Duke Lacrosse Case

I long have been following the Duke lacrosse case and it worries me: it worries me because I just recently received my Bachelor of Science degree (majoring in sports management with a public relations track and communication) and currently in college for my masters in sports administration.

I look over my education I have received and I am currently engaged in and I do not feel indoctrination. I have had wonderful professors, even some whose political views are greatly against mine, but these views were not forced on me.

Back to the original intent of this post. I have pondered many questions:

1. How could the justice system go so very wrong? It seems as if there were numerous people that would have stepped in (or stayed out, i.e. Nancy Grace, Mike Nifong, Patrick Baker, Bill Bell, Richard Brodhead, the gang of 88, Tara Levicy...). Could not someone have said "Hold on, wait a minute?"

2. Is it so wrong to be a white male? In EVERY race, there are people who are racist against someone that are of another ethnicity. However, the former district attorney in Durham, Michael Nifong, exploited the fact three lacrosse players were white and being accused by a woman that is black. Many exploited this narrative. However, would there have been this much media attention if three black men were accused by a white woman?

Next, if the races were reversed in this case and a DA exploited three accused black men to win reelection with little or no evidence, would it A. Take the Department of Justice so long to show an interest and then B. Not get involved in a case with civil rights violations.

3. Fans in rivalries do some very outlandish acts. Let’s say team A and B are rivals and B has a successful basketball team. A woman who attends school A sees basketball players who attend school B at a bar. Let's say a fight breaks out at said bar. What if the woman thinks to herself, "Hey, I will accuse the players of assault?" If the woman makes false allegations, she could affect the team for one or multiple games, especially if the faculty rush to judgment like they did at Duke (see 4).

It might seem far-fetched, but could it happen? If someone read KC Johnson's "Innocent until Proven Guilty" with no knowledge about the Duke case, they might swear it is fiction and never could happen. But it did...

4. Why is faculty so anti sport? At some universities, professors are so anti athletics, they would be perfectly fine if they were done away with. Yes, there are faults to athletics and the NCAA, but success in sports helps enrollment

According to the USA Today Article:
"...the NCAA tournament run has afforded a national profile to the heretofore lesser-known school, and there are signs of its impact — a higher yield (percentage of accepted students who enroll), twice as many prospective students taking tours, $1 million spent on GMU's Final Four stuff."

And increased exposure:
"Burke Magnus, who schedules games for ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, says he expects Mason on his schedules four or five times next season. He says he is in talks with GMU and Duke about a Dec. 9 game at Duke."

5. Say whatever about the interpretation of the gang of 88's listening ad, there is a key point I have not seen debated. In the ad, Duke faculty member Wahneema Lubiano has quotes which she herself has admitted were paraphrases of anonymous persons.

So, she passes them off as quotes when in fact they are paraphrases. Also, they are anonymous so did she get permission to use them? Did she ask the participants to confirm she is using the "quotes" in context? Were the speakers who gave these "quotes" Duke students?

If I used these "quotes" in such a reckless way, I would get in serious trouble from my university for plagiarism. However, faculty members get a free pass?