Loyalty is a two way street. The school and community not only abandoned these players, they made their lives horrible for a year.

They would be heroes, and they would be better able to get beyond the incident.

Heroes to who? You do realize that many in the Duke community and the surrounding areas still feel that the players were in the wrong. Some of the faculty in the “gang of 88” continue to make comments about the guilt of the players. If you also remember, people such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson made highly publicized appearances condemning the players. At the same time, the city and University refused to follow the law and their own rules of conduct. Sharpton and Jackson have not apologized for their conduct that inflamed the passions of the community. Duke withheld evidence that would have exonerated the players but instead allowed them to be bullied, harassed and threatened by the students and faculty.

This is a case where the rooster has come home to roost.

The players owe the university and the community nothing. There may have been a time when an extended hand from the community and the University could have prevented this, but not now.

So why is there not a discrimination claim under these statutes in the complaint? I don’t see one in the complaint.

Racial harassment violates federal civil rights laws, even when the victims are white. Bowen v. Missouri Dept. of Social Services, 311 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2002); Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 1998).

Sexual harassment violates the civil rights laws even when the victims are male. Thus, an insulting 3-day “diversity training” seminar that insulted males gave rise to a viable sexual harassment lawsuit in Hartman v. Pena, 914 F.Supp. 225 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

Sexual harassment in schools and colleges violates Title IX when the school or college is indifferent to it, see Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (K-12 school); Jennings v. University of North Carolina, 482 F.3d 686 (4th Cir. 2007), or when the school’s administration directly promotes or engages in it itself. Simpson v. University of Colorado, 500 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2007).

Racial harassment in schools and universities also violates federal law. See, e.g., Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 69 F.3d 669 (2d Cir. 1995).

Treating people as if they are guilty based on their race or sex can constitute illegal racial or sexual harassment, or discrimination. See, e.g., Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 714 (2d Cir. 1994) (practice of invariably assuming guilt of males accused of sexual harassment stated claim under Title IX); Underwood v. Northwest Health Services, 57 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1303 (M.D. Ala. 1989) (“baseless accusations of racism” supported white employee’s harassment claim under Title VII); Weberg v. Franks, 229 F.3d 514, 524 (6th Cir. 2000) (suspension of white employee by official who admitted he did so based on blacks’ “perceptions,” independent of whether they had merit, to maintain workplace peace, violated Title VII).

From Duke, whose pusillanimous faculty and administration defamed them as a group (canceling the LAX season, for instance), certainly.

From the city or state? Maybe not.

Innocent people do get caught in the crossfire of prosecutions, good and bad, inadvertently. ‘Collateral damage’ isn’t just applicable to military situations.

The police department and the prosecutors office gave out false information that the LAX players were not cooperating while they were. Also the NTO that was obtained listed all the players. Under state law all those named in the NTO were required to be given copies of the results of the DNA test, none of which were.

Overall I would think they have a decent chance. Especially if they can use the information from the settlement between the other three players and the school.