Tuesday, November 14, 2006

The Group of 88's Three-D Response

The low point of the faculty response to the lacrosse affair came on April 6, when 88 members of the arts and sciences faculty—along with 16 departments and programs—endorsed a public statement denouncing the lacrosse players. The statement unequivocally asserted that something “happened” to the accuser. The signatories committed themselves to “turning up the volume” while saying “thank you” to campus protesters who had branded the players “rapists” and distributed “wanted posters” around campus. And the statement promised that the Group’s crusade “won’t end with what the police say or the court decides.”

In the history of American higher education, I cannot think of another example in which such a sizable segment of an institution’s faculty exhibited such reckless disregard for the welfare of their own institution’s students. The rush-to-judgment public denunciation created an image, both in Durham and nationally, that Duke’s own professors believed that a rape occurred—ironically, a few days before the DNA tests that Mike Nifong had promised would “immediately rule out” any innocent people all came back negative.

In the more than seven months since the Group of 88’s statement appeared, not a single professor has retracted his or her signature from the document. But the Group’s actions have come under increasing criticism. A cutting op-ed by the Arizona Republic’s Doug MacEachern noted that “whatever the ultimate judgment in this case, the Duke faculty has acted monstrously,” with “the actions of ‘The Group of 88’ . . . the worst.” Members of a profession that “is dedicated, supposedly, to the search for truth,” the Group of 88 instead served “their personal, hyperpolitical judgments about social oppression” and “proclaimed their indifference to the real guilt or innocence of their own students.”

Of the Group members that Duke Chronicle reporter Rob Copeland contacted for an article that appeared last Tuesday, many refused to comment. Those who did reply fell into three categories: defensiveness, denial, and defiance.

Defensiveness. Sherman James, a professor of public policy, told Copeland, “I stand by my right to express my opinion, other than that I don’t have anything to say. I think everyone should have the opportunity to express an opinion.”

To my knowledge, no one has ever said that James, or anyone else at Duke, should not have the “opportunity to express an opinion.” The criticism has focused on the “opinion” that James and 87 of his colleagues “expressed.”

The academy is supposed to involve the life of the mind. Academic freedom envisions an atmosphere in which professors first express their ideas and then modify their viewpoints based on informed criticism. To James, however, it appears that professors should simply have the right to make any statement—however outrageous—and then never have to defend its content.

Does James adopt this approach in other intellectual matters as well? Or, perhaps, does he normally operate in an environment of academic “groupthink,” where like-minded colleagues never challenge his basic views?

Denial. Alice Kaplan, professor of literature and Romance studies, claimed that “the statement was about the climate on campus, it wasn’t taking a position on the case. There’s nothing in the statement that says anyone is guilty or innocent.”

It appears that Kaplan either never read the statement or has forgotten its contents. After all, the statement did assert, as fact, that something “happened” to the accuser—which suggested that a crime occurred—and gave thanks to those who publicly deemed the players guilty. Many people, I suspect, would consider a group of faculty saying “thank you” to protesters who gathered outside one lacrosse player’s house and shouted, “It’s Sunday morning, time to confess” as “taking a position on the case.”

To the Chronicle, Kaplan offered a novel rationale for joining the Group of 88: “I signed the statement,” said she, “because I care about Duke and I care about the students and the experiences they’re having.”

Kaplan’s colleague, Michael Gustafson, replied that he

would have a better time accepting her statement if any one of the people who signed that document had spoken out against the death threats hurled at our students, against calls for our students to be “...prosecuted whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past,” as reported in Newsweek. But instead, there was silence - the same kind the faculty that supported that ad railed against. This is still a social disaster, but the inability to see it in its fullness has left us even more polarized than before.

It appears that the only “students” about whose “experiences” Kaplan cares are those who share her worldview. She has shown little evidence that she “care[s] about the students” who are currently subjected to Nifong’s “separate-but-equal” justice system.

Defiance. Karla Holloway, a professor of English, has been among the most vitriolic members of the Group: she told the Chronicle that she would sign the petition again “in a heartbeat.”

Such defiance stunned a Duke alumnus from Australia, who noted that while “back in the spring the ‘famous’ professors may have believed that a rape did indeed occur, . . . the way they behave now, when the truth is known, must be known even to them, cannot be excused in any imaginable way. They do not care about the students they have vilified. They are too small to say ‘I’m sorry’.”

As she denounced the lacrosse players in April, Holloway now denounces her critics, without ever addressing their arguments:

  • She claimed to have received “often vicious, frequently racist and generally poorly composed” e-mails criticizing her for joining the Group of 88—though it appears that she didn’t produce any of these e-mails for the Chronicle.
  • She charged that critics “displaced the actual content of the ad for the fiction of their own meagerly articulated agendas”—but never identified precisely how critics performed this task.
  • She fumed that those “who find their life’s blood in producing unending streams of blogged nonsense are probably better left to these subaltern spaces”—thus rationalizing her decision to avoid responding to those who have criticized the Group of 88.

In the Chronicle comment section, a Duke parent rendered judgment on the Group of 88. “Duke’s reputation,” the parent wrote, “is not being ruined by a group of teenagers hosting a party, but by the continued, unforgivable behavior of the professors and administration. Who wants to send their kids to a college that absolutely refuses to stand up for the civil rights of their students? After all the evidence now known, they STILL stand by their statement - just mind boggling.”

Indeed.

71 comments:

Another Duke mom said...

Many on this blog have lambasted Brodhead for his actions or lack thereof. Frankly, I am much more disgusted with the behavior of these professors. In the first place, these are the people who have direct contact with Duke students on a daily basis and therefore more potential to do harm. Secondly, Brodhead is publicly proclaiming that it appears there was a rush to judgement last spring that was in error. He said that although it seemed "virtually certain" that a crime had occurred last spring based on the public comments of the DA, it was now virtually certain that none did.
The Duke 88 are still living back in March. Have they no capacity to reason?

Anonymous said...

ADM,
He said that although it seemed "virtually certain" that a crime had occurred last spring based on the public comments of the DA, it was now virtually certain that none did.


When did he say this? Where? Link?

I'm having trouble believing this.

Anonymous said...

To Another Duke Mom said,

You end a great comment with: "Have they no capacity to reason?"

I can't assure you they all do. Arguing against any of them having a reasoning capicity is the fact they all signed a very, very wordy "listening statement."

I mean, Mom, don't you think if reasonable people like ourselves had been asked to sign the statement we would have at least said something like: "Listening statement? This?

If you'll change the title to 'Talking statement' we'll give it another look.

Also, if we sign the statement, does that mean we have to chip in to pay for it or does the money come from some department's funds?

And one more thing: Do you all promise that if we sign this thing, Houston Baker will leave and go to Vanderbilt?

