Twenty years ago this month, the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case exploded on the Duke University campus, with three members of the university’s lacrosse team falsely accused of raping and assaulting a black stripper. It took more than a year to exonerate those young men, but only after the false charges had ruined lives and exposed elite higher education in the US.
As one who wrote nearly 100 articles on this case and who was interviewed on talk shows, along with working with some of the attorneys and families involved in the case, I saw it from the inside. I reported on prosecutors who lied and knowingly filed false charges and suborned perjury to cover their lies, police who lied at every turn of what turned out to be a sham investigation, and members of the Duke University faculty and administration who took part in framing innocent people for a crime that did not happen. And hovering over all of the wreckage was a combination of national and local media whose reporters—with some heroic exceptions—followed a false narrative until it drove them right over a cliff.
There is a standard narrative that the media and others want us to imagine: three young men were falsely accused of terrible crimes, but after diligent investigations by the authorities and good-faith efforts by others, the lacrosse players were exonerated while the malefactors were punished. In the end, the system worked.
That narrative is a lie, and over these next few weeks, I will deal with the different aspects of the case, from the police and prosecution to the Duke faculty and administration and to the media. There are numerous villains in this story and very few “good guys.” Furthermore, other than a mild punishment given to the lead prosecutor who committed numerous felonies during his reign of terror, none of the others who participated in pushing this false case faced any sanctions at all and many of the worst actors found themselves gaining even more power and wealth after the saga ended.
Far from being a situation in which the justice system “worked,” the Duke Lacrosse Case was the proverbial canary in the coal mine, a warning as to just how badly the system would veer off course when one of its members decided to lie with impunity. And it wasn’t just the justice system that showed its utter corruption. Duke’s foray into what now is called Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) would be a driving force in forcing attorneys for the players to do something unprecedented in US educational and justice history: attorneys filing a request for a change of venue because the university’s faculty and administration had behaved like a lynch mob.
And even after the lies in the case were exposed, nothing changed. Just seven years after the players were declared “innocent” Rolling Stone magazine, which had already disgraced itself in its coverage of the lacrosse case, published a story alleging rape and assault at the University of Virginia called “A Rape on Campus”—a story that was a complete fabrication and ultimately cost the magazine millions of dollars in settlements against people who were libeled and even was condemned by the left-wing Columbia Journalism Review.
Of course, the national media at first accepted the Rolling Stone piece as gospel truth just as it swallowed whole the Duke Lacrosse account. In both stories, the facts quickly established that both situations were built on lies, but the narratives that mainstream journalists follow rarely bow to the facts and the so-called “Newspaper of Record,” the New York Times, was probably the worst offender in the Duke case, with the possible exception of the local Durham Herald Sun.
The blogosphere and other internet outlets were a different story. While mainstream journalists (with the exception of the late Ed Bradley of CBS News’ “60 Minutes”) were siding with the prosecution and the Duke faculty, a number of bloggers and writers, led by KC Johnson—a Harvard-educated history professor at Brooklyn College whose blog Durham-in-Wonderland took the case apart time and again—exposing one lie after another. If anything, the Duke Lacrosse Case demonstrated the power of the internet and bloggers who were more than able to match wits with the most powerful journalists in the world and shoot down their false claims.
Today’s account will outline the fundamentals of the case. After all, it happened 20 years ago, and most people have either forgotten it or never heard of it in the first place. But this story is worth remembering for no other reason than it showed how dishonest police and prosecutors can frame innocent people in broad daylight and it proved that the worst of the academic world was now running the elite universities, and there was no stopping the rot. As written earlier, it was higher education’s canary in the coal mine—and the canary is still dying if not already dead.
It Began with a Party
On Monday, March 13, 2006, Duke University was on spring break, but the highly-ranked lacrosse team—a favorite in the upcoming NCAA championships—was on campus practicing and preparing for its next game. Every year at this time, the team would have a party at the on-campus house on Buchanan Street in Durham, and for the party that night, the captains had called a local escort agency to hire strippers for the evening. (The media insists on calling them “exotic dancers”).
The agency sent two black women, one being Crystal Gail Mangum, and the other Kim Roberts, and both women were prostitutes. They were to be paid $400 each to put on a “show,” but when it became obvious to them that none of the players were going to seek sexual favors with them, the two quickly locked themselves in the tiny bathroom in the house and refused to come out. After about 30 minutes, they walked out and left the building, calling for a ride. Because they had spent so little time actually stripping, the players claimed they had been cheated and they and the two women argued back and forth with some racially-charged language spoken by both sides. Roberts called the police, but when police showed up later, everyone was gone.
That should have been the end of things—a tawdry event that should have done no one proud—but it was not to be. Later that night, Mangum refused to leave Roberts’ car, so Roberts called the police and had Mangum removed. The officer took her to Durham Access, a place where she could be examined for mental disorders. A nurse—against protocol—asked Mangum if she had been raped and, given that a “yes” would mean she would not be committed to a mental health facility, Mangum answered in the affirmative. According to federal law, she then had to be taken to a medical facility to be examined, so she was driven to Duke University Medical Center. Per an account I wrote for an academic journal, this followed:
After arriving at DUMC, Mangum “recanted” her accusations to (Police Sgt. John) Shelton, and then reversed herself. She told a number of conflicting stories, and Shelton loudly announced to the others at DUMC that he did not believe her. According to the lawsuit filed by Robert Ekstrand, the case almost ended there, but was picked up by Mark Gottlieb, a Durham police officer who allegedly had an animus for Duke students. Gottlieb would breathe new life into the case.
The rape exam of Mangum by an ER doctor did not find signs of rape or a beating, but a feminist nurse who signed the examination paper (even though she had not done the exam herself) wrote she saw evidence of “rape” and “blunt force trauma,” and from there the case got legs and ended up in the hands of Michael Nifong—the acting Durham County district attorney who was in a contested primary for election to that office.
Police came to the Buchanan Street house on March 16, accusing the captains of rape, but not making any arrests. Nine days later, the News & Observer—a McClatchy-owned newspaper in Raleigh—had a front-page story authored by Samiha Khanna and Anne Blythe entitled “Dancer Recalls Details of Ordeal” (link no longer available), which featured an interview with Mangum and her father who claimed she was beaten and raped in the Buchanan house bathroom by three members of the lacrosse team. From there, everything exploded.
Within six weeks, police arrested Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, accusing each of them of rape, kidnapping, and assault against Mangum. In April 2007, then-North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, after a long investigation, declared all three “innocent” of all the charges. Two months after that, the North Carolina State Bar disbarred Nifong—the first time a state prosecutor had faced such consequences—and later that summer, a North Carolina judge sentenced Nifong to spend a day in jail on contempt charges for lying to the court.
Conclusion
Over the next three weeks, I will go into detail of the legal case, the role of the Duke administration and faculty in promoting a false story, and, finally, the role of the mainstream news media in keeping a number of lies alive in the mind of the public. Three important institutions of our society failed so miserably as to make it difficult to salvage anything good from them.
But the Duke case also showed the power of the internet in which ordinary citizens who were not employed by the police, courts, or the media could use the web to push information to the public that ordinarily would not have been able to see at all before the internet existed. While some were able to use the internet to push false accusations and theories of guilt, in the end the truth did prevail, despite the best efforts of the police, prosecutors, Duke faculty, and the New York Times. The institutions these people represented might be hopelessly corrupted, but for now, at least some people can fight back.
