Saturday, April 21, 2007

A Duke Conversation: Chicago

Several weeks ago, President Brodhead traveled to New York as part of his "A Duke Conversation" series. I attended the event, which featured a stimulating discussion overseen by the president and including one Duke professor and two students.

Other ADC events, however, have not proved as encouraging, most notably the Charlotte gathering--at which, for reasons that remain unclear, the administration invited the radically anti-lacrosse Duke student Chauncey Nartey to represent the student body, even though the fraternity of which Nartey was president had recently been suspended.

DIW reader "Chicago" attended the Windy City event earlier this week, and was kind enough to write up a summary, which is below.

-------------------------------------------------------------
At the strike of 4:30pm Wednesday, I hopped on a train after work and headed downtown Chicago for “A Duke Conversation” at the Lyric Opera House. I had never been in the Lyric Opera House despite passing it hundreds of times. The building is massive, elegant and pristine on the inside. The main course, served buffet style, was filet mignon, salmon and the best chicken I have ever had.

When I got there I spoke to an Asian-American couple who had a freshman at Duke. They told me they loved the fact their son was at Duke and that his decision came down to Washington University in St. Louis and Duke. His mother visited Washington with him and his father visited Duke with him. After visiting Duke, the young man made up his mind. “What did it come down to?” I asked. “School spirit,” replied his father; he wanted a full college experience as an undergrad. Since the young man made his decision last spring, right around the time the hoax started, his father told me the incident had no effect on his decision, nor did it concern his parents. His parents explained to me that they knew college students drank and partied a bit.

After dinner we moved from the Opera House’s main room to a smaller auditorium type room that had a stage and was set up like a lecture hall.

Richard Brodhead opened the night with a statement of about 10-15 minutes after taking the stage to a very mild applause from the crowd of approximately 300. After a few jokes and an explanation of his love for Chicago, Brodhead explained the agenda for the evening.

From there, Brodhead described this past year at Duke as a “most troubling year” and referred to the hoax as “this situation” in an assuming manner. Brodhead went on to make mention that it was one year ago today (April 18, 2006) that the first two indictments were unsealed. At this point Brodhead stated that “the only process of exoneration was the legal process.” One thing Brodhead did note that I found interesting was that of all the athletic teams at Duke, the Men’s Lacrosse Team was the group that the children at the Ronald McDonald House enjoyed spending time with the most. From there, Brodhead made a very standard statement about the Virginia Tech shooting. Brodhead ended his opening remarks by mentioning that the school has raised 220 million dollars of the 300 million they hope to raise in providing financial aid for students. Brodhead also mentioned the new pavilion and library on campus.

The professor who spoke was Bruce Jentleson of the Public Policy and Political Science Department. Currently Jentleson is on sabbatical at Oxford in England. Jentleson’s speech focused on “fostering a global generation,” and he spoke of the importance of globalizing. Jentleson mentioned two points that were vital for colleges to focus on: being competitive and making sure everyone is comfortable. He stated Duke needs to compete with students in the world and not just other schools in the US. Jentleson mentioned the “Duke Engage” initiative and stated that there are many tangible benefits career wise by being world-class. He encouraged people who studied worldwide to not “stay at the Hilton and find the McDonald’s”, but to experience the culture of different places. Jentleson ended by stating that very few countries are homogeneous in terms of ethnicity.

The two students who traveled with Brodhead were Bronwyn Lewis of Maryland and Jimmy Soni of Westmont, IL. Both students were very impressive as Brodhead asked them questions about their experiences at Duke before the audience. Soni was especially impressive. During this portion of the evening, Brodhead seemed very relaxed, engaging and even rather comical. I was surprised he interacted so well with the students and it helped me understand why he initially might have seemed like a good choice as President by the Board. After four questions each, Brodhead opened up the conversation to the audience who could address any of the four on stage: Jentleson, Brodhead, Soni or Lewis. Here is where things got interesting.