Don't kid us now."

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Anonymous said...

Building on DSED, the students should consider forming something like DSEF - Duke Students for an Ethical Faculty. I imagine Kristin Butler, along with other talented writers, could produce quite a blog.

I'd be willing to throw in a few bucks, if it would help.

Anonymous said...

ADM,
You make some fine points in your post, but I'm still trying to figure out who is in charge of those 88.

Since a couple have left and a couple more joined in with comments posted since, we should add Spinelss to the list and find a true leader for all 89 of them.

kbp said...

Thanks KC!

Has anyone seen the records showing any reduction in enrollment for classes offered by the Group?

Anonymous said...

"Has anyone seen the records showing any reduction in enrollment for classes offered by the Group?"

A number of the 88 teach courses whose students 'self-select' into them. That is their 'departments' attract a certain type of student who is likely to identify with or forgive a 'silly little petition having to do with the capitalist elites' etc. Actually the 'capitalist' part was one of the replies I believe KC received from one of the 88 (or john).

The petition itself was a process of SELF-SELECTION. Those who signed it were predisposed to do so and as such represented an extreme liberal fringe. What bothers me is that some science professors also signed up as well as others from reputable departments (although I didn't see any economics professors - econ departments are inhabited by orthodox economists these days and generally they are of a center right social viewpoint or libertarians through and through).

So..the science professors would only see a drop in enrollment if their courses were 1.) not first year science courses where sections are limited and ALWAYS filled. No choice but to enroll in that case and/or 2.) if the course is a requirement for your major that you need to take at the given time (or the professor is the one that consistently teaches it).

That isn't that uncommon (one professor sticks to a certain course that's required or the course is needed for a senior or the section is a first-year course that is always filled).

The group of 88 are not the only extreme leftists on campus - there are the students who are as well and many of them choose 'majors' that are with some of the 88 professors.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead HAS NOT said anything of substance concerning the lacrosse case being a hoax, flimsy, a travest, etc to date. He has also made no comment about Durham PD's apparent policy of discriminating against Duke students (which one would think he would...).

Brodhead has become more concillatory but in a superficial way. The trustees have apparently been coming down HARD on him - one apparently forced him to speak to one of the lacrosse parents. There's also the little issue of Duke refusing to issue transcripts for the accused so that they can take courses they will need if/when they get back into Duke (they need to prove pre-requisites to register for classes - at least one of the two who are still in college - seligman - is taking courses this semester).

Brodhead doesn't care about Duke's students - he cares about his relationship with the faculty. If he supports the students he repudiates the behavior/words of a good number (beyond the 88) of the professors. having a good relationship with the professors is essential but he is also a product of the 'academy' and is likely to side with them over the students (to protect their academic 'freedom' etc).

Another reason why Brodhead is being a bit more concillatory is that he NEEDS the ENDOWMENT to continue to grow at least at the rate of the last few years (in terms of contributions) and he also needs a SIMILAR ALUMNI GIVING RATE compared to prior years. Those two issues (giving and the giving rate) play a MAJOR role in US News rankings. The major universities that are in the top 30-45 have 'departments' (administrative) that deal with making sure their rankings stay where they are and hopefully improve over the prior year. At another university in NC also in the top 30 they micromanage the future data they will report by keeping track of student performance by looking at midterm and final grades during the 1st semester. They will take certain actions to improve their performance (learning assistance etc which gives students access free tutors).

So...Brodhead is playing nice to preserve his position but one of the reasons he is 'upset' with the lacrosse players is because it 'interfered' with his agenda for his tenure. He wants to push his own issues and 'dealing' with the media firestorm has 'distracted' him and the faculty/staff from 'reform' etc. he wants to leave an 'imprint' on Duke and has a limited amount of time to do so. That's probably why he didn't side with the students which is petty.

Anonymous said...

To 3:31 AM:

I think we can rest assured Brodhead has carved his legacy in stone.

Anonymous said...

One of the more depressing, yet enlightening, aspects of this case is that the response of the Gang of 88 reflects a mentality of the hard left that is prevalent on many, if not most, university campuses today. The most "elite" universities also are the repositories of the worst of these kinds.

We quickly forget the performance of the arts and sciences faculty at Harvard last year in the ousting of president Lawrence Summers. Nor is Harvard alone among the elites in being dominated by a faculty that would have been very comfortable in the most totalitarian of societies (as long as they would not have to abide by the same rules that applied to everyone else).

I believe this incident has exposed what is a huge divide in higher education. For example, I have received emails from Duke faculty members outside of arts and sciences, and these people take a much different view of things than do the representatives of the Gang of 88.

In the past, professors who considered themselves to be political liberals also tended to believe in discourse and their role in the classroom as being facilitators of knowledge rather than propagandists. There still are professors like this.

However, the Cultural Revolution in this country of the 1960s and 70s also produced the modern, hard-left faculty member in which EVERYTHING is politicized. Just look at the titles of the sessions at the major humanities and arts conferences and you will see what I mean. They are all about racism, sexism, homophobia, kinky sex, and everything else.

Because the hard left dominates the different departments in the arts and sciences, one cannot be hired unless one subscribes to such a worldview. Thus, they perpetuate themselves, and they also draw like-minded graduate students who self-select themselves into these kinds of programs.

We also have seen the growth of the race-and-minority-culture departments, such as African-American Studies, Women's Studies (or Womyn's Studies, as they are called at some places), and most of the Gang of 88 at Duke came from these kinds of departments. The curriculum from these departments is purely political, and ALL of it is not simply leftist, but very, very hard left. Thus, the "crisis" of the LAX team at Duke was tailor-made for these groups.

I don't have a good answer here. I teach at a place that decidedly is NOT elite, and where many people still hold to the now-quaint idea that the professor is a facilitator, not a propagandist. Now, I realize that many Duke professors also hold to this point of view, but they also tend to be shouted down by the leftists at Duke.

Furthermore, faculty members who dissent from the current orthodoxy also find themselves less likely to become tenured, promoted, and receive raises. The intimidation factor is real, and the way many of them deal with it is to simply do their jobs and go home. It is a sad commentary of higher education, but here it is.

William L. Anderson

Anonymous said...

Prof. Anderson, based on your analysis, why would anyone want to send their child to Duke? The lacrosse case has revealed a deeply troubling aspect of Duke that has even come as a surprise to alumni. This will certainly affect future enrollment, with only the very hard left having an interest in going there. That will also be Brodhead's legacy if he does not attempt to move this school back to the middle.

Joe T. said...

Since universities are for exploring a variety of thoughts and ideas, I'd say being a Leftist is fine. Not fine is being a Leftist liar (which I consider it comes down to, for all practical purposes, with the 88).

