| mySPIN |
 Common threads in Duke Lacrosse, the Slavery Apology, and Don Imus
by Tom Campbell
April 12, 2007
When the Duke Lacrosse story first broke there was an instant feeding frenzy. Not to be outdone by the 24 hour-a-day cable news outlets, mainstream media jumped on the story and their rush to judgment was clear. The racial and gender undertones were all too obvious, accentuated by parades and rallies of support from North Carolina Central University students, the Mayor of Durham, feminists, and even an appearance from the Reverend Jesse Jackson.
Granted, they were strongly influenced by District Attorney Mike Nifong, who left little doubt that the Duke students were guilty. It was obvious that Nifong was pandering to the black community to win election to his office and it was equally obvious they were eager to buy in. Any voices that urged caution or mentioned “innocent until proven guilty” were quickly accused of being racists or elitists and hushed.
We may have come a long way in racial understanding and acceptance but this case demonstrates just how truly fragile is the thread of that harmony. When the Lacrosse case started unraveling there was no retraction from media, feminists, or civil rights groups. Even as Attorney General Roy Cooper publicly stated there was no evidence of any attack and charges were being dismissed we wondered where those same voices were in offering apologies to these young men. Granted, they come from privilege, but is that justification for not saying we are sorry for judging them too quickly and for what they went through? All three families have spent huge sums of money and time; we understand at least one is almost bankrupt in defense of sons who, the state says, were innocent. Is this justice?
Don Imus ’crude attack on the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team is indefensible and he shouldn’t be on the air. Imus is a shock-jock who has spent a career demeaning, criticizing, and calling names. But the names he called those young women can be commonly heard on rap songs and street talk. Do we have double standards here? Is it alright for a “brother” to call someone a name but not alright for a white person to do so? Why isn’t there more willingness to condemn anyone who demeans another race, sex, age or persuasion?
Our legislature joins this dance by rapidly considering and passing a formal apology for the “brutality of slavery.” No one can deny this is true, but it is curious why this apology became so urgent and important. Why now? What does it accomplish? Will people and attitudes suddenly change?
Responding to the dismissal of charges against the Duke players, attorney Jim Cooney talked about “speaking the truth to power,” explaining that it takes courage for people to speak out against the prevailing power structure. That same courage is needed to speak against discrimination, hatred, and injustice. Civil rights apply to all, not just one group. But it is more than a right to be civil, it is an imperative.
These three stories point to a polarization that still exists in our state and our country, a polarization that threatened the birth of this nation, then threatened its continuation. And unless people of good will, on all sides, can heal the all too obvious wounds this polarization may yet be our undoing. |
|
