In a previous post I suggested that the Public Editor of The New York Times would do well to examine the paper's coverage of the accusations against the three Duke lacrosse players, now belatedly found innocent of the charges leveled against them.

In today's Times-owned Boston Globe, columnist Cathy Young provides further details of the "rush to injustice," especially focusing on the role played by various academics.

She writes:

As writer Charlotte Allen has documented in The Weekly Standard,academics were quick to tailor the still-unfolding case to a narrativeof sexual abuse of a downtrodden black woman at the hands of privilegedwhite males -- males who, in the words of Duke literature professorWahneema Lubiano, represented "the politically dominant race andethnicity [and] the dominant gender." Much of the media echoed thisnarrative, albeit in more readable form.

Yet serious doubts aboutthe accuser's credibility existed from the very beginning. Her storykept changing, even on such significant details as how many playersassaulted her. The material evidence did not corroborate her chargesand in some instances contradicted them. The other stripper who was atthe party said that she did not believe the woman was raped.

Butmany people wouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good crusade.Eighty-eight Duke faculty members signed a statement, drafted byLubiano, that expressed solidarity with the students who ralliedagainst the accused. Its language was drenched in a presumption ofguilt.

Needed in an academia, ever ready to invoke and intone "academic freedom": a Public Editor.