Here’s a recent article from Inside Higher Education about a new study examining the wage gap between female and male professors. The study itself sounds useful, but what interested me is all the dubious assumptions about the wage gap embedded in the article (and perhaps in the study itself).

Explaining the Gender Gap in Pay

Why do female professors earn less than male professors? Some charge that gender bias is at play, while others insist that once factors such as experience are accounted for, the gaps aren’t consequential.

There may be truth to both views, according to research findings presented this week at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association by Paul D. Umbach, an assistant professor of higher education at the University of Iowa.

An example of how the media misrepresents stories in order to seem “objective.” It’s not true that the study found “truth to both views.” The controversy is between those who say “human capital factors account for part of, but not the entire, pay gap” versus those who say “human capital factors account for all of the pay gap.” This study found that about two-thirds of the pay gap could be attributed to human capital factors, but almost a third could not be.

Far from finding “truth to both views,” as the article reported, this study supports the feminist view and refutes the “human capital accounts for everything” view. But saying that would have compromised the faux-objectivity news writers specialize in.

Umbach used a series of databases to calculate the gender gap in pay over all, and then to account for all kinds of factors other than gender bias that may contribute to the salary gap. In the end, he found that looking at those factors decreases the size of the gap, but that it remains meaningful.

Leaving all factors out, the mean salary for women in the professoriate was 21.8 percent less than that for men. Add all the possible explanations and their impact, and the gap shrinks to 6.8 percent.

Before anyone says “6.8%” isn’t much, imagine coming into work tomorrow and being told that they’ve decided to give you a 7% pay cut. And remember, that’s an average pay gap. But in practice, the pay gap tends to get larger over the course of a career (see the discussion of “cumulative causation” in this post); so what starts out as a small and relatively managable pay gap can grow very large by the end of a career.

For example, the mean differential favoring men was $12,649 in English literature, $24,845 in chemical engineering, and $23,294 in economics. But these comparisons included men and women at all stages in their careers … so the senior faculty members with higher salaries (and who are more likely to be men) tilt the sample significantly.

What’s not being counted here? Benefits. This arguably means that this study will underestimate any pay gap, because more seniority, and higher rank, is commonly linked with higher-value benefits.

So then Umbach ran a series of analyses designed to compensate for that and other factors. Years of seniority were factored in, as were books and articles written, career patents, whether the person was receiving outside support for research, professorial rank, and the general job market in the discipline (based on percentage of new Ph.D.’s who are employed), among other factors. When all of those factors were added, the gap still remained, at 6.8 percent.

There are not clear explanations for the gap, leaving open the possibility that bias is at play, Umbach said.

It’s true that bias is a possible explanation for part or all of the unexplained 6.8%. What bothers me is the implicit, unjustified assumption that the “explained” factors can’t themselves reflect bias. But if job discrimination against women exists in academia, is there any reason to assume that sexism has nothing at all to do with factors like who gets grants for outside support, and whose articles are published?

For instance, they list “rank” as one of the factors that explains pay. But if bias exists, one likely way for gender bias to be expressed is that men might be more easily promoted to full professor positions. By implicitly assuming that “rank” and other human capital factors are discrimination-free zones, this study’s design may overlook significant forms of gender bias.

Another example is the assumption that women get paid less because women spend less time working and accrue less experience. This is no doubt true, but causation also goes in the other direction: women work less because they get less reward for working. (This is called a “feedback effect.”) To some degree, then, women’s lesser experience is not only a cause but also a result of gender bias.

But he said that other parts of his study suggest that the bias may not be a simple preference for men, but may relate to biases based on disciplines and on how faculty members spend their time.

For instance, Umbach found that as the proportion of females in a discipline increases, the mean salaries drop … for men and women.

This is something feminists have long argued, and that many other studies support. Gender wage discrimination is not just (or even primarily) a matter of women being directly discriminated against, but instead a matter of work done primarily by women being undervalued. In this way, even men who work in underpaid female-dominated occupations could be said to be hurt by the gender wage gap.

Another factor that negatively correlates with salaries is the percentage of time spent teaching: The greater a discipline’s time spent on teaching, the lower its salaries … for men and women. The more outside research funding, the higher the salaries.

In one respect, Umbach said, those findings don’t suggest bias because male and female faculty members in the discipline are affected equally. But when these figures are coupled with other studies suggesting, for example, that female professors may spend more time on teaching, questions are raised about underlying bias.

“We know that women tend to be employed in disciplines with a lot of other women, in disciplines without as much funded research, in disciplines with more time teaching,” he said. “Is the reward structure more male? Are we creating structures that reward men?”

I’d say that worries about “structures that reward men” are legitmate, but have to be extended beyond what this article discusses. One major reason for women’s on average lower wages is that women who are mothers tend to spend less time in the workforce (both in terms of years in the workforce, and in terms of how many hours worked per year) while they take care of their children. As I wrote in an earlier post, many feminists believe that in a non-sexist society, fathers and mothers would share equally in childcare - or at least, that fathers would take on a larger degree of childcare than they do now. Therefore, any “parenting wage penalty” in a nonsexist society would be split more evenly among men and women. The fact that women are virtually the only ones hit by the parenting wage penalty doesn’t prove that sexism no longer exists; on the contrary, it shows that sexism still matters, and has a big negative impact on women’s wages. (It also has a negative impact on men’s contact with their families.)

But to take it a step further, arguably that there’s a “parenting wage penalty” at all is a sign of sexism. Why isn’t the workplace designed to accommodate parenthood? The American job market was designed for men - in particular, it was developed in a society in which workers were had a wife at home to take care of the kids. Society has changed, but our jobs haven’t, and that works to the disadvantage of all working mothers (and to mothers who would like to work, but can’t find a job that will give them the flexibility they need to combine work and motherhood). Isn’t it sexist to expect mothers to fit into a work system that was designed for a Father Knows Best family?

(This post has been cross-posted at Creative Destruction. If you have trouble posting comments here, try the cross-posted version.)

Sorry the baby blogging is a day late - really busy Monday, as it turned out.

We figured this was the first year that Sydney might remember holiday celebrations, so we went all-out, doing both a Passover Seder and an Easter dinner. A Seder isn’t really a photo occasion, in my opinion, but Easter - especially the “Jesus? Who’s that?” version of Easter Kim and Matt put together - is very photo-friendly.

Kim and Matt decorated the TV room in pastel-and-bunny splendor and hid plastic eggs in every nook and cranny while I kept Sydney occupied in the living room. (Sydney: What’s that! Amp: That’s the fishtank! Sydney: What’s that? Amp: That’s Rattle the cat. Sydney: What’s that? Amp: That’s still the fishtank!)

When Syd and I finally entered the TV room, I was delighted to see that Kim and Matt had set up a bunch of Easter Swag ™ in the bay window. Why should this delight me, a Jew who frankly couldn’t care less where the Easter Swag is? Because I do care about where the light is, and in the bay window I could take pictures using natural light instead of the camera’s flash. To my eyes, the colors and shadows in these photos are much nicer than usual, as a result.

