On Duke

Having grown up in North Carolina - with a Father who attended NC State - and myself having attended university & medical school at what most "Dookies" would consider two of the "lesser" in-state public & private institutions, I am no fan of Duke. My encounters with some Duke grads in the medical arena over the years have left me wondering about the school's reputation for excellence - and whether or not it has rested on the laurels of the Duke name for far too long. The heart-transplant-without-checking-a-blood-type tragedy also left me scratching my head. To this day, I cannot wrap my nogin around how that happened.

When I first heard the Lacrosse story, I had no problem believing that the young, privileged men who attend Duke (members of an elite "boys club" who probably spend more in a semester than most people in Durham make in a year) could use & abuse an exotic dancer/escort/whatever in the fashion that the DA and newspapers described. I avoided commentary on the blogs - because, as I alluded in the one blog-post I did make - one should listen to the victim's side of the story (all too often not heard), but perhaps withhold judgement on the "perps" (and not publish one-sided interviews convicting the whole team - ala the Greensboro N&R and David Wray) until the DNA was in and we knew exactly who "the other side" was.

Now the DNA is in. It's a real CSI moment. Gil Grissom would say that the evidence speaks for itself (unless you're OJ looking for "the real killers"). But I've not seen all of the evidence that the DA has, so I am still withholding judgement. Medical professionals apparently saw enough on the woman's physical exam to believe her story. There's also some disturbing circumstantial evidence floating around (including a very/sick warped e-mail about skinning women) that gives us a very ugly picture of "the boys" (not to mention the culture that produced them) at Duke. So I guess we will all have to wait and see.

My (very) last post as a "commentator" on the N&R blogs today was laced with frustration, anger, and sarcasm - directed at systems of law and journalism that clearly do not work . . . not to mention the "arrogant cliquishness" (inside joke) of some in the GSO blogosphere . . . once again, it's fairly clearly all in who you know or what your name is. I believe the sarcasm was accurate (and "locally relevant"). For here's what I've "learned" (tongue planted firmly in cheek) from the latest Duke news:

1. Newspapers, looking only at one side or the other of a story (or not looking at all of the evidence) never make mistakes.
2. District Attorneys never make decisions based on anything other than truth and justice. They never have an agenda or less-than-honorable motives . . . be it giving fifty interviews before the DNA is in . . . or just pretending someone does not exist.
3. Race (and class) never factor into how (or if) a story gets covered - or a case gets prosecuted.
4. The blogosphere and "citizen journalism" makes a difference in #'s 1, 2, and 3.

For the time being, as I contemplate options related to my case - as well as the lunacy enveloping my profession, I am going to limit my commentary to this blog. From where I am sitting, the courts and the newspapers and the blogs (especially those run by newspapers) have ZERO credibility. And "ethics" is a just a word that a lot of people throw around.

Smoke and mirrors.