Anonymous said...

Both posts after mine are insightful. To be honest, I see nothing happening. The hard left is fully entrenched at many universities (and not just the "elite" ones, although they tend to dominate those institutions more than others). Furthermore, the politics of victimhood guarantees the hard left will have a louder and more powerful voice than anyone else.

We also see the hard left taking over the professions like social work. This is an ominous development, because social workers have the power to take children out of the home, and social workers are not afraid to use their powers, especially against people whose political and religious leanings might go against their own. No, not all social workers are like this, but the influence of the hard left is rapidly growing in that profession.

I also agree that colleges are a place for many opinions, and I have friends among leftists where I work. However, my friends on the left also make sure that they present their ideas with integrity toward the process. Yes, they are opinionated (aren't we all), but I value their friendship and look up to them as effective teachers and wish I could better emulate them in the classroom.

That clearly is NOT the case in the departments that are the creation of the politics of race and sex. Those departments are pure propaganda mills, and they also are where we see something less than intellectual honesty. This is not to say that everyone employed in those departments is a leftist bigot, but, to be honest, such bigotry is the staple of most of these programs.

William L. Anderson

Anonymous said...

Prof Anderson, or anyone else that has studied the "88" issue in some detail - I have 1 question:

Did the "88" express an opinion, or did they make slanderous statements?

If I call "you" a crook in public and someone does not "hire you" based on my public statement - "you" MIGHT have the basis of a legal action against me for those "damages" - lost business fees.

I am expressing an opinion only if facts support that opinin. e.g., if "you" spent time in jail for larceny, for example. In this case, you have no legal basis for slander charges.

I am guilty of slander if there is no supportive evidence that you ever robbed or cheated somone.

What did the "88" say - did they cross this line ?

I am curious if legal action can be made against the "88". If yes, I would eagerly contribute to the legal fund.

TW

Another Duke mom said...

To 12:54 am:
President Brodhead made the statement I quoted in a speech to the Duke Parent committee during Parents Weekend. It was not published but I was there and heard him. He was also pointedly questioned at that meeting (he left time for Q&A) by Gayle King who is Oprah's producer. She is clearly on the side of the defense and expressed frustration (along with others) at the media coverage of the case.

Another Duke mom said...

I should also add that Brodhead said (paraphrasing) that everyone had jumped to the conclusion that the Duke 3 were guilty back in the spring. We are now equally convinced that no crime occurred, but that we shouldn't make a second mistake of jumping to yet another possibly erroneous conclusion. We should, instead, allow the process to move forward because that is our system.

Jim K. said...

I find it amusing that Karla Holloway has the nerve to criticize her detractors “generally poorly composed” emails or “meagerly articulated agendas”. Have you ever read any of her drivel? How she ever became an English professor is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

I am not a Duke alum, but if I were I would be busting my butt to get rid of Dick Brodhead. He is a failure. He has failed to publicly condemn the Gang of 88 for their malicious misconduct in libeling and slandering these boys. He is a failure for suspending two of the boys, even after it has become clear they are innocent. He is a failure for not pursuing with Nifong, the end of this case. He is a failure for not demanding the governor or AG step in and review this case. He is a failure for not demanding the federal government come in and review the violations of the boys' civil rights. He is weak and shallow and he is your "man", Duke alum!

Anonymous said...

The "Duke Mom" 9:44 poster makes an important error here, that is that she assumes that what we are seeing is the normal legal process. Unfortunately, we are seeing an extraordinary rendition of the process of criminal law.

While it is not difficult for prosecutors to gain indictments, given that they effectively control the grand jury system, I personally know NO prosecutors who would have secured indictments in the way that Nifong secured them against the Duke Three. Believe me, the procedures he used, from the illegal lineup to his public statements, to his false presentation of forensic "evidence," we have seen a pure and simple hijacking of the legal process.

What the "Duke Mom" does not point out is that had the normal legal process been permitted to operate, there would be no charges at all, or they would have been dropped at a preliminary hearing, where Nifong would have been forced to bring out the evidence that he had in his possession.

Nifong effectively was able to do an end run around having a preliminary hearing, which is highly unusual is criminal proceedings. (Many times, defendants will waive the preliminary hearing, but that surely would NOT have been the case had the Duke Three been permitted that opportunity.)

I can appreciate people wanting a fair, legal process to go on, but what has been occurring in Durham is not fair, and certainly is not legal. As I have stated before, if this case continues to move toward conviction, and those convictions stand on appeal, then Nifong will have succeeded in overturning nearly every protection afforded by law in our system.

So, I would say to "Duke Mom," be careful for what you wish, because if we get them, the results will be catastrophic. I am not exaggerating when I say these things.

(I realize she is wishing for the "process" to continue, not a conviction. However, the process itself is fraught with error and outright fraud. It is time to put this freak show to an end.)

William L. Anderson

Anonymous said...

"Hard Left" is such an appropriate term. It isn't the leftward part that is objectionable; it's the notion that anything OTHER than left-speak is destructive and must, therefore, be quelled. It flies so hard in the face of what the university setting was intended to be: an island of free thought, yes; but free LISTENING, just as much.

KC Johnson said...

To the 9.44:

The problem with this argument, of course, is: what happens when the "process" has been thoroughly corrupted?

Should people have sat idly by during the Scottsboro Boys trial?

During the Sacco/Vanzetti case?

During the procedurally flawed cases brought against civil rights activists in the 1950s and early 1960s in Alabama and Miss.?

Another Duke mom said...

To Mr. Anderson:
I do not wish for the "process" to continue- far from it. I believe that a trial, if it occurs, will be a circus of media, NBPP, assorted potbangers, etc. Even though the evidence is clearly on the side of the defense, we all know that peculiar judgement can find legs in jury rooms. No, I emphatically do not trust a Durham jury, nor do I want the Duke 3 to have to endure it - even if they are acquitted. I want the case dismissed now.
What I said was that Brodhead has faith in the process. His opinion is that we all made one mistake back in the spring, let's not make another one now but rather let the process continue to its end.

Anonymous said...

As I help my high school senior complete his college application process, I think back to September as we finalized his prospective college list. This list was initially drafted in January and tweaked as the months went on. Guess which school was crossed off?
Was it the 88's fault, was it Brodhead's fault, was it Durham's fault? I think it was "all of the above."

Brian said...

I fail to understand how the Duke almuni are putting up with this.

There are undoubtedly a good number of heavy doners to this school. There is also a Board of Trustees.

Why aren't they reigning in these faculty lunatics and the President? Don't they understand what this is doing to Duke's reputation?

Another Duke mom said...

