Don Yaeger's "It's Not About the Truth"

I just finished reading Don Yaeger and Mike Pressler's It's Not About the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Case and the Lives It Shattered, and I'm kind of angry.  You can't read this book without getting angry, just as you can't read KC Johnson's blog Durham-in-Wonderland without getting angry.

Of course, there are many different things one can angry about concerning the entire incident, but what Yaeger's and Pressler's book does effectively is concentrate and direct anger toward Durham D.A. Mike Nifong and Duke President Dick Brodhead.  I'll confess that when I first heard about the allegation that a bunch of Duke lacrosse players had gang-raped an African-American exotic dancer, my instinct -- no doubt fueled by probably unfair stereotypes of college athletes -- was that they had probably committed the act.  From my pre-law days in journalism, I had talked to a few rape counselors and sex offense police detectives to gather that rape was a particularly underreported crime, given the savaging that rape accusers often suffer when they do bring accusations.

I mention my initial instinct partly to suggest that I did not have an instinctive bias to take the side of the white, supposedly privileged players.  That's why following the case and the apparently outrageous steps that Nifong took in leading the investigation and prosecuting/persecuting the players is so angering.  When there is evidence of such massive abuse of authority for what seems like pure personal/political gain (the book argues that Nifong made a spectacle out of the case so that he could win election as DA and thereby keep his job, since his main opponent was the second Assistant DA, Freda Black, whom he fired when he was appointed DA by the governor), it's impossible not to be angry.

But back to Yaeger's book.  One question is, if you have been a regular reader of KC Johnson's blog, is there anything in the book that you wouldn't have already come across?  The answer is yes.  Although Johnson has conducted some reporting of his own, the primary value of his blog lies in his careful, analytical dissection of the various defenses offered by Nifong and his enablers (such as the Gang of 88 -- the 88 faculty members who penned an ad that essentially passed judgment on the lacrosse players before any legal process had taken place).  Yaeger interviewed a number of the key people in the case and provides interesting after-the-fact reflections, particularly some of the parents of the lacrosse players. 

One especially striking matter was a letter that one player's mother sent to Karla Holloway, one of the Gang of 88 professors.  In the letter, the mother -- Patricia Dowd -- notes that Holloway's adopted son was convicted of rape and attempted murder and asks, "Do you attack our sons because you feel guilt for your own failure as a mother? . . . Do you attack our sons to justify your own son's shortcomings?  Do you attack our sons because they are innocent and your son was not?"

This is, of course, just an ad hominem attack on Holloway and isn't therefore a very good argument on the merits.  But Holloway's response is equally invalid: "Your letter reflects nothing so much as an impoverished spirit and intellect.  What a shame, for you, and your family."  And at least Dowd can always rely on the fact that she was fretting over her son's suffering. . . .

The book also provides a nice look into former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler's side of the story.  The players themselves have gone through hell, but at the same time, they did set into motion the events by hiring the strippers.  That's not to say that they deserved what happened, because obviously they didn't.  But, as the players recognized after the fact, hosting the party with the strippers was a bad idea.  Pressler, on the other hand, had nothing to do with the stripper party, and yet, he was -- according to Pressler -- forced to resign from the institution that he'd spent 16 years at.  I didn't fully appreciate the injustice to Pressler before, and the book does that well.

Yet, if there is a flaw with the book, it is that it comes across as having its own agenda, which is attacking Nifong and Brodhead.  Not surprisingly, neither Nifong nor Brodhead agreed to be interviewed for the book, and that shouldn't be held against Yaeger, who did make serious attempts to do so.  In Brodhead's place, we hear from John Burness, Duke's main PR person.  That's better than nothing, but Burness wasn't the one making decisions.

Indeed, the reason that Brodhead wouldn't be interviewed for the book, according to Burness, is that he perceived Yaeger as having "strong opinions" of the case.  It's not hard to see why, when Yaeger at times overwrites with phrases such as "[Nifong's] mind was like a runaway train . . . heading the wrong way on a one-way track."  With misconduct as seemingly plain as Nifong's, there's no need for flowery writing like that; just lay out the facts and Nifong indicts himself through his inconsistent explanations.  Moreover, when Yaager cites or quotes other commentators for their views about the case, it's not surprising that conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are happy to attack Duke.  And perhaps they're right in this particular incident, but the fact that they are passed off as sensible people while Nancy Grace is made out to be a frothing nut (which she is) isn't exactly as neutral as one might expect.

So this is a good read -- I did finish it in basically two sittings -- but I think it would have benefitted from a degree of editing to make it more neutral in tone.

Comments

[Duke alum]

Just a small correction for your post. The professor in question was not Lubiano, it was Karla Holloway. I hope that the book didn't make the same mistake.

[Duke alum]

Not to belabor the point, but here is the link to the article in the Raleigh News & Observer regarding the e-mail exchange between Mrs. Dowd and Karla Holloway.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/531318.html

The release of the first chapter of Yaeger's book caused some concern about the attention to detail and accuracy. I haven't seen the book yet, but if it confuses Lubiano and Holloway, that is more cause for concern.

[Old Dawg]

Thank you for your review, professor. It is difficult for most writers to make their writing "neutral in tone." That must explain why you opined that Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are not to be "passed off as sensible people."

I know Iowa City quite well and KC Johnson's observations about the faculty at Duke are eeriely redolent of the University of Iowa faculty and administration. Perhaps you remember the April 2000 fake "hate crime" perpetrated by a U of I dental student and the resulting comment by U of I administrator Ann Rhodes prior to the young woman's confession that she had faked the "hate crime."

April 21 -- A black dental student was charged Thursday in a series of racist and threatening e-mails directed at her minority classmates. Prosecutors blamed Tarsha Michelle Claiborne, 23, for a three-week period of threatened violence that frightened students at the UNIVERSITY OF IOWA'S COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY and forced the closing of the school's main building on Wednesday. Claiborne, of Baton Rouge, La., was arrested early Thursday.

April 28 -- A civil rights complaint against the University of Iowa has been filed with the U.S. Department of Education after a top official at the school called white men "the root of most evil." University of Iowa Vice President for University Relations ANN RHODES said April 20 that she thought the suspect in a series of alleged campus hate incidents "was going to be a white guy between 25 and 55 because they're the root of most evil," prompting the complaint, which was filed by the California-based European/American Issues Forum. The suspect in the case was a black female student at the university's College of Dentistry. In apologizing for the comment last week, Rhodes said her characterization of white men as the root of most evil "reinforces the kinds of stereotypes we have been working to dispel." She also called her remarks "a poor attempt at humor," and said it was "inappropriate to joke about such a sensitive issue."

[Tung Yin]

I didn't join at the University of Iowa law faculty until fall 2002, so I wasn't here during this particular incident, although I think I've vaguely heard about it.

[Leigh]

How can anyone passionate about a "wrongfully accused experience" write of it in a nuetral fashion????? Especially when the accusers and their cohorts are hellbent on their mission to pursue such injustice which will result in their own gain or personal fame? Please visit our story of incomprehensible injustice that had a sorry outcome due to lack of funds to pay for proper representation!

[Diane]

I too read the book "It's not about the truth" and was not quite as surprised or upset since I know personally how these injustices happen everyday and how difficult it is to fight "the establishments" that all stick together! Please read about the case of Paul Cortez and look at the information that has been compiled by a group of people that are trying to correct this horrible injustice. Please look at FreePaulCortez.Org