OP/ED
The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 5
VIEWPOINT
Notjust Duke
and Durham
BY EVAN MCGARVEY
Slander. Dehumanization. Rape.
Ugly as those thoughts may be, what
happened March 13 at an off-cam-
pus apartment leased by members of
the Duke University men's lacrosse
team is still legally unclear. But the
societal implications echo through
what is a private, supremely expen-
sive university (tuition is roughly
$43,000 a year) with a massive out-of-
state student body (about 85 percent
of Duke's undergraduates hail from
outside North Carolina). That night
also echoes through sexual, racial,
gendered and economic wounds. It
echoes through everything.
A black woman, mother of two and
student at Durham's other university
- the historically black, commuter,
state-funded and non-Ivory Tower
North Carolina Central University
- was hired as an exotic dancer for
a bachelor party that night. She ended
up dancing for more than 40 already
inebriated young men, almost all of
whom were on the lacrosse team.
Hours later, she emerged from the
house and alleged that she had been
pulled into a bathroom by three white
men, raped, sodomized and verbally
assaulted with a seemingly endless
reservoir of racial slurs.
The facts of the case are still
unclear. The Durham district attorney
said there is enough physical evidence
to prove that "a crime" took place
that night. Multiple witnesses, totally
unrelated to the victim, claimed to the
Raleigh News & Observer that as they
walked in front of the same off-cam-
pus property, young white men spew-
ing racial slurs accosted them.
Durham police took three days
after the initial report filed by the vic-
tim before searching the house. Duke
itself has come under fire for only
investigating the team and the crime
two weeks after the first allegation.
The lacrosse team, expectedly, has
launched a barricade of silence, obe-
diently offering DNA samples while
holding the party line that no crime
occurred at their party. The facts will,
hopefully, govern the process of the
trial, and our first concern has to be
the victim. But to get a full grasp of
the event, we have to look through an
abstract lens.
The crime, if it did indeed occur,
is sexual, racial and economic at the
same time. It appears - the case's
ultimate -political meaning-is its
appearance - as if a select group of
ultra-privileged white men playing a
historically and culturally aristocrat-
ic, white sport at an isolated, private,
elite university slandered, harassed
and raped a single black mother from
a working-class university because,
well, they could.
It is important that I stress that
no party has been charged yet, but
even without the illumination of a
trial, the crime appears to represent a
frightening, emblematic trope in our
universities, our social cohorts and
our generation: the privileged white
male's casual abuse of the other.
The particular sting of the case is
who exactly violated whom. The privi-
leged and the elite violate the figure
from the other side of town: the black,
the feminine, the blue-collar and the
"non-Duke." By locating a person out-
side our definition of community, we've
already taken a step to dehumanizing
them, making them into the "other."
If we consider Duke a peer uni-
versity, and I believe we should, we
must locate this crime within our
own environment.
Schools like Duke, Vanderbilt
University, the University of South-
ern California and the University of
Pennsylvania all have famously used
architectural (walls, gates, etc.) and
other constructs to divide painstak-
ingly their top-tier, entitled students
from the city and state their institu-
tion inhabits. But how do we separate
the people in "our" community from
"the other"? Should we? Does Duke
bear any responsibility to the vic-
tim, Durham, North Carolina Central
State - or only to its own students,
the alleged criminals?
Where are the divisions at our Uni-
versity? One of the blessings of a state
university is that the institution forces
us, from the dorms to the classroom,
to deal with people we can't identify
with, we've never dealt with before
and who may not look like us.
Who is the "other" for you? How
do you define your community? Are
the University employees who clean
Angell Hall in the dead of night part
of your concept of community? The
homeless Ann Arbor resident you
VIEWPOINT
Empty boxes invite comment
BY PERRY TEICHER
The empty boxes in March 8's Michigan Daily
invite additional reflection (What are we missing?).
Editor in Chief Donn Fresard's commentary pro-
vided a much-needed analysis of the importance of
free speech vis-a-vis press responsibility. As Fre-
sard discusses, the Daily strives to provide a forum
to challenge the culture that "makes it nearly impos-
sible for people to honestly debate sensitive issues
in public." This is an important goal, one that is too
often overlooked and that student government, the
administration and other organizations have tried
and should strive harder to fulfill.
However, the reason not to publish certain car-
toons should extend beyond the idea of publishing
simply to publish. Not all disagreements over sen-
sitivity concerns are a product of illogical liberal-
ism. Some sensitivities, such as those surrounding
depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, are based in
religious beliefs. No belief, no ideology should be
exempt from critique. It is important to recognize,
however, the background of issues and what certain
pictures imply to different groups.