Here, Sydney begins to examine the Easter Swag. Where to start, where to start?
Read the rest of this entry »

Sorry I haven’t posted a link farm in a while… I’ve been busy, somehow. Not sure what I’ve been busy doing, exactly, but the time sure has flown. Co-hosting my first Passover Seder ever (first one hosting, that is, not attending!) took a bit of time. Went to work a few times.

Anyhow, this is an open thread. Feel free to post whatever you’d like here, including links to your own stuff or just to neat stuff. And in that spirit, here’s some of what I’ve been reading lately. (Apologies to the folks I found these links through; usually I try to give credit, but I managed to lose track of that info this time):

CARNIVALS, ETC

Jay Sennett Jaywalks: The Fifth Carnival of Bent Attractions

April 18: Blog to raise awareness about sexual violence!

April 22: Blog Against Heteronormativity!

Today is the last day to submit nominations for the 13th Carnival of Feminists.

FAT ACCEPTANCE LINKS
FattiePatties: Top Ten Things I’m Tired of Discussing
I linked to this series when it was in progress, and now that it’s done I’m linking it again. FattiePatties is one of my favorite fat politics bloggers; she always makes me feel like I’m not nearly radical enough with my own fat politics, plus she’s such a damned great writer. I’m definitely gonna nominate this for a “best series” Koufax next year.

Fattiepatties: It’s Not About The Food

Feh-Muh-Nist: But, You’re Not Fat!

In the last few years, however, I’ve started saying it straight and plain, “I am fat.” People do not like to hear this. My unapologetic admission of fatness (as if they can’t tell!) sends others into a fat-denying frenzy.

Big Fat Blog: Brand Thin Gets Rebranded As Brand Health

Big Fat Deal: There’s Always Molly Weasley
Big Fat Deal welcomes J.K. Rowling’s recent fat-positive remarks, but rightly criticizes her awful writing of fat characters.

Alternet: One Big Fat Lie
“America is allegedly in the midst of an obesity epidemic, but our obsession with weight is the real disease.” Curtsy: Fat Chicks Rule.

IMMIGRATION RELATED LINKS
Blac(k)ademic: Why HR 4437 Is A Queer Issue

i went to the trial with her as a witness where i had to disclose of our sexual activities to prove that she was indeed a lesbian. my testimony, along with her medical records documenting her abuse, her own legal research that she did, and her own testimony persueded the judge to grant her plea for asylum. the department of homeland security, which threated to file motion of appeal against her, eventually did not.

Political Animal: Illegal Immigration Has Very Small Impact On Economy

The Y Files: The Thin Line Between Legal and Illegal

I am a legal immigrant myself. […] And that is something I tremendously appreciate, but I am also aware of the fact that I got a special break due to Cold War politics, and that a lot of people around the world who had as good a claim to fleeing oppression or persecution did not get the same break. So my reaction is not “but I came here legally!” but more like, “There but for the grace of God…”

The Debate Link: Immigration Roulette

As Ambrose Bierce wrote exactly one century ago: “The right to property implies the right to exclusive use, and therefore the right to expel trespassers. Therefore, if A B and C own all the land, D E and F have no place to be born, or born as trespassers, to exist.” This may seem like a rather stretched analogy, until we remember those who want to expel the children of immigrants, born in the USA. Under this paradigm, these people would be “born as trespassers,” and that label seems immoral in a very visceral sense.

Maxspeak: Goods Over People?

I have been wondering of late why elite opinion has been vociferous about keeping US borders open for goods, but, has been recently queasy about keeping it open for poor people.

Knight Ridder: Cost and Benefits of Immigration a Net Wash

Washington Post: American Pioneers — or ‘Illegals’?

A number of the politicians calling for the criminalization of illegal immigrants may not be aware that they and a good many of their constituents could themselves be direct descendants of people who did some illegal migrating of their own many years ago. Much of the territory of the United States was settled by people — hundreds of thousands of them — who disregarded the law by squatting on public lands. [Curtsy: Debate Link]

Fareed Zakaria: To Become An American

Many Americans have become enamored of the European approach to immigration — perhaps without realizing it. Guest workers, penalties, sanctions and deportation are all a part of Europe’s mode of dealing with immigrants. The results of this approach have been on display recently in France, where rioting migrant youths again burned cars last week.

La Queen Sucia: Responses to an Anti-Illegal-Immigrant Correspondant

Brad Plumer: Letting Immigrants Vote

Unskilled immigration, he says, depresses the wages of low-skilled workers. Well, yes, but again, with properly-designed policies…living wages, full employment, labor laws that allow unions to flourish, earned-income tax credits, and the like…I think you can mitigate this, while preserving the very, very large benefits immigration brings for immigrants and the countries that send them.

MORE STUFF I’VE BEEN READING

Woman of Color Blog: Immigration, Blogothropology, and a Day of Protest
Interesting dialog between Brownfemipower and Poor Boy about race, immigration, and other matters. You can also read it here at Poor Boy’s blog, where the formatting is much better; but it looks like Poor Boy is about to take down his blog, so Brownfemipower’s link will last much longer. Be sure to also read Brownfemipower’s follow-up thoughts, and (while they last) Poor Boy’s (here, here , here, here, here and here).

Gray Does Matter: Corruption In the 2004 Ohio Election?

Woman of Color Blog: Abortion and Women of Color

For example, in the 70s, Native women became targets of the United States’ population control program. A declassified federal document, the National Security Study Memorandum 200, stated the following: “Too many people crowded too close together cause many of our social and economic problems. These in turn are aggravated by involuntary and irresponsible parenthood… The welfare mess, as it has been called, cries out for solutions, one of which is fertility control.” What “fertility control” meant for Native women was that when women went into the doctor for complaints as varied as back pain, chronic headaches, tonsillitis and pregnancy, they often left the doctor without a uterus.

Violence Against Women Blog: Kuwait Women Vote And Run For Office For First Time

Bark/Bite: Do You Tell A Football What Time The Game Starts?
Extremely smart, well-written post about homosociality (”the idea that men’s relationships with women are secondary to men’s relationships with other men, and that women are used as currency of exchange in male relationships…”).

Tennessee Guerilla Women: The Gender Gap Between The Parties Is Growing

Women’s Space/The Margins: “Goddesses on Parade”: Birth, Pornography, the Britney Spears Birthing Statue

Femivist: Catherine A. Mackinnon Is My Hero

Creek Running North: Tarantula
There are some political undercurrents here, as there are in all of Chris Clarke’s posts. But mainly, damn good storytelling about Tarantulas, who Chris positions as the friendly squishy pacifists of the scary-looking-creature world.

Feministe:Thoughts on Upcoming Surgery

She was sort of aghast. She couldn’t understand how I could actually change genders and/or sexes without having some essential working definition of each one. How did I even keep track? How did I know where I was? How did I explain all of this to myself?

