Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors!

Disclaimer: I’m a Liberal Professor, so make of that what you will.

Earlier this week, Mike and the Mad Dog interviewed Mike Pressler, former Duke Lacrosse coach, and Don Yaeger, who is the author of the newly released book: It’s Not About the Truth. I have not had a chance to read the book yet and, therefore, I am not going to comment on it. I’ll just comment on some of the issues raised in the interview.

I should start by noting that there’s a debate about whether sports talk radio hosts are journalists, or entertainers. The debate matters if we want to know what sorts of factual standards hosts should be held to. If the goal is to be bombastic, provocative and opinionated, one could argue that a certain shoddiness with the facts is fine, because that’s what happens in ordinary conversations – people say things that aren’t necessarily precisely true, but that’s OK because they’re just giving their opinion. If the hosts, however, regard themselves as something more than just two guys talking – that they have an authority, or an expertise on the issues that entitles them to a certain credibility, then the question of journalistic standards becomes more relevant in judging them. I can’t say that I have ever heard Mike Francesa or Chris Russo describe themselves as journalists. But, there’s no doubt that facts matter to them and that they often chastise callers (and guests) for getting their facts wrong. Mike and the Dog do entertain but they also both clearly see themselves as possessing credible opinions because of what they know. (and, their audience, it would appear, generally agrees).

Which is why their interview of Pressler and Yaeger was so lame – an ideological screed dressed up as a serious discussion of the Duke Lacrosse case.

First, let me express skepticism about their concern with a “rush to judgment.” There was a “rush to judgment” in the Duke case. That’s not my point. But, Francesa and Russo have, over the years, like many sports talk radio hosts, immediately assumed the worst about a professional athlete upon the first report of potential wrong-doing by that athlete. And, in many cases, neither a grand jury indictment nor even a charge has been necessary to spur contempt and lamentations about “today’s athlete.” There are alot of people out there now decrying how people reacted to this case without acknowledging a simple truth – there are very few instances in which a prosecutor’s assertion about the likelihood that a crime has been committed is challenged in the early stages of a case. Our entire system of grand jury indictment is biased in favor of prosecutors and few challenge the validity of that system. And, Russo in particular has, on numerous occasions, disparaged things like people’s rights to due process, their right to protection from unlawful search and seizure, or the niceties of the law when it comes to allowing the legal process to play itself out before determining someone’s guilt or punishing them. We give prosecutors extremely wide latitude in bringing criminal cases. Not, infrequently, that leads to serious miscarriages of justice. You would never know that, however, to listen discussions of the Duke case in much of the media.

As for the substance of the discussion itself, much of it recounted Coach Pressler’s experience of events as those events unfolded after March 13, 2006. But, interjected throughout the conversations were a surreal mix of comments. In one sentence, Coach Pressler would decry “people painting us with the same broad brush.” And, in the next breath, Francesa would make a comment like: “99% of professors are left, of left, of left” a statement that is not only not even close to factually accurate, but also is entirely overblown as an explanation for how events transpired at Duke last year. To give another example, Coach Pressler would say “everyone was using this case to advance their personal causes.” This, in the midst of an interview which argued, a la the best right-wing talk radio, that “you get a liberal faculty impacting a liberal president” so that, of course, this was the outcome. Yes, speaking of personal agendas.

I said this recently in responding to Rick Reilly’s column about Pressler, but I will repeat: When you have such a strong case (in this instance of gross prosecutorial misconduct), why do you need to airbrush out every fact that doesn’t support you’re black and white view of the situation? At one point during the interview, Russo asked Coach Pressler whether he had any regrets, anything he wished he’d done differently, Pressler answered with a Bush-like categorical “no.” Though the tone of the interview was overwhelmingly indulgent and non-confrontational, it’s clear that Russo was surprised by this answer, because he asked it again (and got the same answer). Could Pressler really mean that? The Coleman report, which the four men in the studio all discussed in approving terms (with Russo noting it said nice things about the Lacrosse players) makes abundantly clear that there was an off-field disciplinary problem with the team, almost all of it related to alcohol consumption. And, though it’s true that drinking is a common behavior/problem on college campuses, the Coleman report was clear: “over the last five years, however, many lacrosse players increasingly have been socially irresponsible consumers of alcohol. Their extensive record of repetitive misconduct should have alarmed administrators responsible for student discipline.” The Reilly piece cited the Lacrosse players’ 100% graduation rate under Pressler clearly not in order to tout their academic performance, but to suggest that they possessed exemplary character. The Coleman report takes a more nuanced view of this issue, asserting that their academic and athletic performance was “exemplary” but noting that this was in contrast to their “socially irresponsible” behavior. And, though boys will be boys, the Coleman report states that the number of team members implicated in misconduct and the “number of alchohol-related incidents involving them have been excessive compared to other Duke athletic teams.”

