The initial civil rights movement of the late 50's and early 60's, led by MLK, shed a spotlight on the face of racism in this country. A woman being told where to sit on a bus, separate drinking fountains, civil confrontations, etc. With that, white society starts to re-evaluate the status quo. Indeed, there was a large number of racists. The majority of white society that just went along with them began to feel remorse and with this, a motivation to fix things and achieve results.

Basically, the exposed face of racism created a moral vaccuum in white society. Blacks interacting with whites became analogous to children arguing with their parents about drug use, when their parents are addicts themselves. Whites had no morale ground to stand on due to the fact that racism was present. In order to regain that ground, efforts were made to change the status quo.

The first results was the civil rights act of the late 60's--voting, desegregation, etc. But then things progressed to affirmative action, or reverse discrimination, quotas, enhanced opportunities, and so on. Included in the intent of the concessions was a desire by whites to distance themselves from the racism of the past. Focuses on diversity are merely a statement that denies being a racist.

Steele's book is a great read. It takes you from MLK and the initial goals of the civil rights movement, to today's Sharpton and Jackson trading in a currency of white guilt--playing the race-card to take advantage of a desire to deny racism.

Take that thinking and apply it to the overwhelming reaction to the initial reports of the Duke rape case--group of privileged whites sexually abuses a minority. Immediately, there is an attempt to declare oneself anti-racist by castigating the defendants. This behavior applies to both the public and the judicial system involved. Try this: if the case had been white-on-white, or black-on-black little attention would have been paid to it. Instead, the lacrosse team coach is encouraged, through white guilt, to resign in an effort to maintain his morale authority.

Now for the Prisoner's Dillema. In short, individuals have a choice between actions, each varying in levels of cooperation, and benefit to themselves. Cooperation is the best route to take. However, a lack of trust between parties results in an worse overall outcome for those involved. We mentioned that here before.

In the Duke rape case, the prisoners are not the defendants. They are the public and judicial representatives. The joint cooperation behavior would be for all those involved to calmly watch the details of the case unfold as it progresses through the judicial system, with action being taken after the case has been decided. The individual benefit comes from white guilt, and its motivation to appear anti-racist. Political and moral points can be earned by castigating all parties involved--defendants, coaches, college staff, and so on. Already mentioned are the actions taken by the team coach. Add to that a District Attorney that casually acquaints himself with the case and sees it as a way to earn political points in an upcoming election. Ultimately you get the worst outcome possible: a group of defendants that are convicted in the court of public opinion, a plaintiff whose intent causes a potential for the future questioning of accusers' integrity, and a judicial system that appears less than genuine.