Fresard leaves open the door for future publi-
cation of similar cartoons based upon the idea of
allowing a thorough exchange of ideas. There is
nothing wrong with this openness, and this is an
admirable goal. I question, though, whether this
argument should be the basis for not publishing this
type of material. Should the purpose in publishing
or not publishing material to instigate discussion be
the only or primary rationale behind this type of
decision? It seems to me that another focus should
be the concerns raised by students last semester.
The Student Relations Advisory Committee that
publicly addressed this issue (An open letter to the
Daily, 02/03/2006) focused too much on an unsus-
tainable legal argument. The general intent of the
critique has many valid points, though. Students
responded to last semester's cartoons not sim-
ply because certain members of the community
deemed the cartoons offensive, but because there
was a perception that the sole purpose of the car-
toons detracted from the positive progress of the
campus climate. Fresard points to the importance
of discussion when challenged. When an organi-
zation challenges one's core beliefs, however, it
is often difficult and possibly impossible to over-
look what is often taken as an insult to analyze the
issue.
The Daily especially should provide commen-
tary and critical analysis of events and policies
directly affecting students from all perspectives.
However, as the committee addressed, it is also
important that the Daily does not contribute to the
ridicule or ostracism of any member of the Univer-
sity community. It is also important in working for
the benefit of campus that those involved consider
how they would feel if the political considerations
were reversed. Fresard attempts to provide a bal-
ance and lays a substantial foundation. His analysis,
however, leaves out the emotions of those involved.
Challenge is good; offense is often important. Per-
ception is another necessary and important factor.
However, while not discounting the racial and
other sensitivities, Fresard places more emphasis
on the power to challenge and create change. What
about those students and community members
who are not getting the whole picture but only see
one cartoon, for example, and draw their conclu-
sion about the University based on that depiction?
The entirety or even majority of the responsibil-
ity does not fall on the Daily. While important, the
Daily is not the only source of news, information or
education. Student organizations and the adminis-
tration can and should better challenge and instill
an acceptance of diverse beliefs within individuals
and the community to better understand the context
of often isolated Daily publications - a task that
the administration and various student organiza-
tions have attempted to various degrees of success.
In addition to creating a climate of understanding
diversity, the University should attempt to create an
environment where individuals strive to challenge
their beliefs in all activities.
The Daily, student government and other bodies
with wide reach should challenge the University
community to think outside its comfort zone. The
line as discussed by those critical of the Daily is not
only centered on what is offensive to the students
and faculty who see a cartoon and have context
but what these pictures signify to those individuals
who see what is viewed as racist or offensive with-
out context. The problem then becomes just that to
which Fresard alludes: the gray zone between free
speech and responsibility. The boxes do not contain
any answers, only questions. But maybe that per-
plexing emptiness hits closer to the purpose of the
University?
Teicher is an LSA junior. He is chair of the
Hillel governing board, a former MSA
representative and a member of the
Student Relations Advisory Committee.
Viewpoint Policy
The Daily welcomes viewpoints from
its readers Viewpoints have one or several
authors, though preference will be given to
pieces written on behalf of individuals rather
than an organization.
Editors will run viewpoints according
to timeliness, order received and avail-
able space.
Viewpoints should be no longer than 700
words. The Daily reserves the right to edit for
length, clarity and accuracy.
Send viewpoint submissions to editpage.
editors@umich.edu, or contact the editors at
that address to arrange one in advance.
Drumollplease.
Ernst & Young is proud to announce our newest additions.
At Ernst & Young we've created an environment that contributes to your growth and success as
much as you contribute to ours. Welcome to our in-coming class from The University of Michigan.
ey.com/us/careers
Jacob Alexander
Bo Chu
Kathleen Crone
Lauren Cubbin, intern
Stuart Doyle
Michelle Emery, intern
Ashley Friedman
Bhavya Gowda, intern
Dana Gratch
Jon Greenberg
Laurence Ho, intern
Werison Hwang
Craig Jacobs, intern
James Kempa
Christopher Kuzak
Christina Lafata, intern
Ying Li
Amy McMahon, intern
Natasha Motwani, intern
Neeta Mulgaokar, intern
David Nidetz, intern
Swapna Panchagnula, intern
Adam Powell
Shaurya Sehgal
Partheev Shah, intern
Ajai Tuli
Zhiguang Wang, intern
Sarah Williams, intern
Nelson Wong, intern
Yingfei Zhao
FORTUNE
onn nrnr
I
I