Regarding the April 4 news article “Sulaimon’s removal from Duke team still a mystery”: It seems to me that if a player can be dismissed from a team and his reputation tainted from unproven accusations of sexual misconduct, the coach should have to give an explanation other than the one Duke’s Mike Krzyzewski gave after Rasheed Sulaimon was dismissed from the basketball team.
Krzyzewski’s explanation that Sulaimon “has been unable to consistently live up to the standards required to be a member of our program” was too vague and not enough. What did he do that did not live up to the standards of Duke’s program? What did he do that justified his dismissal, jeopardized his academic and professional future and virtually ruined his reputation?
We should all be worried that the judicial way these days has been reversed from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent.” Duke should have learned from the 2006 lacrosse case.
I hope Sulaimon’s career hasn’t been sacrificed and destroyed for Duke and Krzyzewki’s “honor” and win-loss record.
Never miss a local story.