Definition: Dear White Folks

When you talk about those “Hispanics” taking all the jobs, it’s pretty fucking obvious this isn’t about immigration … it’s about language and culture and surnames and that which allows you to identify them without knowing anything more, skin. It’s about skin. Because you assume that an entire continent and a half is all Mexico, all immigrants, all illegal. Even those of us who are born here, even those who have lived here for generations longer than your families.

How To Save The World: Living On The Edge
Most people’s diagrams of the world put themselves at center, but this guy thinks he’s at the edge. I don’t really agree with any of this - I think there’s a lot of essential issues that it’s easy for a white male and (I suspect) straight man to ignore when he says that the fights between lefties and righties are nothing more than a distraction from really important stuff - but I found this perversely entertaining reading nonetheless.

Twice the Rice: Letters To My Past
Witty, bitchy (in the good sense of the word) and touching letters from a woman who was born in Korea but adopted by white Americans in infancy. Also read this uber-ultra-sarcastic post about adopting kittens.

VeganKid: White Solidarity with Non-Whites, in Practice and Not
Interesting essay about a spur-of-the-moment attempt to get a group of white “allies” to join in solidarity with a most-Latin@ demonstration.

Bitch PhD: Pro Life Pharmacists Refuse to Dispense Vitamins and Antibiotics

Privilege Judo: What’s The Matter With White Folks?
Quoting Tim Wise, arguing with statistics that it’s not Kansas, it’s white people.

Creative Destruction: Feminist Professor Tears Down Student Pro-Life Display
I actually feel kind of sorry for the professor, but come on: What she did was not only tactically stupid, it was unethical.

Blood on My Teeth: He Said/She Said And Why I’m A Feminist

Political Animal: Mifepristone deaths: Under 1 in 100,000. Viagra Deaths: 5 in 100,000
Yet somehow, the pro-life congressmen who want to ban Mifepristone because it’s too dangerous to women, aren’t jumping to ban Viagra. Gee, what’s that about?

Pandagon: Boobage and the Governor’s Race In Alabama
So a couple of journalists named “Bob” are oddly obsessed with the boobs of the libertarian candidate for Governor. Amanda provides a bunch of links and good analysis, but what makes linking this story irresistible is the candidate’s funny and classy response.

Political Animal: Alphabetical Tyranny
It’s why I like the blog name “Alas.” But in retrospect, I should have gone with “Aardvark blog.”

This Comic Strip Rocks
Curtsy: I Blame The Patriarchy

(Cross posted at Creative Destruction)

The social construction of race is a well established view in social sciences and biology. It simply posits that racial categories and the general idea of race is culturally created and maintained. One of the clearest examples of how racial categories are socially constructed is the US Census. The Census has long been a barometer for the racial ethos, and racial categories are hotly contested. In 2000 the hot debate for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). who decides the racial categories, was whether or not to include the multiracial category. Advocates claiming to represent interracial couples and their children wanted the multiracial category. In contrast, traditional Civil Rights groups, such as the NAACP, worried that the Black population would decrease if a multiracial category was included, so they opposed a multiracial category. In the end, the Census Bureau compromised by allowing people to mark more than one category for the first time.

So what were the final racial categories on the 2000 census? In total people could choose from 15 categories: White, Black/African Am. or Negro, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, Other Pacific Islander, and Some Other Race. The census does not consider Hispanics/Latinos to be a race, so the “Spanish Origin” question is separate from the race question. Other groups, such as Middle Easterners were unsuccessful at their lobbying efforts and consequently their proposed categories were not placed on the census. The contention in 2000 was nothing new. The racial categories on the Census have constantly changed, and their legitimacy is routinely challenged.

In the early years there were fewer racial categories. The 1790 census divided people into the following groups: free White men 16 and over, free White males under 16, free White females, all other free persons, and slaves. The primary racial divisions in the Census in the early years were between free Whites, enslaved and free Blacks, and “Indians not taxed.” The primary purpose of the census was to determine voting. The more the population of free Whites and enslaved Blacks the more votes an area could receive. Indians “not taxed” did not count for purposes of voting, and enslaved Africans counted as 3/5 of a person. The mid to late 1800s saw the development of some new racial categories. The 1850 Census, which noted that there were a few “domesticated Indians” who were taxed and should be counted differently. Census takers (called enumerators) were reminded that Indians were who living among Whites (not on reservations) were to be counted. Also in the mid 1800s, enumerators were asked to make a distinction between mulattoes and Blacks. Enumerators were given this warning about the mulatto category, “The word is here generic, and includes quadroons, octoroons, and all persons having any perceptible trace of African blood.” By the late 1800s new racial categories were introduced: In 1890 the categories were black, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, Chinese, Japanese, and Indians (for those who do not know: octoroon is 1/8 Black, Quadroon is ¼ Black).

In the early 1900s the racial categories expanded and contracted. Octoroon and quadroon were dropped in favor of a catch-all mulatto category, and a category called “other” was introduced. The mulatto category disappeared from the Census by the mid-century. It should also be noted that a series of questions about “nativity” (citizenship) were introduced. The backlash against Southern and Eastern European immigrants is likely the reason for this. People wanted to know how many immigrants were coming and where they were coming from. This became even more important after 1924 National Origins Act, put strict immigration quotas keep out immigrants who were considered “less desirable” (Italians, Russians, Poles, and other Southern and Eastern Europeans). (The structure of this immigration law required determining the ethnic extraction of Americans in order to set quotas and maintain the ethnic balance in favor of English, German, and Irish immigrants. These were not considered races, but the focus on ethnicity in the early part of the century reveals how the White category was somewhat contentious.) Additionally, the distinctions between taxed and non-taxed Indians became mute after the 1920 Census because Indians on and off reservations were enfranchised. However, in 1930 the decision was made that people of Mexican origin did not fit into these categories White, Negro, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese, so they were given their own designation; however, this changed in 1940 when enumerators were instructed to classify Mexicans as White unless they were “definitely Indian or some other race than White.” The growing population of people from Latin American, Eastern Europe, and the Indian subcontinent caused some debate about new categories; thus the Census issued the following instructions in 1960:

“The instructions for completing P5 (race or color) by observation directed that Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, or other persons of Latin descent would be classified as ”White” unless they were definitely Negro, Indian, or some other race. Southern European and Near Eastern nationalities also were to be considered White. Asian Indians were to be classified as ”Other,” and ”Hindu” written in.”

The introduction of a “Hindu” category, which lasted only one year, is fascinating since most would today consider Hindu a religion and not a race.

In the modern era of the Census the number of categories has expanded dramatically. By 1970 the Census had the following racial categories…White, Negro or Black, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, Indian, and Other. The modern concept of a unified group called “Hispanics” was created in this census based on the newly formed “Spanish Origin” question, which has been on every census since 1970. However, the Census has never considered people of “Spanish Origin” a race…and census forms often say Hispanics/Latinos may be of any race. In 1980 a few more races were added Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Guamanian, Samoan, Eskimo, and Aleut.