I have seen quite a bit of righteous rejection of Duke and Durham in the past 9 months. People on forums have stated that if they had a child at Duke that they would "yank them right out!" and that they would "never allow their child to apply to Duke", etc. They are, of course, free to do (and say) as they please but to trash Duke and Durham because of a sociopathic DA and a group of extremist professors is wrong, in my opinion. First, nearly every college in this nation is infested with liberals. The job attracts the type. I could relate many stories of liberals running rough shod over individual rights at elite colleges. It's like media bias: it's everywhere. So don't go to Duke if that's what you choose, but don't expect to avoid leftist professors.
Second, Duke is not just this story. It is a university that offers a fine education on a spectacularly beautiful campus. Because of its excellence in many sports, Duke attracts a lot of students that are bright, outgoing, and well rounded- like Reade Seligman. It also has thousands of fiercely loyal and generous alums.
When one of my sons was looking at colleges he said that he wanted to know what the annual giving of the alumni was at each school. In his view, substantial annual alumni giving was indicative of the overall experience of and thus loyalty to the institution.
Duke will survive this debacle and prosper.

Anonymous said...

11:22
You seem to be saying that nothing is wrong at Duke that warrants any changes? Why has Brodhead not reprimanded the 88+?

Anonymous said...

8:40 AM, I think your comment is silly because you seem to be suggesting that Duke is the only school in the country with left wing professors on its faculty. First, encountering different political and social points of view is part of the college experience and I think that a college which had no left wing professors on its faculty would be a pretty dull place. Second, all of the top colleges are loaded with left wing faculty. I gather that you are not familiar with the Ivy League schools because they are all loaded with left wing faculty. And I gather that you also are not familiar with Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Northwestern, or any of the other top schools because they too are loaded with left wind faculty. I guess you could always send your child to Liberty University or Oral Roberts. But the idea that Duke is the only top school in the country with left wing faculty is really pretty naive.

Anonymous said...

to another duke mom at 11:22..
Where are those loyal alum now? Duke looks foolish to lots of folks because of the administration's turning their heads away from a couple of students who could really use their help. No question..if Brodhead made a plea to the feds to review the civil rights abuses in this case, they would be there in force. Why aren't the alum pushing Brodhead to take some action to protect the ingetrity of their alma mater?

Yeah, Duke will survive--good point--so who cares about these three boys--right? Hey, as long as your son is OK, let's just forget about them and move on, huh?

Anonymous said...

11:22 AM, I totally agree with what you said about Duke. I have a child there who is getting a great education and absolutely loves it. The idea that a parent would not send his child to Duke because some of the faculty there are left wing or because Brodhead has not been pressuring the DA to drop the LAX case before trial really makes me laugh. I hope none of these parents is planning to send his child to any of the Ivy League schools because, if anything, the percentage of left wing faculty at those schools would be higher than it is at Duke.

Anonymous said...

Face it the "Group of 88" are mostly a bunch of interlopers. Duke is much bigger than they are. We continue to support Duke, because 1) it's basketball season, and no one can take that away from us, and 2) when we graduate we elect to work in the "real world", and therefore we can look beyond some of the miscreants that occupy higher education

LearnedHand said...

Another Duke mom: I do not have any reason to doubt what you heard - nor can I - I wasn't there. But, forgive me if I am extremely doubtful. You hear this incredible statement from Brodhead in a speech to the Duke Parent committee during Parents Weekend? Wow - so, after all of his other comments and misstatements, he says THAT? Interesting that it is not published anywhere too. Hmmm. And, let me guess - there are NO other letters or statements supporting this opinion by Broadhead anywhere, right?

Does THIS man seem to be genuine to you? Or have you simply fallen for the oldest ruse in the book - say what people want to hear (but make sure no one reports it)? I have no reason to have this faith in this man - not until I see him do his JOB and be a man who stands for the university and what it SHOULD stand for by making an actual STATEMENT that he has to defend and stand behind about this case. Give me that and I will be satisfied. It should be simple - now that Broadhead "apparently" is equally sure that no crime occurred - thus, he should condemn his faculty, etc.

Anonymous said...

Lest anyone think that Duke University is a "safe" place for students who simply wish to get an education, please read today's "Liestoppers" piece.

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/11/from-wall-of-silence-to-community.html

This really is a stunning piece of work, as it lays out how the activists at Duke quickly spread the lies, and how truth took a back seat to their agendas. As I read it, I am reminded as to my own vulnerabilties by being a white male teaching at a state university. These are people who play for keeps, and who do not care whose lives they destroy in the process.

Yes, this can happen anywhere, but keep in mind that it happened at Duke, and the university hierarchy has done NOTHING to disassociate itself from the activists or what they said. Yes, I know Brodhead is in that proverbial hard place, but by its silence and the issuance of its talking points, the Brodhead administration has permitted the ground of these groundless protests to remain fertile.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

Let me try again on the Liestoppers blog:

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/11/from-
wall-of-silence-to-community.html

Anonymous said...

Some comments on the article and comments above…

(1) As far as I can tell there were only two professors in the hard sciences that signed the “Listening Statement”. All others were in the “arts and crafts” departments.

(2) I know this goes against the general flow of the discussion but I think that *some* within the Group-of-88 (IMO a small subset) signed the statement because of what they saw as a dysfunctional “study hard/party hard” student culture at Duke. In replying to a Chronicle article Prof Rosenberg expressed such sentiment. And in reading some of the columns in the Chronicle and other media I too think that there some unhealthly aspects to the student culture @Duke that need addressing (eg Even if the Rolling Stone article is true of only a small group of Duke students it would be a concern for me). My biggest issue with the “Listening Statement” was its timing and how it was expressed (in sound bites as an ad in the Chronicle). It seemed to be a malicious attack on the university administration at a very vulnerable time – and I do think that some (a different subset) of the professors that signed the Listening Statement actually intended this to be the case.

(3) Someone asked “Why would anyone send their child to Duke?” Well, first, after looking through the details of the Group-of-88 and also looking through the faculty of other departments at Duke I’ve come to the conclusion that this group does not represent the norm but rather the extreme left and in some cases the extremely incompetent. So, at Duke at least you know who they are so you can avoid them. Second, if anything, in general Duke is more conservative than its peer group (possible exceptions being MIT and Cal Tech). Third, by their nature great universities are messy in ideas but rigorous in thought. So, you do get the ebb/flow of ideas/ideologies. Some of these are startling. The fact that Duke is “in the fishbowl” has the effect of magnifying these startling (loopy?) ideas. Finally it is the student body and non-group-88 professors that make it all worthwhile. Just two stats off the top of my head: Duke consistently generates significant number of Rhodes Scholars (~10% of all US Rhodes Scholarships went to Duke students last year, the second highest number after the Naval Academy) and it consistently places in the top 5 in the Putnam Math competition. So, Duke, and yes even its faculty, must be doing something right.

