Sunday, April 08, 2007

Carrington, Schoeffel Speak Out

Bo Carrington and Steve Schoeffel gave a wide-ranging interview to the Charlottesville paper about their experiences over the past year.

Their Initial Expectations

Schoeffel noted they expected the charges to blow over quickly, especially after they gave their DNA: “We did that willingly, with the assumption that we had to do this to be sure, and if we could get on with our season and play a game next week, we had no problem walking right in there.”

Carrington: “We lost at Cornell right before that, and we were coming out expecting a hard week in practice. I remember people being like ‘Great, we get to go to the police station and give our DNA instead of practice.’ There was nothing to hide and all of us were ready and willing to do that. I remember the lawyers were trying to figure out a way to get out of it. For us, it didn’t occur because we wanted the truth to be known. If us giving our DNA helped that happen, then we were all for it.”

The Initial Student Reaction

Carrington recalled one of the uglier campus incidents of the affair, when he was surrounded by African-American students as he was walking across the quad. They shouted, “Tell the police what you know! Why are you protecting these rapists?”

He told the Daily Progress, “That was really weird because those were people you have in your classes and people you eat next to in the cafeteria. That was a time when we couldn’t say very much to the people outside of our team and outside of our legal counsel. That was really hard - wanting to be able to explain something and not being able to talk about it.”

The Campus Situation

Carrington: “It was uncomfortable. We had the guys on our team and our families and some of our close friends that we felt comfortable around and felt like they knew the truth. Other than that, it wasn’t a good place to be.”

Schoeffel: “The fact that white, privileged, upper-class - any of these things - were loaded on top of this without any much true knowledge of the situation - we were an easy target to exploit.”

Mike Pressler’s Dismissal

Carrington: “It was a hard day. Knowing Coach P - he used the word ‘resign’ when he told us, but I don’t think there was a guy that thought he had resigned. I think everyone knew exactly what that meant.”

Schoeffel: “There was a sense of injustice. He told us ‘I’ll fall on the sword. I’ll be the sacrificial lamb if I need to, but know that I’d never choose to leave you guys.’ He preaches and lives loyalty.”

“We felt like the decision came from up top with absolutely no transparency. They didn’t bring us through it. There wasn’t any explanation - not even from athletic director [Joe Alleva] - nothing that we knew except everything was being taken from us.”

[John Burness responded, “Obviously, we have a lot of information now that we did not have then. But you’re making your decisions based on the best information you have at the time. Nonetheless, the decision made by the president with the strong support of the board of trustees was made in the best long-term interest of the university and the athletic programs.”

In retrospect, a strong case can be made for canceling the season, in the interests of protecting the players’ safety in what was, at the time, a toxic environment. Yet the administration didn’t offer that justification at the time, and hasn’t thereafter.]

The Run-Up to Indictments

Carrington: “Every single person on our team went into their lawyer’s office, and everybody’s question was: ‘Is it me?’”

Schoeffel: “There was anxiety and trepidation - that fact that it was wide open like that.”

Duke’s Response

Schoeffel: “It’s [an apology] something that we’ve asked for. It’s not like we’ve been waiting for them and we’ve been passive. We’ve actually asked and said: ‘This is something you can do for us. We would appreciate this and it would go far for us.’”

Carrington, on the administration: “I think they’re afraid [to apologize] . I think a lot of times it’s hard to admit that you made a mistake. I think inaction had the same effect as action against us. Them being passive about it, the message was pretty clear.”

Their Current Status

Carrington: “I think in some aspects it’s close to getting back to normal. At the same time, three of our best friends are still indicted for sexual assault and kidnapping. It’s hard for anything to be normal with that. I think a lot of that comes from feeling like it could have been me.”

I should note that I interviewed Carrington for the book. He is a very impressive person—someone of high character who fits none of the stereotypes about the team, but also an unusually perceptive observer.

[Update, 1.51pm: Michael Gustafson comments on the article. He notes,

Bo Carrington's experience above, along with the experiences of other members on the team, go to show that the university, through its not having taken down the GoDuke.com pictures in a timely manner after receiving a request to do so, and through its not actively removing the "Vigilante" posters from campus, and allegedly through there being university employees who distributed materials that led to an unsafe and hostile environment for some of our students (for example, handing out various posters and chant sheets, or creating an address list of the lacrosse families, or sending a message to an open forum that a particular student should be discredited if at all possible), did not fulfil its obligations to those students.

