Moral dichotomy

My interest in the Duke lacrosse rape case may go beyond that of the typical Durham resident.

I am African American. I have lived in Durham, off and on for about 20 years. For much of that time, I have been directly affiliated with the two principal institutions involved in the case, Duke University and North Carolina Central University.

I received my Ph.D. in political science from Duke. Since 1995, I have taught at North Carolina Central University, chairing the Department of Political Science from 1998 to 2005.

In addition, my major area of specialization is black politics. Therefore, race-an issue that permeates the Duke lacrosse rape case-is central to my teaching and research.

But actually, my interest in this case transcends all these attributes.

Like many, I believe firmly that we have no choice but to allow the criminal justice system, with its flaws, to determine guilt or innocence in this case.

However, one predictable response to a crisis such as this is the appointment of task forces supposedly to address underlying social, political and economic issues that have been exposed. While this is fine, it is severely inadequate.

We must move beyond task force politics because equally predictable is the fact that the solutions will be "Band-Aid responses" that will inevitably fade into the abyss of complacency and denial.

In fact, I have heard some of my students suggest that very draconian measures would have taken place in a reversed situation, ranging from the complete shutting down of campus to the belief that the entire team would have been waiting for the DNA results, IN JAIL.

Meanwhile others in the community would undoubtedly proclaim, "Our criminal justice system, while not perfect, essentially is colorblind and all who come before it are innocent until proven guilty."

I believe few would doubt that debate about this hypothetical would be interminable.

I will not address the different positions further.

There is a more interesting point, however. What should not be missed and should be addressed in a comprehensive way is what has caused these divergent responses.

Such stark positions reflect the structural rigidity of the inequitable allocation of privilege in American society, not just Durham.

For many racial minorities and the poor, the injustices embedded in America's criminal justice system are palpable.

Importantly, it is not just the sensational cases, such as Chuck Stuart in Boston and Susan Smith in South Carolina that produced these beliefs. (In separate cases, both accused non-existent black men of committing murder against family members who they themselves murdered.)

Indeed, it is the everyday travails that they face as they seek fairness in a system where little exists.

Conversely, others have a more idealistic, and I would suggest, fanciful view.

Although few would say the system is perfect, many would say a number of its historical flaws have been corrected, and the flaws that do remain actually favor the criminals.

Again, these positions reflect the inequitable allocation of privilege in America.

Space does not permit a full fleshing out of these issues here. The bottom line is that we cannot afford to rely on the crises de jour, such as the Duke lacrosse rape case, to prompt us to address these important structural issues.

To do so would mean that responses will be unavoidably parochial and shallow. The immoral inequalities between rich and poor, between white and black and brown and between men and women require a sustained commitment and effort to produce true social change and justice.

The social hierarchies that endure because of these inequalities need more than task force attention.

There must be a concerted effort that combines the task force approach with programs that will fully engage the community and the political system to produce change.

Jarvis Hall is a professor of political science at North Carolina Central University.