The Duke Lacrosse incident demonstrates that bad things often happen to people who have forgotten what is good.
Most conservatives have enjoyed the outcomes of two notable stories in the last week or so. They reveled in the dropping of all charges against three Duke Lacrosse players and cheered the revelation of perceived hypocrisy, if not the actual firing, of radio personality Don Imus for his disparaging remarks about the oddly named Lady Scarlet Knights basketball team.
What I find amazing is the canonization of the Duke trio in some quarters. While they were no doubt falsely accused of rape and other crimes by a race-baiting charlatan masquerading as a District Attorney who will hopefully spend some time behind bars, have people forgotten that a drunken stag party occasioned the charges against them in the first place?
That such parties occur on college campuses and other locations where teens gather is a fact of modern life, but paying strippers? Yet, I suppose we are to applaud the Lacrosse players because they held the ‘party’ at their rented house instead of at the local strip joint so that that their younger brothers could join in the fun, lest they miss out on what some are calling “a rite of passage.” It’s good to know that their parents’ fifty grand a year isn’t going to waste.
For years, many folks have blamed college coaches for the deplorable actions of some student-athletes, yet defenders of the Dukies lament the fact that coach Mike Pressler was unjustly forced to resign. Yet one-third of his 2006 team had been arrested on his watch before the incident, albeit on mostly misdemeanor charges. So shed no tears for the coach who admits that, “We didn't know a lot of the time what was going on with athletes off the field. But when we knew about it, we dealt with it." You can read all about his suffering in his new book due out in stores in June. Expect more volumes to follow.
People who have criticized Mike Nifong’s outrageous conduct but also acknowledge the immoral yet legal behavior that caused the whole problem, have been met with tired clichés like “judge not, lest ye be judged” and the disgusting premise that this is typical of the way college boys have behaved for years. But let’s not forget that Pressler resigned as a direct result of a vile email sent by one of his players who jokingly suggested at a repeat performance there would “be no nudity” because he would kill the strippers and “cut their skin off.” Just like seeing how many kids you can stuff into a phone booth, I guess.
We find ourselves in a society where it would seem that earning a living in the ‘sex trades’ can be an honorable thing, especially if one is that epitome of modern womanhood and that to which all young girls should aspire; a single mother. In this climate, where sex is such an everyday commodity, when strip clubs flourish even in small towns and ads to enhance ‘performance’ flood the airwaves, expect more disputes between clients and contractors to occur, with or without duplicitous DAs.
The Imus flap is another disturbing milepost on the road to our cultural decline and one that directly ties into the Duke case. Don Imus, as an aging baby-boomer, represents many of his generation who constantly try and remain ‘hip’ by adopting the evolving mores of the sexual revolution they perpetrated on this nation.
It has been pointed out ad nauseam that Imus’ remarks are no worse than the rap music lyrics that are so popular today and indeed, that some of the Rutgers gals are probably fans of the genre. Again, there is an overtone of racial pandering accompanying what would have been an outrage to all Americans only short years ago; that an industry celebrating the scatological ‘humor’ and sexual fantasies of adolescent boys, flourishes.
That rap music adds violence to the mix should come as a surprise to no one — that connection was inevitable — see the link to the Dukie email above. That the glorification of sex outside of its intended purpose only leads to the debasement of other social norms, is not a function of race; although certain racial provocateurs on both sides would have it so.
According to Newsweek, the younger brother of Reade Seligmann once raised his hand to ask his teacher a question: "I need to know why bad things happen to good people.'' Bad things often happen to people who have forgotten what is good.
mailbox@lisafab.com
http://www.lisafab.com
Read more articles by Lisa Fabrizio
So because these guys weren't exactly great moral leaders it was okay to implicate them in a false rape accusation that will tarnish their reputation and careers for years to come? Come on. I mean sure, we can acknowledge that what they did was morally wrong (not legally in a free society, but certainly morally from a Christian perspective), but you're coming dangerously close to basically saying that they deserve what they get because of their actions. Nobody deserves to be wrongly accused of a crime and publicly slandered for it, regardless of who or what they may be.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | April 19, 2007
First a minor correction; Don Imus is not "an aging baby boomer", the last time I looked there was a drop in births during the 2nd world war and Imus was born in 1941.
Regarding the Duke incident an attempt to paint the innocent students as guilty is what would be called in the vernacular "a cheap shot". Whether the party was a moral event has nothing to do with the fact that false charges were brought by a district attorney and accuser that should be behind bars. If your intent was to discuss bad behaviour on campuses there are many instances you could have used such as the Columbia students that believe that free speech exists only if you agree with their preconceived notions, or other campuses that attempt to stifle speech because "it might offend someone". I guess in your little world we should also prosecute the sorority that brings in male strippers! But of course only the male of the species does bad things.
