Distinctions that are regretfully, not obvious

Clamoring for an investigation (what I and many other bloggers did early on) is not the same thing as convicting someone without a trial.  I would hope that could've gone without saying but so many people talking about the Duke rape case are conflating the two that I guess it's necessary to draw the obvious distinction.  So in case you missed this point let me make this clear:

We were outraged and called for an investigation.  I never said or even implied anything to the effect that could be construed to mean otherwise.  To call for an investigation is NOT THE SAME as saying the men were guilty.  It is the same as saying that the woman's accusations should be taken seriously.  I would do it over again in a heartbeat.  It's a little surprising that even Scott Simon couldn't see this distinction.

Some have suggested that those of us who called for the woman's charges to be investigated should apologize.  Let me get this straight: I should apologize for not saying that we should have ignored the woman's accusations prima facie because she's poor and black and she's accusing rich white men??  You've got to be kidding!  Thirty years we had the civil rights movement in this country to get rid of just that kind of shit.  I will never apologize for NOT being a backwards Jim Crow era racist.

To the white supramacists visiting this site --face it: you guys lost.  We called for an investigation and we got one.  No matter how much you want it to, this country's not going back to the Jim Crow era where a black woman's accusations of rape would be dismissed out-of-hand.  It's just not going to happen.  It's probably better if you try to get used to the idea of civil rights and justice for all and join the 21st century.  You are anachronisms.