Let our next greatest achievement be realizing the dream of full equality for all of us ...

- Human Rights Campaign President, Alphonso David, as reported by Maiysha Kai -

Advertisement

Guilty Or Not, Derrick Rose Is Rape Culture Personified

Michael Reaves/Getty Images
Michael Reaves/Getty Images

I wish I could say I was surprised that Derrick Rose and his cohorts were found not liable on all counts in the civil trial accusing them of rape, but I’m not. Disappointed, certainly. I’ve indicated previously that I believe he did it, and in following all of the details of the case — from the motions filed to the texts exchanged — that conviction continues to hold true. But I'm not surprised.

Advertisement

I’m sure that there are people who will accept this “not guilty” verdict at face value – a legal term which, when determining someone's actual "innocence" means practically nothing; infinitesimal in its significance. Still, the fact remains that the burden of proof in rape cases is generally high, albeit lower in a civil case. There was no DNA evidence, and if more than 10 people were able to surmise the exact same interpretation from a series of text exchanges than half of the debates on Black Twitter would be dead in the water.

What continues to be jarring to me, however, is that I can fully examine a case in which the accused has an admittedly tenuous relationship with the meaning of the word "consent" and backed by a legal team who has spent the last several months executing every possible combination of slut-shaming like it’s a freakin’ game of Madden, and still be wholly expectant that the verdict would be a toss-up at best. As messy as this case seemed — from the TMZ involvement to exposés on sites like “Baller Alert” — the core circumstances of the case were not altogether different from the majority of rape cases involving a friend, acquaintance, or current partner. Alcohol is involved, the details are fuzzy, the victim takes some time to report, and it ultimately comes down to a matter of competing narratives. It’s the case with countless cases — including the Nate Parker case of current infamy — yet no matter how many times it is shown to be the standard when it comes to acquaintance rape, these are the same details that are constantly used to detract from the validity of the victim's case.

Advertisement

They were both drinking.”

“She interacted with the accused after.”

“She waited weeks, or even months, to report.”

As much as we like to continue to tell ourselves that our understanding of consent and rape culture has evolved – and it certainly has for some of us with names other than Derrick - we still haven’t done nearly enough to address this many-headed beast. Whether it’s 17 years ago or 17 days ago, rape – and to a greater extent, violence against women - continues to be a violation that is annotated way more by the miscarriages of justice tied to it than by landmark progress. The need for rape accusations to be clear cut and not be marred by any sort of gray area or doubt will continue to undermine the reality of most sexual assault victims.

The dust will settle and Rose’s life will go back to business as usual. He’ll prepare to start the season as the presumed starting point guard for my home team, and I will continue to hope that Brandon Jennings replaces him. But moreover, the Jane Doe who tried to find some justice for what she many others believes happened to her will have to try to hit reset on her life and move forward after having her truth denied to her. And somewhere, a victim who may have been on the fence on coming out with her story, may have decided to continue to stay silent. Because the justice system in its current iteration is not made for radical progress, much less any true definition of justice. We see further reinforcement of this in practice every day.

Brooklyn-based writer by way of Harlem, Canada and East Africa who comments on culture, identity, politics and likes all things Dipset.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

No one can view any case in a purely objective and impartial manner because we all have biases, whether we recognize them or not. But celebrity sexual assault cases are particularly bad because everybody goes straight to:

1. She's lying and after his money
2. He's rich and famous, so he doesn't *need* to rape anybody.

The whole thing is a mess. And the comments are illustrative of how complicated people like to make consent. IMO, anything less than a sober, enthusiastic yes = NO (unless y'all had an extensive conversation and decided the real safe word is "pineapples"). There are holes in every story, but if someone says they got robbed folks will more or less take it at face value. If you say you got raped, you better have it on camera…..never mind, R. Kelly still got off. Just try not to get raped ladies! (j/k but not really)