Nice try for the effeminate feminine agenda.
Comment by Mickey G | April 19, 2007
It is immoral to even mention the trivial issue of the stripper (an even more so, of the underage drinking) in this connection. An attempt was made to destroy these kid's lives by framing them for rape. Abuse of the legal system (by a DA, no less!), abominable behavior of the faculty and press, cooperation of the local police - these are serious issues. Next, Ms. Fabrizio will say that the boys are guilty because one of them had a parking ticket three years ago! Please!
Comment by lordcanning | April 19, 2007
"…an attempt to paint the innocent students as guilty is what would be called in the vernacular “a cheap shot”. Whether the party was a moral event has nothing to do with the fact that false charges were brought by a district attorney and accuser that should be behind bars. "
Although I agree with the last point with regard to the stripper and the DA that they should indeed be punished, nowhere in the article is there the claim that these guys were guilty. But from a moral perspective, these guys are certainly not innocent. The point of the article is that poor moral choices can lead to some pretty bad consequences, deserved or not.
With regard to Imus, I'm kinda glad he lost his job. I never like him in the first place. But I don't necessarily agree his comment is equivalent to rap music. His comment was directed at a specific group of women, not a general comment. This is not to say that rap music is OK. People have the right to listen to whatever they want, just as the lacrosse player have the right to hire a stripper. Just don't be surprised at the consequences.
"I guess in your little world we should also prosecute the sorority that brings in male strippers! But of course only the male of the species does bad things.
"Nice try for the effeminate feminine agenda."
And so the crumbling of what could have been an interesting discussion. Attacking the author with unwarranted accusations is no way to win an argument. That's what liberals do, not intellectual conservatives.
Comment by Annasdad | April 19, 2007
“For years, many folks have blamed college coaches for the deplorable actions of some student-athletes, yet defenders of the Dukies lament the fact that coach Mike Pressler was unjustly forced to resign. Yet one-third of his 2006 team had been arrested on his watch…”
Just what is it with this idea of a “watch” anyway. Where is it written that a coach is responsible for “watching” the whole team 24/7/365? In the Virginia Tech incident, the media (to their credit) pointed out that colleges no longer have a policy of acting “in loco parentis” (in place of parents) as was the case when I was in college. This probably had been abandoned because of the demands of the students down through the years.
If the accused had all been in Professor Von Helsig’s Medieval Eastern European literature class instead, would Professor Von Helsig have lost his job (even if it turned out the accused were guilty)? I kinda doubt it. So, let me hear again how the coach is responsible?
Comment by sedonaman | April 19, 2007
"Just what is it with this idea of a “watch” anyway. Where is it written that a coach is responsible for “watching” the whole team 24/7/365? In the Virginia Tech incident, the media (to their credit) pointed out that colleges no longer have a policy of acting “in loco parentis” (in place of parents) as was the case when I was in college. This probably had been abandoned because of the
demands of the students down through the years."
"If the accused had all been in Professor Von Helsig’s Medieval Eastern European literature class instead, would Professor Von Helsig have lost his job (even if it turned out the accused were guilty)? I kinda doubt it. So, let me hear again how the coach is responsible?"
While I don't agree with coaches being responsible for all the actions of their players, when they take a team on the road, they should be held accountable. So comparing a coach to a professor is doesn't fly, unless the professor takes them on a field trip. In which case he would be. In this case, of course, the coach had no responsibility for this group of immature boys. If it had happened on a road trip however, he would be responsible (For the hiring of the stripper and providing alcohol for under aged players on the team, not the mess afterwards with the erroneous charges brought against the boys.)
Comment by Annasdad | April 20, 2007
It severely bothers me when someone bemoans the fact that the Duke lacross players made an immoral choice by hiring a stripper, but completely ignore the immoral choice of the stripper to take off her clothes for money. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango. If we want to cluck our tongues at the behavior of the team, then why not the stripper? Does she get a pass?
Moreover, that one of the boys wasn't even at the party shoots down this silly "bad things happen to people who have forgotten what is good" crap. Being stupid, and making a youthful mistake is no reason to have your life ruined, no matter how ammoral. Once one starts making these kinds of moral declarations, they are quietly giving the stripper a small justification for her actions.
And in regards to Imus, I'm sick of hearing that his comments would've brought universal outrage a couple of years ago. He has been around for quite some time, and as far as "nappy headed" goes, Stevie Wonder has been using that in his songs, as have no shortage of motown singers. A few short years ago, we'd have told the Rutgers girls to stop milking it, and those offended to shut up and get a life.