(4) I am much more optimistic about the impact of alumni on universities today than in the past. The internet has completely changed the equation. It has magnified the amount of visibility and accountability at *all* universities – it’s effectively the academic equivalent of Sarbanes-Oxley. University administrations are just now becoming aware of this. The universities that are able to understand this and harness it (eg through alumni forums, etc) will gain immensely from the increased communication. No longer is it reasonable nor responsible for alumni just to read “US News and World Report” and then to whip out the checkbook and write a check based on a single number.

Duke Alumnus

Anonymous said...

11:45 and 11:59

This is not just about liberal left-wing faculty. (I wish it were that harmless.)
It's about 88+ faculty who are publicly heightening condemnation of the accused; who are giving the public the "false" impression that racism and sexism are rampant at Duke; and are slandering their own students.
How can Brodhead say he doesn't not want Duke to interfere with the legal process when he allows many to do just that?
They make the school look totally out of control!
You seriously don't think Duke's reputation will suffer?

Anonymous said...

I always find it amusing and hollow that people who are proven wrong attack a writer's grammar as a retort to addressing the issue.

To me, such a misdirection is a poor and unoriginal attempt at spinning the topic.

Anonymous said...

To 9:44: If it is our system to indict someone with no evidence, no investigation, no proof and enourmous evidence that the person you will indict is innocent.... then what kind of system is that... Nazi Germany? To allow this to go to trial would be such a travesty of justice. The corrupt, politically motivated and agenda driven, all who have driven this case forward and supported Nifong have been allowed to get away with something so off the charts from what this country and our Constitution stands for. As Reade Seligmann stated in his interview with Ed Bradley, All you have to do is have someone point a finger at you and your whole life can come crashing down. How about if I didn't like the way you looked, or how you dressed or was jealous in some way and pointed a finger and said you threatened my life, pulled a gun on me, kidnapped me. But there is no proof whatso ever of what I stated. In fact you were in another state at the time I said it occured. But you still where locked up for the crime. Is that the system you speak of? You were forced to endure the expense and stress of a trial? NC is a sewer of corrupt, politically driven morons who have no integrity, morals or values. The Govenor is a disgrace, the State Attorney General is a disgrace. The Duke 88 are a bunch of arrogant, insipid, jealous idiots who would do and say anything to promote their own self importance. NEWSFLASH: The Duke 88 all look look the hateful, ignorant group they are to the entire world. It must make them feel proud that the world is watching, scholars all over are shaking their heads saying what a bunch of dumb hicks those Duke 88 are. Hurricane Katrina hit the wrong city.

Anonymous said...

12:25-I am not sure what you are implying when you refer to our basketball season, but I would like to remind everyone that Duke has more than a basketball team on campus. I realize you may have been being sarcastic and if so I misread it. Duke offers tremendous athletics in every sport and is competitive in every sport outside of football, baseball and swimming. I think steps are being made to improve in those areas as well.

I am getting way off topic but I certainly get bent out of shape when I meet people who only care about Duke basketball and disregard every other Duke sport completely. To them I say, when Coach K leaves, you can go with him.

Sorry for getting off topic.

Another Duke mom said...

To 11:33 am:
Where did I say, "nothing at Duke warrants any changes"? Re-read my posts: I have said nothing of the kind. What I have said is that Duke is a great institution that is comprised of much more than just this story and the Duke 88. Perhaps Prof. Anderson can address the issue of President Brodhead reprimanding the 88. In my experience, school culture (being radically different from business culture) would not support such action. Faculty can be extremely critical of a fellow teacher but should that person get fired or criticized, the entire faculty runs to take their side. CU is having a heck of a time getting rid of Ward Churchill despite egregious behavior, plagiarism and more. Some of his most loyal supporters are fellow professors in Boulder.

Anonymous said...

I have received emails from Duke faculty members who clearly are NOT in sympathy or agreement with the Gang of 88. But either they are buried in arts and sciences or are in other colleges altogether.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

what would be most interesting is to obtain IQ data of the 88

"88"--that's about right

Jim Clyne

Anonymous said...

Lacrosse Incident as Narrative

I agree with you that perhaps the most puzzling aspect of the Duke lacrosse saga has been the response (or, more appropriately, the lack of response) on the part of the university faculty and administration to what has become an obvious – one might almost say an open – disregard of evidentiary due process by the legal justice system of Durham. I am a 1983 Duke graduate, and many of my friends and business acquaintances are also alumni. As a resident of North Carolina, however, I also know many graduates of UNC, and as anyone who lives here knows, the rivalry between the universities generally does not foster objective views of scandals involving respective sports teams.

Even so not a single graduate I know – black or white, bleeding dark blue or light – believes that anything other than a fabrication of justice is taking place in the Bull City. And yet the Duke faculty and administration – with a few, albeit notable, exceptions – has refused to back away from an initial blanket endorsement of the charges pending against its own student athletes.

To compound the rush to judgment on the part of the Duke faculty, it staggered me to hear the president of the university argue that he could not condemn the Durham District Attorney for gross violations of due process because Nifong was the representative of a state system that could not be disrespected by a private institution.

Refusing to create waves among the faculty by admonishing the rush to judgment on the part of many professors, and insisting that justice must be done only in the public courts, the administration thereby abandoned its responsibility towards its youngest and most vulnerable members: students.

It's clear to me now that members of the Group of 88 will never admit that they were in error; such an admission would mean opening oneself to that most unthinkable of outcomes: ridicule. For members of a insular profession that demands perpetual posturing, ridicule means death.

The plain truth is that, like Nifong, politically-correct members of the Duke faculty have gone too far, said too much, and invested too much personal credibility in their condemnation of these student athletes to back down now. And the administration, caught between the rock of faculty ego and the hard place of emerging truth, has attempted to shield itself – sickeningly – by referring all questions of fairness to the civil courts, irrespective of the monstrous injustice being openly perpetrated against members of its own student body by the very system to which the administration defers.

What I frankly can’t quite figure out is this: given recent disclosures, do the faculty members that make up the Group of 88 actually believe their rationalizations? Or are they simply falling back on the discourse that sustains so many tenure-tracked professors inside the academy: a rhetoric which has its own institutional logic, but that is so coded and convoluted that it long ago lost its ability to describe and define the real motivations of people operating in the real world?

Perhaps because of this rhetorical disconnect, and faced with the rational indignation of its graduates, the administration has provided concerned alumni with “talking points,” as if everyone operating in the real world outside the academy could simply repeat – as no doubt members of the administration do on a daily basis – the inane mantra of deflected responsibility until they half-believe it.

