The State of White America-2007: Education: Pseudo-Pedagogy, Real Hatred
Release Date: April 5, 2007
Prepared by and for the National Policy Institute by Nicholas Stix, Project Director
V. Education: Pseudo-Pedagogy, Real Hatred
By Nicholas Stix
Scottsboro Boys II: The Duke Rape Hoax and the Demonization of White Heterosexual Men
Three white male Duke University students – Reade Seligmann, 20, Dave Evans, 23, and Collin Finnerty, 19 – presently await trial on charges of first-degree forcible rape, first-degree sexual offense, and first-degree kidnapping. The only problem is, no crime appears to have been committed – save for the false charges against the men, that is. The only "crime" the three men are guilty of, is of being white.
The crimes are alleged to have taken place just after 12:30 a.m. on the morning of March 14, at a house rented by the Duke lacrosse team in Durham, NC. It was the beginning of spring break, and the players had hired two "exotic dancers" from an "escort service" to perform for two hours, at an agreed on price of $400 each.
(It is critical that this discussion avoid euphemism. The accuser and her colleague have consistently been referred to in the mainstream media as "exotic dancers." A belly dancer is an "exotic dancer"; there is nothing exotic to being a stripper, which is what the two women were supposedly being paid for being that night. Note too that they worked for an "escort service"; "escort" is a euphemism for prostitute. The reason strippers might work for an "escort service" is because many strippers double as prostitutes.)
One of the women (hereafter, "the accuser"), later claimed that various players had locked her in a bathroom and, without using condoms, raped, orally and anally sodomized, and "strangled" her over the course of 30 minutes.
The women left the house around 1:07 a.m. Shortly thereafter, Durham police received a 911 call from a black woman, saying now that she and her girlfriend had driven by, now that they had walked by the house where the lacrosse players were, and that one of the players had called the women a racial epithet.
Unbeknownst to the public and the eventual suspects until June, the accuser's story – or rather, stories – began to unravel immediately.
The second woman, black-Asian Kim Roberts Pittman, drove the accuser to an all-night Kroger's grocery, where Roberts called 911, saying her colleague was unconscious. A police officer responding reportedly said that the accuser appeared to be faking unconsciousness.[i] At Kroger's, the accuser then told police she'd been raped.
In interviews with medical personnel over the next hour or so, the accuser at first said that she was groped, but not raped. She then changed her story back to one in which she was raped. The number of rapists then oscillated from twenty to two to three… and then five. The accuser also claimed in her March 14 police statement that she had gone to the players' house not with one but three other "dancers" – "Nikki" (Kim Roberts Pittman), "Angel," and "Tammy."[ii] The March 14 statement was not handed over to defense attorneys until over three months later.
Although the accuser was supposedly vaginally, orally, and anally raped, there was no DNA evidence from any of the lacrosse players: No semen, blood, saliva, mucus, urine or pubic hair. There was semen in her vagina, but it wasn't from any of the lacrosse players.
In April, it came out that both the accuser and Kim Roberts Pittman were convicted criminals.
The accuser is a 27-year-old, divorced mother of two and full-time student at black North Carolina Central University, also in Durham. In 2002, the first time she supposedly worked as a stripper, she pickpocketed a taxi-driving customer's car keys; stole his cab; drove while intoxicated; led police on a high-speed chase seeking to flee arrest; and attempted to murder a policeman who had gotten out of his squad car to arrest her, by trying to run him down.[iii] And yet, by the time the offender pleaded guilty, the charges had been so reduced that she spent less than one week in jail, over the course of three weekends.
The accuser had earlier been married and served in the U.S. Navy. However, while in the Navy, she had cuckolded her husband with another man, whose child she bore. Forced to separate from the service, she and her husband divorced, after which she bore the other man a second child. The other man then deserted the accuser and their children. She had to apply to family court to get his wages garnished, for child support.
In 1996, the accuser claimed that she had been gang raped by three men three years earlier. Her father has disputed her claim.[iv] The accuser never pressed charges based on her earlier accusation.