As an engineer, a fundamental canon of the Code of Ethics of pretty much every professional organization and engineering honor society I've joined includes the following:

Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public

Given that, I believe it is only fair that university administrators should live by a code which, in part, reads, "Administrators shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the student body," and when they fail, as they did in this case, they should both apologize for that failure and take the necessary actions to make future mistakes less likely.]

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

KC-
Are you at liberty to tell us the lacrosse players you have interviewed other than Bo?

I seem to remember that you said earlier that you had met a few and liked "some of them". I have been bothered somewhat ever since that you didn't care for one or more of the guys. I hope it's not Reade that you didn't care for.

Gary Packwood said...

Now there is a set up question if I have ever seen one.
KC has an e-mail address if you need to ask him a personal question.
Don't you imagine that his comment was similar to an investment firm acknowledging am ownerhsip position in the stock they are analyzing?
GP

Anonymous said...

I must say I don't know why all 46 (minus 3) lacrosse players arent out there giving interviews to any newspaper or magazine that will interview them. The fact that we are still hearing BS obfuscation and distortion from the likes of the NYT and the Herald Sun and even the Today Show, is absolutely disgusting. These boys ought to get off their duff and do what they can to overwhelm whats left of the vocal ideologues that are helping stretch this travesty out so far

Anonymous said...

11:51 has it right. The time for silence is over.

Anonymous said...

The students must be asking
themselves:
"If someone accused of murder
is freed by DNA evidence,
do they just throw away the DNA,
or do they look for the real
perp?"

Since Nifong insisted that
there was a real rape, why
didn't they pursue the possessors
of that evidence?
(Of course, we know Nifong didn't
REALLY believe that a crime
existed...)

Mac

Students ought to be asking that.
Or their attorneys.

The fact that no effort was made
to find the 7-9 holders of the
DNA suggests...that maybe it's
one of the Hoaxers themselves?

We can rule out Wendy Murphy,
(I guess.)

Mac Attack

KC Johnson said...

For the book, I interviewed Reade, Collin, Ryan McFadyen, Bo Carrington, Michael Catalino, Tony McDevitt, Dan Flannery, and Jay Jennison; Stuart Taylor interviewed Dave Evans. A few additional members of the team have cooperated with me off the record.

Each of the people that I interviewed have very different personalities--something that explodes the caricature right away about the team as a group of monolithically bad actors, all of whom are exactly the same. And everyone with whom I've spent time I've come to like, and would be honored to have any of them as a student in one of my classes.

As for Reade in particular: I like him very much. But that's not saying anything: after all, this is someone about whom negative things have been said by only Mike Nifong, Peter Wood, Wendy Murphy, and the head of the New Black Panthers.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if any of the Lacrosse
Players will end up becoming
Defense Attorneys?

Mac

Anonymous said...

KC - Would appreciate hearing the Loftus boys impression of all this.

Anonymous said...

I seem to recall that someone thought Reade was arrogant.

However, one would need to know the position and the sensibilities of that person in order to evaluate that comment.

Anyone can seem arrogant depending on the circumstances.

I assume that most of these guys didn't want to show their cards, say too much, and were mostly guarded--who wouldn't be!???---so some might have interpreted that as arrogance.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Debrah,

I would guess that the young
men - most, if not all of the
Lacrosse Team - would have a
new respect for people who
are falsely accused.

What I'm amazed at is the self-
control that they've exhibited
under extraordinary circumstances.
Perhaps this is the fire that
will prepare them to be future
Winston Churchhills?


Mac

scott said...

Carrington said:

I think a lot of that comes from feeling like it could have been me.”

Carrington is dead on. That is one of the fundamentals of this entire hoax.

There is no more evidence linking the 3 who were actually indicted than any of the other 43 white LAX players. It definitely could have ended up that another 3, 5, 20 or how many Mangum decided was the number ju jour would be facing these criminal charges. Remember, in one of the photo line-ups she picked a guy that wasn't even in Durham on the day of the party. All Nifong wanted was some white scalps to parade in front of the AA community to get elected. And he had plenty of help from a lot of people that had no concern over which of the LAX players finally ended up "winning" this lottery.

I think all the LAX players realize how close they came to being an even larger part of the nightmare that Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans have been living for over a year.

