What's Up with Duke
Because nefarious district attorney Mike Nifong dropped the news two days before Christmas, I haven't written about the latest developments in the Duke travesty, also known as the Duke rape case.
Because the alleged victim no longer remembers whether she was (sorry) penetrated—after having previously claimed that she was raped in three orifices—Nifong has dropped charges of rape. He continues, however, to press charges of kidnapping (!) and sexual assault.
Why did this happen now? Because a representative from Nifong's office only just interviewed the accuser, a mere eight months after arrests were made.
Nifong is a fool, and everything he does only reinforces that conviction.
But Nifong isn't the only person who's erred in this matter; some of the Duke faculty and students were quick to judge the accused, who, because they were white, male, affluent, and athletic were quadruply damned.
On InsideHigherEd.com, KC Johnson holds their feet to the fire....
Incidentally, I've had a lengthy discussion with a friend who's a media lawyer about the ethics of disclosing the accuser's name. I've long been in favor of it; he argues that, awkward though it may be, preserving rape victims' anonymity still means that victims bring charges when otherwise they might not.
But in an age when false charges of rape are increasingly common, doesn't this actually provide an incentive to make a false accusation? The knowledge that you will be protected by the press....
At what point now will the press report the name of the Duke accuser? Will it ever? And how is that fair to the three Duke men whose names and faces have been in the papers and on television countless times, for months?
