What Duke Needs to Answer For, and What the Rest of Us Need to Understand

A spasm of deceit leads to a spasm of cowardice

In my last post, I discussed an episode from last month in which a black Duke University volleyball player, Rachel Richardson, claimed that at least one BYU fan shouted racial slurs at her continuously during a match at in Utah. BYU barred the fan from further attendance at its events, but later had to apologize and rescind the ban when its investigation was unable to find a single witness out of the hundreds in attendance who heard what Ms. Richardson says she heard, repeatedly, during the match.

The West Coast Conference, of which BYU is a member, examined the matter and issued a statement that one news source characterizes as backing the University. In fact, the statement might very charitably be called a study in evasion and snivelling. It’s worth a closer look because, unfortunately, it’s a mirror of where we are as a culture. The question we need to ask ourselves is: Is this what we want to be and, even more importantly, what we want to teach our children to be?

Here’s the WCC statement:

The West Coast Conference has reviewed the facts and information provided by BYU regarding its volleyball match against Duke on Aug. 26. WCC bylaws hold host institutions accountable for ensuring that all spectators and fans refrain from rudeness, vulgar language, remarks regarding race or gender and other unsporting conduct.

OK, fine, but so what? What relevance does that have to an event at which the mass of evidence proves that none of that happened?

Members of the Duke program reported that they heard language from fans that violated WCC sportsmanship policies during the match. Racist remarks are inappropriate, hurtful, and unacceptable. The membership of the WCC is committed to providing student-athletes safe environments in which to learn, grow and compete. When instances of unsporting conduct occur during WCC athletic events, the Conference office reviews the facts and information to determine whether the institution responded appropriately pursuant to the WCC policies on game management, and whether the institution has created effective plans to prevent repeat occurrences.

Yes, I’m sure we all want young athletes to be free from racist and other vile remarks, and have a “safe” environment, and “learn and grow” and all that good stuff, but why is any of that in this statement when the evidence shows none of it happened? At best, this verbiage is just CYA breast-beating. And as you’ll see, we’re nowhere near “at best.”

The Conference worked closely with BYU to examine all the information and steps taken both during and in the moments and days after the match. Based on our review of the information shared by BYU athletic department personnel, we believe BYU has conducted a transparent and thorough investigation.

And then the kicker (emphasis added):

BYU’s inability to locate perpetrator(s) does not mean the remarks were not said and does not mean BYU did not put the appropriate resources, time and effort into their investigation.

The combination of dishonesty and cowardice in that sentence is breathtaking. It wasn’t that BYU couldn’t “locate the perpetrator;” it’s that after interviewing dozens of people at the scene, and reviewing numerous video and audio tapes, and eliciting not a single word of corroboration from any other player or any coach on either team, the only sane conclusion is that there was no perpetrator. In other words, and flatly contrary to the WCC’s statement, the evidence certainly does mean “that the remarks were not said.” Ms. Richardson’s account is a lie.

I was a federal prosecutor for most of my career. The standard of proof in a criminal case is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt — the most stringent standard known to the law. The evidence in this case goes well beyond that. If Ms. Richardson had been indicted for perjury, and I placed before the jury the evidence that BYU in its “transparent and thorough investigation” produced, she would be convicted in five minutes. It would take the jury longer to elect a foreman than it would to reach a verdict.

But wait, there’s more! Here’s the rest of the WCC statement:

Upon review of the information received, we believe the institution implemented the appropriate game management protocols during the match and has since taken the appropriate actions to thoroughly investigate this incident. We also believe BYU has adopted appropriate measures and policies to help avoid future incidents. The safety and respect for one another is paramount in sport, higher education and in life. We share BYU’s commitment to foster an inclusive environment and its pledge to further efforts to ensure everyone is treated with equal respect. The WCC and each of its member institutions stand together in this commitment to root out racism.

In other words, the WCC issues a half-blubbering, de facto apology for something it knows never happened.

Why does the West Coast Conference — not exactly Manhattan or Bethesda or Joe Biden’s Domestic Policy Council — do something like this? Why does it refuse to speak the obvious truth that Ms. Richardson just made it up?

I asked two very bright acquaintances of mine that question, and they answered without a second’s hesitation, “Because it’s not in their interest to speak it.”

Bingo.

But why not?

Because academia in all its precincts reflects the cowardice that years of political correctness have woven into our culture and stamped into so many otherwise worthy people. Just as it was culturally impossible for that same Duke University (a southern school) even to contemplate that an accusation of rape against white males had to be proven and not just shouted, it has become impossible to question race-huckstered accusations at all.

Think about that. In universities — the institutions formerly known as centers of inquiry — it has become impossible to make an inquiry. To make an inquiry, that is, or even seriously to discuss, some of the most important issues we face.

Or, to be more succinct, “veritas” is out and “shut up conservatives” is in. This may not be news, unfortunately, but the emergence of a case in which an obvious lie can’t be called what it is proves the point with a new and depressing degree of clarity.