Black and White, Shades of Gray

One of the things that has made the discussion of the Duke Lacrosse case so difficult is that it is one neither of purely black-and-white, right-and-wrong, nor is it of the more subtle shades-of-gray variety. Instead, it combines aspects of both: aspects of the case demands simple right/wrong answers, while others call for a more nuanced understanding of morality and ethics.

For instance, had the three lacrosse players legitimately been found guilty of committing the brutal rape with which they were initially charged, it is safe to say that they should have been punished – probably severely – and that those people and factors that had enabled such a crime should have been dealt with accordingly (the revision or dismantling of the lacrosse program, the prosecution of conspirators, etc.). On the other hand, if the three indeed did not commit the crimes with which they have been charged (and this increasingly seems to be the case, especially since the rape charges have now been dropped against all three), then they deserve to have their names cleared, the alleged victim needs to have her motives closely examined, as does the district attorney Mike Nifong and the prosecutorial team. These consequences seem fairly uncontroversial.

However, what is difficult about this case is that so many of the issues surrounding it cannot be parsed so easily, but instead exist in a world of proliferating gray that is so troublesome and morally ambiguous. Unlike the legal case with its relatively simple understanding of right and wrong, the social issues which have produced the case’s controversy and to which it is intimately tied actively resist such simplistic responses. Not matter how much we might want the issues of class, race, region, and the academy that surround the case to dissolve into the ether with the handing down of the legal judgment (or the dismissal of the case), the tenacity and complexity of these issues make such resolutions incomplete and even dishonest.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, this is also what makes the case so interesting from a social standpoint: try as we might to see the racial dynamics of the case simply, or to cast the academy’s response and one-dimensional, these issues defy such compartmentalization. This has been the pitfall of many commentators and writers on the case, as they have been tricked to applying legal standards to the social aspects of the case, and in the process oversimplified and reduced the cultural aspects of the case in unproductive or even negative ways. For instance, failing to understand that while not guilty of rape (or – so it would now seem – kidnapping and sexual assault) that these players in specific or the lacrosse team more generally might have participated in a campus culture in need of study and possible revision, is to choose to ignore that legal innocence does not – and should not – mean that this incident should be moved quickly behind us.

But we do want to move beyond this: the Duke Lacrosse case (for lack of a better moniker) is something that the community of Durham and the university – not to mention academia and the nation at large – need to work through and past to make sure that nothing like this happens again. This seems to be something that has heretofore been missing in internet conversations about the case (there are exceptions), for while the complexities of the legal case has preoccupied many, and damning involved players has become a pastime of others, few have begun to look for ways out of the current mess. To be fair, Duke initially made an effort to do so, by establishing the Campus Culture Initiative and holding numerous forums on the matter. These efforts – rightly and wrongly – have been largely dismissed, though, and as the status quo reasserts itself, we would do well to reassess where the past nine months have taken us.

I would like to pose a number of questions that seem relevant at this point. First, from the point of view of Duke:

-- Did the social culture at the University contribute to this event? How can this be diagnosed, and what can be done about it?

-- How does the (perceived) divide between athletics and academics at the university play out in the case? How can this relationship be evaluated, and how can it be bettered?

-- What role did the faculty play in this case? How can faculty-student relationships be improved? Moreover, how can the gaps between students, faculty, and the administration be reduced?

Notice that none of these questions are aimed at specific policies, nor are they particularly narrow question. This is not to say that such questions aren’t relevant, but simply that they aren’t my immediate concern.

Thinking more broadly:

-- What does this case say about the perception of Duke in the Durham community, and vice versa? It is probably safe to say that this relationship is far from perfect: what can be done to improve it? Are there different things that the university and the community need to do, or things that they can do together?

-- How does this case demonstrate the perception of the academy within American society at large?

-- What roles have public intellectuals played in this case? In what ways have these interactions been positive? Can this case tell us something about the role of public intellectuals in American life?

These questions attempt to look forward and see the case as something that can tell us useful things about the university and society, but that the answers needn’t necessarily be damning, nor the outcome inevitably be bad. The specifics of the case need not be ignored, nor must the past be banished from any discussion about how to move forward. Indeed, to do so would be irresponsible. But to simply pillory Duke, or characterize Durham as a cesspool (this is common on many internet discussion boards), or even to demonize Nifong would be as unproductive and dangerous in the long run as completely exonerating them (and this is no goal), and would be incorrectly and negatively applying the black-and-white standards of the legal system to a problem that is much more complex.