And, on the question of Coach Pressler’s awareness of his players’ off-field conduct, the Coleman report makes clear that administrators did an inadequate job of bringing players’ misconduct to the attention of the coach, the Coleman report makes clear that Pressler was informed of his team’s “problematic disciplinary record.” So, there was no question that his players had a track record when it came to alcohol. And, yet, there is nothing the coach feels he should have or could have done differently?  Let me interject here and say, so that nobody misunderstands me, none of this means that the three falsely accused players got what they deserved. But, is it too much to ask that Coach Pressler at least acknowledge that the team that he coached and for which, therefore, he was responsible, had a noteworthy off-field disciplinary record that probably required more discipline than he was giving it? If you want to argue that pro coaches can’t be held responsible for player misconduct off the field (think Marvin Lewis and the Bengals), that’s one thing. But, you can’t plausibly extend that argument to college. Pressler does seem to have been kept in the dark about some incidents. But, he knew enough to know that there was a problem.
None of this has seemed to matter these days. What was a terribly mishandled case by an infuriatingly irresponsible prosecutor has been elevated to the worst injustice in the history of American jurisprudence. But, what stands out about this case is how total has been the exoneration in this case and how thoroughly the prosecutor has been vilified. There have been plenty of innocent people indicted for crimes they did not commit in the state of North Carolina these past few years (and plenty that went to jail for crimes they didn’t commit). And, yet, I cannot remember, in my seventeen years here, a prosecutor being so publicly disgraced.

One other note concerning the repeated harping on the liberal professors and their responsibility for this fiasco. The notorious eighty-eight professors who wrote the “listening statement” last year that has drawn so much venom, was a significant topic of conversation during the interview. Not the substance of it, none of which was discussed (you can read it here and judge for yourself what you think of it. scroll down to the bottom of the link). Instead, the implication, clear from the amount of attention the 88 professors received in the interview, was that they played a major role in what happened to the players and the coach. One problem with this assertion is that the statement appeared in the Duke Chronicle on April 6, 2006 (and makes no mention of the coach). And, Coach Pressler was told he was being fired on April 5, one day earlier, by the athletic director Joe Alleva. And, the immediate precipitant for the decision to fire the coach was clear – the emergence of an email sent by one of the players joking about having another party at which strippers could be skinned alive.

Was it perhaps too easy for professors, students and others to use the allegations made to push broader claims about racism and sexism at Duke and in society more generally? Sure. There’s plenty of hyperbole around those sorts of issues on college campuses and such tendencies were, from people at Duke have told me, especially prevalent during that period of time. But, it has been nothing more than an ideologically motivated stretch to make 88 professors (out of the 2500 or so faculty at Duke) co-conspirators in the case itself.

The discussion was little better in covering other issues. At one point, the discussion turned to the financial impact of the case on Duke. Yaeger asserted that one economist told him the case could cost the university $100 million. And, it’s true that, with lawyers’ fees, settlements and the like, the university will have paid out several million dollars in relation to the case. But, one hundred million? Where does that figure come from? In 2006, Duke University, an already very rich school, had it’s best year ever in terms of development (that is, fundraising). And, it’s incoming classes, though there’s some evidence they were affected by the case the past year, remain at full capacity, as flush with outstanding students as always. Francesa, who loves to talk dollars and cents (though not necessarily do any research about such matters), jumped on this claim and added that it would also hurt the State of North Carolina. How this is so I leave to your imagination, because I have no idea.

By all accounts, the case has continued to hang over the campus, and people with knowledge of such matters tell me that surveys and focus groups that Duke has conducted show that people now link the University to the case, a reality that will likely linger for some time. And, yes, the coach lost his job. But, if the case is supposed to serve as a cautionary tale about the perils of a rush to judgment and the unfairness of painting all people from one group with the same broad brush, then those lessons were clearly lost on the four men who were actually discussing them.


55 Responses to “Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors!”

  1. Who gives a shit about Russo and Francesa and what they think? This is the best you can do to spin this story your own way? By taking two shock-jock’s comments re: the case and attacking them? Truly pathetic.

    Why don’t you save some of your venom for a) that whore of a stripper who deserves to be locked up right now; b) all those fools who “marched” against “rape and hate crime at Duke”; c) your boys Al & Jesse, the two great leaders of the “black community,” one for drawing parallels between this case and Abner Louima, the other for editorializing on the case before the facts were in and for joining the other race-baiters in their “protest”; d)and yes, those reprehensible liberal professors who baited the campus with their “social disaster” bullshit — there needs to be no implication, those professors should all be fired.