Of course, the irony in this situation (and it’s easy to write about irony when the threat of a court date is not hanging over my head, as it is for the charged players) is that tenured professors at a major university can be so unaware of the illogic that characterizes their explication of this unfortunate narrative – that they can be so blind to their own prejudices. Either that, or they are operating in bad faith, which may be worse.

This case proves that individuals most able to discern the bigotry and bias in others are usually the ones most blind to it in themselves. No wonder these athletes haven’t shown proper respect for the goals and opinions of an academic elite that has shown that advancement of its political agendas means far more than the rights of individual students it pretends to nurture. I’m beginning to feel like a bit of an anti-intellectual myself.

Brad Davis
Hillsborough, NC

Another Duke mom said...

to 12:56 Duke Alumnus:
Thank you for a fantastic post! It is obvious that your Duke education has served you well! Your comment was thoughtful and fact based. I hope you are correct that alumni will have a greater effect on universities through the internet. There has certianly not been much attention paid to them up to this point at American universities and colleges. You need only look at Dartmouth to see what happens when alums get involved!

TombZ said...

The 88, Durham’s black ‘leaders’ and co-conspirators among the local papers justify their accusations in the course of lynching the lacrosse players based on an event that did not happen.

I would think if there was a real racist sex crime in Durham, somewhere, sometime in the recent past, involving real people and a real crime, it would have served better in advancing their agenda. Instead it appears there's been nothing better available to support grievances against ‘rich white boys’. So, in haste to find real-live racist rapists the 88 jumped to their conclusion.

Now they won’t back off either for fear of looking silly, or because they still want to believe. The fact they look worse each passing day apparently hasn’t penetrated their bubbles.

Perhaps the 88 are simultaneously jailers and captives of their post-modern academic world, where the truth of the matter doesn’t matter; there are no absolute truths, only opinions and viewpoints, and any event is a tool for rhetorical use in pursuit of a feeble agenda. They are all about advocacy of a PC agenda, not truth.

Is the basis of their racist and sexist fears a figment? If not, where’s the real deal?

Do racism and sexism exist? Sure, somewhere.

But not here, not now, not with the Duke Lacrosse Team.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:25pm says-

Duke has a young team basketball team, but played well in the second half last night.

The fact is we don’t need the "Group of 88" to validate any of our positive ardor about our alma mater. Duke athletes (in all sports) don’t need the “Group of 88” to validate their education, since they graduate at the highest rates of any student athletes in the country. If our children are lucky enough or desirous enough to matriculate to Duke they’re probably not so callow or ill equipped as to be unable to navigate through the course catalog or to speak with their peers about which instructors to avoid.

That said, the advice I will give to my child who will be filling out college applications in a few months is pretty simple. If you go to Duke, use your good judgment to avoid situations where certain faculty and Durham community members would like to see you fail on account of your perceived social standing, different world view, faith, and politics. And by all means, don’t let the appointed arbiters of “campus culture" squeeze all the fun out of your four year college experience.

The reason to allow your offspring to attend Duke is obvious, to allow them to learn from some of the most engaging students and in some cases faculty in the country. At the same time, we need to remain steadfast in our support for families that have been maligned by the Lax travesty.

Go Duke!

Anonymous said...

The Group of 88 represents a minority of the professors, and most of them are in a couple departments (AAS and Gender Studies)--there may be a couple science professors, but only a couple. The statement they signed was deplorable, but it doesn't represent the feelings of most of the professors at Duke. Why have the others not spoken out? I think most are trying to focus on their jobs--teaching Duke students and doing their research.

For those that question the 3:31 poster who heard Brodhead make a statement that it is "virtually certain now that a crime did not occur," I heard him make a very similar statement in September and in other forums. He doesn't believe that the university is responsible for the legal process, or that it should interfere with that process. But he has, on multiple occasions, said quite clearly that he believes that nothing happened.

A woman made a false allegation. An unethical DA took advantage of the allegations to help his desperate political campaign--violating the public trust and his oath of office. The media and liberal groups across the country (including the 88)jumped on board to advance their own personal agendas. If you recall early on, many across the country, including Duke alums, were calling for Duke to get rid of lacrosse completely. Certainly there is a legitimate debate as to whether the administration took the right stance early on, but we must remember the outrage that they faced, and the presumption of guilt the entire nation seemed to have at the time. Almost everyone seems to be closed-minded in this case--just as the group of 88 stubbornly refuse to recant their malicious statement, many people now want only want to hear the facts that demonize Brodhead and the university.

Duke is a fine university where students get an excellent education--it produces Rhodes Scholars, Fullbright Scholars, and more. Yes, there is a liberal element--as there is at every good school. But Duke also has some of the best departments in science, engineering, law, medicine, public policy, econ, psychology...these are not departments full of liberal professors, and I have personally heard several of these professors proclaim the players' innocence. My own sons love the university--they know and support the lacrosse players. They despise Nifong and what he has done. But they blame the AV and Nifong--not the university or Brodhead.

Anonymous said...

5:55

I have one child who will be going to college next year. I have two children after her who will be going to college. They will not be attending Duke. The faculty and administration of Duke and not the lacrosse team and not the Duke students in general have sullied Duke's reputation.

They have an uncle who is a Duke alumni. We have friend who are Duke alumni. In the past I was jealous of them for attending Duke since I had attended a state school. I'm not anymore. When I think of Duke now I think of a corrupt institution that does not have values. If there really had been a rape, I would not think any less of Duke. In my mind it would have only reflected on those students who had participated in the rape. That there was not a rape, reveals Duke to be only a self serving institution that looked after an agenda rather than it's students. These are not the values I want my children to be learning. These are not the people I want to be teaching my children. I feel sorry for Duke alumni because from now on when people here that you graduated from Duke they will think about how their school treated their students and not just about the schools scholarship and athletics.

Anonymous said...

10:01 AM, you do not know squat about Dick Brodhead, and you are offering what basically amounts to a shallow and one-dimensional analysis of his presidency at Duke. I think a lot of garbage gets posted on this web site by people like you who for some reason are all hot about the LAX case even though you have no connection to Duke and who then have the gall to start urging the trustees to get rid of someone you know nothing about. And don't tell me you know all you need to know because that just confirms what I am saying about your shallow and one-dimensional analysis.

Anonymous said...

