I hope your views of the case have changed in light of what has become public since then.

Yes and no.

Yes: at first I thought they probably raped her. Now I believe they didn’t.

No: I still believe that most people (both the “she’s a lying slut” crowd, and the “they’re rapist scum” crowd) did not rely on facts to form their opinions.

The original Lithwick article about the Duke case is the one I linked (unedited by Allen). I like it. It mirrors my own view about the case.

Lithwick’s article was dated April 22 and was fair for the information that was available to the public then. I hope your views of the case have changed in light of what has become public since then.

we still have no idea what really happened between Kobe Bryant and his accuser, between Michael Jackson and his accuser, between Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.

Subtle distinctions between consensual sex and date rape, between coercion and force, between silences that sound like “yes” and silences that sound like “stop,” are difficult for the parties themselves to work out. How can a juror really divine what went on in the mind of another person?

The same thing happened after the Kobe Bryant accusations surfaced. People made instant judgments—based on their own experiences, or what they read in the paper, and what they knew to be true in their bones. People thousands of miles from that resort in Colorado knew for certain that Bryant’s accuser was a liar and a tramp. Women who had never even heard of Kobe Bryant knew absolutely that he was a rapist.

As was the case with O.J. Simpson, Bryant, and Jackson, this is very quickly becoming an ink-blot test, not a legal proceeding: We look to the facts to confirm our own pre-existing suspicions about what inevitably happens between men and women, rich people and poor people, black people and white people.

our colleges are hotbeds of polarizing identity politics

I’m surprised she’s popular around here with articles like this.

Why, exactly, do you think that article would make her unpopular at Feministe?

I didn’t even bother with Allen’s article. I’m sure it’s not worth the time.

The original Lithwick article about the Duke case is the one I linked (unedited by Allen). I like it. It mirrors my own view about the case.

I know. I just thought the circularity of recommending the article that Jill is pointing out that Charlotte Allen re-edited for her own purposes was amusing. And Lithwick links to it in her post about Allen’s “fixes” anyway.

I didn’t even bother with Allen’s article. I’m sure it’s not worth the time.

The original Lithwick article about the Duke case is the one I linked (unedited by Allen). I like it. It mirrors my own view about the case.

Just making sure.

I’m surprised she’s popular around here with articles like this.