    But no, you are more concerned with the Duke players’ drinking habits (holy shit! college people drink, excessively, alllll the time!), and about how the coach dealt with their partying, and about debating how much money this whole thing will cost the university. Nobody cares about these things, but it is your prerogative, as a white liberal with a guilty conscience, to cloud the real issues here, because you know you are on the losing side.

  2. And also, where’s the outrage at the liberal press for villifying these three kids in a case that had essentially zero evidence: the New York Times, for one, which ran this “story” on its front page for what seemed like 50 straight days, and Nancy Grace of CNN, who basically convicted these kids on national television on a weekly basis. If this website had even passing interest in being unbiased, its writers would save some of their condemnations for those two media outlets. I won’t be holding my breath.

  3. Finally, before I get pounced on in here, I suggest reading up on this case from another professor, one who actually knows what he’s talking about:

    re: Jesse Jackson’s involvement:


    re: sportswriters’ reaction (this is what you guys do, right? attack sportswriters for the stupid shit they say? there is no shortage of material here):


  4. Jason: can you really justify calling this woman a “whore”? How can you justify that? That’s straight-up misogyny coming from a hateful person. Don’t try to take the moral high ground if you are going to use such hateful misogynist terms.

  5. PV – she falsely accused these kids — knowingly, I might add — of raping her anally, vaginally, and orally. She stuck to her lies while three innocent kids were proclaimed guilty — guilty of rape — by news organizations (NYT, CNN) and commenters (Jesse, Al, Feinstein) across the country; as professors and students at the players’ own college “marched” against them; while the DA went on a mission to not let these kids “get away” with it, calling them a “bunch of hooligans,” and who ignored and did not turn over DNA evidence that would’ve proven their innocence, etc. Meanwhile their season was canceled and their coach was forced to resign. And all for what? Because this “nice young lady” made up a story that she knew a certain group of people would get behind her for, and she thought she was going to get away with it. This girl is far worse than what I called her, PV.

    But please, by all means, continue playing semantics with a single word in my post and ignore the true issues in this situation. After all, I could easily imagine you as one of those elitist 88 professors, drumming up racial tensions left and right for their own agenda. Because from your perspective, even the tragedies in this case “don’t make up for slavery,” or whatever nonsense it was that you were saying in the “Double Standards” post, so I guess this whole thing sits just fine with you.

  6. Jason, you don’t know anything about what I think about this situation: I’ve never talked about it. Feel free to make whatever assumptions you would like. I will continue to take exception to hate-filled words directed at women, regardless of whether you think she deserves such a word.

  7. PV, the floor is yours, what are you waiting for?

  8. I don’t have anything to say about this case; I really haven’t paid close enough attention to it.

    The reason I responded at all was in reaction to the casual use of the word “whore.”

    It bothers me how easily negative words for women are thrown around in our culture (I’ve said it before: if Don Imus had merely called those girls “hos” instead of “nappy headed hos,” I wonder if anybody would have noticed: such terminology is just so common).

    It bothers me that there are so many negative words for women (particularly promiscuous women), and there are few to no equivalent negative words for men (or promiscuous men).

    So I attempt to say so when I see it.

  9. Well, considering that it was all over the news and SportsCenter for an entire year, that it involves gender, race, class, the judicial system, academia, etc., and seeing your ability to comment on a wide-range of issues, if find this hard to believe — but be that as it may.

    And there are many pejorative words that are thrown around to describe men: dickhead and prick are two off the top of my head, but I guess that terminology is also so common that nobody bothers to notice either.

  10. jweiler – the points about whether these sports reporters are mere entertainers or actual journalists is a good one. Unfortunately, too often you have entertainers passing off as serious journalists. This results in facts being skipped or left out, etc. It’s a shame.

    As far as Duke Lacrosse, my honest reaction is for all those who opposed these guys to just let it go. The actions of the school and the professors here were particularly problematic because it made the guys look just that much more guilty.

    Jason, I think the entire reaction by the media, faculty, students, etc showed just how many racial problems existed below the surface at Duke (and for the record, I have several friends who are alumni of the school both black and white so my opinion comes from their thoughts on the whole thing as well). It’s unfortunate to me that it was a false accusation that brought them to light because perhaps something positive could have come out of it all.

  11. Jason, I don’t get ESPN, and there are many news stories I don’t follow very closely.

    Do you seriously think there are as many derogatory words for men as there are for women, or that the derogatory words for men come with the same negative connotations as derogatory words for women? It’s simply not true.

    Make a list of words to describe promiscuous women. After you’re done, make a list of words to describe promiscuous men. See which list is longer, and see whether the words have negative associations or not.

    I can think of dozens of negative words for promiscuous women. The only words for promiscuous men either have positive associations, or are co-opted from negative words for women. This is pretty indisputable.