To Another Duke Mom and 5:55 PM,

Thank you for bringing some sanity to this discussion. One of the problems I have with this web site is that many of the people who post comments here seem to have no connection to Duke or seem to have only a superficial understanding of the facts. Yet, for some reason, they seem to feel entitled to make the most vile and insulting comments about Duke and Brodhead, most of which I regard as complete drivel. Also, KC and some of the more fanatical members of his audience seem to think that Brodhead should be calling a press conference to declare that the LAX players are not guilty of rape and that the charges against them should be dismissed immediately. So what. That is their opinion. Brodhead obviously has good reasons for doing what he is doing, and since the trustees of Duke have made absolutely no criticisms of Brodhead, it is obvious that they agree with him. By the way, I would appreciate it if the people who post comments on this web site telling us that their kid has crossed Duke off their list or that they would never allow their kid to go to Duke would take a hike. These are basically just arrogant and condescending comments by people who are compensating for feelings of insecurity by telling all of us how great their kids are. I really could not care less whether your kid goes to Duke or not. I suspect that many of these kids never would have gotten into Duke in any event.

KC Johnson said...

As I noted previously, in the more than 100,000 words I've written on this blog, I not once have said that Brodhead should call "a press conference to declare that the LAX players are not guilty of rape and that the charges against them should be dismissed immediately."

I have repeatedly said that I do not believe any college president can or should remain silent if local authorities establish a "separate-but-equal" system of justice whereby an institution's students are treated according to procedures different from the general population.

It's quite clear that Brodhead has the vociferous support of Board of Trustees chairman Bob Steel. It's somewhat less clear how deep Brodhead's support is among the BOT.

Anonymous said...

...and the 88 have the full support of the president, the board of trustees, and given the number of distinguished chairs within the group, obviously the most coveted professional acknowledgment of their research and scholarship (hmmm, might professional envy be a reason for some who post to this page to focus their ire in the direction of the 88?). It seems those who just can't imagine why this group hasn't been condemned or "reprimanded" by the president or trustees might not want to consider that it is because they are really smart, really well respected, and highly valued faculty at Duke. Too bad you all have no influence at all, whatsoever, or in any forum that matters. But please do continue to post here--because this space is the only place where your comments might matter. I am grateful that my child has the opportunity to be taught by these extraordinary faculty. And for those of you who could not imagine sending your children to Duke, whew! narrow escape. Please, do us Duke parents a favor. Keep them home. Send them to "Professor" Anderson--but please keep encouraging them away from our campus. Like the previous post, I bet they would not make the cut for Duke anyway. Wishful thinking people. You only wish you could turn Duke down. If your children are at all like their parents--not a snowball's chance is the phrase.

KC Johnson said...

To the 10.31:

I suspect, as you say, that the 88 "have the full support of the president, the board of trustees."

But Duke officials, in their public statements, have gone out of their way to deny this is so. If you have inside information on this issue, please share it; it would be significant.

Anonymous said...

Actually, my oldest daughter could have gone to Duke, as she was an all-state athlete in two sports and a very good student. She did not, and seeing the attitudes of many professors toward Duke students being laid bare, I am glad she did not go there.

One poster claimed that I said Brodhead should call a press conference to declare the players "innocent." In all of my articles and postings, please point out where I said that. And if you cannot find anything to match what you claimed me to say, then don't put words in my mouth.

Now, I have made statements like "Brodhead should be sent back to the minors" and the like, but I do not think anyone can praise his wishy-washy performance. Compare Brodhead to Donna Shalala after the Miami brawl on television. Even though Shalala has a feminist reputation, does anyone think she would be bowing and scraping to Nifong as has Brodhead?

The problem with Brodhead and many of his kind is what Shelby Steele calls "white guilt." Brodhead seems to be someone who takes all the leftist drivel to heart and really does feel guilty that Duke University is an elite institution and that North Carolina Central is not.

Brodhead, I believe, has made the situation worse with his inaction. Granted, I think he most likely is a very nice person, but sometimes very nice people do not handle crises very well.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

To 8:59 pm;
this is exactly the kind of uppity, nose-in-the-air talk that fuels racial tension. Apparently you are one of a few that has the 'right' to weigh in on these civil rights violations and Dick Brodhead only because your kiddies go to Duke. You got the money and clout to send your kiddies to Duke so only you and your other Duke 'moms' have the right of free speech here. The rest of us po folk better know our place here, right?

People like you help create the Chan Halls of the world.

Judith said...

There is no question that the admissions department is feeling the fall-out from the lack of support (if not outright hostility) for these young men among the Duke faculty and administration.

For this past fall, 125 kids were admitted from the waiting list. This is UNHEARD OF at any elite school.

Visits by prospective students are down 20%.

Anonymous said...

The poster claims that I am "uppity" and that I have "money and clout." People who see the vehicles I drive are not going to be able to confuse me with someone who has "money and clout."

The poster claims there have been "civil rights violations," but the only people whose rights have been violated -- in a legal sense -- have been the Duke Three.

I think we need to remember that Nifong first declared these non-rapes to be a "hate crime," but then backed off. As K.C. has pointed out elsewhere, a "hate crime" would have brought in the FBI and other federal agencies, and then Nifong's tactics and the "evidence" he has used would have come under much more legal scrutiny.

Nor do I think it is elitist and racist to say Duke is elite and NCCU is not. I have pointed out many times in my posts that the place where I work is not an elite university.

Moreover, I received my doctorate from Auburn University, which while being a good public university, definitely does not fall into the "elite" category.

The Chan Halls of the world choose to be resentful. But, more important, they also are choosing to spread a Big Lie, and there is no excuse for that. None.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous said...

Bill,
I hope you are not holding up Donna Shalala as the model of the university president. Her endorsement of the football team, and the minimal punishment handed down for their very videotaped brawl, is NOT the reaction I would expect from a university president. Add to that the fact that the coach had to tell his players to stop carrying guns after one of them shot someone this summer (the person shot was allegedly robbing a teammate--but what are college football players doing with guns???) The murder of another another football player a few weeks ago is probably a separate incident, but this is not the university or the president to emulate! The Miami alumni should be ashamed and incensed.