Anonymous said...

KC,
What would the boys have done
differently - other than not
having hired CGM et al -
early in the case? Have they
commented about their regrets?

Mac

Anonymous said...

Mac---

I quite agree.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

KC,

Was there any sense (from the
players and their families)that
the high bail was being utilized
in order to get them in the
company of some "jailhouse snitch," (e.g.someone who'd
trade a lie for a reduced
sentence?)

Mac

Anonymous said...

It appears most are following the leads of the defense attorneys by not criticizing Cooper, Coman and Winstead. But why is it taking so long to dismiss the remaining bogus charges? The state of North Carolina should be ashamed. And Governor Easley shold be ashamed for appointing Nifong and remaining silent for a long period.

rod allison, detroit said...

"I wonder if any of the Lacrosse
Players will end up becoming
Defense Attorneys?"

I read that Seligman wanted to. Ironically, this experience could benefit him by giving him a name in that field. I can easily imagine Seligman popping up on a cable show several years from now as a guest legal analyst.

I was once falsely accused of a felony too, and I thought about becoming a defense attorney to protect innocent people like myself from an arbitrary legal system. I changed my mind when I realized there would probably be too few innocent clients. In order to subsist, I would have had to defend guilty ones too, people that are just plain rotten.

There are a lot more potential clients like Precious and Nifong than like the Duke 3.

Seligmen was just a sophomore. He has a long time to think about this.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 12:25

I thought they'd drop the charges
on - or the day after - April
Fools' Day. Maybe Friday the 13th?
Sort of useless speculating,
but it still is a good question.

Mac

Anonymous said...

Rod Allison,

Yeah, or change majors.
What's he majoring in,
anyway?

Mac

Anonymous said...

re "dropping the charges"

That's when the case will start to get interesting. Brodhead, the trustees, the g88--dey gonna b hellfire to pay

I cants waits

jamil hussein said...

Are the DAs allowed to delay this indefinitely? The investigation should be pretty easy, this is something that even a mediocre first year prosecutor could finish in 3 days. Instead, prosecutors take extended vacations and use all delaying tactics available.

Deklan Singh said...

I don't see why these two guys are under the delusion that they are safe from prosecution. Are they idiots?

Until all the charges against the accused three are dropped, we cannot assume that the NC AG will treat the "evidence" any more fairmindedly than Nifong. Given the legal track record of the state of North Carolina, there is still nothing stopping the "accuser" from "identifying" these two boys or me or any other person. Maybe she'll say that she was mistaken and "identify" one of her attackers as Denzel Washington in white makeup with a fake mustache. Maybe she'll "identify" Albert Einstein or the Easter Bunny.

Until all the charges are dropped and the "accuser's" story completely discredited, no one is safe.

After that....lawsuits....lots and lots of lawsuits.

Anonymous said...

Deklan,

Maybe they're checking to make
sure none of the Judges, DAs,
Investigators or others have
DNA matches with CGM's little
collection. That could explain
the delay.

Mac

Georgia Girl said...

with over 9 players interviewed separately, I'm sure KC was able to ascertain exactly what did happen that night. I look forward to the book.

Anonymous said...

to Georgia Girl

We already know what happened that night. Inexperienced lacrosse players were bamboozled by a pimp--2 homely black women arrived, 1 impaired. Precious done tol a lie to avoid the drunk tank.

This story is so pedestrian it's pathetic.

It's the reaction to the false allegations--that's the story.

Anonymous said...

My guess is that the players are not speaking out based on their attorney's advice. They will not speak to a hostile media, thus giving the DA any ammunition or the ability to mis-interpret their words. Until the remaining charges are dropped it's best to keep quite and let Nifong swing in the breeze. Why say anything when you have KC exposing Nifong's lies on a daily basis. Lets just let the NC legal system choke on it's own lies.

Anonymous said...

I am amazed how reserved these two are. They show great self-restraint. If I were in their shoes, I would be blustering with rage. They have every right to be. They seem more disappointed than angry.

Anonymous said...

"After that....lawsuits....lots and lots of lawsuits".

I hear this a lot on this site. Is it so certain that there will be lots of litigation over this case? Isn't there an element of wishful thinking in this expectation? I'm sure a lot of the potential litigants will just want to put the whole thing behind them. This case may end not with a bang but a whimper...

Anonymous said...