  12. I think this discussion is distracting from the points jweiler is trying to make.

    However, if you’re interested in learning about the sexism inherent in the English language, here’s a good starting point:

    “Sexism in English” by Alleen Pace Nilson

    A version of it is here:


    It’s a solid look at how our language often gives negative connotations to women.

  13. PV–

    there’s another good article out there by Robert Baker called “Pricks and Chicks: A Plea for Persons” , but i can’t seem to locate it online. however, it’s been anthologized pretty extensively (that’s how i got a hold of it), so you should be able to find it at an online bookseller. it’s a good read.

  14. No, obviously there are many more derogatory words for men than there are for women; I was merely saying some do exist for men as well. But I think this “point” has about zero relevance to the issue at hand.

  15. Very interesting commentary, well done.

  16. Jason

    A few things:

    1) I talk about Francesa and Russo a fair bit because they are giants in sports talk radio with a huge audience. So, from the point of view of sports media – the answer to the question: “who gives a shit” what they think is – a lot of people.

    2) Yaeger and Pressler are starting the book tour, so it’s a fair bet that we’ll be hearing this stuff repeated a lot in the coming weeks.

    3)You make it sound as if you are among a few brave souls speaking truth to power by pointing out what has, in fact, been repeated endlessly in every major media outlet for several months now – that the accusations against the three players was false and the prosecutor out of control. So, no I didn’t feel a need to repeat what everyone already knows. And, as I said, the prosecutor in this case was “infuriatingly irresponsible” and guilty of gross misconduct. Not the venom you want, apparently, but pretty clear as to my views of Nifong, at least.

    4) I’d love to see a citation of the NY Times pronouncing the three players “guilty.” If you’ve got any in mind, please let me know. On the claim that the story was on the front page for “what seemed like fifty straight days,” I did a Lexis-Nexus search for the four months following the night of the party.

    There were a total of 51 entries. According to Lexis-Nexus, the first time the Times wrote about the story was on March 30, seventeen days after the night of the party. Two of the entries are letters to the paper about the case. Almost every other story about the case appears in the sports section. The majority of these are reporting about the case. Several pieces that appear in the news section are are op-ed columns – by David Brooks and Nicholas Kristof – all of these criticize the prosecutor, the case and the rush to judgment. There is not, from what I can tell, a single story appearing on the front page of the New York Times. Nor is there a single proclamation of guilt by the New York Times.

    I know, I know, this is besides the point. You can say whatever you want, because of your righteous anger at the way white men are treated, as exemplified by this case, so anybody who actually calls for some modicum of factual accuracy or proportion is just an elitist, or has no idea what he’s talking or is pushing agenda (which you, presumably, are not). But, to say that the story was on the Times’ front page for what seemed to you like 50 straight days when the real answer is more like “zero” – doesn’t that give you any pause about your perceptions in this matter?

    5) Do you actually expect to be taken seriously when you say that 88 professors should be fired for signing a petition? And, you can imagine what you want about me but, actually, for all sorts of reasons I would not have signed that petition. But, Jason, you don’t actually care what I think on these matters – you just want an opportunity to vent your spleen about “elitist” professors.

    6) Jason – you’re right about one important point. We all – you, me, everybody – have different pet peeves that push our buttons. You’ve made yours clear, and I’ve made mine clear. Once this case started to fall apart, by last May, the players had vastly more than their fair share of advocates. I write about what I think are the unfair attacks on groups of people in this society that are a repeated target of right-wing ideological bias and do not, in my view, get a fair hearing in mainstream media, specifically sports media. I know you called my last column “nonsense,” but it’s my opinion that no one can objectively at American society today and tell themselves that white men have become a singularly victimized group. That is, in my view, preposterous. By the way, I appreciate your interest in vigorous debate. It keeps things lively, and helps stave off complacency.

  17. Oh, the poor Duke lacrosse kids, I spent all day crying for these worthless vermin. The tragedy of a group of drunks, who often yelled racial epithets at bypassers. The one kid Finnerty was also on probation for gay-bashing, hate crime, and a felony. Of course his daddy hired some big time lawyer, or probably is a big time lawyer, so he got away with a slap on the wrist. When they were accused of this crime, they were kicked out of their little rich kid school. Why?

    Because their kind, don’t believe they should associate with the lower end of society. Nor did their school believe that they should be given their day in court. They, the school and the kids, have no sense of justice. After all how could you, when you’ve been spoon fed everything your entire life. You don’t understand the realities of life, why the real world bears down on some people.

    Listening to those pathetic whining losers crying about how traumatized they were by the whole experience was a comedy all in itself. Welcome to the real world you “girly-men”, now talk to my man Genarlow Wilson about injustice. These losers didn’t even go to jail, they had to spend the school year interning at their parent’s companies. What a tough life?