As of March 13, the accuser was 27 years old, and was a full-time student, with a "B" average, at black North Carolina Central University, also in Durham.
The second woman, Kim Roberts Pittman, had been convicted of embezzlement for stealing $25,000 from a company where she had helped out with the payroll. She also did not serve time for her crimes, getting only probation.
Days after the alleged crimes occurred, Roberts e-mailed a public relations firm, to see how she could spin the situation to her advantage.
Critics have charged both Durham police and D.A. Mike Nifong with egregious misconduct, charges that appear to be eminently justified.[v]
Nifong, appointed DA by his predecessor (who had been appointed to a judgeship), was running for district attorney for the first time. And with blacks making up 45 percent of Durham's residents, he was desperate for black votes. Before any arrests had been made, Nifong condemned the lacrosse team, and emphasized that the case would rise and fall on the DNA evidence. When no DNA evidence incriminating the lacrosse players was forthcoming, D.A. Nifong stopped giving interviews, but pressed his case as aggressively as ever.
The Duke University administration and faculty, rather than respecting the presumption of innocence and the suspects' rights, did everything but organize a lynching party. President Richard Brodhead cancelled the season of the nation's number two-ranked lacrosse team, and forced Coach Mike Pressler to resign. President Brodhead also suspended a lacrosse player who had sent an e-mail shortly a few hours after the two women left the students' house, in which he fantasized about skinning strippers alive.
On March 29, Prof. Houston Baker sent "Awaiting the Restoration of Confidence: A Letter to the Duke University Administration," to Duke administrators and to the media.
"How is a Duke community citizen to respond to such a national embarrassment from under the cloud of a 'culture of silence' that seeks to protect white, male, athletic violence and which apparently prevents all university citizens from even surveying the known facts?"
Prof. Baker spoke of "this horrific, racist incident."
"… there is a clear urgency about the erosion of any felt sense of confidence or safety for the rest of us who live and work at Duke University. The lacrosse team -- 15 of whom have faced misdemeanor charges for drunken misbehavior in the past three years -- may well feel they can claim innocence and sport their disgraced jerseys on campus, safe under the cover of silent whiteness. But where is the black woman who their violence and raucous witness injured for life? Will she ever sleep well again? And when will the others assaulted by racist epithets while passing 610 Buchanan ever forget that dark moment brought on them by a group of drunken Duke boys? Young, white, violent, drunken men among us -- implicitly boasted by our athletic directors and administrators -- have injured lives."[vi]
In addition to being the George D. and Susan Fox Beischer Professor of English, Baker is also one of the leading figures in African-American studies.[vii]
On April 7, a full-page advertisement appeared in the student newspaper, The Chronicle, signed by 88 Duke professors (including Prof. Baker),[viii] and supported by three academic departments and 13 programs, strongly suggesting not only that then-unnamed white lacrosse players had committed a brutal, racially motivated rape of a black woman, but that such was the character of the entire lacrosse team, and indeed, the Duke campus.
"We are listening to our students. We're also listening to the Durham community, to Duke staff, and to each other. Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday [sic] now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism, who see illuminated in this moment's extraordinary spotlight what they live with everyday [sic]. They know that it isn't just Duke, it isn't everybody, and it isn't just individuals making this disaster.
"But it is a disaster nonetheless.
"These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this woman and to themselves."[ix]
The advertisement followed with eleven disembodied quotes supporting the notion that the Duke campus was a cauldron of hatred against blacks and women, quotes which, as some critics noted, a reader could not be sure were even from students (as opposed to the activist professors themselves), and were certainly not representative of the Duke campus.[x] The professors were listening, if at all, to small cadres of activist students who echoed them.
The signatories of the advertisement were playing out a script that one sees every time a new race hoax is perpetrated. The supporters of the hoaxer immediately evoke a world of silent victims parallel to that of the accuser. And they do constitute a parallel – parallel fictions! The activists seem to have an intuitive feel for when someone has perpetrated a hoax, and always spontaneously run to support her.
