Post investigation put that number at 25%. A survey by a Purdue sociologist found that 41% of rape reports filed in one Indiana town turned out to be false. Forty-one percent—that's remarkable.

(http://www.salon.com/news/1999/03/cov_10news.html)

It's not a question of the media punishing her; it's a question of fairness. The lacrosse player have certainly "been subject to serious abuse." But now there's a real possibility that they are victims.

And while I certainly understand your point about the stigma rape victims endure, I wonder if anonymity doesn't in some way, or in some cases, perpetuate that stigma.

Food for thought.

# posted by richard : 11:37 AM

Richard, thanks for your thoughtful response. But I am a little confused by your first point. Of course, WE don't know who the accuser is; but the DA, the defense attorneys, and (most importantly) the accused know who the accuser is. Why should it matter so much that we bystanders know right now? We'll surely know in the end, after all.

# posted by Anonymous : 11:39 AM

I suppose because trials do take place in the court of public opinion. Whatever the outcome in this case, the accused will be stigmatized for years, if not the rest of their lives. Of course, if they raped this woman, they deserve to be. But if they didn't...do they?

You say that we'll eventually know the name of the accuser. What makes you so sure of that? And even if her name does get printed after the fact, will we remember it as we would the name of the accused (especially in cases where an individual, rather than a group, has been accused)? Or will it have the impact of, say, a correction, which we never remember as much as we remember the original mistake?

I suppose that I'm just uncomfortable with the media reporting on a story in a way which suggests the presumption of the accused's guilt, rather than the presumption of their innocence.

# posted by richard : 11:48 AM

I understand your discomfort with the presumption of the reporting, but the appropriate target is then the media coverage, and not the accuser. The media are the ones responsible for the content of their coverage, after all.

As you must know, releasing this woman's name now would subject her to intense harrassment; even with her identity being putatively anonymous, she's already had to hide with relatives and can't go to her home. Making her name public now could be nothing other than a form of punishment.

Why she should be made subject to harrassment because of the media's failings, I totally fail to understand. As I said above, I have no problem extending the presumption of anonymity to the accused (or the e-mail author here); but that's the appropriate way to protect everyone involved, not putting everyone's name out there -- especially when she'd be subjected to far more harassment than these guys.

In fact -- assuming they are not charged -- I have a hard time believing that this changes their lives in any long term way. Finally, we would all do well to remember that part of the reason that this blew up in the media was the failure of the team to come forward and cooperate with the police by providing testimony. That was what moved the story from sparking outrage to disbelief, and assisted the media's presumption of guilt.

# posted by Anonymous : 12:07 PM

Well, in this country you are still allowed to take the 5th—which is essentially what these players did—without it being held against you. Perhaps they were acting ont the advice of their lawyers. That may not have been such bad advice, given that there exists a DA in the case who seems to have backed himself into a corner in which he's spoken out so much that he must now prosecute the case regardless of whether the evidence merits a prosecution or not.

It's my impression that the harassment this woman has endured has come from the media, not from, well, harassers. Still not great, but different. Would she really be harassed if she came forward? Judging from the community reaction, it suggests that she'd likely have considerably more support than harassment.

I have a real problem with this sentence: "In fact -- assuming they are not charged -- I have a hard time believing that this changes their lives in any long term way."

First, I think that's wrong. These guys' lives will be changed forever.

Second, I wonder if you'd say that if the person falsely accused were female. Is it because these guys are guys that a false accusation of rape, protests being directed against them, and a national scandal won't "change their lives in any long term way"? That strikes me as glib at best. What, they'll just brush it off? That idea is only possible if you've already dehumanized them, thinking of them as shallow or oblivious or thick-skinned jocks or some such thing.

It's a nice idea to extend anonymity to the accused, and if it were viable, I'd say sure, that's the way to go. But it isn't. We all know, for example, who's been suspended for writing a sick e-mail....

# posted by richard : 12:32 PM

You ask, "Is it because these guys are guys that a false accusation of rape, protests being directed against them, and a national scandal won't 'change their lives in any long term way'?"

I'm not sure why you think answering "yes" is glib. Women have certainly come closer to equality in society over the past decades, but they're nowhere near there by number of measures (pay equity, ND abortion ban, etc). Of course it's easier for men to overcome scandals like these! They've got plenty of guys who'd be willing to go to bat for them. I mean, these are mostly Groton/Exeter guys we're talking about; they've got networks. I don't dispute that this has been traumatic and stressful -- even if some team members are guilty, not all of them are -- but I don't think their life prospects are seriously diminished (with the possible exception of the e-mail guy, who's name and e-mail address are now in the public domain).

