Duke to forfeit games to Georgetown and Mount St. Mary's

[cth95]

I vote "yes".  Haven't put my two cents in, but have been following this thread.  I had no idea who was right in this case and have seen plenty of problems with both sides of the case over time.  Despite not being surprised that the case seems to be falling apart for the prosecution, I still feel that Ken is amazingly elitist and narrow-minded.  Cornell must not have offered its widely publicized diversity back in 1970.

[jkahn]

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Ken '70]I do understand.[/quote]
Sadly, I'm certain you don't.  Pity.[/quote]
[quote Delta One] Jumping to a conclusion, if the conclusion turns out to be correct, is not any better than jumping to a conclusion that turns out to be wrong. [/quote]
Ken,
To expand on Delta One's thoughts, so that perhaps you might eventually understand, it's one thing to jump to a conclusion based upon having a good percentage of the facts of the case, but it's quite another thing to jump to a conclusion based upon your perceived racial or class stereotypes.  Yes, sometimes the answer may turn out to be correct, but the logic used to get there is fatally flawed.

[Dpperk29]

[quote cth95]I still feel that Ken is amazingly elitist and narrow-minded.  [/quote]

narrow-minded? elitist? no, not at cornell... who whould have thunk it?

[Redscore]

I'm with Ken on this one.

This situation is not yet settled and so it is still possible that the stripper told the truth, but it certainly looks like this case is heading for the trash heap.  If that ends up being the case, I think its pretty pathetic that these kids lives were messed up so badly because they made the admittedly terrible mistake of getting consistently drunk and acting like fools.  Something that I'm sure all of us have done (maybe not consistently) at some time or the other.  There is no debating that the racist crap was way over the line and I know that kids with some decency wouldn't resort to something like that even when drunk.  However, we all know what a combination of being made to feel super important, combined with an overdose of alchohol can do to some people.

These kids made a very bad mistake, and sometimes you have to  pay the price and face the consequences, but I believe that it is okay to vilify the parasites that feed off such events.  In this case the stripper, the prosecuter, the "it makes me feel good to patronize poor African-Americans" lobby, and the national media, all of whom proved that they can't seperate their head from their arse.

I'm sorry if it makes me seem like a jerk, but I really feel that these players didn't deserve to be f'd up quite like this.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Redscore]I'm with Ken on this one...

I'm sorry if it makes me seem like a jerk, but I really feel that these players didn't deserve to be f'd up quite like this.[/quote]
Amazing how someone can miss the point so completely. ::help::

[Redscore]

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Redscore]I'm with Ken on this one...

I'm sorry if it makes me seem like a jerk, but I really feel that these players didn't deserve to be f'd up quite like this.[/quote]
Amazing how someone can miss the point so completely. ::help::[/quote]

I may miss a point here and there but I certainly don't miss the ones I do "so completely".  Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but if you are going to quote my post, quote it completely.  Quoting the first line and the last sentence makes for a very clever bit of editing, and makes your point at the expense of the facts.

My point was not whether they deserved to be f'd up for any of the things that they ACTUALLY did, they absolutely do and I did say that they need to face the consequences.  My point was that it appears as if a combination of false statements and a confluence of events took things to a level that was beyond fairness.  We may execute people for murder (in some states) but we don't execute them for robbing banks.

If you think that it is okay for a mugshot of Seligman to be placed on the cover of Time and Newsweek and to receive premium exposure on all other forms of media including network TV, and to be pre-judged by all the lemmings out there as a rapist when it now appears that he left the party early, you are just not being fair.  I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that it is not okay for someone to point a finger at an innocent person and claim rape, and then for that innocent person to be portrayed as a rapist before the facts come to light.  And it just does not matter how bad or good that person is in other facets of his life.  Those other facets should be judged and evaluated on their own merits.  I don't like these kids at all.  I just think that sometimes it is okay to point out the flaws in our culture as they expose themselves.

If your point is that I should save my energy for other more pressing problems rather than try to assess the appropriate calibration of the punishment for this behaviour, I would probably have to agree with you.  I guess I'll just move on.

[cth95]

I don't think that anyone here has a problem with you feeling these guys have gotten a horrible deal if they are innocent; which looks more and more likely.  They should never have been smeared so badly without being proven guilty.  You have posted a reasonable argument.  

     I think most people's problem with Ken 70, is that he has been highly condescending and has presented a holier-than-thou attitude throughout this event, without showing any indications of open-mindedness at all. He basically has represented the opposite facet of the extremists you have correctly criticized for smearing the players with no hard evidence.  Just because he may turn out to be right doesn't justify his comments or attitude before hard evidence is presented proving that the woman was lying.

[Liz '05]

I think Al's point was less disagreeing with your ideas and more disagreeing with your self-association with Ken.  

You say (emphasis mine):

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that it is not okay for someone to point a finger at an innocent person and claim rape, and then for that innocent person to be portrayed as a rapist before the facts come to light.  And it just does not matter how bad or good that person is in other facets of his life.

Why is there any difference between the accuser and the accused?  The case in question revolves around the night in question, not anyone's race, profession, background, etc.  When this story broke, it sounded as if the dancer had truly been raped by the Duke lax players.  Ken posted things like this: http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?7,92572,94548#msg-94548

While mass media was portraying the players as a group of racist rapists, Ken was essentially saying it was impossible for the woman to have been raped because it would've been white-on-black rape, because she was a "hooker," and because she has "demonstrated unassailable character by having two illegitimate children then leaving them 3 nights a week to turn tricks." http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?7,92572,94021#msg-94021

It now looks like the dancer was indeed making up the story, and it's a shame that it has damaged so many lives, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

edit: cth95 beat me to it.  cth, I agree.