D.A. Nifong so thoroughly misrepresented the evidence against the players in the case, that Prof. James Coleman, a highly respected black professor of law at Duke who chaired an internal investigation of the lacrosse team following March 14, has argued that Nifong should step aside on behalf of an independent prosecutor. Prof. Coleman is the only faculty member, to my knowledge, who has publicly shown any respect for the defendants' due process rights. In mid-June, Prof. Coleman said of D.A. Nifong,
"I don't think he's showing detached judgment. I personally have no confidence in him."[xi]
"Either he knew what the facts were and misstated them, or he was making them up. Whether he acted knowing they were false, or if he was reckless, it doesn't matter in the long run. This is the kind of stuff that causes the public to lose confidence in the justice system."[xii]
Durham's black community has remained united since the beginning behind the accuser, no matter how discredited her charges have been. Blacks in Durham and elsewhere have suggested (and in one case said outright) that it would be a good thing for innocent white men to be convicted, as a matter of historical revenge.[xiii]
Black journalists, both those working at racist, black-owned and those working for white-owned mainstream media outlets, misrepresented the case. Cash Michaels, of the black-owned Wilmington Journal, spoke of a "High-Tech Lynching" – of the accuser, not the suspects, and implied that discredited D.A. Nifong was withholding evidence that would convict the three white defendants.[xiv] Michaels, an experienced journalist, has to know that it is illegal for a prosecutor to hold incriminating evidence secret until trial, and in the case of a conviction, having done so would be grounds for reversal on appeal.
In one column, Jesse Jackson Sr. started with opportunistic nostalgia,
"The history of white men and black women – the special fantasies and realities of exploitation – goes back to the nation's beginning and the arrival of slaves from Africa. The patterns associated with this history arouse fears and evoke too many bad memories,"
Before seguing to contemporary fiction,
"In the wake of the Duke scandal, black women across the country report on how often they are harassed or treated as simply objects available to hit on by white men."[xv]
Pulitzer Prize-winning, black syndicated Miami Herald/Knight Ridder columnist Leonard Pitts, wrote "imagine the response if the woman were white and reported being raped by three black members of the basketball team. You'd have to call out the National Guard."[xvi]
And yet, less than two months before the Duke case, a coed attending the University of Richmond in Virginia, apparently really was gang raped by student athletes. However, she was white, and the suspects were four black students (including a former star quarterback from the school team) from the nearby black school, Virginia Union University, and so the national media ignored the case, no professors called for railroading their own students, and no coaches were forced to resign. Even Richmond's local media initially refused to report the respective races of the alleged victim and the alleged rapists.[xvii]
But then, neither the national nor the local media would report honestly on the reality of race and rape, either at Duke or nationally.
At Duke University in recent years, the majority-white coeds cannot walk safely across their own campus ant night, and that is not due to the predations of white lacrosse players. In recent years, black Durhamites, including students at NCCU, have made a sport of targeting white Duke coeds for rape. Thus has the rage of Durham's black community against the white lacrosse players been misplaced, to say the least. If anyone should be in a state of rage, it is Durham's whites, and particularly its white women.
That feminists at Duke rose up in support of the hoaxer, and against the white lacrosse players, and white men in general at Duke, was an expression of the morally depraved deal white feminists have made for themselves. Although they are scared to death of black men – and with good reason – and have less to fear from white men, white feminists have politically prostituted themselves, in exchange for power. Thus do they reflexively condemn "white males" while refraining from any criticism of black men. And yet, feminists' black allies do not return the favor, by showing a like protectiveness towards white women.
