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.
Recent Comments