LearnedHand said...

no one should be surprised by those on this blog who continue to try to use the silence and inaction of president broadhead and the board of trustees as shining examples of support. what else can these people say? they are either people who have kids at duke and feel the need to defend their choice of where they send their child to school (and those in charge) OR they are blind supporters (who most likely have connections to these aforementioned people, but never admit it). understandable.

i, too, attended duke - twice. i love the school and my experiences there. i also essentially grew up in durham - as a second home - due to family in the area.

i hold no grudge against duke, come with no agenda against the administration in general, and wish nothing but the best for duke and durham. however...

the blind faith and support shown by those few, very few, of you who support the unbelievable inaction and unbearable silence by this administration is extremely disappointing. what are you so afraid of? you constantly blast those who criticize the administration by saying - they "obviously have good reasons" or "what else could they do?" you KNOW those are absolutely weak and lazy defenses. dick broadhead was recruited - yes - recruited, for his leadership abilities. his proven ability to lead and provide an example of how to run a top-notch university, to increase fundraising and alumni interest, and to generally provide the presence necessary at a top-10 school. so let me ask you - since march - are you telling me that he has done this? has he provided leadership? i have read his very few statements he has made - most of which came in the weeks immediately following the beginning of this travesty. in your desperate attempts to find some supportable morsel, some nugget, suggesting his abilities as president, you ALWAYS point to the same statement - where he claims that we should not rush to judgment, we should presume innocence, blah, blah. that ONE statement (made a couple of times in the spring) is IT. THAT is your saving grace for this man? oh - i forgot - the report that just a few weeks ago, he apparently made comments to a parents' weekend crowd filled with supportive statements of the team...of course, there is no documented evidence of this, no statement published, no article or letter to the community, etc.

so here we are. six months after this ridiculous circus rolled into the lives of the duke/durham community and its alumni and parents, with the president and the bot saying NOTHING on record other than some bland statements of support, saying NOTHING on record AT ALL about the absurd (and most likely illegal) policy adopted and approved by the durham city police department unfairly targeting duke students, doing and saying NOTHING to promote the (very necessary) attitude that the alumni should have faith in his administration and handling of this case. forgive me - but, in my opinion - agree or not - the role of the president of a top-notch university is MUCH more than this. no leadership. no support expressed to the alumni.

no one seems to be able to convince you to have higher expectations for a man of his position. you continue to pass the buck (hey, obviously the board agrees with him, right?), you continue to claim he can do nothing about his faculty, etc. it is sad. you then attempt to turn any and all criticism of the president and his administration into some kind of demonizing, witch-hunt by those who don't "know" or who are not "inside". these are the antics i would have expected from the 88, not free-thinking people concerned for the university's well-being. of course, if all you care about is dick broadhead's reputation, i can see it.

i agree with many who have posted on this and other sites - duke is a GREAT university. it has wonderful faculty, top facilities, excellent athletics, etc. of course there are those that are jumping on the "bash-duke" bandwagon, but they are few (although outspoken). there are just as many problems at this university as at harvard or carolina - this is NOT an excuse, just a reality. the difference SHOULD be in how duke combats it, attempts to rectify it, and is perceived as doing so. THIS is where broadhead is supposed to be at his finest - where he is supposed to do step up and do the job we all HOPED he would. the terrible perception of the alumni (and the rest of the usa) of this travesty and duke, is, at least in part, HIS responsibility. so - stop passing the buck, stop defending a job he asked for and is getting paid to do, and stop fixing the blame on others - START TELLING PRESIDENT BROADHEAD TO DO HIS JOB. be the man we hired, be a leader.

Anonymous said...

learnedhand: Well said.

A Duke Mom

Anonymous said...

LearnedHand

Just FYI: Its "Brodhead" not "Broadhead"...

Anonymous said...

LH, it is too bad that Brodhead, who, as you say, was recruited by Duke because of his proven ability to lead and run a top-notch university, got screwed by the LAX players and has been required to spend the last eight months cleaning up the mess they created. This is a good illustration of how the damage done to Duke by the LAX players is not limited to the damage to its reputation resulting from their irresponsible behavior but also includes the damage resulting from opportunities which have been lost to Duke because Brodhead has been forced to focus on the LAX mess rather than on doing all of the wonderful things he was recruited to do. In fact, the damage goes even farther than that because now we have fanatical LAX team supporters urging everyone to withhold money from Duke, which screws Duke and screws all of the students there who have kept their noses clean and are just trying to get an education so they can do something important with their lives. In addition, these fanatics are urging the trustees to fire Brodhead even though, as you say, he is a proven leader who knows how to run a top-notch university, and they are urging this based upon a shallow and one-dimensional analysis that leads them to conclude that if he does not inject himself into the criminal process in Durham and loudly and publicly declare that the LAX players are innocent of rape, he does not deserve to be president of Duke no matter what else he has done to benefit the university and no matter what else he is capable of doing in the future. I have to tell you, LH, that this is garbage and that you and the others who are putting this stuff out there are doing a lot of damage to an institution that you say you love. By the way, I think it is fair to say that one of the reasons why Brodhead succeeded so brilliantly at Yale and why he was such a highly respected and even beloved figure there was because he did not have a bunch of out-of-control LAX players creating all the problems that the Duke LAX players have created, which suggests that maybe there really is something wrong with the culture at Duke and maybe the people who want to de-emphasize the role of athletics at Duke are on to something. If I were you, I would be directing my ire at the LAX players, not at Brodhead.

Anonymous said...

to 8:59

" I suspect that many of these kids never would have gotten into Duke in any event."

I suspect that may have been true. I suspect however that it is going to get a lot easier to get into Duke

Anonymous said...

To 4:16 PM, don't hold your breath, asshole.

Anonymous said...

4:14

They had a freaking party for gods sake. The DA, PD, Group of 88, potbangers, etc. created the mess by jumping to conclusions and presuming guilt.

Sure, in hindsight, the party was a dumb idea. But the fact that this mess continues cannot be blamed on the LAX team. Those at fault can't even admit their initial failings (as the LAX team did right off the bat).

Anonymous said...

To the 7:23 Bill Andersen post, which says:


The poster claims there have been "civil rights violations," but the only people whose rights have been violated -- in a legal sense -- have been the Duke Three.


Wouldn't the special treatment of rowdy duke students by the Durham PD also count as a violation of civil rights? They are being treated differently, based on their 'class' of being a Duke Student, than any other minor, rowdy Durhamite....

Anonymous said...

Here is a poorly composed email for the English professor to review: This legal case is all the proof I need to apply to a different law school. If the legal minds at Duke couldn't educate the administration and professors on the lack of evidence and explain an eventual dismissal (as happened today)- why have a law school?

Anonymous said...

If you want a real law degree go to Harvard. Dukee is just fancy word for shit. Dukee will be known from this day foward as a institution of lower learning.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 4/11 8:58 --
review your facts (they are very important in legal analysis). Professor James Coleman of Duke Law School,notwithstanding what many would consider a liberal background, early on very publicly pointed out the deficiencies in the case and continued to do so as time progressed.

Anonymous said...

If you think the "88" are the only profs who think like this,think again. They and their ilk across this country are brainwashing our children with their intellectual tripe. They are like the media,they teach their version of eduction like the media gives us their version of the news and we blindly accept it as fact. They should be terminated and made to live with Don Imus for a month.

Anonymous said...

Finally, Mike Nifong is disbarred and he issues a sort-of apology. yet where is the Group of 88? Duke has damaged itself and will continue to have a tarnished reputation until remedial measures are taken.

Anonymous said...

These professors are remind me of Hitlers henchmen.
jdw