Once the Duke case had caught fire, journalist Steve Sailer found several other cases in which minority college athletes were charged with violent crimes, including rape, which were similarly ignored by the national media.[xviii]
No mainstream journalist would mention the extraordinary character of the crime being alleged. As the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Study has shown, between 2001 and 2003, there were, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year (a black-white ratio of 17.1:1).[xix] Since there are five-and-one-half times as many whites as blacks in America, that means that blacks rape whites over ninety times as frequently as whites rape blacks. Except that the black-white interracial gap is actually much higher. The "white" figure (900) is inflated by Hispanic offenders being counted as white. And no reliable statistics for interracial prison rape were included in the NCVS. Thus, the real black-white ratio is likely 200:1 or higher.
But the Duke case was an allegation of white-on-black gang rape. As no mainstream journalist would report, but as Roy Sievers alone showed, quoting The Color of Crime, that is a virtually non-existent crime:
"On page 17 of 'The Color of Crime' we find facts about multiple-offender interracial rape that no one else has cited:
"'The NCVS tells us that interracial multiple-offender offenses are even more lopsidedly black than interracial crime as a whole. In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single 'white' [including Hispanic]-on-black gang rape.'"
"In other words, the Duke lacrosse players are being accused of a crime that almost never happens. There are undoubtedly more black-on-white hate crime hoaxes than white-on-black gang rapes.
"Even if the Duke allegations were true, that would be one actual case of white-on-black gang rape against 10,000 black-on-white rapes. Needless to say, this huge disparity provokes no protests, no front-page headlines, and no 'Take Back the Night' marches."[xx]
* * *
The Duke Rape Hoax has historic ties to the two most notorious racial rape hoaxes in American history.
In 1931, in what would come to be known as the "Scottsboro Boys" case, two white prostitutes named Victoria Price and Ruby Bates falsely accused nine black boys and young men of gang-raping them on a train. The Scottsboro Boys – Haywood Patterson, Clarence Norris, the brothers Andy and Roy Wright, Willie Roberson, Charles Weems, Ozie Powell, Olen Montgomery and Eugene Williams – were railroaded by a racist white Alabama juries, and sentenced to die. It was not until 1950, after years of trials and retrials, unjust prison sentences, and in one case, a daring jail break, that all of the Scottsboro Boys had regained their freedom. But their lives had been shattered.[xxi]
When young white men are imprisoned in today's black supremacist-dominated prisons, it is often tantamount to a death sentence from gang rape and AIDS.[xxii] And that's without being convicted of gang-raping a black woman.
The other notorious racial rape hoax was perpetrated by a then-15-year-old black girl named Tawana Brawley in Wappingers Falls, NY in November 1987.[xxiii]
Brawley said she had been abducted and gang-raped over the course of four days by "white cops." And yet, a neighbor had seen the girl, all alone in a vacant lot, climb into the garbage bag in which she was found, and the rape technician who examined her reported that she had not been raped, and was doing a poor job at faking rape trauma. Indeed, it is unlikely that Brawley had had any sex, consensual or forced,[xxiv] during the four days she had run away from home. But the media and black supremacist activists conspired to keep hoax alive, and white people who knew better were too cowardly to state the obvious.
The history of black campus race hoaxes goes back over twenty years, but has no cases to compare with the Tawana Brawley Hoax. Or rather, prior to March 14, 2006, it didn't.
Each new campus race hoax follows a by now dog-eared, 20-year-old script. University administrators, campus and "civilian" activists, and journalists all act as if the incredible charges must be true, even though they fly in the face of a campus that appears to be the safest place in the world for black folks. When the charges are inevitably proven false, the journalists become all of a sudden very quiet. But no one demands justice for the falsely accused victims, including the vigorous prosecution and imprisonment of the black racist malefactors. Meanwhile, the activists proceed as if their charges had been proven true, and continue with their demands, which the administrators duly accede to.
The reason for refusing to learn from each race hoax is not that the activists and administrators are somehow ignorant or deluded. It is that they are so powerful, that they can continue with business as usual, until the next hoax. Thus, it is not enough to scramble around disproving each hoax as it comes – race hustlers can invent hoaxes too rapidly for anyone to ever catch up with them. What is required is that those who would live in freedom take the offensive – demanding vigorous prosecution of hoaxers, and undertaking civil suits against them – but even more importantly, engaging in the same tactics against the administrators, activists, and journalists without whom the hoaxers would never get a hearing, in the first place.
