Courtesy versus the courtroom
Everyone's talking about the current potboiler over the Duke lacrosse players accused of rape, and the conflicting stories of the strippers who were there. Columnist Kathleen Parker has a recent article in which she describes the peculiar and somewhat hypocritical public response to the scandal. Is it "boys will be boys"? Blame the victim? Make her a martyr? A cause celebre? (Certainly a celebrity.) A feminist icon?
What's going on here?
The whole thing reminds me of an incident that happened a few years ago, when I was a law professor in Detroit. There was a scandal in Grosse Pointe (the tony suburb east of the city) in which several senior high school boys hosted parties for the incoming crop of freshman girls, at which alcohol (and, some alleged, hidden drugs) were served. Of course, the girls got hammered and sexually assaulted.
Apparently, this had been a local ritual at this high school for some time. And earlier groups of girls had said nothing. But this time, one of the girls told her parents. And the proverbial Shinola hit the fan.
As sad as the event itself was, the public's reaction was what startled and disturbed me. As soon as the authorities found out about it, investigations began. And arrests. And then, the recriminations. One of the boys, Daniel Granger, had already been accepted to the University of Michigan for college. (Ironically, he was a high school lacrosse player.) UM revoked the acceptance pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution.
As sad as the event itself was, the public's reaction was what startled and disturbed me. As soon as the authorities found out about it, investigations began. And arrests. And then, the recriminations. One of the boys, Daniel Granger, had already been accepted to the University of Michigan for college. (Ironically, he was a high school lacrosse player.) UM revoked the acceptance pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution. (Granger was convicted in the criminal trial and lost a subsequent civil suit as well.)
Everyone was up in arms. People were furious. At the girls. For telling.
And when I say furious, I mean that the girls' parents reported being screamed at by other students' parents. Things along the lines of How dare you ruin these boys' lives? They watched as grown-ups drove through their yards and threw trash and dog feces. They received hate mail and anonymous phone threatening phone calls.
In the face of this public onslaught, at least one of the girls switched schools. Another family decided that it wasn't worth subjecting their children to it, and moved out of town.
I was horrified. And apparently I was not alone. I remember reading an editorial written by a local woman who summed up the community's attitude well: What were the girls thinking? What did they think was going to happen when they went to a party with senior guys, no chaperones, alcohol and drugs?
Yes, the girls were stupid, this writer admitted. But being stupid is not a crime.
That, for me, was it in a nutshell. The girls were unsupervised, out too late on a weekend night. And underage. The boys were older - all 18 and 19. That transforms the incident from a matter of juvenile stupidity to a crime, like it or not.
Did the local community care about that rarified distinction? Not much. And that, my friends, is the difference between law and life. Conduct can still be criminal. But the criminal code will protect neither girls nor boys in a society in which courteous behavior and sexual restraint are not instilled by parents and reinforced by the other institutions that adults control. Like schools. Movies. Music. Literature. You get the idea. (In fact, speaking as an attorney, I routinely complain that we no longer wish to instill courtesy, and instead, want the legal system to penalize discourteous conduct. But that's a column for another day.)
It also demonstrates - sadly - the way that we, as a culture, have deceived ourselves, removed societal sanctions necessary to protect our children and, unwittingly therefore, left them to twist in the wind.
For good or for ill, society's attitude about male sexuality seems to be "boys will be boys." And even with today's modern feminist sensibilities (or, indeed, because of them), the responsibility for deflecting or protecting against predatory male sexuality falls to young women. Who get mixed messages on the matter, to say the least (dress like a whore! flaunt your body! be as promiscuous as you want! sue for sexual assault!)
I personally deplore this attitude and, as the mother of a boy, I don't intend to raise him that way. But that means instilling my son with a firm and dutiful conscience, as opposed to a sense of entitlement; with the obligation to act like a gentleman instead of the license to be a cad; with respect for the human body (his, and others'); and with the understanding that sexuality is intimate conduct that belongs between husband and wife, as opposed to recreation fueled by bravado, alcohol and testosterone.