I think some of the speculation is based on what the Rae Evans said. Also, had I spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on a hoax case, I would wish to be made whole by the court, and eventually, act for punitive damages. But that's just me.

Time will tell if others are willing to walk away from this great wrong with a shrug and a "whatever".

jamil hussein said...

Don't forget the real victims (tm) in this case. Marcotte was railroaded, and Gang88 had their syllabi scrutinized.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

It's bad enough these kids are the victims of lies and corruption. It's worse when they reveal what decent human beings they are.

bill anderson said...

I seem to recall that someone thought Reade was arrogant.

That "someone" was Duke professor Peter Wood. Enough said there.

If the people in the administration of Duke University cannot apologize for Duke's role in this hoax and frame-up, then there need to be resignations on the table. I find it interesting that the administration demanded an apology from the players for the party -- as though no other students at Duke ever have had a party in which there was drinking and someone hired strippers.

But, when it comes to permitting Duke University to be a repository of "Castrate!" signs and using the university as a place to hang the vigilante posters, well suddenly the so-called "adults" at Duke cannot find the proper words. Remember, Brodhead publicly expressed "disappointment" that the players had hired lawyers. But, now that Brodhead is listening to Duke's lawyers, he cannot get himself to even utter, "I apologize." What a guy.

Anonymous said...

Re Peter Wood and Reade Seligmann's "arrogance"--if I remember correctly, even Wood never said Reade specifically was arrogant; instead, he said he had had members of the current lacrosse team who were arrogant in his classes, and Reade was identified (I think by K.C.) as one of a very few members of the current team who had taken a class from Wood. My daughter has met Reade and some of her friends know him very well--and based on their accounts he sounds like a thoughtful and genuinely nice person--much farther from arrogant than many guys they've come across at Duke, athletes or otherwise.

Re 11:51 and talking or not talking to the press--I think most people who have had the experience of speaking to the press will agree that one can't be too careful. As the lax story itself shows only too well, reporters often have their own story they want to tell, and they will find a way to twist or severely edit your words to fit them into it. I wouldn't question any member of the lacrosse team for being circumspect about what they say to reporters, or for choosing not to speak at all, much less seeking out opportunities to be misrepresented in the press.

Anonymous said...

On the potential of civil actions: it has been stated that each of the families of the 3 accused have spent $1 million on his defense. These are not extraordinarily wealthy families. One had to get a loan from a personal friend.
I deplore our litigious society but in this case I would sue!

Bill said...

I think contrasting Gustafson's culture in the Engineering College compared to Trinity is telling. The engineering college through their non-negotiable interface with reality has no choice -- and often no problem with acting ethically. Even if they did, ASCE and the other professional associations would tear them a new one.

Meanwhile their College of Science and Worthlessness counterparts have far more latitude for misconduct. Though the scientists often have similar restrictions on professional behavior, the Department of Gravity as a Social Construct and similar programs have no such external pressure to behave ethically. Indeed, some of them even have the nerve to claim that unethical conduct that would be terminal in other departments at Duke, is protected by academic freedom. More still, such behavior is their claim to fame.

Thus we have departments that must rise above it all. And other departments that must rise above nothing (and thus to become distinct, must hit bottom and dig).

Anonymous said...

non-negotiable interface with reality

I like that phrase.

Debrah

hman said...

To 2:04
I think it is quite naive to expect the targetted three Lax guys and their families to "just try to put this behind them." They couldn't no matter how hard they tried. For one thing, the scarring is surely too deep and for another, there is Google. How does one "put behind" oneself a million plus entries combining your name with "rape."
For the long term, getting Nifong and perhaps Brodhead, and many others, in court under oath would do more to bring closure and put into the record more of the truth than anything else I can think of.

Gary Packwood said...

Bill 3:30 said...
...the Department of Gravity as a Social Construct and similar programs have no such external pressure to behave ethically.
::
That is a pretty good issue to bring up following the interviewing process. Does the candidate NEED external pressure to behave ethically and not, for example, conspire with others to harm their own students?

It seems to me that the current President of Duke inherited these professors who may need external pressure to behave ethically. Therefore, President Broadhead's only significant error may be his attempts to be their friend and mentor...when they needed a 'beefy' babysitter.

The case against Dave, Collin and Reade would not have captured the attention of the American people if it were not for professors signing letter condemning their own students...in the school newspaper...of all places.