Every time a black initiates a race hoax – and Hispanics will be matching them soon enough, hoax for hoax – he makes extraordinary claims. Such claims are all the more extraordinary, for having so many times been proved fraudulent. After so many hoaxes, whites are, if anything justified in assuming that a hoax is at work, until it is proven otherwise. But even if such charges were being made for the first time, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But black hoaxers and their supporters demand that whites take their word on faith. (In this, they resemble Afrocentric intellectual frauds.) For a person to have to take ridiculous claims on faith is a form of spiritual and political slavery. And that is exactly the point.
* * *
In American public life, people of all demographic groups and of all political persuasions wring their hands over the "plight" of minority children and college students; no "respectable" person shows the slightest concern for young whites. But in the face of the Melvin Boldens, the Joan A. Valentines, the "Dr." Wanda Marshalls, the Cassandra Jenningses, the Liliana Valenzuelas, the Leonard Jeffrieses, and the rape hoaxers, whites have the choice of standing together in protection of their children, or of seeing them get picked off, one at a time. Hiding is no longer an option.
[i] Darla Miles, "Police Report: Alleged Victim Changed Story," ABC11TV, 26 May 2006. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4208878
[ii] Page from victim's statement, "Forcible Rape," Durham Police Department, 14 March 2006. http://www.wral.com/slideshow/news/9417089/detail.html?qs=;s=3;w=800
[iii] "Alleged Rape Victim Had Past Brush With Law," WRAL, 6 April 2006. http://www.wral.com/news/8513890/detail.html?rss=ral&psp=news
[iv] Jared Mueller and Emily Rotberg, "Dancer made prior allegation," The Chronicle, 1 May 2006.
[v] Police had given the accuser a photo lineup consisting exclusively of Duke lacrosse players (instead of the customary mix of six non-suspects for every suspect), and sought to interview the players in their dorm without legal counsel present.
D.A. Nifong has been charged with either having lied about how much evidence he had on the players, or for not being familiar with his own case files; with illegally withholding exculpatory evidence from the court; for violating state ethics rules by giving over 70 media interviews before completing his investigation or indicting anyone; for making highly prejudicial statements against the lacrosse team in said interviews before charging anyone in the case; with inducing witness Kim Roberts to change her opinion from denying that a rape could have taken place to saying she believed a rape had taken place, through intervening on her behalf regarding a March 22 charge of violating her probation; and for responding to taxi-driver Moez Mostafa's statement that he drove defendant Reade Seligmann away from the house at 12:19 a.m. (i.e., at least eleven minutes before the alleged rape took place) by having Mostafa arrested on a highly dubious charge regarding a case from three years earlier. Nifong has also has been charged with withholding from the court exculpatory evidence in his possession, early in the case, and early on refusing to accept exculpatory evidence form defense attorneys, who then passed along the evidence to news organizations.
Aaron Beard, "Court documents: 2nd dancer said Duke rape allegations were a 'crock,'" San Diego Union-Tribune, 8 June 2006.
"Police Arrest Witness In Duke Lacrosse Case On Old Warrant," CSTV, 12 May 2006.
On prosecutorial and police misconduct:
On the accuser's changing story:
The best work I have seen covering this case has been by history professor K.C. Johnson of Brooklyn College, and by black journalist/blogger, LaShawn Barber.
Johnson's columns are archived at the following site:
Barber's blog, La Shawn Barber's Corner:
[vi] "Text Of Professor Baker's Letter To Duke Administrators," NBC17, 3 April 2006. http://www.nbc17.com/education/8438390/detail.html
[vii] Prof. Houston Baker's scholarly writings are no better than his freelance propagandizing. He is a prime example, with the likes of Langston Hughes and James Baldwin, of the black American school of empty bombast. Thus, it is fit and proper that he should have quoted Baldwin in his letter.
