Support Duke Lacrosse? Wear It On Your Sleeve.

Mary Katharine Ham
|
Posted: Aug 04, 2006 11:25 AM

If you have a sneaking suspicion the rape cases brought against three members of the Duke lacrosse team might be a bunch of bunk, you can show your support for the lax guys with a new addition to the unexpectedly trendy rubber jewelry trend.

The wristbands are Royal Blue with the inscription:

"Innocent! #6, #13, #45 - Duke Lacrosse 2006"

The proceeds from the bracelets go to the Association of Truth and Fairness, a group created to raise defense funds for the three players.

The Association's mission statement is here, along with a recommendation from Friends of Duke University, a Durham-based group that has been fighting the P.R. war on the side of the lacrosse players in a very hostile environment.

Always check in with La Shawn, who has been consistently blogging the case's developments. Here, she covers the Durham D.A.'s very late realization that he just should shut up from the beginning. Of course, this realization comes after his election win. I question the timing.

Robert KC Johnson covers how this case is playing out in the academic environment. His take on Duke President Brodhead's response to the Friends of Duke University:

The most recent addition to the Brodhead Files occurred with the president’s response to the recent open letter by Friends of Duke University. (Disclosure: I fully support this organization, and its website has posted links to my writings on the case.) As an FODU press release explained, the open letter “asked Duke to do four things: (i) speak up for its students; (ii) be fair to the lacrosse team and encourage others to do so as well; (iii) speak up for Duke; and (iv) accept the challenges presented by the lacrosse controversy.”

Brodhead’s response ignored the first and third of these issues; whitewashed his administration’s approach to the second; rationalized Duke’s wildly one-sided handling of the fourth; and distorted FODU’s requests.

“You chide the University for not supporting the players more aggressively,” wrote Brodhead, “but the University does not have direct access to the full truth of the case now any more than we did earlier, and we can't speak with certainty of matters that only the criminal justice system can resolve.” The assertion that “the university doesn’t have access to the full truth of the case now any more than we did earlier” [emphasis added] is hard to read with a straight face. In the case of Reade Seligmann, the president now has access to myriad exculpatory evidence, culminating with a videotape showing Seligmann at an ATM machine a mile away at the time of the alleged crime. Brodhead obviously does not believe that sexual assaults in Durham can occur when the alleged perpetrator is on videotape someplace else. Is he unaware of the video? If so, why?

UPDATE: My dad reminds me that JohnInCarolina is also covering the Duke case, closely. He has a great letter to the editor from a Friend of Duke University member, which just blasts Durham D.A. Mike Nifong.