Exactly.

What does what a few idiots have to say about a topic have to do with the integrity of the institution they attend? Should we question Duke's academic rigor just because its lacrosse team has had well-documented behavioral problems in the past?

Your ridiculous tangent makes me wonder if the institution(s) you attended are accredited or if they even have admissions requirements. ;)

You're right... maybe I should have just said something along the lines of "I can't believe such a moron would be attending college, let alone have a HS diploma." In reference to that fella.

Does that work for you?

Better for me at least.

Every school has intelligent idiots -- people with book smarts but absolutely no common sense or with a completely distorted and crazy view of the world. I was in college and law school with them and I bet you were, too. If the presence of intelligent idiots were grounds for denying accreditation, there wouldn't be an accredited institution of higher learning in the country.

Besides, future "expert" guests on Nancy Grace, Tucker Carlson, Hannity and Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, Rita Cosby, et al., deserve a college education, too.

According to a study released by Duke faculty, chaired by a law professor, the Duke LAX team makes up less than 1% of the student population, but members were responsible for 11% of reported campus problems last year -- many alcohol related.

You can hear the story here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5376032

That obviously does not make them rapists, but does speak to the alleged culture of a seemingly out of control organization.

If you want to look at peoples' pasts then...

In that case we can compare a few drunkards against a stripper/escort/hooker who has a history of saying 3 guys have raped her and getting knocked up early on.

It's funny how many rights a woman gets as soon as she screams rape and how many rights are taken from a man.

Notice how the names of the players are always in the news, but not the woman's. Notice how they talk about how the players were so unruly but they don't say this girl had questionable morals by those standards at the least. The woman claims she got death threats, but I don't see the KKK saying they're going to march by her house with guns, I see the Black Panthers led by a vile man saying they would do that.

-Rudey

Most of your points are correct, in my opinion, however it probably wasn't in the purview of an internal investigation of groups on the Duke campus to comment on a student from another school.

Also, almost all media will not mention the name of an alleged rape victim without her/his permission. (Although this victim has been named somewhere at this point, hasn't she?) Right or wrong, it is in the written rules of conduct of many news organizations.

Conversely, the name of someone who is accused of a crime -- in this case, indicted -- who is over the age of 18, that name may be used.

There's a debate going on about this in J-schools; in my media law class, it was a big portion of the discussion. It wouldn't surprise me if in the future more of the accused keep their names out of the papers. That, to me, would be a great change.

Why was that investigation done? Does anyone in the administration harbor any of their own biases (clearly so given the multitude of op-eds that have been out there since the accusations came about)? In fact I don't see the correlation. Does that mean that someone who is well behaved never rapes or that anyone that drinks rapes? Plus I don't know what the numbers are or what the reasons were for why they got in trouble.

And I know the media doesn't report her name. But that's not right and should be changed. But if they did change it I can just see the groundswell of feminazis that would go insane.

-Rudey

First, in fairness, notice that I edited the first part of my comments about this, probably while you were posting this. My edit was not a result of your later thoughts.

I believe the answer to your question above is that the university administration chartered an investigation of all student groups at Duke -- probably due to the LAX team situation.

Victims rights advocates would not agree that the victim should be identified, but it does seem to me to be potentially unfair in some situations to identify one but not the other.

The victim should not be identified, ever. Neither should the accused. (Good luck with that, right?)

It occurs to me that I should point out that the committee (actually there were two of them) were as critical of the university itself and its handling of student groups as it was of the team.

They made several recommendations that the administration says it will impliment.

They also felt that the team should be able to compete next school year.

I've wondered from the beginning whether the basketball team would have been forced to forfeit its season.

Oh man, that would've been sweet, but then everyone would've thought that the alleged victim was a secret Tar Heel.

No. But on the other hand, Coach K never would have let the basketball team behave like the LAX team appears to have behaved for some years now. It would have been nipped in the bud early on.

One would hope.