JinC regulars know I posted David Brooks' May 28 NY Times column, "The Duke Witch Hunt," which the Raleigh News & Observer republished on May 31 with the head, "Theory and reality at Duke."
Today in a letter to the N&O editor, an attorney for the N. C. NAACP, Al McSurely, responds to Brooks' column.
McSurely's letter is notable for its personal attacks on Brooks, its playing to stereotypes, its misrepresentation of facts, and its failure to mention many pertinent facts which have led most fair-minded people to question much of what the accuser and her supporters such as McSurely are saying.
The letter is so bad in terms of a careful presentation of the known facts that it has to give encouragement to those who believe the indicted lacrosse players are very likely innocent.
I'll say more about McSurely's latter this evening.
Now here's his letter.
David Brooks' May 31 Op-ed page article "Theory and reality at Duke" suggested that the Durham grand jury's indictments of three Duke lacrosse players are a "witch hunt."
He praised the men's lacrosse team because 39 of 54 recent graduates had careers in finance; the coach of the women's lacrosse team called them "great kids;" and two long-time Duke employees, a groundskeeper and equipment manager, said the team was "among the best groups of young men they have worked with during their long tenures at Duke."
Brooks conceded the team is "mostly white" (46 out of 47). He cited favorably a National Journal essay that estimated "an 85 percent chance" the men are innocent. Brooks speaks at this summer's National Conservative Student Conference. Look for the students at this right-wing Republican recruiting ground to express support for the right's new heroes: "The Duke 3."
Brooks' defense of the "kids" was not informed by several facts. For example, when the "kids" hired two women to entertain 44 men, they gave phony names. They lied about the nature of the party, saying it was a small bachelor party. Other Duke teams -- yes, apparently this is a Duke tradition -- report that when they hired female entertainers for team parties, the women had bodyguards.
They lied again about their sport, saying the gig was a bachelor party for some Duke track or baseball players -- perhaps to imply more diversity. The men had been drinking beer for 10 hours when the women arrived at midnight. Within five minutes, the men threatened the women with racial and misogynist verbal assaults.
Brooks' use of "witch hunt" is ironic, because the only broomstick at the party was brandished by one of the "great kids." Brooks did not mention that the Duke Hospital sexual-assault nurse examiner found the woman (two hours after the broomstick incident) displayed physical symptoms associated with rape and sodomy. He did not mention statements made by a couple of the "kids."
As the two women drove away from the Duke property, a neighbor heard a player yell: "Thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt." And an hour later, another player e-mailed several students: "tomorrow night, after tonight's show, I've decided to have some strippers over... However there will be no nudity. I plan on killing the b-s as soon as the[y] walk in, and proceeding to cut their skin off..."
There is a Salem witch hunt parallel here. Some men were caught with their macho entitlement views hanging out and, to save themselves, they have banned together to blame the survivor of their verbal assaults.
The N.C. NAACP has carefully monitored this case. Unlike Brooks or his expert, we do not "estimate" the innocence or guilt of anyone. The case will be tried in a court of law next spring. Rules of evidence, fair play and due process will be enforced. A jury will determine the truth, based on admissible evidence.
The NAACP stands for fair play for all parties, zealous investigation and deep concern for the survivors of racist/sexist attacks. We stand for justice and community.
Al McSurely
N.C. NAACP Legal Redress Chair
Durham
6 comments:
Surely John you can see that Mr. Brooks and Mr. McSurely are using different methodology to arrive at their respective opinions.
Mr. Brooks after his first outburst of outrage and emotionally driven indictment of the Lacrosse players actually let his brain engage and when the evidence started piling up that first reports were almost certainly erroneous and that the accuser lied, he followed the evidence and logically changed his opinion to allow for the possibility that maybe everybody else but the accuser wasn't lying.
Mr. McSurely on the other hand has wrapped his opinion in a cloak of piety and high sounding phrases to conceal his basis for his opinion is solely the result of whom he sees is most similar to him in hue. I think from now on I will call his style of reasoning "Pigmentation Indignation".
"support for the right's new heroes: 'The Duke 3' "
Not everyone who doubts the accuser is from the right. Portraying the support of either the accused or the accuser as split down political lines is a grave mistake for an organization like the NAACP.
To address one issue in this letter, as a former owner of an escort agency phone room, very few men give their real names when placing their entertainment order. What this case has exposed is how ignorant the general public is about the sex industry. For many escorts and their johns, prostitution is not only a job, it is a lifestyle in which lying and deception is the rule.
No, really, the head of the NAACP isn't really named "Al McSurely?"
Straightarrow - surely (ha!) you know that if the head of the NAACP were to let his brain engage then 40 years of evidence would lead him to question affirmative action, much of black "popular culture", and 99% of the "black leadership."
Much easier to collect the stipend and demagogue.
-AC
How can anyone say 'the truth has come out' or 'these kids have done nothing wrong'? Are we jurors in the courtroom? Legal experts? Witnesses? There is due process for this, and I have a hard time understanding why everyone is so certain they are not guilty.
And let's be honest, even if there was no rape, does that make their conduct acceptable? Of course not.
Very best site. Keep working. Will return in the near future.
»
A couple of gentle corrections to some mistaken assumptions expressed above:
Al McSurely is the head of the NAACP's Legal Redress committee, not head of the NAACP.
Al McSurely is white. He and the accuser in this case are not of "similar hue." "Pigmentation Indignation" does not work very well in this case as a description of his motives.
Post a Comment