For
our first video/blog post on misandry as it occurs in the spoken and written word in
education, we’ll focus on one of the most anti-male universities on the face of
the West: Duke University. In the hopes of starting this series on common
ground, we’ll talk about Duke’s 2006 false rape case, a story which many people
know a little about, a few know a lot about, and none know as much as Brooklyn
University professor K.C. Johnson, who co-authored the book Until Proven
Innocent, a highly-recommended chronicle on the infamous false rape case, and blogs at Durham-In-Wonderland.
Although racism against the falsely accused students is also a critical element
of the story, I’m going to focus on the prejudice and the presumption of guilt on
the basis of gender which, as we have seen and will continue to see, affects
all men and all boys in education, regardless of color.
Seligmann at an ATM during the "rape." |
In
2006 at Duke university, three male students who were members of the university
lacrosse team were falsely accused of raping a stripper at a party. At the
outset, the accused denied the charges. There were multiple problems with the accusation. The accuser changed her story and the names of the men she
accused many times. The DNA found on Crystal Mangum, the accuser, did not match the men she accused. The stripper who came to the lacrosse house on the night of the party declared to reports that she never saw a rape occur, and that Mangum had told her to put marks on her to make it appear she had been assaulted. By the time the
case was over, there were so many problems with the accuser’s story, and so
much evidence in contradiction to it, that instead of acquitting the three
young men, the district attorney, in an extremely rare move by our justice system, declared them innocent.
Wanted: bearers of Y-Chromosomes |
The Listening Statement |
Many
faculty and administrators in education in general go out of their way to appear
gender-sensitive, and to speak out against prejudice. But in this case, and in
many others as we will see, when that hatred is directed at men and boys, no
one employed at the university seems to notice, much less care. On the
contrary, as Duke protestors were shouting “confess” “confess,” banging pots
and pans and carrying banners reading “castrate,” 88 Duke published in the campus
newspaper that came to be known as the “Listening Statement” laced with a
presumption of guilt against the three accused, and turning a blind eye to the
presumption of guilt espoused by many of the protestors. An
excerpt from the statement reads:
Regardless
of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday now is
the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism
and sexism; who see illuminated in this moment’s extraordinary spotlight what
they live with everyday. The students know that the disaster didn’t begin on
March 13 and won’t end with what the police say or the court decides. Like all
disasters, this one has a history…to the students speaking individually and to
the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for
making yourselves heard.
Lynchings: a historic male privilege |
Protecting female students from retaliation when they make allegations of sexual assault is a key concern of education administrators, and is reinforced by a directive by the Department of Education. But no such concern is voiced in education for men and boys who are wrongly accused, to the point that students can openly advocate gender-based violence and male students in not an individual, but a community effort. The very act of castration is a form of violence directed against males. What these students are essentially doing is using hate speech to advocating a hate crime, and they are doing so out of the presumption that those accused are guilty because they are male. Although academia has an evolved understanding about recognizing and preventing retaliation against female students, the Duke case demonstrates that it is it is still in the Stone Age in doing the same for men and boys who are falsely accused of rape.
This is what they call "taking a stand against gender-based violence." Notice anything strange? |
Protecting female students from retaliation when they make allegations of sexual assault is a key concern of education administrators, and is reinforced by a directive by the Department of Education. But no such concern is voiced in education for men and boys who are wrongly accused, to the point that students can openly advocate gender-based violence and male students in not an individual, but a community effort. The very act of castration is a form of violence directed against males. What these students are essentially doing is using hate speech to advocating a hate crime, and they are doing so out of the presumption that those accused are guilty because they are male. Although academia has an evolved understanding about recognizing and preventing retaliation against female students, the Duke case demonstrates that it is it is still in the Stone Age in doing the same for men and boys who are falsely accused of rape.
In Until
Proven Innocent, Professor K.C. Johnson recounts the words of coach Mike
Pressler: “the faculty was a hell of a lot worse than the students. It was
appalling. These are our educators” (104). Dr. Johnson documents cases in the
chapter “Academic McCarthyism” where faculty used their bully pulpits to sway
their classrooms against the three accused students. Here’s a few passages:
In
late March, [professor] Reeve Huston opened a class by saying that he needed to
break his silence on the lacrosse episode and talk about what he had concluded
from his research on the topic: there was a long-prevalent problem of alpha
males assaulting black females in America and there had been a sexual assault
at 610 North Buchanan.