    Try being a black kid in NY looking down a 25 to life sentence, because you were in the wrong hood at the wrong time and the police just don’t give a damn. No fancy lawyers, no nothing, just a possible plea-bargain. That’s the other side of life.

    So now we have to stand by and listen to the media defend this group of cowards. Listen to them whine about the injustice, the terrible behavior of an overzealous prosecutor, and even worse we have to hear it from whiny white men, who don’t understand the only thing holding THEM back is THEMSELVES.

  18. JW, thanks for your reply.

    I will touch on your other points later when I have more time, but I did want to address one thing you wrote. And that is, whatever Lexis search you are using, you may need to take a refresher course on how to use it. The first report from the NYT came on March 29, 2006 with an 1100 word front page article. Don’t believe me, the public editor at the time says so himself:


    His column is from April 23 – a mere three weeks after the Times first article – and it in he says the Times has published “more than 20” stories re: the Duke case. That’s 20 stories in a three week span. Here’s another front page story from August 25, which runs 5700 words long:


    And here’s an article from New York Magazine — far from an “ideological right wing” publication — discussing the Times’ coverage of the case:


    I can perform other basic Google “research” later, but please save your “modicum of factual accuracy” for someone else.

  19. And here’s more on the Times, if you’re really interested in their coverage:


  20. jweiler Says:


    My bad on the Lexis-Nexus search. You’re right, I do need to brush up on my lexus search skills. I only searched the first four months after the night of the party, since the coverage had died down by the summer time, so I would’ve missed the Wilson piece in any event. But, I will point out that while I was wrong to say that the number of front page stories was zero in those months, the actual number, including the Wilson piece was, it appears, two. I think you’d agree that this is still a pretty far cry from something like 50 days in a row of front page coverage and also still doesn’t rise to the level of your assertion – that the Times pronounced the three men guilty. (and every major media outlet – regardless of political orientation, gave the case lots of coverage). And, of note, is that the two op-ed columnists who wrote about the case in the news section – Brooks and Kristof, challenged the accusations and criticized the case – Kristof (the liberal) in his lone column on the matter, and Brooks (the conservative) in his final two columns on the case (and the first one was just a dumb, opaque attempt to look clever). I know the right believes the Times is an evil left-wing outlet, but that leaves important anomalies to explain – Judy Miller’s egregiously incorrect reporting on WMD before the war in Iraq, and the Times badly discredited reporting on Whitewater (which, though also a bullshit story, did make the front page for long stretches of time) being two such examples.

    I am not making excuses – I made a mistake in my initial search. And, the Johnson post you link to is a good dissection of the Wilson piece. So, thanks for that.

  21. jw,

    This is one of your best. Well done.



    A worthwhile read.

    Also, the classic:


  22. Don’t forget about Va Tech. Liberal professors are to blame for that, too.

  23. Was my last post removed?

  24. Jason,

    First of all…has there ever been a high-profile criminal case where everyone hasn’t blown it out of proportion and assumed the person is guilty? Have you watched ESPN lately (Vick)…did you see the Kobe Bryant case? Did you mention NANCY GRACE…Nancy Grace is a hack prosecutor and she thinks EVERYONE is guilty–she almost cried on the air when Michael Jackson was acquitted. People rush to judgment on EVERY SINGE high-profile case. So don’t try to make this more egregious than all the others. In fact, it was probably the mildest–the boys didn’t even have to go to trial, and had their money to sit on…they did just fine.

    The real issue here is the reaction to this case relative to other cases where people are incorrectly prosecuted. This happens ALL THE TIME, and there are so many injustices in the legal system (i’ll use Kobe just because it was the same kind of case). Kobe was wrongly accused and the media jumped out all over him like it always does. He case was dropped–but for some reason there were no cries to throw in jail the “whore” that wrongly accused him, or disbar the DA who was trying to get brownie points with his all white constituency (just like Nifong was with his all black constituency). But when it happens to these guys…there’s all this righteous outcry and media pressure to condemn the DA and the woman. THe difference between the cases…I don’t know.

    Jw….good point about the lacrosse players past misconduct. At the college I attend, they are the WORST, and it comes from beign in that insulated private school atmosphere, being extremely rich, and just not giving a shit about the laws. These guys are often extremely arrogant, treat everyone as though they’re beneath them, and think there are no consequences to their actiosn. And often because daddy dearest is a donor at the school, and has got good “Jew lawyers” (lol, sorry…just making a joke) on their side, there rarely are.

  25. AP,
    Speaking of reactions to similar cases….I’m still waiting on the picture, name and life history of the young woman that accused Kobe Bryant of rape. It took FoxNews all of 2 seconds to make the decision to release all of that information about the young woman in the Duke Lacrosse case.