Terry Teachout, "Houston Baker, Jr.: Another sun person heard from," The New Criterion, September 1993.
Langston Hughes, "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain," The Nation, 23 June 1926. http://www.thenation.com/doc/19260623/hughes
James Baldwin, "If Black English Isn't a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?," News York Times, July 29, 1979.
[ix] "We are listening …" advertisement, The Chronicle, 7 April 2006. http://184.108.40.206/search?q=cache:OMEDQyRLyJwJ:www.duke.edu/web/africanameric/listening.pdf+%22We+are+listening+to+our+students%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
[x] "Methinks thou doth protest-too much?," The Chronicle, 3 April 2006.
[xi] "Duke prof: Rape case needs new prosecutor: He says Nifong should step aside," The News & Observer, 13 June 2006.
[xii] "A comparison of his words with documents that Nifong gave defense lawyers show that Nifong made what appear to be misstatements about condom use, a purported struggle and a 911 call made by a second dancer, among other things.
Nifong said the assailants might have used condoms; the accuser told an emergency-room nurse none were used, according to a defense filing. Nifong described a violent attack in which the accuser was choked and struggled to breathe; the accuser told a nurse she wasn't choked, the filing said."
Joseph Neff, "DA's statements, record at odds: Facts appear to contradict some of Nifong's words in the Duke lacrosse case," The News Observer, 15 June 2006.
Immediately after going public with the case, Nifong also claimed that the alleged attackers might have given the alleged victim a date-rape drug, but had in fact never had the accuser undergo a drug toxicology screening.
[xiii] One black student at the accuser's school, North Carolina Central University, said openly what many blacks surely feel.
"Chan Hall, 22, said, 'It's the same old story. Duke up, Central down.' Hall said he wanted to see the Duke students prosecuted 'whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past.'"
Susannah Meadows and Evan Thomas, "What Happened at Duke?," Newsweek, 1 May 2006.
A black newspaper, the Wilmington Journal, ran a June 22 front page headline, "Believe Her." Black journalists in the college, professional black press, and at white-owned newspapers misrepresented the story, by variously suppressing negative facts about the accuser, and evidence exculpating the defendants.
The Wilmington Journal staffer covering the Duke case, Cash Michaels, has been able to skew reporting to black readers through the national black syndicate, the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA).
National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) http://www.nnpa.org/news/article/article.asp?sID=54
"[The accuser's] family says she is so frightened, she screams when she sees white males, and has threatened to withdraw her complaint so she can go on with her life."
Cash Michaels, "'High-tech lynching' of alleged rape victim intensifies,"
Special from The Wilmington Journal to the NNPA, 27 April 2006.
[xv] Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., "Duke: Horror and Truth," BlackNews.com, undated. (The column was presumably published in late March or early April 2006, since it was quoted by white journalists in mid-April.) http://www.blacknews.com/pr/duke301.html
[xvi] Leonard Pitts Jr., "Race only fuels a story that is all too common: Rape," Detroit Free Press,
22 April 2006.
[xvii] Mark Holmberg, "What propels rape stories to wide attention?," Times-Dispatch,
[xviii] Steve Sailer, "Unequal Justice: Duke Lacrosse Team vs. Three (!) Minority Football Heroes," VDARE,
[xix] Ian Jobling, et al., The Color of Crime: Race, Crime, and Justice in America (Oakton, VA: New Century Foundation, 1995), 12.
[xx] Jay Sievers, "Duke, Race, and Rape," American Renaissance,
[xxi] James Goodman, Stories of Scottsboro (New York: Vintage Books, 1995).
[xxii] "Predators and Victims," in Human Rights Watch, No Escape: Male Rape in
[xxiii] Ralph Blumenthal, M.A. Farber, Robert D. McFadden, E.R. Shipp, Charles Strum, and Craig Wolff, Outrage: The Story Behind the Tawana Brawley Hoax (New York: Bantam Books, 1990).
[xxiv] Ibid., 349-351.