As
the professor spoke, Ryan McFayden text-messaged Rob Schroeder, asking if they
should walk out. Huston plowed ahead, declaring it obvious that ‘an ejaculation
had occurred.’ Senior Casey Carroll had
had enough. He got up and left the room. McFayden, Schroeder, Jennison, and
Breck Archer followed their teammate. As they left, Huston said, ‘Don’t worry,
this won’t affect your grade.’ The female lacrosse player remained. She later
reported that Huston had devoted the entire session to his ‘analysis’ of the
case.
Down
the hall from Huston’s class, several other players were taking professor Sally
Deutsch’s course in U.S. history…Deutsch departed from the syllabus and
announced that she would discuss how white men, especially in the South, have
disrespected and sexually assaulted black females. ‘We all knew what she was
doing,’ lacrosse player Tony McDevitt later recalled. ‘A couple people asked
questions to try to get her off track, but she persisted. It lasted half an
hour.
Even
after it became clear that the three young men were likely wrongly accused, some
faculty just wouldn’t let it go. After Duke president lifted the suspensions of
falsely accused students Reade Seligman and Collin Finnerty, professor Karla Holloway resigned her position on the Campus Cultures Initiative in protest. Throughout
the spectacle, in order to appease various political interests, the Duke administration made public statements that leaned toward a
presumption of guilt against the three young men accused. As an example, Joe Alleva, Duke's athletic director, said, "Unfortunately, they're young men, and sometimes young men make bad decisions, make some bad judgments. And that's what this whole thing incident is about." While
many of them stated that they will not stand for sexual assault, not a single
one of them publicly stated they would not stand for false accusations of rape.
Seligmann on CBS |
Years
after the event, not a single professor has apologized, and some of the have
moved on to administrative positions. On January 17, 2007, 87 Duke faculty
signed what came to be called the Clarifying Letter in which they claimed that
they really didn’t mean to prejudge the three accused, that they had been
misinterpreted, and that they really weren’t specifically referring the case at
all. If that is true, one must wonder what exactly they were referring to in
the Listening Statement when they said, “this disaster?” In the Clarifying
Letter, they assert that the “disaster” is “the atmosphere that allows sexism, racism, and
sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus.”
But if they were commenting on that supposed atmosphere and not the case
itself, why did the author of the Listening Statement, Wahneema Lubiano, in her
original email to faculty inviting them to sign the ad, say, “African &African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle about the lacrosse team incident”? Why
were the students whose quotations they claimed to listen to referring to the
case specifically, and implying the guilt of the three accused
If
the faculty were truly concerned with not pre-judging the students accused and
adding to the hysteria and public hatred directed against them on the basis of
their birth group, why did they wait until 8 months after the fact, at which
point the case was 2/3 of the way over, when most of the evidence that had come
out strongly in in favor of the defendants? Why didn’t they clarify their
statement when people were still banging pots and pans, carrying castrate
banners and distributing wanted posters, when such a clarification would have
done the most good? And if they truly stand against prejudice on the basis of
race, sex, or class, why don’t they care about the fact that the greatest amount
of prejudice was directed against the three young men? If the faculty care so
much about listening to their students, why aren’t they listening to all of
them?
The
answer, of course, is that the Clarifying Letter is not about a re-affirmation
of the values of equality and diversity that, like many such faculty, the
faculty at Duke claim to possess but don’t; it’s about covering their behinds,
because as of January 2007, now that the evidence is strongly suggesting the
three young men were falsely accused, and that people speaking for 5 academic
departments and 10 academic programs had publicly had earlier urged the
community to presume their guilt, the university could be in serious legal
trouble.
In
his book Tenured Radicals – How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education,
Roger Kimball describes the culture at Duke University, “For months nearly the
entire faculty fell into one of two camps: those who demanded the verdict first
and the trial later, and those whose silence enabled their vigilante colleagues
to set the tone” (xxxi). Which
of the two groups is innocent? When it comes to political disagreements, many
faculty espouse the advice Polonius gave to his son Laertes in Shakespeare’s
Hamlet, who says “give every man thy ear but few thy voice.” Which is generally
a good professional policy, when disagreements are small. But when
prejudice develops from an attitude among a scattered few to a connected
subculture, when that subculture becomes entrenched, and when it metastasizes
to the point that it manifests itself in institutionalized hatred and bigotry, there
comes a point when remaining silent is no longer a virtue, or as a great man
said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” The truth is that every member
of the faculty and administration is a moral stakeholder in their respective
universities. When it comes to institutionalized prejudice, and when it comes
to civil rights, among those who have a stake in such a structure, there is no
such thing as an uninvolved bystander.