  26. Ap, I’ll rely when my previous post is restored.

  27. Sorry – reply*

  28. Interesting read, makes some good points. Lacrosse players like to party, it’s true… and a lot of them are rich, also true… but so are a lot of other college students out there. Lacrosse players might party harder than other athletes, but they have nothing on the people who play no athletics, and thus have unlimited time to party. It’s not about how they compare to other sports, and their lifestyle choices… just as people made the argument to not judge the accuser for her job or past issues. Partying and being arrogant might not be ideal in your eyes, but they aren’t illegal.

    You can’t put the “should have done more” bit on Pressler, if you are gonna assume that college students who act “socially irresponsible” need to be dealt with in some way, and should be addressed, you are gonna kick out half the student body at most colleges. If the administrators are letting the coach know about the situations, why aren’t they in fact acting on them. Does it mean that if you aren’t an athlete and you engage in that kind of behaviour at college that it’s perfectly okay because there is no Coach or Team involved? College athletes are commonly called “student athletes”, so why is the coach only responsible? Are the teachers and academic advisors not a part of a students life? When does the coach become fully responsible for the “student athlete” and the professors and advisors exempt? Granted a coach will have a great part in shaping the person the athlete is, but so will the professor. Just an interesting double standard I fail to see mentioned anywhere, including this article.

    I think the professors who were a part of the infamous rush to judgement, should probably make a statement regarding their errs… not because they owe it to the players, but because it’s the right thing to do. They were wrong, the only person even admitting that is Nifong… but he doesn’t have many options. It would just be nice for people (the school, educators, jesse jackson, etc) involved in pronouncing the players guilty, to own up to it… but their failure to is not unique to this case.

    Jay Goober, you are everything that is wrong with this country. There is nothing less or more tragic about the situation here, compared to Genarlow Wilson, but ya know what? Genarlow Wilson actually broke a law (an archaic law), and actually did what he was accused of. This situation involves false accusations and a lot of people with yout like minded ignorant minds thinking rich white kids should pay for not having to struggle in life. It’s one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard, and absolutely unfortunate, however the only reason we even hear about it is because he had a promising athletic career ahead of him. Injustices happen every day, being rich and arrogant, and an easier life absolutely do not take away from the injustice. The whole, “The man is keeping us (whoever us may be) down” thing has gotten old, you are the only thing holding yourselves back. You just come off sounding like someone who is jealous they didn’t get to have the privileged life.

    Miranda, meet google (www.google.com), it’s this crazy thing where you can search the WHOLE internet. I just found out about it too. My favourite thing I found was this (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=kobe+bryant+accuser&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8), crazy huh? You can even click on images and see pictures of her. For life story, head over here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant's_accuser), I had to get that address from Al Gore, cause it’s secret “Internet Inventor” only status, but he tells me this wikipedia thing is gonna be huge. In a few minutes on the internet at the peak of that whole scandal , I was able to find Katelyn’s IM screen name (complete with people prank iming her), her myspace page, and her email address. Katelyn’s identity was announced on a nationally syndicated radio show the same month as the accusations, and her picture flooded the internet the same month. She was harassed, chasitised, called a whore, and someone even offered to kill her. Personally my thoughts on Kobe’s accuser are pretty much the exact hatred I share for the accuser in the Duke case, and anyone who makes the tragedy of rape less believable. Thanks for playing “let’s twist reality on the internet”, better luck next time.

  29. Randall,
    Perhaps I didn’t make it clear…I meant pics of Kobe’s accuser have never appeared on any of the mainstream media sites, CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, MSN…those sites…not wikipedia or some celeb/gossip site. The young lady in the Duke case appeared on the hompage of FoxNews…..a nice big glossy for the world to see….so whatever point you were trying to make…it failed.

  30. […] Earlier this week, Mike and the Mad Dog interviewed Mike Pressler, former Duke Lacrosse coach, and Don Yaeger, who is the author of the newly released book: It s Not About the Truth. I have not had a chance to read the book yet and, … …Sportzia More […]

  31. wayne fontes Says:

    For those of you debating the semantics of whether or not the woman should be called a whore bear in mind she was a prostitute.

    Yes Pessler is overstating his case but faculty at Duke did more than sign the listening statement. Duke recently settled a grade retaliation suite against href=”http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/dowd-and-duke.html “>Kim Curtis by one of the lacrosse players. She is still teaching at Duke. href=”http://www.ephblog.com/archives/003973.html”>Grant Farred called Duke students who registered to vote in Durham racist and stated the players had perjured themselves. href=”http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/sfonline/sport/holloway_01.htm”>Karla Holloway wrote this screed long after the rush to judgment was over and evidence had become public. Other professors segregated lacrosse players from the rest of the students in the classroom (for the other students safety!) or launched into lectures about the sins of slavery and white privilege. This spring href=”http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/02/group-of-88-for-credit.html”>Anne Allison of G88 fame taught a course focusing on the lacrosse scandal featuring materials that still presumed the players guilt.