Comment by WolvenBear | April 20, 2007
"It severely bothers me when someone bemoans the fact that the Duke lacross players made an immoral choice by hiring a stripper, but completely ignore the immoral choice of the stripper to take off her clothes for money. "
Oh, I forgot. you can't comment one group's immorality without mentioning everyone else's. You forgot to mention the lawyer who was vilifying these kids to get elected. Heck, don't all politicians act this way? Besides, these kids' lives are not ruined. Truth and justice won out in the end. Be happy, but don't make them out to be martyrs for a cause.
"And in regards to Imus, … A few short years ago, we’d have told the Rutgers girls to stop milking it, and those offended to shut up and get a life."
As far as I know, the basketball team hasn't said a thing since their meeting with Imus last week. It's others who are trying to keep this story alive.
"Being stupid, and making a youthful mistake is no reason to have your life ruined, no matter how ammoral."
It's not a reason, but it CAN happen. It's called, as my good mother used to say, "avoiding the near occasion of sin." If you live an upright and moral life, the chances of someone falsely accusing you of anything would be practically nonexistent. We're also known by the friends we keep (the kid that wasn't there). In reality though, these guys are lucky they were "rich white kids". If they were poor white kids, they wouldn't have been able to afford a team of lawyers and probably would have been railroaded right into jail.
Comment by Annasdad | April 20, 2007
"We're also known by the friends we keep (the kid that wasn't there)."
I sure hope none of your friends has ever acted inconsistent with perfect, biblical virtue.
Comment by Katzen | April 20, 2007
Annasdad:
“While I don’t agree with coaches being responsible for all the actions of their players, when they take a team on the road, they should be held accountable. So comparing a coach to a professor is doesn’t fly, unless the professor takes them on a field trip.”
As you point out, they were not on the road, so this reason doesn’t “fly” either. So why bring up something that was not a factor? In any case, I’m sure my hypothetical professor would not have even be mentioned, since professors have the divine right of kings.
“If it had happened on a road trip however, he would be responsible (For the hiring of the stripper and providing alcohol for under aged players on the team. . .”).
Did he hire the stripper? Did he provide alcohol? How many were underage? Seems like you are assuming a lot. What does the law say?
Comment by sedonaman | April 21, 2007
"Did he hire the stripper? Did he provide alcohol? How many were underage? Seems like you are assuming a lot."
I never said he did. And the underage comment it straight out of the original article. It seems you are the one who is assuming a lot. Besides, if you look back through my comments I never once said he should have been fired. However, I also know that you can be fired for pretty much any reason outside of discrimination (ie. the lawyers in the AG's office).
It's interesting that, because these boys were falsely accused, somehow that makes them immune from commenting on their bad behavior. They are not the first group of people to have ever been falsely accused, and unfortunately they won't be the last. But like I said, don't make them out to be heroes.
One last thing, the stripper should be prosecuted for bringing the false charges, but we know that's not going to happen.
Katzen
Point taken.
Comment by Annasdad | April 21, 2007
"Oh, I forgot. you can’t comment one group’s immorality without mentioning everyone else’s. You forgot to mention the lawyer who was vilifying these kids to get elected. Heck, don’t all politicians act this way? Besides, these kids’ lives are not ruined. Truth and justice won out in the end. Be happy, but don’t make them out to be martyrs for a cause."
When the issues of the two parties moralities are linked, then it is intellectually dishonest to look at one party and not the other. The stripper and two out of the three boys have a share in the immorality. So no, you can't talk about how the boys did a no-no, without talking about the stripper. At least, not if you want to be fair.
Moreover, what about the one boy who wasn't there. He did nothing wrong. And that tripe about "we are known by the friends we keep" is just an excuse to keep him on the hook despite evidence of innocence. Moral equivalence of the worst kind.
I don't know what world you live in, but once you are accused of a sexual crime, you are as good as guilty. It doesn't go away, ever, even if you can (as these boys are able to) prove your innocence. That charge will follow them around for the rest of their lives. (And let's not forget the mountains of bills to keep from going to jail.)
You complain that they shouldn't be martyrs…but why shouldn't they be? They were falsely jailed, had their names dragged through the mud, and have been waiting to find out their fates despite the entire legal system knowing they were innocent.
They're pretty sympathetic to me.
"As far as I know, the basketball team hasn’t said a thing since their meeting with Imus last week. It’s others who are trying to keep this story alive."
They certainly dragged out the story til it got to the metting with Imus though. "He ruined our season." Please. Melodramatic pap. Holding multiple press conferences, and acting like someone killed your puppy over being called a "nappy headed ho" is moronic. Everyone of the girls on the team has been called something worse by someone they know, which is far worse than some DJ they'd never heard of.