Who hired these people in the Anger Studies departments and the staff members who support them?

GP

Anonymous said...

"I think it is quite naive to expect the targetted three Lax guys and their families to "just try to put this behind them." They couldn't no matter how hard they tried. For one thing, the scarring is surely too deep and for another, there is Google. How does one "put behind" oneself a million plus entries combining your name with "rape."
For the long term, getting Nifong and perhaps Brodhead, and many others, in court under oath would do more to bring closure and put into the record more of the truth than anything else I can think of".

It cannot be assumed that they would win. And if they did, there would be appeals and it would be expensive and drag on for years. They may not even have the resources to do that if they wanted to. Sounds like you're being naive about the legal system in this country.

Of course they cannot put everything behind them, but some may think that there is much to be said for getting on with their lives as best they can.

Kilgore said...

I can't get over the injustice done to these boys by firing their coach and canceling the season. My son was a dedicated lacrosse player and I watched as he basically gave up almost everything else in order to be at the top of his game and help his team. I can only guess that these young men had a more intense dedication than my son and to have that ripped away without good reason is a tragedy. They were in contention for the national title for crying out loud and this doofus Brodhead cancels them out? I'm sure that Duke in its marketing literature talks about "striving for excellence." That is just what these young men and that coach were doing and instead of being stewarded by their university they were sabataged. Brodhead should be keelhauled and then fired.

Anonymous said...

5:09
There is a more critical factor than winning involved in suits here. If this goes to Federal Court, you will see discovery like you ain't never seen before. The motions to prevent discovery by Duke will themselves be a public embarassment and a revelation of [in my opinion] the moral corruption at the highest level of administration.
Even if there is no monetary reward (and I'm smelling a potential RICO case here), that alone would help provide closure to the three racist-rape victims.

Anonymous said...

The goal is not to determine exactly what happened that night but rather to determine if the alleged charges are valid. I don’t need to know everything that happened i.e. what music was played, what time the team members arrived, what kind of beer was served ect.

I noticed that KC’s book is available at Amazon beginning September 4, 2007. I hope that the criminal case is over before his book is due at the printers. My guess is that the Civil Cases will still be going on so I wonder if he will have to do a follow-up book.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Just to give KC and all of you an insight into what is in store for students attacked by their professors - consider the case of Emily Brooker working towards her undergraduate degree in social work at Missouri State University.

In late 2005, she took a class from Professor Frank Kauffman who demanded all his students write a letter to the Missouri legislature promoting gay adoption. Emily refused, citing her Christian beliefs. Kauffman accused her of violation and forced her to be interrogated by the "college ethics committee" for hours while they humiliated her for her Christian beliefs. Kauffman also punished her with bad grades in a second class (he was Director of the Master Social Work program) saying she was 'often late' to class and 'didn't participate'. In the end, Emily was given a disastrous "Social Work Level 3" review which essentially destroyed her chances of becoming a social worker.

Because Emily was broke, the Alliance Defense Fund sued Missouri University on her behalf. The lawsuit was filed last October 2006. Within a month, Missouri State settled out of court with Emily - erasing the bad Level 3 review, paying $9,000 to Emily, plus agreeing to pay for her graduate work at another university (though the university refused to pay Alliance's legal fees). Finally, Professor Kauffman 'voluntarily stepped down as director of the Master Social Work Program' and has been 'reassigned to non-classwork duties'. In other words, Kauffman is no longer teaching (though I would hardly say that was what he was doing in the first place).

Two things are of note. First, the university refused to concede it had been aware of Kauffman's abuse of his students, instead claiming it addressed the problems "as soon as we became aware of them". However, their awareness was triggered not by Kauffman's abuse but by the lawsuit a year later.

Secondly, those who attacked Emily Brooker still stubbornly refuse to admit any wrongdoing. For example, a member of the National Association of Social Work's national office refused to admit it tried to force Emily to abandon her Christian beliefs, instead saying the NASW "would never ask someone to do that". (Note that doesn't answer whether it DID ask her to do that.) There is also self-serving blather about being "committed to protecting the rights of its students", yada yada yada.

In short, the university and its professors never addressed wrongdoing until they were forced to. And then that force came not from their conscience or ethics - but from a lawsuit.

If Missouri State is anything to go by, it's clear what will finally be required to make Brodhead and the Gang of 88 accountable for what they did (and did not) do.