Wendy Murphy, Empress of Evil |
The
events drew responses from academia outside Duke as well. As Roger Kimball
reports in Tenured Radicals, “Syracuse University…decided not to accept as
transfers any students from the Duke lacrosse team – not just the three accused
chaps, mind you, but anyone
contaminated by having played lacrosse for Duke” (xxvii). Law professor Wendy
Murphy, an attorney and sex-assault victim advocate, was a frequent media spokesperson
on the Duke case. At one point commented, “I’m really tired of people
suggesting that you’re somehow un-American if you don’t respect the presumption
of innocence, because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption
you’re a liar.” And in case anyone missed it, this is a person who teaches law,
prosecutes people for sex crimes, and is regarded as an authority in the sex-assault
victim advocacy community.
Wendy
Murphy reveals a problem among many Feminists and sex-assault victim advocates:
the pervasive belief that women who claim to be raped are always telling the
truth. When the false accuser Crystal Gail Mangum was examined, “the doctors
and nurses were unanimous in finding no physical evidence of the attack
described by Crystal – that is, a brutal assault by three, five, or twenty
varsity athletes, lasting half an hour. No bruises. No bleeding. No vaginal or
anal tearing. No grimacing, sweating, changes in vital signs, or other symptoms
ordinarily associated with the serious pain of which she complained” (Johnson 32).
But
none of that mattered to the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, or SANE nurse, the
last one to see Crystal. “Tara Levicy, the ‘SANE nurse,’ was to play a
little-known but critical role in bringing about the prosecution of the
lacrosse players. A strong feminist who had played a part in a Vagina Monologues production [which is a
play hosted on many college campuses, which we’ll get to later] and who saw
herself as an advocate for rape victims, Levicy was later to acknowledge that
she had never doubted the truthfulness of a single rape accuser” (Johnson 33).
Tara Levicy, In-SANE Nurse |
At the end of the ordeal, David Evans, one of the falsely accused, said, "This woman [i.e. Crystal Mangum] has destroyed everything I worked for in my life." Reade Seligmann left Duke
and went on to graduate from Brown University in 2010, but as we will see, in
terms of misandry, the culture at Brown is not much better.
You
would think that after this event Duke would be content to lay low and let the
dust settle for a while. You would think that if they did anything, at least it
wouldn’t be rash, especially in the area of sexual misconduct. No. In 2009 Duke adopted a new sexual misconduct policy that radically broadens the definition
of nonconsensual sex, in effect stripping many male students of due process
rights. The policy states, “real or perceived power differentials may create an
unintentional atmosphere of coercion.”
The vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said, "Members of the men'sbasketball team could be punished for consensual sexual activity simply because they are 'perceived' as more powerful than other students after winning the national championship.” The director of Duke university’s women’s center
justified the policy by saying of rapists, "The higher [the] IQ, the more
manipulative they are, the more cunning they are…imagine the sex offenders we
have here at Duke—cream of the crop."
Given Duke’s history, it’s
a wonder why young men continue to attend. I
spend so much time talking about Duke because it is so emblematic of the
culture of higher education. And when we view that culture for what it is, we
perceive the source of a great many problems facing male students as a group.
For example, why
is that that, despite the incredible gaps in educational achievement between male and female students that have persisted for over 30 years, diversity
administrators sit on their hands and do nothing, while continuing to pour
funding and energy into programs for female students? Why is it that
college-age students can parade around a banner reading “castrate” and faculty
can say the most slanderous things about male students based on nothing more
than their genetic code, and no administrator says or does anything, but little boys who are 9 and 6-years-old are suspended for sexual harassment for saying that a teacher is cute, or for singing “I’m sexy and I know it?” What is going
on?
Freshman orientation at Hamilton College |
But
what about the more moderate among those in the academia? Surely not all of
them are like that. In what I believe to be most revealing lesson the Duke case can teach
us about the culture of higher education, that answer comes from the behavior
of one of the most moderate members of the Group of 88. It is an element of the
case that is almost never spoken of, and K.C. Johnson tells the story HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment