af40's Blog

The now-infamous Duke rape case and the fresh controversy surrounding comments made by TV "shock jock" Don Imus about the Rutgers University women's basketball team offer up a strange juxtaposition of how the media and public involvement is playing an increasingly salient role as the informal, yet biased, arbiter of contemporary American justice. Interestingly, the two cases crossed paths today: while charges against all three Duke lacrosse players were belatedly dropped, absent any evidence to substantiate the case prosecuted- or better said, persecuted- by disgraced Durham DA Mike Nifong, Don Imus' own metaphorical 'sentence' on his disgraceful behavior was just being pronouced, with his show's sponsors dropping out by the truckload and his MSNBC telecast of his radio show being scrapped. 

Strangely enough, in both cases students ended up the victims, but in the Duke case, those students were ultimately convicted by the media's speculations, while in the recent Imus case, the Rutgers students have been hailed for their bravery.

It is odd that this should be so. No evidence was ever found that would substantiate the claims made by the Duke players' accuser. Regardess, the three students were summarily suspended, and consequently and symbolically tarred and feathered in the media and by their own school.  Protests at Duke University, that included participation by numerous academics, called for the immediate dismissal of the students. In what should be considered one of the most egregious examples of injustice, the students' good names and reputations were permanently tarnished, dragged through the seemingly endless mire that has become American pop justice. Oddly, at no point did any prominent professor from the Duke University staff take a stand to defend the three students. The assumption of innocence before before proof of guilt was conspicuously absent among these arguably "liberal" academics, the same academics who frequently decry the same types of injustice when perpetrated by the justice system against minorities. Some of the same academics who were ready to crucify the Duke players jumped to the defense of the Rutgers players.

It is important to highlight this odd behavior on the part of members of academia here, because while the likes of such non-academics like Reverend Al Sharpton (of Tawana Brawley infamy) may be excused for their biased interest in politically milking the system for personal aggrandisement, the biased participation by otherwise obscure academics at Duke highlights a sad fact that is becoming increasingly evident: when you are a minority, the assumption is that any case against you is suspect and biased, while if you are white, and especially white, male, and rich, the assumption is that you are guilty. The extreme hypocrisy in this appears not to register on the radar of the liberal university elite, who frequently pride themselves in highighting the conservative's hypocrisy in defending the elite white class over the disposessed and oppressed rest. According to the liberal elite, in America if you are minority, you can do no wrong. But if you are white, and especially a white male, you are by defnition a racist, and it therefore behooves you to prove your innocence, since guilt is assumed by association to your racist white forebears.

The Don Imus case is clearly different in some respects. It is fairly evident, for example, that the radio host used vulgar and defamatory language, even if one might mitigate the gravity of that language by arguing that it was contextually-based (bad) humor. Imus went over the line, and he should account for that. Unlike the gray haze that enveloped the Duke players for over a year, the evidence against Imus in the court of public opinion is not hard to find. Yet there are distinct similarities between the Duke and Imus cases.

First, it seems that the media is increasingly pre-disposed to pronounce their own sentence. Media commentators are quick to comment on what party they feel is guilty even without full knowledge of the facts. Second, the bar for using the race card is set much lower when a supposed offender is accused of racism. Note how in both cases, university students ultimately suffered from the notoriety and media exposure, but in the case of the Duke players, that exposure was exceedingly negative and presumptive. The Rutgers women's basketball team- indeed innocent regardless of the nature of Imus' comments- is being hailed as heroic and exemplary. Why is it that the Duke players- who were just as innocent as the Rutgers women players and arguaby even more negatively affected- are not seen in the same positive light?

In fact, one can argue that taking a stand to defend one's innocence in the face of harsh media-fueled vitriol is even braver than using the media's encouragement to play the victim role. I cannot imagine what kinds of suffering the Duke families went through for over a year. I cannot imagine how I might feel if I saw all that I had worked for dissolve before my eyes. I cannot imagine how I would react to so much hatred from my own peers and college professors, who should know better. Sure, I feel for the Rutgers women's team. They worked very hard and achieved a lot, both on and off the court. But no one took their accomplishments away from them. If anything, the Rutgers female students will be remembered for their accomplishments ironically because of Imus' comments. By contrast, the Duke students will probably never get back what was taken away from them, and they will forever wear the infamous stamp of "R" for rapist.

Ultimately, it doesn't take much bravery to play the victim card, especially when the media is on your side.

Finally, I find it outrageous that the same type of misogynist, racist comments made by Don Imus can be perpetuated on radio stations that play rap music- notorious for this type of language- without any consequence. Why is it that the same media and academic elite who set the bar so low to convict a white man for making racist comments completely ignore demeaning and racist language by rap stars? The argument that "if you're black, you can say the 'n' word" is nonsense. In no way does any derogatory and slanderous language become better if it is said by someone who might himself be offended by that language. And much of the language in rap music is misogynistic- meaning that it directly attacks white as well as black women.

Where is the media's outrage here?