    Duke href=”http://www.fortyquestions.blogspot.com/>settled with the indicted lacrosse players on Monday. The settlement included protection against further claims against the faculty. I think jwieler can agree these aren’t the actions of liberal professors.

  32. TheLastPoet Says:


    I could give a shit about the rest of your complaints against the 88 professors at Duke.

    But please refrain from calling a Black woman, a mother of two, and a college student, who danced exotically at strip clubs and parties, a “prostitute.”

    By doing so, you offend the sensibilities of many Black women everywhere, as well as anyone who knows and loves Black women.

    You also offend the sensibilities of anyone who has any knowledge of the English language and what the word “prostitute” actually means (versus what it connotes, which is the obvious affect you’re after, ie, to misrepresent and unfairly denigrate a woman, and to do so in a society that makes it easy by already beginning the subjugating process for you)… coward.

  33. Well, she was an escort and worked for an escort service.
    She also clearly had alot of mental issues.
    I think it is pretty safe to say that she was a prostitute.


  34. Okay we all get it. The Duke 3 were wronged. They were apparently falsely accused and falsely charged. The world can now get back to rotating on its axis. But the outrage, oh the OUTRAGE of the ‘RIGHT standing citizens brigade’ is deafening. Injustice for anyone is intolerable; however, as we’ve learned through the Duke case, injustice to Rich White kids is even more intolerable. As a matter of fact, the mere thought of the Duke 3 being wrongly ACCUSED means that charges must and will be levied against any and all officials that presided over this case. Fine, I have no problem with this. However I DO have a problem when this happens to poor kids and the Essex Fells NJ types take the ‘they had to have done something to get arrested’ attitude. It’s amazing that the one time the tables are turned the conservative sports media (Fatman and Little Boy) are, what else, OUTRAGED. Kobe is still a rapist, Michael Jackson is still a child molester, Jordan is still a gambler and Bonds, of course, is still an impotent roid abuser. The Duke 3, however, are innocent ‘kids’ that were just having fun calling Black women niggers in the midst of their drunken stupors. In other words, deserving of a hero’s welcome and a ‘Standing Ovation’

  35. Hey that’s cool man, I was just correcting an error.

  36. Duke has a law school. Perhaps one of the liberal friends of the liberal professor will bring charges against the young lady for bearing false witness.

    I don’t know what liberal means in this context, but I voted for Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern and would do so again.


  37. Any town like barbaric Durham that would invite a hate group like the New Black Panthers to scream death threats at college kids and still hasn’t apologized deserves the lawsuits it’s about to be smacked with.

  38. news source…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  39. pujcky v ostrave…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  40. teamPoker…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  41. teen sex…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  42. mafia war 2 bot…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  43. download mafia wars 2 hack tool…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  44. empires and allies trainer…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  45. dead rising 2 product key generator…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  46. batman arkham city god mode…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  47. black currant oil…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  48. easy charcoal drawings…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  49. natural products online, natural skin care, baby products…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  50. MMO…

    […]Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! « The Starting Five[…]…

  51. “Jay Goober Says:
    June 16, 2007 at 12:44 am
    Oh, the poor Duke lacrosse kids, I spent all day crying for these worthless vermin. The tragedy of a group of drunks, who often yelled racial epithets at bypassers. The one kid Finnerty was also on probation for gay-bashing, hate crime, and a felony. Of course his daddy hired some big time lawyer, or probably is a big time lawyer, so he got away with a slap on the wrist. When they were accused of this crime, they were kicked out of their little rich kid school. Why?”

    This post is a excellent example of the hypocrisy and stupidity of extreme liberals.

    You pay lip service to “equality” when it serves your interests but when it’s someone you don’t like (in this case rich white kids) you see them as a racial group instead of individuals then assume they can’t feel any negative feeling because of their race. Do you know how much of a hypocrite that makes you since you sound like a guy that never stops crying “racism!”?

    Also here’s the bigger problem with liberals. They frequently bring up the character of the accused lacrosse players AS IF ANY OF THAT IS RELEVANT!!!!

    Lets say hypothetically there is a woman, and she’s a horrible person. Does that mean she deserves to get raped? No.

    How about we as a society stop blaming the victim whether it’s men or women?

    Also blaming people because of wha their ancestors did? It’s absolutley barbaric and stupid. A lot of liberals seem to be drawing on legitimate grievances, whether it’s Jim Crow or Slavery or historic oppression of women. Well you know what? The people that commited those atrocities are dead.