So what if anything do all of these changes tell us about the social construction of race? If race was truly biological, then we would not have seen so many changes in the Census. If race was biological, then we wouldn’t have groups lobbying to be added or to have other categories taken away. This is not to say that there is nothing genetic about our skin color, hair texture, or the shape of our faces, but the fact that we have this debate about which visible characteristics to pick and chose indicates that there is something more than biology at work. Take the instructions in 1940 that very explicitly say that southern Europeans were to be classified as White. Today many people take it for granted that Italians are classified as White; however, this was enough of a point of contention in 1940 that instructions had to direct people that this group should be marked as White. Additionally, the following statement undermines the notion that skin color and ancestry alone determine one’s race:

“A person of mixed White and Negro blood was to be returned as Negro, no matter how small the percentage of Negro blood; someone part Indian and part Negro also was to be listed as Negro unless the Indian blood predominated and the person was generally accepted as an Indian in the community.
A person of mixed White and Indian blood was to be returned as an Indian, except where the percentage of Indian blood was very small or where he or she was regarded as White in the community.”

Consequently someone who is ¼ Black, but visibly White, such as Professor Gregory Howard Williams the man pictured on the left, is considered Black by the Census. On the contrary someone who is ¼ White, but visibly Black would be counted as Black. Is this an issue of genes, physical appearance, or biology? No, it is about the distribution of power and resources. (A more detailed discussion of this can be found here.) Race is a political issue, and who knows what the next Census will include. Multiracial may become it’s own new category. Middle Eastern may be added. Some of the various east Asian groups may be dropped since the Census groups them together in most reports. This is clearly not about biology but about representation and its connection to the power structure. Formal recognition of a racial group in the US Census means that this new group will be officially recognized, which strongly influences the political power of each group.

Endnote: All of the data on historical changes in Census categories can be found here.

This is cross posted at Rachel’s Tavern

The upgrade has been completed - and as far as I can tell, successfully!

As usual, big thanks go to Podz, without whom I’m not sure “Alas” would still exist. If you enjoy “Alas,” please consider following the link and dropping something in Podz’s tip jar at the bottom of the page - he’s really been very generous with his time and skills.

It is now safe to post comments again. :-) The original post is below the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »

There’s been an argument in the comments of this post that I want to comment on, but it’s more than a little off-topic so I’m starting a new thread.

It all began when Alsis complained that our social support system is “starving, looted, privatized.” Robert responded with a genuinely stunning display of economic ignorance and misrepresentation:
Read the rest of this entry »

(Note: I did the research and much of the writing for this post before Blac(k)ademic posted her critique of writing which treats rape “like a damn sports event where we are taking sides and rooting for each side based on DNA samples.” I’ll don’t really disagree with Blac(k)ademic, but I still think that engaging with the particulars is sometimes necessary, and is possible to do without treating rape like a sports event. I intend to post more on this later, but for now I gotta get away from the computer for a while.)

Now that DNA evidence has not shown a connection between Mary Doe, the alleged victim, and any of the Duke Lacrosse players, many people are saying that the case should be closed. Some are even saying that the DNA proves that no rape happened, and Mary Doe made a false accusation.

To tell you the truth, until I began researching this post, I knew nothing about DNA evidence beyond what I’ve seen on TV detective shows. The public comments about DNA in this case have all come from defense lawyers, whose statements may be more about what they want potential jurors to hear than about what the most truthful analysis is. (The same is true for public statements made by the DA, of course).

In a comment at Ginmar’s livejournal, Fiona64 identified herself as a “forensic science geek” who, while not an expert, at least knows more about DNA evidence than the average CSI watcher. I emailed her with a bunch of questions, which she was kind enough to answer.

That gave me the idea of emailing evidence analysts - experts who write technical papers and testify in courtrooms - and asking them background questions. I cut down my list of questions to just four (I thought there was a better chance of getting responses if there were fewer questions asked) and emailed several DNA evidence experts. To my surprise, several were kind enough to email me back.

So here I’m going to summarize the answers. Then, below the fold, you’ll find the full text of all the responses I got, along with a brief description of each expert’s background (the background descriptions are quoted from this website). I’ve tried to be honest in how I’ve quoted folks, but I’ve also been fitting in writing this post around Passover and work, so my advice is to go ahead and read the full answers.

Keep in mind that these answers are only general background comments about what DNA evidence can and cannot prove, not specific comments about the Duke rape case.

On the whole, the most striking thing to me about the responses is the lack of unanimity between the experts. It’s pretty clear that DNA evidence is a field in which experts can, and do, disagree.

Question one: 1. If DNA evidence fails to prove that an accused person raped an alleged rape victim, does that prove that the accused person could not have raped the alleged victim?

Here, all experts agreed that it is possible for DNA to not be left behind by a rapist, but different experts seemed to disagree about how likely that is.

Jennifer Friedman, of the Los Angeles County Innocence Project, gave an answer which implied that it’s extremely unlikely that anyone could rape and not leave DNA behind (unless they used a condom). “In general, if there is a sexual assault with penetration either vaginal or anal and no condom is used one would expect DNA to be present. Even if the perpetrator did not ejaculate, his epithelial cells will often times be left behind. In order to answer this question most accurately, I would need to know specifically what is alleged to have occurred. Occasionally, DNA may be left on the alleged victim and yet the person who swabbed the area may have missed the area with the DNA, but this is rare.”

On the other hand, Elizabeth Johnson flatly answered “no” (perhaps because she was in a rush), and William Thompson wrote that “absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.”

2. Is it possible for a rape to happen and for no useful DNA evidence to be left behind? Put another way, if someone says she was raped, but no DNA evidence supports her claim, does that prove she made a false rape report?

Not one expert was willing to say that absence of DNA evidence is proof of a false rape accusation. But how strongly they said “no” to this question varied significantly.

On the “weak no” side, Dan Krane wrote: “It is worth noting that DNA tests are amazingly sensitive (DNA profiles can be generated from as little material as that left behind in a fingerprint) and Y-STR tests have the potential of determining a male’s DNA profile even when a female’s DNA is present in hundreds or thousands of times greater quantities. Scientists are always wary of asserting that the absence of evidence is not proof of absence but it certainly is reasonable to expect to find a rapist’s DNA associated with a victim when the victim presents herself to investigators within hours of an attack and when she has not bathed, the rapist did not use a condom and ejaculation occurred.”

On the other hand, Simon Ford believes that CSI has given the public an inflated idea of how certain and quick DNA tests are, and writes “If the claim is such that one would expect to see biological material and none is found, then sure it may be an indication of a false claim, but there are really so many other potential explanations, particularly when just dealing with the first round of DNA testing, such as issues like condom use, vasectomy, choice of test (autosomal STR v. Y-STR), choice of samples to test, many other things like this can all play a part.”

And William Shields wrote “unless the victim stated that she was sure there no condoms used the absence of DNA could not prove she was mistaken much less that she made a false report.”

Finally, Fiona64 writes “It may, however, mean that the proverbial net needs to be thrown wider in order to obtain a different pool of suspects.”

