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