Anonymous said...

GP asked: "Who hired these people in the Anger Studies departments and the staff members who support them?"

Answer: Bill Chafe as Dean and Nan Keohane while President.

Anonymous said...

Bill Chafe.

Now there's a smart old fart. He's the one who likened the lacrosse case to the Emmett Till story.
You just know he's a winner in the category of real life.

Anonymous said...

Nan Keohane.

Most likely to win the role of playing Janet Reno in a Waco sequel.
Boyish, but not as ugly as Reno.

Anonymous said...

Re: 5:46 p.m.

I am a lawyer, and someone very close to me was falsely accused of sexual harassment while he was at university. The university appeared to be prepared to railroad him (in contravention of their own written formal policies) until they received a letter from me threatening litigation if they did not back down. The matter went away, but if left me wondering how many people have been in similar situations who didn't have a lawyer they could turn to without fear of the cost.

Anonymous said...

Dear Wahneema:

I have learned there was an allegation of rape (but we all know what really happened) at the University of Minnesota recently. I thought we might come together to make a statement about it in an attempt to alert society about the evil in our midst.

One second, I have just been given additional information about the situation and the perpetrators....please disregard.

I'll get back to you when I locate some more perfects offenders.

Karla

Anonymous said...

I luve mah afarmativ akshun

Professos Holloway and Lubiano

Anonymous said...

7:29

Stupid and offensive is not a good way to go through life.

Jim said...

I think KC should add a new feature, both as a refresher for the regulars and an edifier for the newbies: "On this date in the Duke Lacrosse case..."
I'm encountering increasingly more ignorant commentary on the case. A refresher might remind people of just how egregious this case is and how incendiary Nifong's comments appear in retrospect.

Anonymous said...

7:36
Good idea.

Anonymous said...

7:32
Agreed. The 88 gang should know better.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 7:17 said...

...I am a lawyer, and someone very close to me was falsely accused of sexual harassment while he was at university. The university appeared to be prepared to railroad him (in contravention of their own written formal policies) until they received a letter from me threatening litigation if they did not back down. The matter went away, but if left me wondering how many people have been in similar situations who didn't have a lawyer they could turn to without fear of the cost.
::
Pretty good reason to have legal insurance. This case may move that reality along.
::
Recommended Reading:

Grisham, John. The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town
His first non-fiction work.

The book exposes some of the "behind the scenes" and "under the table" actions of the police investigators, prosecutors, trial lawyers and prison system that process our suspected and convicted criminals and maintain law and order.

bill anderson said...

In this situation, the best defense is a good offense. The three families were able to not only get legal help, but very aggressive and competent legal help.

Anonymous said...

7:32

Is it your point that H and L don't like their affirmative action?

Do you think stupid blacks have a right to teach at elite institutions?

Anonymous said...

"Very aggressive and competent
legal help..."

And very competent and aggressive
help from McElroy, Anderson,
KC (and many others.)

Before this case, it would
have been easier to see
prosecutor vs. defense attorney
as something akin to "Alien vs.
Predator," but the fact that people like Nifong - (and Duke University itself) - actively
and publicly discouraged legal
representation for the accused
makes it clear that inadequate
representation is not in the
best interest of justice.
And overzealous prosecution is
anathema to a free system that
calls itself a system of laws,
and not of men.

Of course, it's a stretch to
look at Nifong and think of him
as a "man," but...(had to throw
that one in.)

Democracy and Justice take
lots of attention and energy.
Thanks to you folks, we should
sleep a little easier -
(still with one eye open,
but easier!)

Mac

Anonymous said...

Naive to believe that the gang of 88 will ever face consequences. Tenure and all, they have too much to hide behind.

As for Brodhead, typically administrators do not have tenure. He should definitely update his vita.

After dismissal of the charges, I would hope that the attorneys for the falsely accused would deal directly with the trustees. In doing so, Duke could jettison as many individuals involved in furthering the hoax as possible. Each person will be used like a trading card. Of course, Brodhead and a short list of others are automatically in the discard pile.

Anonymous said...

9:42PM said:

"After dismissal of the charges, I would hope that the attorneys for the falsely accused would deal directly with the trustees. In doing so, Duke could jettison as many individuals involved in furthering the hoax as possible."

