The Group of 88's Myths and Realities

If nothing else, the rump Group of 88 has demonstrated a talent for revisionist history. Their recent statement unsuccessfully attempted to explain away both the context and the actual wording of their springtime ad.

Myth #1: The Group of 88’s statement had nothing to do with the accuser’s March 14 allegations.

The new statement claims that many (unnamed) people have “intentionally” misread the April 6 ad as, among other things, “a comment on the alleged rape.”

Reality

It’s hard to treat this assertion seriously.

The lead section of the Group of 88’s statement mentioned “what happened to this young woman.” I doubt that signatories were referring to the accuser’s dangerous habit of mixing alcohol and Flexeril; or were expressing their concerns about the impropriety of filing a false police report.

Moreover, the statement’s author herself, Wahneema Lubiano, conceded the connection between the statement and the case; ESPN reported that she prepared the statement fully aware that it could be seen as “a as a stake through the collective heart of the lacrosse team.” A vivid image.

Finally, four of the ad’s eleven anonymous statements that allegedly came from Duke students specifically referenced the accuser’s allegations.

Myth #2: The Group of 88 was committed to upholding the presumption of innocence for the lacrosse players.

The new statement claims that the signatories “stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence.”

Reality

As with the first myth, it’s hard to treat this claim seriously.

Several Group members independently commented on the case either shortly before or shortly after the ad appeared:

• Houston Baker penned a public letter denouncing the “abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us” and urging the “immediate dismissals” of “the team itself and its players”;

• William Chafe published an op-ed suggesting that the behavior of the whites who lynched Emmett Till provided the appropriate historical context through which to interpret the lacrosse players’ actions;

• Wahneema Lubiano told the N&O that “people can’t imagine that the woman could have made a false rape allegation.”

These remarks do not suggest a passionate commitment to the lacrosse players’ presumption of innocence.

Several of the ad’s anonymous statements that allegedly came from Duke students also do not reflect the presumption of innocence. One anonymous student allegedly said, “No one is really talking about how to keep the young woman [the accuser] central to the conversation, how to keep her humanity before us.” Another anonymous student allegedly said, “If something like this happens to me . . . what would be used against me—my clothing?” A third anonymous student allegedly said, “Duke isn’t really responding to this. Not really. And this, what has happened, is a disaster.’

These remarks do not suggest a passionate commitment to the lacrosse players’ presumption of innocence.

Finally, and most obviously: if the Group members were so concerned with presumption of innocence back in April, why didn’t they include those three words somewhere in their statement? And why, after all this time, has not even one of the 87 who signed the “clarifying” statement denounced Mike Nifong for mistreating their own institution’s students?

Myth #3: In saying “thank you” to anti-lacrosse player protesters, committing themselves to “turn up the volume,” and announcing that the affair “won’t end with what the police say or the court decides,” the Group of 88 in no way prejudged the case.

The new statement claims, “We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time. We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence.”

Reality

As with the first two myths, this claim, too, is difficult to treat seriously.

In the Group’s after-the-fact justification, 88 Duke faculty members failed to notice protesters who had branded the players guilty, even though the potbangers received extensive media coverage at the local, statewide, and national level. The Group of 88 also failed to notice the “wanted” posters that were plastered around campus. So when their statement said “thank you” to the protesters, Group of 88 members were actually thanking other, unidentified protesters.

In the event, the rump Group’s statement—just like the original Group’s statement—goes out of its way to thank the potbangers. The rump Group stated, “We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence”—the very agenda that the potbangers claimed to support as they held signs demanding “Castrate” and “Time to Confess.”

As Stephen Bainbridge points out, the rump statement appears to bolster its contention through a distorted quotation:

The ad thanked "the students speaking individually and...the protesters making collective noise. We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time. We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence."

Notice the strategic use of ellipses in the second paragraph's quotation from the original ad. Here's the relevant passage of the original ad in full text:

To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.

Is it just me, or does thanking students for "not waiting" - presumably for the legal system to do its thing - sound a lot like rendering a judgment?

In fact, the Group’s new claim that the April 6 ad dealt not with the lacrosse case in particular but broader problems of racism and sexism in general mimics the very same strategy adopted by . . . the potbangers.

On April 10, shortly after defense attorneys announced there were no DNA matches, it briefly appeared as if the case would end. Potbanger leader and Duke graduate student Rann Bar-on predicted that “the media will turn to a pretty harsh, but pretty short-term assault on us (the people who ‘jumped to conclusions’...we will see that phrase a lot in the near future).” To address the problem, he recommended that the potbangers

focus on the notion that this case merely uncovered a far deeper problem, namely the sense of entitlement and privilege so pervasive on Duke's campus. Duke-Durham relations are tense for a reason: Duke kids are upper-class, rich, entitled, privileged and so on. This case merely highlights their lack of respect for the community in which they live. The players’ guilt or lack thereof has no effect on this.

Bar-on wrote these words on April 10. In their new statement, the Concerned (with Being Sued) Duke Faculty are following in the potbangers’ steps: to avoid expected condemnations of having rushed to judgment, they contend that their goal all along was “a far deeper problem,” wholly unconnected to the condemnations of the lacrosse players.

Some might deem this approach the height of cynicism.

Myth #4: The “clarifying” statement will limit the Group of 88’s legal liability.

Reality

Given that this new statement was undoubtedly cleared by a lawyer, I’d suggest that the rump Group find new counsel.

I hear that Mike Nifong might be looking for work soon. Given how much the Group of 88 has assisted him over the past ten months, perhaps he’d be willing to take their case on a pro bono basis?