Anti-Lacrosse Extremist: No Apologies

Anti-lacrosse extremist Orin Starn took to the pages of today's H-S to proclaim that "there was no need for Brodhead to apologize in remarks last Saturday at Duke Law School."

There were, of course, villains in the case. Who were they? The lacrosse players, whose party "was shameful in the first place. We wouldn't be wasting so much time and energy if the lacrosse players had shown some semblance of good judgment."

"Bloggers and our new lacrosse book authors have stirred up still more trouble with their myopic, mean-spirited, caricatured story line" as they have created an "inaccurate, sanctimonious, pseudo-objective blog-driven framing of the lacrosse case."

And, oh, by the way, "a a few faculty" might have rushed to judgment. Who were these professors? Starn doesn't say.

Why does Starn feel no need to apologize? "I discovered after the case broke that one wrongfully accused student, Reade Seligmann, had been in one of my classes. I wrote him early on to express my concerns about the allegations and offer support."

To begin with, Starn "discovered" this fact not because he actually knew the students that he himself taught, but because I mentioned the fact in a blog posting and e-mailed him to ask him about his experiences with Seligmann. I've also seen the e-mail that Starn wrote his wrongfully accused student, saying how badly he felt and offering support.

A few weeks later, the anti-lacrosse extremist followed up that e-mail with a Herald-Sun op-ed that read as if it scripted by Nifong's pr staff. After mildly criticizing the DA for possible shortcomings in his approach to the case, Starn advanced his basic arguments: (1) the case needed to go to trial regardless of Nifong's massive procedural improprieties, since “most Durhamites want to hear all the evidence before passing judgment;” and (2) that he would be “vigilant in ensuring that both [the players] and their accuser receive fair treatment from the justice system,” thereby creating the spectacle of a tenured professor conflating the rights of an accuser in the “justice system” with those of defendants. (In his op-ed today, Starn implied that he's abandoned his commitment to such vigilance, at least about protecting the falsely accused players' rights--he criticized the proposed civil suit settlement with the city.)

In both his fall op-ed and his production today, "Supporter Starn" offered his strongest criticism of . . . the party and the lacrosse team's drinking (without mentioning even one positive item from the Coleman Committee report). But “none of this,” Starn hastened to add last fall, “means that the three indicted lacrosse players are guilty.” Indeed not. He was just relaying the information as part of his promise to show Reade Seligmann his full support.