The first question came from a gentleman who was none too pleased with Brodhead. I found it appropriate that in an abrasive city like Chicago, there were no softballs to start, and the tough questions came out of the gates like fastballs. Brodhead, who was very relaxed going into the segment, immediately tensed up; you could see his anxiety as the man asked Brodhead how he allowed the hoax to reach the point it did, with professors slandering the players. Jimmy Soni suddenly looked very embarrassed and uncomfortable sitting with the group onstage; he was looking down and away and had his hand on his chin, as if he would rather have been anywhere but there at the moment. Brodhead started to answer and stuttered more than I have ever heard him do so. Brodhead characterized his actions as an “ethics issue” and went on to say that he “had to appeal to the legal process at a time in which he had very limited information and information he took to be true at the time.” Brodhead went on to contradict himself by stating that Duke always “championed innocence.”

In terms of addressing the Group of 88, Brodhead did what any good politician would do: he didn’t answer the question. The next question came in two parts: the first was directed at Bronwyn Lewis, who had unintentionally made a very telling statement in her Q&A with Brodhead while discussing her upcoming studies abroad in Denmark. Lewis stated this summer she will be studying the idea that “When corruption occurs in government, many follow suit and only some will not.” Lewis was asked to expand on that concept as it related to the hoax last spring, with Jim Coleman cited as an example of someone who did not follow suit in the corruption. Lewis likewise did what any good politician would do; she did not answer the question. Instead, she went on to give her own account of the events and what it was like being on campus during that time.

The question for Brodhead was specific: how he planned to deal with the slanderous comments of the Group of 88. Brodhead used another successful political strategy to this very direct question; he delegated it to Bruce Jentleson, a professor who has not been on campus this entire school year. Jentleson responded that the University “had to function as a University” and keep going.

When the floor returned to Brodhead, he stated that “people characterizing what the Group of 88 did were doing the same thing that people were doing to the Duke team last spring in convicting all of them by association.” Brodhead called the Group “interchangeable and all different,” despite the fact they all signed their name to the same statement and the question was regarding that specific statement. Brodhead’s only other comment that touched upon the issue was that the Group of 88 “signed a petition defending students who as minorities, felt threatened by the situation.”

At no point did Brodhead touch upon how Duke has dealt with the slanderous actions of the Group of 88, nor did he discuss how such rushes to judgment by faculty could be prevented in the future. Jimmy Soni then made a comment that, for the sake of discussion I found impressive. Soni stated that, “If Dukies start attacking each other, then Nifong wins.” It’s a shame the Group of 88 hadn’t been “listening” to Soni last spring.

Brodhead closed by stating he was from Yale and they “have a different type of approach to sports” and that he was not opposed to a more solid emphasis on athletics as long as a university “does sports the right way.”

From there, the lacrosse incident was not discussed. The questions included discussions on issues such as the architectural changes to Central Campus, Fine Arts at Duke, the future of the football program at Duke, and emphasizing Duke as more than a “basketball school.”

A parent of a current men’s lacrosse player summed up the evening best as she left wearing her son’s Duke Lacrosse jacket. “He (Brodhead) just doesn’t get it,” she said. I found that to be the most direct comment of the entire evening.

116 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks, KC. Aside from the comments here, further discussion of the Duke Conversation in Chicago can be found at http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=3220

hman said...

A long time ago when I was at University I had two main goals; I wanted to be accepted into the right sort of professional school after graduation and I wanted to win all of my matches as a wrestler while I was there.
The first was easy, the second was hard.
If I were made Education Czar I would mandate at least 2 hours of life-threatening sport ever day for every candidate for a college degree.
In other words, I am not likely to be a good source of quotes about how athletics are not important.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Oh, covering your ass! Double speak, smiling and deflecting the answer to someone else because you can't answer it yourself. The Duke Mom was so correct - Duke "just doesn't get it."

Anonymous said...

Brodhead must go and the Duke 3 families must sue Duke and Brodhead.

The man is stumbling ,bumbling fool, Duke will never move forward without REAL leadership. Sadly no one would follow the shallow Brodhead anywhere. It's time for change at Duke and the first change should be at the top.

BRODHEAD MUST GO!

Anonymous said...

