News-Record.com

Perhaps what he is saying, Doug, is that "There are times when reflection beats reaction," and "if students learn to know and trust each other a little better, it might be possible to settle the next problem without such an uproar."

Is that what he said? Thanks for the clarification.

I'm afraid I'm not getting the connection to my furniture market post.

If what you want from him is, "I was wrong a year ago," the column did not deliver that. I don't think it's fair, though, to say that Pitts is arguing that "emotional truth" is an excuse for ignoring the "real truth". In fact, I think the whole point of the column is to caution against allowing preconceived notions to override actual facts. Perhaps it would work better if he acknowledged that he, himself, had done that in the Duke case, as did a great many people.

It's a direct uote from you appreciating the effort to draw non-obvious lessons from complex situations. As a reader, that's what I'm interested in as well -- not hearing Leonard Pitts apologize a few decibels louder. You were all about getting into the delicate ways that community could be fostered when it was Guilford and the Quaker traditions. Here, it's "heavy stuff" and "way over your head" -- just like you were "too simple" when it came to the minimum wage. Don't give up thinking when it's a culture with which you have less familiarity next time.

Well said, Patrick. I agree.

Jim, I think it's important to get the obvious lessons first, then the non-obvious ones.

Doug -- You fail to link to the article, but I'm not sure how much clearer he could have been about the obvious lesson. He states it clearly as his thesis, quoted below -- that this is a wake-up call to stay close to the facts and not emotions:

"So the Duke affair is a cautionary tale for prosecutors, pundits, folks standing at the water cooler and others who are inclined to judge guilt and innocence. It requires us to reassess how we know what we know. Is it fact, or just a narrative squeezed through the meat grinder? Truth, or just its emotional equivalent? Or, as an editor told me once: Be rigorous in fact-checking stuff you don't know. Be more rigorous in fact-checking stuff you do."

Is that too heavy stuff?

Yes, it is too heavy. I don't understand what can be not true but the "emotional equivalent" of truth.

You seemed to understand it when you wrote lovingly about Guilford College Dean Fetrow tackling the problem: "The fact that the fight happened, and that so many students reacted to it with more emotion than reason, means that Fetrow and Associate Dean Bill Woodward have work to do." In the article above, you use words liek "coward," "BS," and "shameless." In the comments, you agree with Patrick's clarifications. Are you still calling Pitts all those things, are you ready to admit you misread the article?

Saying that someone reacts more with emotion than reason to a situation is not the same, not even close, as saying something might be the "emotional equivalent" of truth even if it's not true.

The first statement assigns fault, the second makes an excuse.

Doug - You misread the article. Pitts did not say it "was" the emotional equivalent of truth -- his entire thesis was that we need to be vigilant *against* interpreting things emotionally. You agreed with this when Patrick pointed it out. Now, your careless words like "coward" are still lying on the table and we're beginning to see who can't admit it when they are wrong. Did Pitts take the coward's way out, or did you carelessly misread the article?

Pitts is writing about others who jumped to the wrong conclusion but doesn't mention that he did so himself. That's cowardly, in my opinion.

Pitts introduced this notion of emotional truth. He seems to endorse its validity. How is such a concept valid in relation to the Duke case? If I've misread him, I'm sorry, but it may be more that he's made himself profoundly unclear.

I should have said I agreed with most of Patrick's comment, because I do think Pitts was making excuses.

This is heavy stuff, way over my head. *Doug

Naw Doug! You are much smarter than good old Pitts. He is simply stuggling with his inner self on a emotional level and just can't find the right Blue Brothers excuse for being a rush to judgement freak like many thousands of idiots at first.

Even before it was certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the three students were innocent of the rape charges, there were also individuals jumping to the emotional conclusion that they were innocent.

As much as some wanted to believe that they were guilty, others wanted to believe that they were innocent--also before anyone could reasonably claim that as fact.

There are some out there who think that what a woman is wearing or where she has chosen to hang out or how much she has had to drink matters in rape cases. Would those same individuals say that there are factors that matter when men are accused of rape?