[DeltaOne81]

I'll agree with cth and Liz.

Redscore, I don't think anyone disagrees (at least not much if at all) with your posting that the players did not deserve this. The complaint was your association with Ken.

As you said yourself:
[Q]If you think that it is okay... to be pre-judged by all the lemmings out there ... you are just not being fair.[/Q]

Yes, I edited that down, but I really intended to do it to get to the heart of your point, and not to twist it. Please let me know if you disagree.

But basically you said, its not fair to be pre-judged. I agree completely. So why was it then okay for Ken to prejudge the accuser on things like her background and by calling her a "crack whore", before we had any real sense of how legit any accusation may be. How it is fair to call it a lie simply because "white on black" crime apparently doesn't exist, even before we even have any specific suspects who could be guilty or innocent.


No one is saying that pre-judgement is right. I really did my best not to pretend that I knew the truth, as did, I believe, most people on here. How exactly is it okay to pre-judge the accuser, but not the players? Which is exactly what Ken stands for on this thread. Is it that poor and black can be pre-judged but not rich and white? Is it anything that matches Ken's viewpoint can be pre-judged, but not anything that doesn't?


I don't think anyone disagree with your point that this was a shame and not fair - if it does indeed turn out that this is a very bad case - but watch who you align yourself with and what they truly stand for.

[Redscore]

Fair points cth, Liz and DeltaOne.  I jumped into this thread late, read the postings quickly and focused on one aspect of Ken's arguments.  Agreed - it is not okay to pre-judge the accused OR the accuser.

[billhoward]

The Duke players were out of control but it took an accusation of a horrible nature to get the Duke community to look at the things that long ago should have been reigned in.

Athletes sometimes get rowdy when they're not actually on the field or the ice. But Duke seems to have carried this to excess ... no one (Pressler, the ex coach; or the athletic director) tried to or succeeded in keeping it down to a dull roar ... and now the team and to a lesser extent anyone who cares about Duke is paying the price.

Some of the publicity was unfair. The Newsweek cover story came really late, at the time the story seemed to be unraveling, and probably didn't deserve the cover at that point, but then Newsweek had a couple breaking news stories for the cover the previous couple weeks like the one about why women have trouble sleeping at night. (That was sarcastic but in reality it's stuff like that that's going to be the short term prop for newsweeklies that no longer have much news you don't already know about.)

[Ken '70]

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/436642.html

"The Duke lacrosse case was the overwhelming issue," said Philip Cousin, a longtime Durham Committee member who is also a Durham County commissioner and the minister at St. Joseph's AME Church. "I think a lot of people thought there wouldn't be any arrests. When Nifong came through with the indictments, that indicated to the black community he would be fair."

[Robb]

[Q]"I wanted to vote for Bishop, but I knew he didn't have a chance [of winning]," said Lynn Fofanah, a black woman interviewed Tuesday moments after she voted. "So I voted for Nifong."[/Q]

This one's my favorite.  Way to make your vote count for something, genius!  Congratulations on picking the winner, though.  ::rolleyes::

[billhoward]

"Mission Accomplished?" We're shocked, shocked, that a poliician would play an ethnic or race card.

For those who didn't follow this closely, the Duke players' troubles bubbled to the surface during the re-election campaign of District Attorney Mike Nifong, who defeated challengers Freda Black and Keith Bishop. Black is white. Bishop is not ordained but is black. Got that? The Bishop got the black endorsement. The white Black finished second. Black the candidate got more of the black vote than the black candidate Bishop, but Nifong, whose name doesn't have any connotation I can think of (unless it's Polynesian for paleface), got more of the black vote than Black or the black candidate. But Nifong also got 1 percentage point less of the black vote (44%) than Nifong got overall (45%). (Because the two challengers combined, Black and the black candidate, together got 56%.)

There are now reports one of the alleged exotic dancers is also part Asian. So far that part has not become a major issue unless there's a one-liner about thirty minutes later she was back again.

Okay, conservatives, let's see your spin on this one. If Rush is still in rehab, you're kind of on your own.

Can Ugarte work a standup sketch around this?


... and it's still a sad situation. The lacrosse players are still jerks whether or not they're felonious jerks, Duke's good name has been sullied, the town-gown schism deepened ... no winners in this one.

[billhoward]

[quote Robb][Q]"I wanted to vote for Bishop, but I knew he didn't have a chance [of winning]," said Lynn Fofanah, a black woman interviewed Tuesday moments after she voted. "So I voted for Nifong."[/Q]

This one's my favorite.  Way to make your vote count for something, genius!  Congratulations on picking the winner, though.  ::rolleyes::[/quote]

The woman's pragmatic. No ivory tower head in the clouds for her.

If one is a fan of Ralph Nader (I make almost no personal judgment on a guy who had his 15 minutes) but you know the guy has no chance of winning, do you vote for Ralph to make a statement, or do you go for the Democrat or Republican who will win and keep the guy you really don't want out of the White House. If you wanted to make a statement above all else, one hopes you're happy with the people now being seated left and right on the high court.