This comment is bizzare. Read the Duke University Charter/Bylaws. The Trustees ARE the university. They own it, essentially, for the purposes set forth in its charter. And faculty are accorded specific rights under those bylaws, as set out in the Faculty Handbook (see Provost's site). If you think that Trustees can "discipline" faculty as you suggest, you are delusional. If you think that alumni have a legal role to play in the university beyond having an alumni representative ex officio on the Trustees, you are quite mad. It is not the alumni's university, or the students' parents' university, or the students' university, or the taxpayers of North Carolina's university. Duke is the Trustees university.

Wishing otherwise does not make it so.

Blathering on about the big changes at Duke that will follow a dismissal of charges is simply crazy thinking.

Anonymous said...

10:15pm
Are you resident butt-for-brains Burness?

Gary Packwood said...

As we great ready for a new week, should we expect more articles in the Duke Chronicle calling for a new way to look at the future for the Duke undergraduate programs?

Should we expect an apology or a quasi-apology?

How should we respond?

GP

Anonymous said...

10:35
Just put your lips together and blow.

jamil hussein said...

Would it be possible to sue the trustees directly (as inviduals) ? They have enabled the hoax, constant intimidation at the university, grade retaliators, and racially charged athosphere?

I think company directors can be sued directly so maybe trustees can be sued, as well. They are clearly responsible for this as they have allowed this to happen on their watch (in fact, they have actively supported Gang88).

Anonymous said...

At this point, lawsuits are the only avenue available to those who see the injustice perpetrated by the Duke trustees, the city of Durham and the state of North Carolina.

Anonymous said...

"Blathering on about the big changes at Duke that will follow a dismissal of charges is simply crazy thinking".

Although this posting is arrogant and unnecessarily abrasive, it is also (likely) correct: very little will change at Duke in the aftermath of this affair. NO faculty will be dismissed, and odds favour Brodhead's survival. Same applies to police: business as usual.

Anonymous said...

"Would it be possible to sue the trustees directly (as inviduals) ? They have enabled the hoax, constant intimidation at the university, grade retaliators, and racially charged athosphere?"

Who's going to pay for all these lawsuits? Wishful thinking. I predict few lawsuits, even though this is America.

Anonymous said...

As I read this post, all I could think of are the civil suits that if justice prevails will result in a huge payout from Duke. It is clear that Brodhead and his rubber stamp board of trustees will continue to do little or nothing to make amends for their shameful actions and inactions, deathly afraid of raising the ire of the group of 88 radicals that have taken over this once fine institution of higher learning (the last two words in that phrase now replaced by "leftist leanings").

The upshot of all of this will be a tuition hike that future generations of Duke students will pay for one of the true black eyes in Duke's history.

duke09parent said...

10:15 is absolutely correct. In the ebbs an flows of this case, the fewer developments there are over a few weeks the more fanciful the thinking becomes, and the more bickering among us occurs. Students and alumni are more like customers and benefactors, respectively, so a
Board of Trustees does a poor job of ensuring the future of a university if a large number of its current customers and benefactors are unhappy for the long term about the university's governance. Large scale changes in alumni giving will have an effect. I think many of us overestimate how widespread the dissatisfaction is among alums. It is significant, but probably not enough to force big changes.

Jamil,
The director liability you refer to, I think, is the liability directors have to the shareholders of a corporation, since the shareholders are the owners. A university does not have shareholders, so there is no personal legal liability of the Trustees to individual students for university governance.

jamil hussein said...

Who's going to pay for all these lawsuits?

Isn't this why we have ambulance chasing trial lawyers? For once in their lifetime, they would be doing something noble.

Bill said...

"Who's going to pay for all these lawsuits?"

Those departments with a "non-negotiable interface with reality" (god, I love quoting myself!). The science, engineering, law and medical schools and departments at Duke are more likely to secure big grants that are taxed through "F&A" and "Overhead." Add to that student fees and tuition as other people have indicated.

Meanwhile, the departments that did their best to railroad the students may bring in faculty teaching efforts into their departments and the odd NEH grant but otherwise are effectively worthless when it's time to pass the hat.

Thus, the people who engaged in the most misconduct will be taxed the least should Duke need to pay out to the accused. And some programs that had faculty who actively supported the accused may be taxed at a higher rate.

Anonymous said...

Tuition hike 0 I can;t believe what they are getting now for a regional school-only in America.