While it now seems certain beyond a doubt that the men did not deserved to be charged with rape, there remain legitimate questions surrounding their character. (That is not to say that Mike Nifong (for sure) and perhaps the accuser as well do not have even greater questions of character surrounding their words and actions.)

The three Duke students are innocent of rape, but there was strong evidence that they were not innocent in other respects. That does not mean that their lack of innocence in other areas should have earned them the rape charges against them.

While strip clubs and strippers in general may always be a temptation for some men, this case and some fairly high-profile shootings (and deaths) at strip clubs might serve as wake-up calls. (OK, probably not.)

There can still be some issues of class and race involved here.

Did the players specify that the strippers they hired be black? If so, why? Regardless of the race of the strippers, what views did the young men have toward women who would be willing to engage in such behavior? If they didn't mind regarding these strippers as merely sexual objects of desire, would they object to other men having less than favorable views of the women in their own lives (mothers, sisters, etc.)? (When we feel comfortable calling other women "nappy-headed hos," does that mean that we are giving other men the license to have and express such a view toward "our" women?)

The rape charges took this situation to an entirely higher level.

But had the rape charges not been present, some other important issues might have been worth exploring also. (Will our society ever be ready to ask the really tough questions about alcohol's influence?)

On the news all the time, I hear people offering their opinions about cases long before all the facts are in. Too many people are willing to go too far out on limbs before nearly enough evidence is in. Part of that is our natures.

If the Duke case ultimately serves a positive purpose in our society, maybe more of us will allow at least a little more wait-time before weighing in.

Maybe we'll also step back and ask what other lessons can be learned from this case.

The way I read it, the men had asked for white strippers. Nifong drug he feet? May I suggest you get the Raleigh paper, starting yesterday. They are the only paper in this area that I have seen, that looks like they have nerve enough to go up against the good ole boys. Northern newspapers have been on this for a least 6 months. You need to read about the Durham police. Can you say railroaded. The only thing, I would suggest is a federal investigation of Nifong, the Durham police, and Crystal Gale. Like a yankee newpaper said, if this had gone to trail, these young men would be in jail. Seems like the yanks understand good ole boy justice, very well. Can you say Allen Guell.

".....there were also individuals jumping to the emotional conclusion that they were innocent."

Perhaps because there was early factual evidence that lead people to believe that was the case.

Or it could just be that cornerstone of American jurisprudence: Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

For a lot of people, there are factors that make us look at cases differently.

If an all-black group of men had hired a couple of white strippers and one of them had claimed rape, there would have been at least a one or two individuals automatically ready to believe the rape claims. The same happened in reverse. Some of us are much more capable of assuming the worst about those who are a little unlike us.

This case does make us realize how much trust we put in prosecutors and presidents and others in powerful positions.

In many cases, we have blind faith. It often takes a lot to overcome such blindness and such faithfulness.

It's creepy to realize how Mike Nifong approached this case. It's frightening to think that other cases could be approached on anywhere near that level of abuse.

"Presumed innocent until proven guilty" may be the most important reminder ultimately, but most of us selectively apply this view.

We often want blood as quickly as possible, even without proof.

Few of us probably can say honestly that we haven't assumed someone's guilt before it's been proven, whether at home, within our communities, or in the popular culture at large.

Maybe now we can begin to realize how much that potentially can cost us all.

(It wasn't a death penalty case, but for fans of the death penalty, doesn't it scare you how far the Duke rape allegations went? Justice appears to have ultimately prevailed, but what if it hadn't?)

What scares me that we have people more interested in getting elected than doing what right. This could happen to anyone. If what I am reading is correct, after a week Nifong knew he did not have a case. Now what really scares me, Nifong, the Durham Police will walk free. Crystal Gayle already has. My opinion Cooper playing the race card for votes. I re read the Allen Gell case last night, the da knew this man was not guilty, yet that got him the death penalty. Know what happened to these das, nothing.Excatly what going to happen to Nifong and the Durham Police Dept.Justice prevailed?? The men where kicked out of school (BONEHEAD) being PC had no facts, just jumping threw Jesee & Als hoops. The men where put in jail, spent millions of dollars,there lives where pure hell for a year and half, yea I guess justice was done,NC good ole boy justice.