If we throw up our hands and let society tell our daughters it's "cool" to dress like strippers and our sons that it's ok to pay them to take off their clothes and parade naked in front of them, we can't be surprised when, instead of being courtly, they end up in court.
What's going on here?
The whole thing reminds me of an incident that happened a few years ago, when I was a law professor in Detroit. There was a scandal in Grosse Pointe (the tony suburb east of the city) in which several senior high school boys hosted parties for the incoming crop of freshman girls, at which alcohol (and, some alleged, hidden drugs) were served. Of course, the girls got hammered and sexually assaulted.
Apparently, this had been a local ritual at this high school for some time. And earlier groups of girls had said nothing. But this time, one of the girls told her parents. And the proverbial Shinola hit the fan.
As sad as the event itself was, the public's reaction was what startled and disturbed me. As soon as the authorities found out about it, investigations began. And arrests. And then, the recriminations. One of the boys, Daniel Granger, had already been accepted to the University of Michigan for college. (Ironically, he was a high school lacrosse player.) UM revoked the acceptance pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution.
As sad as the event itself was, the public's reaction was what startled and disturbed me. As soon as the authorities found out about it, investigations began. And arrests. And then, the recriminations. One of the boys, Daniel Granger, had already been accepted to the University of Michigan for college. (Ironically, he was a high school lacrosse player.) UM revoked the acceptance pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution. (Granger was convicted in the criminal trial and lost a subsequent civil suit as well.)
Everyone was up in arms. People were furious. At the girls. For telling.
And when I say furious, I mean that the girls' parents reported being screamed at by other students' parents. Things along the lines of How dare you ruin these boys' lives? They watched as grown-ups drove through their yards and threw trash and dog feces. They received hate mail and anonymous phone threatening phone calls.
In the face of this public onslaught, at least one of the girls switched schools. Another family decided that it wasn't worth subjecting their children to it, and moved out of town.
I was horrified. And apparently I was not alone. I remember reading an editorial written by a local woman who summed up the community's attitude well: What were the girls thinking? What did they think was going to happen when they went to a party with senior guys, no chaperones, alcohol and drugs?
Yes, the girls were stupid, this writer admitted. But being stupid is not a crime.
That, for me, was it in a nutshell. The girls were unsupervised, out too late on a weekend night. And underage. The boys were older - all 18 and 19. That transforms the incident from a matter of juvenile stupidity to a crime, like it or not.
Did the local community care about that rarified distinction? Not much. And that, my friends, is the difference between law and life. Conduct can still be criminal. But the criminal code will protect neither girls nor boys in a society in which courteous behavior and sexual restraint are not instilled by parents and reinforced by the other institutions that adults control. Like schools. Movies. Music. Literature. You get the idea. (In fact, speaking as an attorney, I routinely complain that we no longer wish to instill courtesy, and instead, want the legal system to penalize discourteous conduct. But that's a column for another day.)
It also demonstrates - sadly - the way that we, as a culture, have deceived ourselves, removed societal sanctions necessary to protect our children and, unwittingly therefore, left them to twist in the wind.
For good or for ill, society's attitude about male sexuality seems to be "boys will be boys." And even with today's modern feminist sensibilities (or, indeed, because of them), the responsibility for deflecting or protecting against predatory male sexuality falls to young women. Who get mixed messages on the matter, to say the least (dress like a whore! flaunt your body! be as promiscuous as you want! sue for sexual assault!)
I personally deplore this attitude and, as the mother of a boy, I don't intend to raise him that way. But that means instilling my son with a firm and dutiful conscience, as opposed to a sense of entitlement; with the obligation to act like a gentleman instead of the license to be a cad; with respect for the human body (his, and others'); and with the understanding that sexuality is intimate conduct that belongs between husband and wife, as opposed to recreation fueled by bravado, alcohol and testosterone.
If we throw up our hands and let society tell our daughters it's "cool" to dress like strippers and our sons that it's ok to pay them to take off their clothes and parade naked in front of them, we can't be surprised when, instead of being courtly, they end up in court.
posted by Portia Sterling | 7:29 AM
1 Comments:
Science and religion... always luv such discussions... Thanks fr the blog... luved it
Post a Comment
<< Home