    Go build a timemachine and punish the people who deserve it. What you’re doing is beyond vindictive. “White men once oppressed a bunch of people so we’re going to settle the score”. You may not think that’s what you’re doing but it’s exactly what you’re doing.

    I have no ideology, I’m neither a liberal or a conservative. I care about the truth and the undeniable truth is that these Duke lacrosse players were innocent and the prosecutor was beyond incompetent/biased/malicious in how he dealt with it and the liberal media/social justice warriors/and faculty were absolutley outrageous on how they treated this.

    People seem to never learn the correct lessons from history whether it’s Jim Crow, McCarthyism or the Holocaust. ITS NOT “Black people are always the oppressed and whites the oppressors”, “It’s not McCarthy and all the other conservatives were wrong”.

    The lesson is that you should treat everyone the same regardless of their race or their class. And no it doesn’t matter if historically black people have gotten on the wrong end of this, it doesn’t mean it makes the inverse (rich white people getting screwed) any more right. Justice is suppose to be BLIND, Justice isn’t suppose to consider prior racial history.

  52. Ap,

    It has never been proven that Kobe Bryant was falsely accused. Not sure where you’re getting that from.

    Go do a Google search on “Kobe Bryant rape case” if anyone who doesn’t believe me.

    What happened was the case was settled out of court and Kobe had to issue a vague press release that apologized to his accuser but didn’t admit guilt.

    “He case was dropped–but for some reason there were no cries to throw in jail the “whore” that wrongly accused him, or disbar the DA who was trying to get brownie points with his all white constituency (just like Nifong was with his all black constituency).”

    There are HUGE differences between the two situation. First of all we don’t know if the Kobe accuser really was lying, or the accuser really was raped but couldn’t take the pressure of the trial so she just cut her losses.

    As for the DA in the Kobe case he didn’t violate the law like Nifong did.

    That’s what makes the Duke Lacrosse Case so galling, we now know that they were 100% innocent and not only that but the prosecutor was so biased he wouldn’t even hand over evidence to defense lawyers and was eventually disbarred because his conduct was so outrageous.


    You’re dangerously equating the two cases when there are some key differences, and I fear this is what other people will think. That this is no big deal, it happens with BLACK people all the time but the outrage is more muted.

    This isn’t about race, it’s about a case handled so poorly and people rushing to judgement so quickly hopped up on their liberal indignation.

    “THe difference between the cases…I don’t know.”

    In a nutshell? We still don’t know if Kobe is guilty of rape. We do know the Duke Lacrosse players were guilty 100% and not only that but the DA was absolutley criminal in his pursuit of them to the point where he got disbarred and his accuser is a confirmed liar.

    “Jw….good point about the lacrosse players past misconduct. At the college I attend, they are the WORST, and it comes from beign in that insulated private school atmosphere, being extremely rich, and just not giving a shit about the laws. These guys are often extremely arrogant, treat everyone as though they’re beneath them, and think there are no consequences to their actiosn.”

    Again, it simply doesn’t matter whether the Lacrosse players were the nicest guy sin the world or members of the KKK.

    That’s simply not how our legal system works. Our legal system is built to be objective and not biased. When you try to determine guilt based on your subjective reasoning (they’re white, they’re arrogant, they’re jerks) that’s just mob justice!

    If there’s a lesson it’s don’t jump to conclusions, don’t let emotions get ahead of logical thinking and don’t just automatically believe something because everyone else is.

    Japanese Internment. Did that happen because white people are inherently evil and racist?

    No it happened because people believed stupid rumors about how the Japanese were spies.

    Why did the Duke Lacrosse injustice happen? Because people jumped to conclusions (Japanese are spies, white spoiled Duke fratboys MUST be guilty) and out of the few people who did believe them even fewer stuck up for them. (Why put my neck on the line for a bunch of Japs? Why put my neck on the line for a bunch of privileged white males?).

    Focus not on dumb terms that don’t mean anything like racism, class or priviiege and focus on stuff like logical thinking, open mindedness, not letting emotions get the better of you, and question stuff if nobody else is.

    Everything else is just noise.

    Were the Duke Lacrosse players being falsely accused equal to other injustices that befell on say african-americans in the past? NO, and that’s irrelevant.

    It’s a miscarriage of justice and the fact that the people who were wrong can’t even admit that but still try to justify it or say it’s ok because the guys were rich, white, THAT is what makes me angry most of all.

  53. line let’s get rich hack tool

    Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! | The Starting Five

  54. make unbelievable

    Who’s Responsible for the Duke Lacrosse fiasco? Liberal Professors! | The Starting Five

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: