In a scathing report published on Monday, March 2nd, independent Duke University student newspaper The Chronicle cited an anonymous source claiming to have knowledge of two female students at the school who had been sexually assaulted by former basketball star Rasheed Sulaimon. Allegedly, these assaults took place in October of 2013 and February of the following year, and according to the source, the victims were unwilling to come forward and speak to authorities at Duke because they feared a backlash from the school and its fanbase.
Sulaimon was dismissed from the team on January 29th following the road game at Notre Dame, with coach Mike Krzyzyewski making the following statement:
“Rasheed has been unable to consistently live up to the standards required to be a member of our program. It is a privilege to represent Duke University and with that privilege comes the responsibility to conduct oneself in a certain manner. After Rasheed repeatedly struggled to meet the necessary obligations, it became apparent that it was time to dismiss him from the program.”
In the article, the Chronicle’s writers mapped out a timeline of events and statements from university administrators that hinted at an institutional failure to act on the allegations that surfaced. However, in light of the controversy surrounding Rolling Stone’s article about the University of Virginia’s apparent failure to follow up on allegations, and especially with the Duke lacrosse incident surely fresh in the memory of the school’s administration, what seems like an outrageous cover-up or closing one eye to accusations becomes a much more difficult case to examine.
No doubt, several tough questions that will have to be answered by all parties involved in Durham have been raised by the Chronicle’s story. Among them:
- By not following up on the allegations, even though formal charges were not filed, was there a Title IX violation by the Duke administration?
- Was the timing of Sulaimon’s ultimate dismissal from the team merely conincidental?
- While no victims have been named, how appropriate is this release of information by the Chronicle, especially without named sources?
- What role – if any – did the Duke coaching staff, including Mike Krzyzewski, have to play in this?
Should these allegations prove to be true, an additional long-term effect for college sports in general and for Duke in particular would be to address the culture that leaves victims of sexual assault afraid or unwilling to come forward. This is of course contingent on the veracity of the allegations.
In the meantime, for due process to be granted, guilt cannot be assumed, and Sulaimon should not have been dismissed from the team based purely on allegations and rumors. This may go a long way in explaining the perceived inaction by Duke University. A look around social media and comments on various media reports that cite the Chronicle report indicates that public opinion at this point is split into two camps: “Duke covered this up,” and “What could they have done without formal allegations?”
Ultimately, the full story may remain untold, because of the potential for legal action that may arise if any of the parties involved make any public statements. FERPA restrictions will also limit the ability of the media to dig any further.
Unfortunate comparisons have already been made to Joe Paterno at Penn State, even though what transpired at Happy Valley was ultimately proven as negligence on the part of the school administration regarding a decades-long pattern of sexual abuse of minors by a member of the coaching staff. In this case, the only clear facts at this point are allegations of two separate incidents of sexual assault by one player with no formal charges pressed. The Title IX question will loom the largest over the university, and that is a question that the Office of Student Conduct under Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek should be accountable for.
(TheAOSN.com will be following up on any further details that emerge surrounding this case)
(Feature image: AP/Karl B DeBlaker)