Well done and most interesting, Chicago! If Mr. Brodhead and the Board cannot acknowledge the issues with the Duke piece of this hoax even now, I cannot see how they have the moral authority to lead a University of any stature.

Observer

wfr said...

Isn't it a shame that the ploy of not answering a direct question is characterized as "good politics."

Thanks for the great report, Chicago.

Peter Allan E'87 said...

Here's a guess at the cost of this thing:

Hall Rental (including cleanup) $15,000
Catering $7,500
Promotion, administration $5,000
Airfare $5,000
Hotels, meals, other travel $2,500
Honorarium (for prof) $2,000

Tickets (300 x $25) $7,500

Net Cost to Duke $29,500

All so that Brodhead can (try to) get himself some good exposure in a forum that he 100% controls. How does this support a university's mission? Why should alumni contribute to the general fund?

Alia said...

Fascinating! And I thank the author for being at this "situation" and revealing what took place.

Hmmm. Let's see.. Any business doing business with Chicago had best not have ever had anything to do with slaves or slavery, or pay a penalty if they had.

NC was recently dinged via Wachovia doing business in Chicago.

Anonymous said...

The honorable thing for Brodhead to do is resign. Honor, however, appears to be a commodity in short supply in Durham.

Anonymous said...

Please read two letters from alumni in the most recent issue of Duke Magazine (www.dukemagazine.duke.edu) "Forum" in which the writers express very well the sentiment of so many of us that this great university needs new leadership and that the search must be focused on finding that leadership within the family of alumni, many of whom are emminently capable of leading with HEAD and HEART. .

That pool of talent is a precious resource of intellect, wisdom, experience, character and proven ability and success in all walks of life.

May the next President bleed blue and be hard-wired to love Duke .


Dukie Mom

Gary Packwood said...

wfr 7:56 said...
...Isn't it a shame that the ploy of not answering a direct question is characterized as "good politics."
::
Well said.
Process is his most important product.
Just like any good story teller.
Time to focus again on the kids.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Dear Duke:
You want us to feel better about the way this situation was handled?
Convince Reade and Collin to come back next year.

Anonymous said...

The Duke snow job is making its rounds all over the country. Unfortunately, many of the attendees are actually swallowing Brodhead's excuses. I predict that the parents of students attending Duke at the time of the Hoax will not be eager supporters of the University beyond the last tuition payment, and with the University's goal of increased financial aid, the families of those recipients have very little invested in their program. It will take years to really see the fallout from the lack of leadership at Duke.

miramar said...

I can certainly empathize with the Duke parent at the Chicago meeting who said that Brodhead doesn’t get it, but I think that he simply got it too late. At this point he’s involved in damage control, otherwise he wouldn’t be having all of these meetings. There is no question that he has done some good things lately, such as belatedly readmitting Reade Seligman and Collin Finnerty, basically rejecting the Campus Culture Initiative, and establishing the new Curtis/Dowd rule. Nevertheless, instead of flying under the radar, he needs to take direct action. Following the release of what will surely be a scathing (to use one of KC’s favorite words!) report on Nifong next week, he should immediately and forcefully insist that Nifong resign. And I don’t mean just release a memo. He should then also visit the two families personally to express his honest regret and to encourage Reade Seligman and Collin Finnerty to return to Duke. Finally, although I don’t think that Duke University funds can properly be used to cover legal fees, it would be very easy for him to offer Duke’s assistance in raising money from friends and alumni. While it will be up to him and the Board of Trustees to decide when he will step down as president, at the very least he should show some dignity while he holds this position.

Anonymous said...

The Wikipedia entry for Nifong really needs to be updated.

Deklan Singh said...

Broadhead is probably equal parts spineless and delusional. There's only one language he or any other administrator will understand.

Duke alumni need to create an escrow-endowment to benefit the university under the condition that massive reforms are instituted in the way faculty are selected and overseen. The university is a community, and there is very little about the G88's reaction to the hoax which suggests that they recognize this fact. Their conduct was despicable and Broadhead's passive non-action is just as troubling.

Anonymous said...