Moreover, I think the whole question's a little weird for a rape case. Has a women's sports team ever been accused of gangrape? No, of course not. Rape just doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately, we still live in a VERY male-dominated society. That's part of what gave the accuser's charges plausibility, but that's also part of what will make it easier for the accused to weather this storm.

# posted by Anonymous : 12:51 PM

You may be right, although I still think you're a little casual about the impact of a false accusation of rape.

(And by the way, I wasn't clear about this, so it's my fault, but I didn't mean that a woman might be falsely accused of rape, just falsely accused of some terrible crime.)

Also, I don't know if you know that I went to Groton, but I did. (I didn't play lacrosse, and had no particular feelings, pro or con, toward those who did.) However, I think it's easily possible to overestimate the power and influence of these "networks." Those schools do happen to be co-ed, you know. Their female grads aren't likely to be very happy about this, even if it was only jerk-ish behavior around strippers and not rape. (Leaving the racial epithets question out of it for the time being.)

In any event, you're talking about consequences on a professional level, and I'm talking the psychological impact of being falsely accused of rape and having it become a national scandal. That has to be substantial. And it seems to me that if women were involved, you'd probably be thinking quite a bit on the psychological/emotional impact, whereas for some reason having to do with the fact that the people involved are male, you simply ignore that. Reverse sexism, no?

# posted by richard : 1:00 PM

I have no doubt that being falsely accused of anything is a psychological trauma. But again, I have a hard time seeing how that's diminished by releasing this woman's name at this time.

Your "subjective standard" rests on releasing the accuser's name when you feel like it's appropriate, because you no longer believe her story. But, again, just because you feel that the media slanted this story towards a presumption of guilt of the accused doesn't mean the solution is to switch to presuming the accuser is "guilty"; that only compounds the error. The solution is stop with the presumptions entirely.

# posted by Anonymous : 2:14 PM

How is naming the woman presuming that she is guilty? That makes no sense to me.

# posted by richard : 2:19 PM

You ask, "How is naming the woman presuming that she is guilty?"

Your initial post made it seem to me like that was the point. You say, "Because in protecting the name of the accuser, the media is essentially making a judgement that she is telling the truth...Since we are no longer so sure that all accusations of rape are fundamentally true, we must consider that there are times when it's appropriate to name the accuser."

So, first of all, I question your first premise, that anonymity provides a presumptive guarantee that the accusation is true. I don't see it. It's not commonly the case that an anonymous source is presumed to be speaking the truth, after all, so I'm unclear why this is different. Anonymity simply says that there would automatically be consequences for the person if their identity were revealed -- whether that's Karl Rove, that FBI whistleblower, or an alleged rape victim. It seems reasonably clear to me that there is still often reason to believe that there would be negative consequences for an accuser if her identity was revealed.

However, let's accept your premise. Your next step is to say, "as the days go by, I would give serious thought to naming the woman who has alleged this rape....especially if there are more indications that her story is untrue." In other words, you clearly indicated that revealing this woman's name in medias res, as it were, reflects a new presumption of guilt and fraudulent intent.

Now, i think you could make a better case that there should be no anonymity from the start for accusers. But the case for revealing her name in the middle of an investigation -- by your own admission -- depends entirely on the shifting perception that's guilty of fabrication. Even sharing your view that a gross injustice has been done to these players, I fail to see how a fresh unfounded judgment in the media helps anyone.

All I'm doing is explaining what you wrote this morning. Have you backed away from this position?

# posted by Anonymous : 2:41 PM

No, not backing away at all. Perhaps you're right; perhaps naming the accuser should happen right out of the gate.

But, as I said, I'd be uncomfortable naming, for example, the Central Park jogger. And frankly I'd probably be naming this woman in Durham right away.

At some point, though, I might.

I know; that's a grey area, it's subjective, etc., etc. But journalism can be like that. It'd be nice to have hard and fast rules, but some situations are better handled on a case-by-case basis. This kind of thing might be one of them.

# posted by richard : 4:01 PM

thank you for engaging with me all day. I enjoyed our blog-versation.

# posted by Anonymous : 4:09 PM

Likewise!

# posted by richard : 4:14 PM

About Me