Some thoughts on the Duke “Report of the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee“:
1. Why did Pressler resign? His performance seems exemplary.
2.
The committee was right to keep the program. The report shows that,
while they may have been socially irresponsible, the lacrosse team as a
whole were excellent academic performers and, certainly, athletic
performers.
3. The clannish nature of lacrosse gets considerable
attention. While this aspect of lacrosse, which many call a “lifestyle
sport,” was used by the media to stigmatize the game, it’s actually one
of hits most appealing characteristics. One person’s snobbishness is
another’s camaraderie, and the report acknowledges this. It also makes
the assertion that not one single bit of evidence showed that this
clannishness had any racist or sexist aspect.
4. Much of the lack
of oversight seems not the fault of lacrosse coaches but of the Duke
administration in general. Much of the disciplinary trouble players got
into was never relayed to Pressler or the coaches. And when it was,
such as the “tailgate” controversy, it was handled with dispatch and
effectively by Pressler.
5. Durham Police Capt. Eddie Sarvis, who
was in charge of the area of the city where the lacrosse players rented
houses makes the point that they were by no means the worst offenders
of of local neighbors: “Captain Sarvis said
the fraternity-affiliated houses presented a greater challenge to
police than any of the houses rented by athletes.”
So,
how does this square with the image of the Duke lacrosse program, and
the sport in general, that has been portrayed in the media since March
24?