The Group of 88 and fellow travelers run Duke; but the problem is much worse than just Duke. Take a gander at this: http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/was_cho_taught_to_hate.html

Texas Professor

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

This report reminded me of a Duke event in Washington, DC within the first year or so after Brodhead assumed the presidency--he was on his first round of "meet the alums/parents" appearances, I think, and well before the lacrosse situation developed. In his prepared remarks, he seemed great--affable, comfortable, bright, energetic. But in the Q and A, he didn't really answer any of the questions, especially the ones that were at all challenging.

In particular, I remember a question about what he planned to do in response to the report of the Women's Initiative at Duke, issued near the end of the Keohane administration, which noted issues facing female faculty, staff, and students at Duke and suggested possible changes. In a rather rambling non-answer answer, he basically said that he couldn't do everything at once and he'd look into these issues at some point. He seemed barely aware that such a report had been issued, even though this had been a pretty major undertaking at Duke; even if it wasn't his priority, he should have known more about it than he appeared to.

Interestingly, a lot of people (including at least one who I know has been very disappointed with Brodhead's recent performance) didn't even notice this and were very impressed with him.

I think this approach of finessing the challenging questions actually works pretty well when things are going okay, and if the lacrosse situation hadn't come up, most people would probably still think Brodhead was terrific (or at least pretty good). And, indeed, a lot of good things are happening at Duke, and have been happening even as these terrible ones have occurred. But the lacrosse situation made Brodhead's "political" approach (to use the words of the Chicago poster) and its inadequacies too obvious.

Anonymous said...

Broadhead is probably equal parts spineless and delusional.

And an equal part buying into the G88 groupthink.

P. Rich said...

Brodhead is typical of university presidents today. First and foremost he is a pol, and he would not be in the position if he did not habitually kowtow to faculty liberals, a group that includes and is essentially controlled by the class/race/gender true believers,

At some point in his career, Brodhead became either a closet believer or a pliant enabler (perhaps a fine distinction). Otherwise he would never get past the radical gatekeepers, and he would become a target of the angry studies crown. His is fundamentally a weak and cowardly stance assumed for the purpose of retaining his job at the expense of personal and professional integrity.

Unfortunately history has shown, and continues to show at Duke, that trustees (who are not immune to pernicious influences) tend to side with vocal faculty. Larry Summers, former Harvard president, (who resigned in February of 2006 BTW - interesting timing re the Duke lax case) is the most recent prominent example; and you can be sure Brodhead and his peers are very aware of Summer's fate and the sorry message it sent.

Summers had simply raised an abstract question in the context of a debate, and was immediately and relentlessly attacked by the campus radical feminists and their faculty cohorts who had come to oppose Summers on many issues. That question proved to be a fatal tipping point. And as at Duke, with noted exceptions, the more rational on the Harvard faculty proved to be ineffectual in the ensuing firestorm of criticism and calls for Summers' head on a plate.

Summers was replaced by Drew Gilpin Faust, a Bryn Mawr - Radcliffe kinda gal. In an interview shortly after her appointment she said, "I think it [her appointment] symbolizes important changes in the place of women in higher education, the place of women in public life, the place of women in America, and the world more generally." I'm sure the women of Harvard were positively swooning, in a more receptive manner of course. And the message of capitulation from the trustees was crystal clear.

Radical class/race/gender types are bullies; and their tactics have proven effective in many settings, especially including academia from K-12 onward. Without media support and compliant authority figures, they cannot continue to succeed. It remains to be seen, however, whether this degenerative state of education will improve before valued institutions finally sink into the noxious mire.

Anonymous said...

An interesting analogy. In some ways the pres of a university is more like a king - many kings were actually quite weak and had to mollify their dukes,lords and other royals to retain their position.

"Uneasy lies the head..." as opposed to "It's great to be the king."

Perhaps G88 is the real Duma of Duke.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how G88 rationalize the tobacco endowment when they cash their paychecks. My guess is they don't think twice about it.

rrhamilton said...

Just a couple of thoughts:

First, for months I've been reading here how, to punish Duke's inexcusable conduct in the Hoax, Duke alumni should reduce/eliminate/escrow/whathaveyou their contributions to Duke.

