The most important questions implicated by the sexual assault allegations surrounding Rasheed Sulaimon include how to create a community in which two things are true. The first is that victims of sexual assault feel safe and respected regardless of the status of the perpetrator. The second is that individuals are not convicted of serious crimes in the court of public opinion without being afforded due process of law.
As a Duke graduate and professor who teaches in the Law School and Trinity College, I am concerned that The Chronicle’s March 2 article undermines both objectives.
First, the article has harmed two alleged victims of sexual assault. They were reported to have shared their experiences in the intimate setting of the Common Ground retreat, and they subsequently appeared to exhibit a strong preference for privacy. To my knowledge, this is the first time that The Chronicle has publicized what allegedly occurred at the retreat.
Second, the article has harmed Sulaimon. He has no way to defend himself against life-altering allegations that he committed horrific crimes. In my experience, it is not The Chronicle’s standard practice to publicize allegations of sexual assault against students, particularly when no complaint has been filed. Perhaps The Chronicle views Sulaimon as a public figure whose status justifies publication notwithstanding the harms to the alleged victims and to him. I view him as a Duke student who deserves the same fair treatment as all other Duke students.
In addition, the way in which The Chronicle crafted the article has harmed Duke. The article repeatedly leaves the impression—without offering evidence—that University officials failed to comply with their legal or ethical obligations. Rather than identify every such instance in the article, I will note a few.
The article quotes an anonymous former affiliate of the men’s basketball program to the effect that high-ranking officials in the Athletics Department and the University Administration knew about the allegations against Sulaimon “for months and months,” yet “nothing happened.” Is this an assertion that University officials took no action upon learning of the allegations? If true, it would mean that the University failed to comply with Title IX of the federal Civil Rights Act. The article offers no evidence to support such a claim.
The article continues that “on Jan. 29—six days after [former secretary in the Duke Basketball office and Senior Lincoln] Wensley had his conversation with [Deputy Director of Athletics/Operations Mike] Cragg [about the allegations]—it was announced via press release that Sulaimon had been dismissed from the Duke basketball program.” What, if anything, does this chronological presentation imply? A reasonable reader might infer that Krzyzewski dismissed Sulaimon only because he had reason to fear that the allegations would become public. No evidence is offered for this incendiary implication.
Instead of providing evidence for particular conclusions, The Chronicle offers only the opinion of its anonymous source that Krzyzewski should have dismissed Sulaimon “a long time ago” and “really didn’t want to do it.” The Chronicle offers no evidence to support this character indictment that Krzyzewski has lost his moral compass.
The Chronicle may have determined that the benefits from publication of the article outweighed the harms that it has caused to the alleged victims, to Rasheed Sulaimon and to Duke. Unlike the harms, however, it is far from obvious what those benefits are.
Neil S. Siegel
David W. Ichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science
T’94
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.