3. I’ve seen it claimed that mixed DNA from multiple rapists will not necessarily match the individual DNA of any of the rapists, so multiple rapists not using condoms may be unidentifiable. This seems dubious to me. Do you know if this is true?

The answers given by experts to this question were truly all over the place. Several experts do not think there is any danger of a false exclusion in such a scenario. For instance, William Thompson of the University of California wrote “It depends on the way the analyst chooses to interpret the mixed profile. In the cases I look at, the analyst are usually quite lenient about what they will call a ‘match.’ A mixture of DNA from three or more men can often be interpreted in a manner that allows a very substantial fraction of the male population to be ‘included’ as a potential contributor.”

Another expert, Jennifer Friedman, writes “If someone is excluded, he is definitively excluded.”

But William Shields of the State University of New York wrote, “If three, four, or more people donate DNA then there will be so many alleles in a mixture that very few if any people can be excluded as potential contributors. In such an event the evidence does become useless.”

4. Is it possible for a condom to be used, without physical evidence of condom use (traces of latex, etc) being left behind?

A few experts I contacted didn’t feel they knew enough to answer this question.

Of the experts who answered this question, however, all agreed that condoms could be used and not necessarily detected. Elizabeth Johnson wrote, “Testing for these substances is not typically done, despite what you see on CSI. There has been some research done re spermicides on condoms, but none of this is done as part of a typical test and validated methods for casework aren’t there yet.” William Shields wrote “This question is better asked of a forensic chemist but I do know that such traces are often but not always left behind.” And William Thompson flatly answered “yes.”

So what do I conclude from all this?

Despite the DNA evidence, from what the experts say it’s possible that condoms were used, preventing DNA evidence from being left behind. It’s also possible that the rapists were party guests but not members of the lacrosse team. The idea that this case has now been settled, or that Mary Doe has been proved a liar, rests on weak and inconclusive evidence. It is clear that those who have say the DNA evidence proves no rape took place are vastly exaggerating what DNA evidence (or the lack of DNA evidence) can conclusively show.

(The other evidence I’ve seen put forward to support the “it was a false rape accusation” arguments - 911 calls, photos, Mary Doe’s past arrest, etc. - I don’t see as even a tiny bit persuasive, for reasons I’ll describe in an upcoming post.)

I don’t deny that it’s possible no rape took place, and clearly this possibility is supported (but far from proved) by initial DNA results. Still, given all the evidence available so far, I continue to believe Mary Doe’s claim that she was raped at the lacrosse player’s party. And although there may not be enough evidence for “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” that in and of itself doesn’t prove that no rape took place. Rape is, contrary to popular belief, an extremely difficult crime to prove in a courtroom; there are many more rapists than there are tried and convicted rapists.

****Important note for comment-writers****: Comments on this post are for “feminist and feminist-friendly posters” only. If you are a poster who is unknown to me, and you leave a comment that is not clearly coming from a feminist point of view, I will probably NOT let the comment through. However, everyone is welcome to post comments on the exact same post at Creative Destruction. So if you’re not clearly a feminist, and you want your comment to be seen, I strongly advise you to post it over there, rather than on “Alas.”

* * *

Below the fold are the full answers given by each of the experts. I think all the answers are pretty interesting, and recommend reading them all. If you only have time for one, though, I think Simon Ford’s email is especially valuable both for the background information it contains and for the picture it paints of how complex questions of DNA evidence can be.
Read the rest of this entry »

The Duke alleged rape case is getting a lot of attention in the media and on blogging sites, not because of the woman and the violence she suffered, but because the players are white. Therefore, this case makes the headlines almost everyday since the players privilege and whiteness is threatened with the possibility of jail time or having to register as sex offenders. So I keep asking myself, are we only engaged in this incident because the media has hyped up the issues of color?

Last year, a number of black women were raped, assaulted, beaten, burned to death, and were kidnapped by other men of color. However, the media gave little, if any attention to those incidents.
Why are we only important when whites are involved?

In some ways, this case has become an argument of DNA samples, lacrosse, strippers, and defense lawyers–instead of the real issue, which is violence against women. Violence that is committed against female bodies on a daily basis. It saddens me that even in the discussions on my blog, this incident has been reduced to whether or not she had a broom shoved up inside of her. It seems to me that we are not using this as an example to critique the reasons why so many women are raped/assaulted. Instead, it’s like a damn sports event where we are taking sides and rooting for each side based on DNA samples or statistics of how many women lie about being raped.

Black women and other women are being raped daily, possibly right now as you read this and as I type it. Where are the numerous blogs dedicated to them? Have I also given into the hype?

It is very disturbing that this case has become reminiscent of the O.J. trial where black “truth” is positioned in opposition to white “truth.” If this were a team of men of color and another woman of color, would the media have given it this much attention? Would other bloggers have given it this much attention? No. Of course not–although I would hope otherwise, but that is the reality of this situation.

After this spectacle has been long gone, will we all continue to fight against violence committed against women’s bodies, or will we only blog about it when the next case happens? I am asking this question in all seriousness because this event is not just a one time thing–IT HAPPENS ALL OF THE TIME–we must remember that.

In blac(k)ademic’s post She Does Not Speak for Me she tore apart the Jazmyne Cannick’s argument that there was a queue for civil rights and lesbians and gays were further up than illegal immigrants.

In the comments Amp replied:

I’m reminded of how some suffragists objected to the idea of voting rights for Blacks (which effectively meant “Black men,” since no one in government at the time was proposing that Black women should have the vote), saying that it was women’s turn first (meaning white women).

This comment nearly lead to a thread derailment, but people were just disciplined enough that it didn’t. I asked Amp if we could have a thread to discuss this without derailing the debate in blac(k)ademic’s post, and he invited me to guest post, so here it is.

Heart replied to Amp as follows:

Here’s what happened. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed during Reconstruction, granted full citizenship to former slaves and free black people. It also introduced the word “male” into the Constitution and left it up to the states to determine which of its male citizens who were 21 could vote. The Fifteenth Amendment said U.S. citizens could not be denied the right to vote on the basis of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The suffragists wanted *sex* included along with race, color and previous condition of servitude. The inclusion of the word “sex” would have meant both white women and black women would have the right to vote. Abolitionists, including their former friend and ally, Frederick Douglass, didn’t want to push for that. He thought there was more chance of the 15th Amendment passing if the word “sex” were omitted and that while women’s suffrage was important, it was more important that black men be given the vote.

And Sheezlebub replied:

While there were plenty of women in the movement who were anti-racist and pro-suffrage for all women, there were still plenty of women who did buy into racist bullshit, who scrambled to reassure southern racists that the number of White women with the vote would outnumber those odious Black men and keep White supremacy safe. Far from advocating for suffrage for all women, some White women in the movement were quite happy to exclude Black women. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton got George Francis Train to be an ally”“but advocated for “educated” suffrage, which excluded Blacks as it had been illegal to teach a Black person to read or to educate them. His programe was White women and THEN black men.

The National American Woman Suffrage Association not only barred Black women from attending its Altanta conference, but allowed chapters to bar Black women from joining. That’s not indicative of fighting for the rights of all women.