Friends, that's a relative drop in the buck in Duke's $1.5 billion budget. You want to hurt Duke in the pocketbook? Hit them where it counts: government grants. How? Just one idea: Support legislation that would deny grants or subsidies or tax exemptions to universities whose admissions processes are not transparent. For example, where a university such as Duke has a race-based admissions process, the legislation could deny such government benefits to universities which fail to list the race, the SAT scores and other pertinent admissions data for every admittee (whose names can of course be withheld). This will, if nothing else, greatly humiliate the proponents of race-based admissions -- who not coincidentally include most/all of the Group of 88 -- when the light is shone on the stupendous descrepancies between the Duke admission standards for students of different races.

Second, I know there are many professors here besides K.C. And students, and other university employees. There should be a boycott of the Group of 88 (except the one professor who apologized). They should be disinvited from all academic seminars, conferences, etc. until they support real reforms at Duke. Where they are allowed to appear, student groups should be encouraged to picket and protest the meeting sites.

Oh, and while we are on the subject of reform, I have been thinking that with all the bright minds K.C. has here reading his blogs, maybe his readers should create their OWN suggestions for a REAL "Campus Culture Initiative."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:21 AM asks:

I wonder how G88 rationalize the tobacco endowment when they cash their paychecks. My guess is they don't think twice about it.

I can't speak about these professors in particular, but I have seen others at top schools rationalize the strange combination of 1) radical politcs, 2) fat paychecks, and 3) working at elite schools by saying that they can only change society by having access to the children of the elite. Yes, I know, that is self serving nonsense. If they really wanted to change society they would work at NCCU instead of Duke, but that would mean less pay, more classes, less travel money, no paid sabbaticals, less prestige, etc. It's much easier being a radical when you don't have to make sacrifices.

Anonymous said...

"BRODHEAD MUST GO!"

Here, here...

Anonymous said...

"Convince Reade and Collin to come back next year".

Are you serious?!? Why on earth would these two want to do that? What a naive comment.

Anonymous said...

"he needs to take direct action".

Amazing how much faith some people still have in Brodhead to "do the right thing". Brodhead doesn't get it, and neither does the person who wrote the comment above.

Anonymous said...

"PS Judging from the questions in Chicago, I'd aver that most Duke alumni are clueless".

Loathe as I am to agree with "Polanski", even a lunatic can get things right now and then. Nothing should be expected from the alumi.

Anonymous said...

"I wonder how G88 rationalize the tobacco endowment when they cash their paychecks. My guess is they don't think twice about it".

Indeed. Or the private tuition fees that Duke charges for an education, which pays their salaries. Fat hypocrites.

becket03 said...

Two days ago I discussed the Duke case for the first time with an acquaintance for whom I have a good deal of respect. He's a Duke graduate, holds a JD from Harvard Law, and now, in his early 30s, works as general counsel for a very high profile organization. He's also an African-American.

We only talked briefly because I could see the subject made him uncomfortable. In those few moments he touched upon many debate points typically employed by Brodhead defenders. Although he was willing to hang Nifong out to dry, he defended the Group of 88 and recalled an atmosphere of racism on the Duke campus present in his day, not universally, but among a "certain segment" of the student body.

He basically seemed to contend that since some racial epithets were used at the party, the Duke 3 and the rest of the lacrosse players deserved no sympathy for the ordeal of the past year.

That such a successful African-American, fully tested in the rough-and-tumble of real world business, could hold such purblind views was a disappointment, but not entirely unexpected. Race trumps reason still, even for those black Americans who've landed safely in the bosom of American prosperity.

beckett

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bill anderson said...

The Duke snow job is making its rounds all over the country.

Actually, I think that might just be Brodhead's dandruff.

The amazing thing to me is that he continues to defend the most discredited people at Duke: the radicals on the faculty. Either he is in total sympathy with their nonsense, or he is absolutely tone deaf.

Anonymous said...

