Posts Tagged ‘Duke lacrosse’

October 16 round-up

  • “‘I’ve never felt so ill,’ says one reporter about the NY Times’s coverage of the Duke lacrosse-team case.” [New York Magazine]
  • Double-standards for judicial seminars. [Point of Law; Volokh]
  • 14-year-old British student arrested for not wanting to do class project with non-English speakers? [Volokh]
  • Our October 13 entry on the pros and cons of complusory licensing in copyright provoked one of our longest comment threads ever.
  • Will regulators shut down an aversive-stimuli special-education school? Should they? [Village Voice via Cowen]
  • Cheap crime deterrent: wearing pink. [Prettier than Napoleon] Meanwhile, professors debate shaming in general. [Markel on PrawfsBlawg and SSRN; Berman; Markel reply; Kerr on Volokh; Markel reply]
  • Trent Lott about to implement bad public policy out of spite. [RiskProf]
  • Greg Beck has good analysis of the Emerson v. NBC garbage disposal suit. Always glad to see Public Citizen support liability reform. [CL&P]
  • Is “erroneous removal” a problem? [Point of Law; TortsProf Blog]

“60 Minutes” to cover Duke lacrosse case

CBS writes to say that “60 Minutes” will air a major segment on the Duke lacrosse case this coming Sunday. According to the show description, “The other dancer in the Duke lacrosse rape case refutes a key part of the accuser’s story in an interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley. He also spoke with the three players accused in the rape.” More here. Our earlier coverage: Oct. 11, Aug. 30, etc. Further: Durham Wonderland, which has exhaustively chronicled developments in the case, has a must-read summary (Oct. 16).

Duke rape claim: the Times’s sorry showing

Stuart Taylor Jr. arraigns the New York Times for the many weaknesses of the recent article by Duff Wilson and Jonathan Glater which sought to rehabilitate the prosecution’s crumbling case. “The Times still seems bent on advancing its race-sex-class ideological agenda, even at the cost of ruining the lives of three young men who it has reason to know are very probably innocent.” (Slate, “Witness for the Prosecution?”, Aug. 29). Earlier: Aug. 25, Jun. 24, etc.

Duke lacrosse affair: when faculty fan flames

If prosecutor Mike Nifong could accuse students of ghastly crimes on the flimsiest of evidence (Jun. 24 and earlier posts), one reason might be that the atmosphere at Duke University was such that, early in the case, 88 faculty members could sign a manifesto fanning the flames of public opinion against the accused students. Robert K.C. Johnson on Cliopatria has many details on the so-called Group of 88. Of the 69 signatories who are permanent faculty, “58—an astonishing 84.1 percent—describe their research interests as related to race, class, or gender (or all three), in some cases to an extent bordering on caricature.” One professor opines that the “members of the team are almost perfect offenders in the sense that [critical race theorist Kimberle] Crenshaw writes about,” since they are “the exemplars of the upper end of the class hierarchy, the politically dominant race and ethnicity, the dominant gender, the dominant sexuality, and the dominant social group on campus.” (Jul. 19) (via Coyote). For more on the case, see postings at Jeralyn Merritt’s Talk Left and the group Friends of Duke University.

Duke lacrosse case, cont’d

Thomas Sowell nominates the controversy’s low point:

According to Newsweek, the young man at NCCU [North Carolina Central University] said that he wanted to see the Duke students prosecuted, “whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past.”

(“The Biggest Scandal in the Duke University Rape Case”, syndicated/Capitalism Magazine, May 17). The comment was hardly representative of anyone’s views but the one student’s, though, contends John Schwade in the Durham News (“Article opts to sensationalize with its color commentary”, Apr. 29). More: Dr. Helen, Apr. 22. Stuart Taylor Jr. has a powerful column on the subject which however is online only to National Journal/The Atlantic subscribers (“An Outrageous Rush to Judgment”, May 2). And guess who’s involved himself in the case, as an advisor to the complainant’s family? None other than ace money-extractor Willie Gary, long familiar to readers of this site (Wendy McElroy, “Is ‘Duke’ Case Headed to Civil Court?”,, May 16).