Now the nearest I’ve found to a suffragist who said that white women should be granted the vote before black men that I’ve been able to find is Henry Ward Beecher, he argued: “I say…it is more important that women should vote than that the black man should vote” (black women were another matter). I don’t think it was at all common that suffragists argued that women’s suffrage should be passed before black suffrage. What was common was objecting to enfranchising black men, but not women (which would mean both black women and white women).

Now, to me, this was a really interesting debate (and I’m cribbing a lot from Angela Davis’s Woman, Race & Class, even though I disagree with her conclusions), and had some pretty long-standing repercussions.

Immediately after the civil war Frederick Douglass was arguing that it was more important that black men got the vote than that white or black women did. He had supported the suffrage movement, and women’s rights campaigners, for quite some time, but after the Civil War argued that it was more urgent that black men get the vote than women:

When women, because they are women, are dragged from their homes and hung upon lamp-posts; when their children are torn from their arms and their brains dashed upon the pavement; when they are objects of insult and outrage at every turn; when they are in danger of having their homes burnt down over their heads; when their children are not allowed to enter schools; then they will have [the same] urgency to obtain the ballot

Many prominent women suffragists disagreed with him this is Elizabeth Cady Stanton:

The representative women of the nation have done their uttermost for the last thirty years to secure freedom for the negro; and as long as he was lowest in the scale of being, we were willing to press his claims; but now, as the celestial gate to civil rights is slowly moving on its hinges, it becomes a serious question whether we had better stand aside and see ‘Sambo’ walk into the kingdom first. As self preservation is the first law of nature, woudl it not be wiser to keep our lamps trimmed and burning, and when the constitutional door is open, avail ourselves of the strong arm and blue uniform of the black soldeir and walk in by his side, and thus make the gap so wide that no priviledged class could ever again close it against the humblest citizen of the republic?

This is Sojourner Truth

There is a great stir about colored men getting their rights, but not a worda bout the colored women; and if colored men get their rights,a nd not colored women theirs, you see the colored men will be masters over the women, and it will be just as bad as it was before.

But so did some black men, Charles Remond (who had a long history of fighting for women’s rights) said: “In an hour like this I repudiate the idea of expediency. All I ask for myself I claim for my wife and sister.”

Sheezlebub is right about the racism about the women’s suffrage movement, and it got even worse once the links between women’s rights and anti-slavery were broken. Here is a resolution from the National American Women’s Suffrage Assocation passed in the early 1890s:

Resolved. That wihtout expressing any opinion on the proper qualifications for voting, we call attention ot the significant facts that in every State there are more women who can read and write than the whole number illeiterate male voters, morew hite women who can read and write than all negro voters; more American women who can read and write than all foreign voters; so that the enfranchisement of such women would settle the vexted question of rule by illiteracy, whether of home-grown or foreign-born production.

The reason I wanted to write about this was partly to draw a distintion between white women saying they should have the vote before black people, and saying that when the franchise is being extended to black men it should also be extended towards women. But also because I think we can learn something from this past.

Before and during the civil war the struggle for women’s rights and the abolitionist struggle were intertwined. There was a lot of sexism and racism in both movements, but there were a lot of people who were working on both issues, and alliances between the two causes.

I understand why Frederick Douglass, and others, believed that the vote for black men needed to be a priority. But I also understand why this was such a breach to the solidarity that had existed between the two struggles.

What seems so sad to me, with hindsight, is that the vote didn’t protect black men from everything that Frederick Douglass described, in fact black male suffrage in the South didn’t last very long.

So what do other people think, in what circumstances is a win more important than solidarity with another struggle? Under what circumstances is it OK to tell another struggle that your struggle is more important?

Also posted on my blog

I saw this posting from pandagon today regarding Jasmyne Cannick’s article against immigration reform. I had to write something in response to it because I am deeply offended by her words as a black women and as a lesbian.

Jasmyne writes:

It’s a slap in the face to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to take up the debate on whether to give people who are in this country illegally additional rights when we haven’t even given the people who are here legally all of their rights.

This reminds me of how some black “leaders” said it was a slap in the face to the civil rights movement to be equated with the gay rights movement. I am sorry Jasmyne, but the oppression olympics are played out and get us nowhere in our goals of civil rights for all oppressed people. I agree that we haven’t given all of the people in this country the same rights, but what makes the struggles of gays and lesbians more important than the struggles of immigrants? Nothing does.

While I know no one wants to be viewed as a racist when it comes to immigration reform, as a lesbian I don’t want to move to the back of the bus to accommodate those who broke the law to be here. After all, immigrants aren’t the only ones who want a shot at the American dream.

While I agree that immigration reform is an important issue and perhaps it could become the next leading civil rights movement we haven’t even finished with our current civil rights movement. Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts got it right when he said, “There is no moving to the front of the line.” Immigration reform needs to get in line behind the LGBT civil rights movement, which has not yet realized all of its goals.

Excuse me? Did it ever occur to her that just because it is a law doesn’t make it right? Slavery was legal for over 200 years–did that make it right? Of course not. In fact, it was only up until recently (2003) that a number of anti-homosexual laws were repealed that de-criminalized the personal sexual relationships of homosexuals–which were the anti-sodomy laws. When she was having sex with other women, it was illegal. And if she has sex with a member of the military, it is still seen as illegal and could place her in prison for up to 15 years.

Immigration and immigrant rights are a part of the civil rights movement. Does she not know of any bi-national couples? Does she not know of any queer immigrants? She lives in Los Angeles, a diverse metropolis, therefore I find this highly impossible–unless she only interacts with queer U.S. citizens. And, since she uses racialized rhetoric (back of the bus) she implies that the civil rights movement that grew out of the desires of both blacks and whites to provide equal rights for blacks has successfully finished. She says this at the same time the majority of people in prison are black, where a large number of us are living in abject poverty, where the majority of blacks are living with HIV/AIDS–but i guess, since we got to move out from the back of the bus, everything is a-ok. Hearing this from a black lesbian is appalling.

Which is not to say that I don’t recognize the plight of illegal immigrants. I do. But I didn’t break the law to come into this country.

As a black American born lesbian, you are descendants of slaves. Of course you didn’t have to “break the law” to come here, your ancestors were already brought here against their will. But what about those of us queers or even non-queers who do not have the privilege of being born here in the United States?

Both Senator Kennedy and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas backed away from insisting that guest workers would have to leave the United States after their initial two-year visa expired, basically guaranteeing that immigrant families wouldn’t be separated.

Who actually believes that this country holds the best interests of immigrant families at the center of the guest worker legislature. The guest workers would have to leave because the United States government does not want them to stay here. If they stayed, the government would be responsible for them financially and politically, where a number of laws would have to change to accommodate these new citizens, extended stay nationals, or whatever else they would be deemed as. Our country would be responsible for treating them like human beings and not the underpaid, disposable and worthless contractors the government wants them to be portrayed as.