"It’s not a reason, but it CAN happen. It’s called, as my good mother used to say, “avoiding the near occasion of sin.” If you live an upright and moral life, the chances of someone falsely accusing you of anything would be practically nonexistent."
Bull. There's no shortage of people who live good lives who are accused of things they never did.
See: Mr. Rodgers.
People who do good and try to make a difference are often the first to be targeted, either with physical violence or with malicious allegations.
"In reality though, these guys are lucky they were “rich white kids”. If they were poor white kids, they wouldn’t have been able to afford a team of lawyers and probably would have been railroaded right into jail. "
Well, thank God they were rich kids. Now we can sleep at night.
This doesn't sound too terribly different from the liberal canard of "they had it coming."
Comment by WolvenBear | April 22, 2007
"Bull. There’s no shortage of people who live good lives who are accused of things they never did.
See: Mr. Rodgers.
People who do good and try to make a difference are often the first to be targeted, either with physical violence or with malicious allegations."
OK, so now these kids were doing good and trying to make a difference. Talk about Bull!!
If I'm Mr. Rogers, what does that make you Mr. Robinson?? Don't stoop to name calling. It cheapens and weakens you argument. We obviously have a difference of opinion about this, but it shouldn't get personal. I think I'm done with this.
Comment by Annasdad | April 22, 2007
Annasdad:
“I never said he did (hire the stripper, provide alcohol to underage students).”
Here is what you posted:
“If it had happened on a road trip however, he would be responsible (for the hiring of the stripper and providing alcohol for under aged players on the team….”
If you aren’t saying he did, why did you bring it up at all? If it didn’t happen on a road trip, why do you bring that up also? By implication then, you have introduced factors that are irrelevant to the actual case and therefore this discussion. Since the team was not on the road, my comparison to a hypothetical professor is appropriate, and as evidence I point to the Virginia Tech incident in which an English student killed over 30 other students and a teacher. And why is this related? As was reported, the killer was an English major. Take a GOOD HARD look at what is on the VT English department website: “English studies at VT are a post-modern Disney World in which nihilism, moral and sexual boundary breaking, and fantasies of Marxist revolutionary violence are celebrated. They show up in a lot of faculty writing. Not by all the faculty, but probably by more than half.” (Emphasis added) See http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/was_cho_taught_to_hate.html (also contains a link to the VT English dept. website).
Yet no one (except the author of the American Thinker article and me) are holding either the Virginia Tech, the VT English department, not the VT English dept. professors responsible for inciting violence. Why not? I guess the same reason no one held anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi professors responsible for promoting their ideology that resulted in 50,000,000 dead of WW-II.
So, let me hear again how the coach is responsible for his team's imaginary actions in this case and how Marxist professors get a pass for causing something far worse than a false accusation of raping a prostitute?
“…the underage comment it straight out of the original article.”
Where?
Comment by sedonaman | April 22, 2007
Right here:
"I suppose we are to applaud the Lacrosse players because they held the ‘party’ at their rented house instead of at the local strip joint so that that their younger brothers could join in the fun, lest they miss out on what some are calling “a rite of passage.” "
What does younger brothers joining in the fun mean to you?
I didn't say the coach was responsible, but I was referring to a hypothetical. If the team is on the road, he should be held accountable as the players are under his care at the time. I didn't say this was the case, and I don't think he should be held accountable. I was referring a post about why coaches are held accountable for their athletes' behavior. I responded that in some instances a coach should or could be. Just as a professor, IMO, if the circumstances were similar. With regard to the VT massacre, if what you refer to is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then these professors should have a share in the blame. I for one don't believe in a double standard.
Comment by Annasdad | April 22, 2007
Your argument was that if you live a morally decent life, no one will try to bring you down. That if one doesn't wallow in deprevity they won't have bad things happen to them.
And stop carping about insulting you. We both know that I'm not calling you Mr. Rodgers (though if I was, I fail to see how that would've been insulting).
See: Mr. Rodgers means look at the case of Mr. Rodgers.
For all we know of the man, he lived a decent life, but was still accused of child molestation. There are no shortage of cases where teachers are accused of this too, by vengeful students. Living an upright life far from makes you immune from false accusation. Only living like a hermit does that.
And I didn't say the Duke boys were trying to do good, even though one was certainly doing no wrong (although I'm pretty sure you didn't misunderstand me here either). But they certainly could've been doing a lot worse than paying a woman who takes off her clothes to take off her clothes.
I agree with you that using the word martyr isn't fair, though. Because martyrs volunteer to be sacrificed for a cause. These boys will unwilling.
Comment by WolvenBear | April 22, 2007