Presumed Guilty at Duke U

What would be the reaction if I were to burst right out of the blocks today and say these Duke lacrosse players are innocent?

I could try to whip up sympathy for them as if I knew the charges were untrue, the indictments a joke, the whole thing a lie.

And then maybe I could suggest we hold rallies in support of them and maybe drum up cash for their future education.

This would not go over well. I would be guilty of a singularly obnoxious burst of presumptuousness.

I won't be doing any such thing, of course. But I will be asking why everyone gets a free pass for such presumptions on behalf of the accuser.

Since no one but the parties involved knows the truth, it is the height of irresponsibility for any of us to act as though we do.

Rallies in support of the accuser. Jesse Jackson's pronouncements on her behalf. Calls from activists for indictments sooner rather than later. All of these are an affront to the concept of objectivity.

Note that I do not use the term "presumption of innocence." Only our court system must abide by that precept; any of us in the public may spout whatever opinions we wish. But that doesn't make it right.

What is the engine driving the community of supporters for the alleged victim when its members do not know whether she deserves support?

Some feminists see a useful case of misogyny. Some race-baiters see a useful example of sexual mistreatment of a black woman by privileged white students. Some just see a great story that isn't quite as juicy if she's delusional or lying.

But she might be, and that possibility deserves consideration alongside the rape narrative that has been running rampant since the party last month where the accuser stripped for the lacrosse players for money.

Did the party then get out of hand? Was she mistreated? Was she raped? These are the questions our judicial system is called to answer, but lots of people just can't put their agendas on hold while those answers are sought.

Part of the problem is that, in our open system, details of the case pour out even as investigators begin to weigh them.

On the accuser's side, a grand jury was clearly comfortable enough with the evidence to issue indictments, another dancer at the party says she believes the charges, and a mounting community of supporters stands ready to advance her credibility.

But her believability will come under scrutiny - and properly so. I don't want to hear one peep of complaint that "she's being put on trial." Her charges stand to ruin the lives of those she has identified as rapists, and we'd better find out whether she's telling the truth.

That will be a challenge. There is no DNA match suggesting contact with any of the lacrosse team members; a security guard who may have been the first to see her after the party says there was no sign or even mention of sexual assault, and MSNBC's Dan Abrams reports that one of the defense attorneys has told him one of the young men charged was not even at the party at the time of the alleged rape.

Yet I would not think of mounting some soapbox and definitively proclaiming that the indicted lacrosse players are innocent. But in the coming days and weeks, in news conferences, at vigils and in interview appearances, a number of people will presume the defendants are guilty by engaging in seemingly innocuous advocacy on behalf of the accuser.

That behavior is not innocuous. It strikes at the heart of the evenhandedness we say we want from our system and society.

At some point, the wheels of justice will determine as best they can whether these young men are rapists or this young woman is a liar.

Until then, we would all be well served by a rare commodity in our hyper-media age: restraint.