Cannick’s words are xenophobic and reek of right wing conservatism that deploys the rhetoric of “illegal” and “broke the law” to imply that immigrants are complicit with crime and therefore pose a threat to our rights. I find this highly problematic coming from a person of color who so-called advocates for the civil rights of oppressed people. It doesn’t surprise me that a magazine like the Advocate (a very white and very conservative magazine) published her article.

Jasmyne, what is a crime is the fact that other black women like you and me, are surviving and struggling, just as much as immigants–documented or not. What is not a crime is having immigrants demonstrate their desire for civil rights, just as it is not a crime for gays/lesbians/sgl’s to demonstrate our desires for civil rights.

In a previous post, I talked about how most Whites need to develop greater empathy for people of color. I also discussed a concept called approximating experiences, which is one way Whites can develop more empathetic orientations. Feagin and Vera say that that approximating experiences help Whites grasp what it is like to be the victim of racial discrimination. Citing a study by Tiffany Hogan and Julie Netzger, they say that approximating experiences most often come from three sources: relying on stories that people of color tell about their experiences, relying on general humanistic values, and relying on aspects of their own oppression. In the last case they note that White women who experienced multiple forms of discrimination (such as being a woman and being lesbian or Jewish) are more likely to develop empathetic orientations toward people of color. I think my personal story is useful at showing how Whites can challenge their own racism through approximating experiences and develop greater empathy.

I had my first approximating experiences in high school. My views started from a humanistic orientation…I grew up around all Whites, and my parents had taught me that everybody should be treated fairly. Although they didn’t say a lot about racism, I remember them repeatedly telling me that you do not treat people bad because they are different from you. I remember repeatedly hearing my classmates make derogatory comments about African Americans. I very specifically remember being bothered by racist comments, and I repeatedly admonishing my classmates not to use the n-word.

My outspoken views on racism did not endear me to my classmates. In fact, I was subjected to ridicule and occasional threats of violence. I was routinely called “nigger lover,” so many times that I do not remember most of them. In my art class during my sophomore year one of my classmates Brian, called me “nigger lover” almost everyday. See while we worked on our art projects, we talked social issues and politics. When I challenged my classmates, Brian as the ring leader and on occasion his buddies would say this to me in front of the entire class including the teacher, who had asked him to stop but never enforced any consequences. Frankly, I had no idea how to respond to comments like this because people like Brian don’t like common sense arguments. They like bullying. Eventually I came up with the most creative response I could. I would say, “I’m not a nigger lover because I don’t like you.” I was 16 and this was the best response I could muster to shut him up…all of the reasonable arguments about the golden rule, respecting your fellow man, and so on didn’t work.

One of the other incidents I remember happened when I was a junior. In this case two or the more popular girls in my school Mindy and Emily were taunting me in class. These girls were your typical means girls (as depicted in the movie LOL!). I have no idea why they were picking on me, but it wasn’t the first time and I was fed up. The teacher of this class was habitually late and played the popularity game, allowing these girls to do what they wanted. I didn’t expect any support from her or any other of my classmates, so I turned to them and yelled, “Bitch you need to shut the fuck up.” They laughed and the rest of the class got quiet. I hoped this would be it, but later that day when I went to my locker I had a note put inside my locker that said, “You’re a niger lover and a horsefucker.” I just looked at the note and truly was scared. I was afraid of what they could have taken from my locker or what may happen to me as I walked down the hall. The whole time my classmates, all of whom were White, were directing racial slurs at me (and of course, all African Americans albeit indirectly). I didn’t tell the principal, my teachers, my parents, or anyone. The primary reason I did say much about almost all of these incidents was simple…I knew that they wouldn’t do anything about it. I knew that they were indifferent to racial slurs and that they didn’t understand the severity of it. I knew the Whites who I lived and worked with were not bothered by racial slurs or racism. I did occasionally have people who agreed with me, but it was almost always a brief “I agree with you” when no one else was around to hear it. For me personally, it was these experiences that helped my to feel some empathy towards people of color. I am by no means saying I get everything. I just know what I felt like when these things were directed at me. I knew the fear, the powerlessness, the exasperation, and the anger that racism was creating in me. Because of these experiences (and others), I dedicated myself to fighting racism.

In my later years of high school and in college, my approximating experiences came from listening to my friends and classmates who had personal experiences with racism. I was able to get a better understand of racism from Black professors like my undergraduate mentor Dr. Lewis. I learned about Black nationalism from two friends who were in the Nation of Islam, and I probably learned the most from my friendship with Jennifer. Jennifer and I didn’t go to the same high school, but by getting to know Jennifer and her family I started to see how racism affected a good friend of mine. I had a close Black friend who wasn’t afraid to tell me about the things I didn’t get. This has also been the case as I have gotten older and have made other friends.

I have also been influenced in my anti-racist work by several prominent authors, artists, and academics. I didn’t meet these people, but I read their works. James Baldwin was my early inspiration. Somehow, I got my hands on If Beale Street Could Talk…one of his less popular novels. I loved that book, so I decided to read Go Tell It On The Mountain, Another Country, The Fire Next Time, Just Above My Head, and several other books. I remember reading a June Jordan article in college about the power of anger. The book I mentioned in the previous post…White Racism had a dramatic shift on my understanding of racism. When I read it, I felt like someone else was articulating what I felt about racism. While I do think many people misinterpret literature and art, this can be another was to begin to develop approximating experiences, which can help lead to empathy.

I think my experience is instructive for three reasons. First, it shows that there are many pathways developing awareness of racism whether it is through interpersonal relationships, organizational involvement, a general belief in social equality, or accessing at and literature. The second reason it is instructive is that it shows some of the ridicule and difficulty that Whites face if they challenge racism. I don’t want this to scare people, but it is a reality that people who challenge racism face. When we ignore racism, we simply opt out by using our White privilege, but when we challenge racism and White privilege there are consequences. Finally, I think my experience can help others who want to challenge racism know that they are not alone. I felt really alone in high school, and I kept many of these experiences to myself. I think developing anti-racist allies is crucial to maintaining a front against racism. Those allies can be Whites or People of Color. They can be role models and/or friends. The battle against racism doesn’t have to occur in isolation. I’m not saying I have all of the answers or that I have completely purged racism from myself. In fact, the more I learn about racism the harder I think it is to challenge it. I see coming to an anti racist consciousness as a long process. I learn new things every day, and I still have a lot more to learn about racism.

I would also like to add this link to David Schraub’s website. He talks about his own approximating experiences.

This post can also be found at Rachel’s Tavern and Ally Work.

It’s often stated that rape is unusual, and hard to convict, because it so often involves “he said/she said” testimony. One person’s word against another: he says it was consensual, she says it was rape.

But I don’t think that’s all that unique.

Imagine that Bob comes to trial for being a drug dealer. Officer Jane testifies that Bob offered to sell her some coke. Bob says that’s a lie, and that the coke on him when Jane arrested him was actually planted by Jane.

Why is it that no one would call this case “he said/she said,” as rape cases are so often called?

My example is not unrealistic; there’s been at least one high-profile case of dozens of innocent people (nearly all black, surprise surprise) being convicted this way.

