4.29.06

It Wouldn’t be PC to Brand Her a Slut…

…so I guess we’ll have to settle for “liar”.

That seems to be the mindset of the Duke lacrosse players’ attorneys. And of course, of the media and anyone who takes CNN at face value.

In case you’ve been protesting the corporatization and homogenization of the mass media by boycotting anything news-related, here’s a summary of what is going on:

• Last month, Duke University’s lacrosse team, which has a longstanding reputation for being really obnoxious, had a party for which they hired two strippers.
• Both strippers left at some point because they felt uncomfortable with the atmosphere. One was persuaded to return.
• The woman who returned to the party was raped by three members of the lacrosse team.
• She reported the assault, and two players were charged with rape.
• The lacrosse coach quit and the accused players were kicked out of school.

Note: all of this is “alleged”, of course.

Durham, NC, where Duke is located, is a community where enormous tensions around race and class already exist. This case has magnified those issues, and, according to my mom, who lives in the next town over, things are mighty tense over there. The accused are priveleged white students at an elite university. The accuser is a black woman who is stripping to put herself through a less prestigious school. The whole thing is, depending on the outcome, a veritable time bomb.

Now, about that title…the media was very careful to handle this story delicately. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that outright vilifying the rape victim would be a very bad idea under these circumstances. However, I knew they’d find a way to discredit her eventually, and here it is:

She filed a sexual assault report ten years ago and did not follow through with the investigation.

If you read the CNN article here, you will notice it is never overtly stated that this means she was lying. Nor does it state that, therefore, she is probably lying this time. Instead, the article is written in such a way that it assumes the reader would logically come to that conclusion, because what other answer could there be? Well, here are a few scenarios in which dropping the case makes sense:

• She reported the rape several years after it occurred. This means that there would be no physical evidence, which in turn means little chance the case would ever be charged, because it would be virtually impossible to get a conviction. In this situation, the case is usually closed.
• Reporting a rape is traumatic. The victim has to relive the experience by describing it in great detail, usually to several different people. Many survivors discover that they cannot or do not want to continue.
• There are many amazing, empathetic cops out there, but there are awful ones as well. When I was a rape crisis advocate I had a case in which a detective told my client that she couldn’t have been raped because she removed her own shoes. She walked out of the police department feeling worse than she did going in. Yes, that is an extreme example, but it’s not the only instance in which I saw a police officer’s attitude dissuade a survivor from pursuing the case.

I don’t understand why people are so quick to blame rape victims for the actions of their attackers. Why isn’t our collective reaction, “wow, this woman has been gang-raped twice. How incredibly awful”, instead of “yeah, I knew she was lying”? I have enormous respect for this woman, because her life must be a living hell right now. I don’t understand why anyone believes she would subject herself to this experience for attention, or for revenge, or for any other lame reason. Think about it, people. This is no one’s idea of fun.

Say your words