Withholding judgement

Campus debate and intrigue erupted Monday in the wake of a Chronicle article reporting allegations of sexual assault against former Duke basketball player Rasheed Sulaimon. The reported allegations come shrouded in the memory of the 2006 lacrosse case whose legacy continues to shape Duke’s external reputation today. Nine years ago, three members of Duke’s men’s lacrosse team were accused of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer and were quickly condemned by the University’s administration and members of its faculty known as the Group of 88. The players were later found to be innocent. Although the circumstances are markedly different and the two cases are by no means directly paralleled, the lessons learned from the lacrosse case are imperative at present: We should not be too quick to judge.

Yet, despite this cautionary tale, the court of public opinion seems to have already delivered its verdict. Many—both at Duke and beyond—have been quick to condemn the respondent. Many have drawn parallels to Jameis Winston’s case at Florida State and the recent cases at University of Virginia and Vanderbilt. Yet, the court of public opinion needs to be reined in from such judgments and naïve comparisons which are based on woefully incomplete information. It ought instead to understand the system of the official courts and legal obligations and stick to the known facts of the case before getting caught up in its own echo chamber.

What, then, are the known facts of the case? In short, not many. We know that no official allegations were brought forth and, thus, the cases did not go before the formal student conduct process as per the University’s policies. We know that, under Title IX, members of the Duke basketball staff and athletic department are mandatory reporters who must notify the Office of Student Conduct of any sexual assault cases they hear about. And we know that Sulaimon remains as a student in good standing, suggesting that no conclusive investigation has been completed against him.

What remain glaring questions, however, are the details and timelines of what in fact occurred. Did leaders of the basketball team and athletic department who knew about the allegations report the cases to the Office of Student Conduct, as per their obligation as mandatory reporters? If so, what occurred within the Office of Student Conduct? Was a Title IX investigation conducted, and what is the nature and state of such an investigation? Finally, it is uncertain whether Sulaimon’s dismissal is connected to the allegations of sexual assault. Coach Mike Krzyzewski’s official statement divulged only that the dismissal came after he “repeatedly struggled to meet necessary obligations.” Whether the allegations contributed to or were directly linked with such failure to meet standards remains uncertain.

If we have learned anything from the lacrosse case, it is that the court of public opinion must not be too quick to jump to conclusions without necessary information and procedural knowledge. The gaping swath of questions that remain shrouded in ambiguity and mystery render it impossible for bystanders to responsibly ascertain guilt or innocence. Yet, another facet of this cautionary tale is the broader reality the nature of this case evokes—that sexual assault is a very real problem plaguing college campuses across the nation. With the gravity and sensitivity of sexual assault in mind, it is imperative to take the claims of all parties involved—especially the two claimant women—seriously, to respect them and their privacy and to offer the community’s support.