So why doesn’t anyone say that drug possession is a unique crime because a person can go be sent to prison for drug possession, based solely on another person’s word? Why does no one say “drug dealing is a serious charge; it is easy to make, difficult to defend”? Why does no one fret about the damage to the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” when someone goes to prison for selling drugs based on someone else’s word?

I don’t think there’s a principled reason that the process of a jury hearing testimony and weighing credibility - which is routinely accepted in thousands of non-rape cases - becomes so suspicious and deplorable when the crime is rape. Rather, I think the difference is just evidence that our culture trusts cops but doesn’t trust women.

Now, as it happens, I’m not totally comfortable with sending someone to prison based on assessment of credibility, because “credibility” is something that is so easily given or withheld based on factors that should be irrelevant (race, gender, class, looks, etc). But it’s still appalling that this concern is constantly brought up in cases involving rape, but rarely or never in cases involving other crimes. If “she said/she said” is problematic, then it should be problematic in all cases, not just in rape cases.

This thread is for feminist and pro-feminist posters only. If you don’t think you’d fit into Amp’s conception of “feminist and pro-feminist,” and you wish to make a comment, you may do so at the Cross-post on Creative Destruction.

This week, a few photos of Sydney playing on a big slide set. My goodness, does she look tall in the above photo - and she is tall, for a two-and-a-third year old. (And of course, dressed like she is in these pics, strangers always assume she’s a boy.)
Read the rest of this entry »

The AP reports:

DNA testing failed to connect any members of the Duke University lacrosse team to the alleged rape of a stripper, attorneys for the athletes said Monday.

Citing DNA test results delivered by the state crime lab to police and prosecutors a few hours earlier, the attorneys said the test results prove their clients did not sexually assault and beat a stripper hired to perform at a March 13 team party.

No charges have been filed in the case.

“No DNA material from any young man was present on the body of this complaining woman,” said defense attorney Wade Smith.

The alleged victim, a 27-year-old student at a nearby college, told police she and another woman were hired to dance at the party. The woman told police that three men at the party dragged her into a bathroom, choked her, raped her and sodomized her.

Authorities ordered 46 of the 47 players on Duke’s lacrosse team to submit DNA samples to investigators. Because the woman said her attackers were white, the team’s sole black player was not tested.

District Attorney Mike Nifong stopped speaking with reporters last week after initially talking openly about the case, including stating publicly that he was confident a crime occurred. He went on to say he would have other evidence to make his case should the DNA analysis prove inconclusive or fail to match a member of the team.

An amazing number of people have already posted in the comments, although I haven’t been letting the comments through because of their nasty tone. Some of the comments are openly racist, such as this one:

Why do you colored people always got to play the race card? Why can’t it just be an issue for all races and nationalitys? Now that the sisters been made out to be nothing but a lying bitch its time for the IRS to investigate her ass because we all no she aint paying any taxes on her nasty ass. plus all that those poor students on the team have been through: ( a linching is in order.”

Others are merely gloating in tone. Most fall somewhere between.

However, the DNA evidence doesn’t prove that the woman made a false accusation, as many are suggesting. The DNA evidence can’t rule out the possibility that there were men at the party who were not members of the LAX team (a possibility I brought up last week). Nor, to my knowledge, can any evidence released so far rule out the possibility that the rapists used condoms. Finally, the reasons I stated last week for believing that a rape probably did take place, have not changed.

The defense announcement about the DNA is certainly something anyone following the case should be aware of, and that’s why I’m posting the story on “Alas.” But to conclude from the lack of DNA results that the accusation has been proved fiction is unwarranted.

UPDATE: See also Amanda’s post on this subject. And this post by zong4assata at Justice 4 Two Sisters. And this comment at Ginmar’s, written by a lab tech who works with DNA. And this post at Emboldened.

This thread is open to feminist, pro-feminist and feminist-friendly posters only. If you don’t think you fall into Amp’s definition of “feminist, pro-feminist and feminist-friendly,” and you wish to make a comment, you may do so at the cross-post on Creative Destruction.

This is my last post on Alas. I’ve had a great month guest posting. Although the last week has been quite strange both for me and for Alas (you got to meet New Zealand MRA, who are just like MRA everywhere else, but they’re more likely to call their head of state a bitch).

Due to the Louise Nicholas case Alas got discussed on Checkpoint, which is the evening news show of New Zealand’s public broadcaster (think NPR or BBC). You can listen to it here. I may post an update sometime, depending on what happens next. But otherwise this is it from me.

I’ll still be posting at my blog. Tomorrow I plan to write about something other than police rapists. Thanks for reading and come and say hello sometime.

I have been talking a lot about the prosecution of Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton for raping Louise Nicholas. But I’ve never taken the time to outline the entire story for overseas readers. My posts probably make even less sense now that I’ve deleted material, and to say why I’ve done so would break a suppression order. So I thought I’d summarise the case, particularly for overseas readers.

This post does not contain everything that I know about the case, since I have decided not to break suppression orders. This is also my opinion of the issues, so it’s starting point is that I believe what Louise Nicholas says. Sometimes I come to a different conclusion from the jury. Deal with it.

The rapists
Clint Rickards, Bob Shollum and Brad Shipton were all cops in Rotorua in the 1980s. During this time they used their power and their uniform to abuse young women. Louise Nicholas was one of those women. They raped her repeatedly. They would stop by her house and rape her. They raped her with a police baton.

People have posted to this blog about other abuses of power they observed by Rotorua police in the 1980s. People who worked with these men at the time have posted that they believe every word Louise Nicholas says. I find that so terifying, that lots of people knew what those men were like and didn’t say or do anything. They didn’t care about the women that were being hurt enough to stand up to those men. In the 1980s Louise Nicholas talked to a police officer, complained about what these men were doing to her, he took no action.

Louise Nicholas is not the only woman to be raped by Rotorua cops in the 1980s. She’s not the only women to talk about being raped by Rotorua cops in the 1980s. But she is the one who has been prepared to go public. She didn’t pursue name suppression, so the trial could be reported on openly.

She went to the police in the 1990s, she told a friend of hers who was also a cop and he encouraged her to go to the authorities. She did, the police reacted as you’d expect. They covered up for each other, they ensured that none of their buddies would go to jail (later one of those cops would make a death-bed confession to her brother, just for added drama). I believe that rape and abuse of power was so systemic that many cops would have a motive to cover up what Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton had done.

None of those men were charged; Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum left the police force, Clint Rickards rose through the ranks. By early this decade he was Assistant Commissioner of police, in charge of Auckland.

The Dominion Post (and I’m going to give them credit here, because I’m going to blast the media in a bit) did a good bit of investigative journalism in this case. Followed the whole story, found out about the systemic abuse of power in the Rotorua police. Louise Nicholas agreed to go on the record. You can find those articles here (warning the website owners don’t believe Louise Nicholas, but they do keep a very throrough record of the case).

Since then the case has been investigated by the police, and there is a commission of inquiry