With all the exposure and criticizm that has come their way, would the left from other Universities do this again? Would the 88 involve jump in again?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

THIS great report is how STUDENTS are being TAUGHT to avoid responsibility and ACCOUNTABILITY...valuable in todays PC environment

the question that needs BROADROT needs to be asked is HOW HIS CONDUCT in handling the group 88 has taught students to be LOYAL and Moral ...

this PROVES how selfish minorities are in the PC world...NO students at DUKE were involved in the lacrosse team party EXCEPT those that were there...YET a whole bunch of softies and feminazis POLITICALLY exploit any incident they have no facts about

the faculty who were behind this, need to have an all emcompassing exam of their PHD THESIS for their conduct argues they may have a pattern of concluding anything without facts, JUST LIKE NIFONG

Anonymous said...

Students are seeing the truth behind the academics at elite institutions. Broadhead and his ilk are morally and ethically bankrupt. They screamed from their ivory towers for the LAX players to tell the truth and be accountable for their actions. Yet now Duke refuses to do the same.

The irony in this whole affair is that the LAX team turned out to be the honorable parties and that paragon of virtue, the Duke administration and the Group of 88, exposed themselves to be less than honorable. Unfortunately, Broadhead doesn't realize the harm he is doing to Duke.

Anonymous said...

11:32 AM--Your comment reminds me of an article written several years ago by a leftist law professor from Harvard that touched on this very subject. The article recommended that young lawyers working at big corporate law firms reform and radicalize them from within (a pretty unrealistic suggestion, as anyone who has ever been a young associate at a big firm knows). The one detail I remember now is the delectable phrase "resist at the bourgeois dinner party"--something the prof had done a fair amount of, I think.

As for those saying Brodhead "doesn't get it"--see the comments re Larry Summers. Unfortunately, I think he does get it, but his "it" is different--in the short term his job depends on, and his authority derives from, faculty support more than any other kind. Though the faculty as a whole don't support the G88 position, most of them probably do support the general principle that faculty should be able to say pretty much whatever they want without direct interference from the administration, so they might not support Brodhead were he to confront the G88.

Anonymous said...

Those who talk about "tobacco endowment" need to get a clue. Washington Duke, creator of American Tobacco, created a small fund for Trinity College in the late 19th century, to bring the nearly bankrupt college to Durham. It was his son, James B. Duke, who created Duke Power, who endowed the Duke endowment in Charlotte in the mid 1920s, some of whose income comes to Duke. He also "funded" construction of the main campus. Duke is smoke free and has been disconnected from serious tobacco money for a century.

If you don't know anything serious about Duke University except what you read on blogs, maybe silence about "explaining what Duke University is really like" is appropriate?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
eric said...

I followed the links back to KC's August 1 post.

I was struck by the bias in the university links to the media.

Dukes media homepage linked to more unfavorable pieces about the players than positive.

Duke actively working to create a environment ctitical of the players.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

RE Texas Professor

Thank you for the link and the libretto, here is the theme music:

Hey "Cho"

Roy Buchanan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIz4PV9e1k8

Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLxhRwnFhag

Anonymous said...

1 21
You are entirely wrong. The NPV of the original endowment exceeds that of Duke Power. Not that it really matters.

Mike said...

Is Duke really a college of substance? This lacrosse incident has revealed so very much about what is going on inside Duke: the radical element among faculty, along with the "soft", questionable credentials of many in the Gang of 88. Add the administration and how they abandoned their recruited players during a time of crisis, the dismissal of Pressler (it's not about the Truth) and cowardly concessions to outside interest groups. The contentious relationship with Durham, especially with minorities and low income residents is particularly nasty. Combined with a stereo type of student (mid-Atlantic suburbs, high income families, heavy legacy) to which there is a great deal of truth, and I have to wonder, as a parent, why would anyone consider the school? Something makes me think that Duke has been laying the foundation for this virulent uprising for decades. The student body (yes there are exceptions, but in this case, only a few) is unabashedly glossy, high-end retail, lots of BMW’s courtesy of dad, charge cards and all the other comforts of their comfortable homes. There can be no justification for how these three players have been treated by the DA, and it is unconscionable how their own faculty and administration has behaved. It might, however, be instructive for Duke to try to look at themselves as others see them. I have a great deal of familiarity with colleges in general, and I know full well that Duke’s admission standards are as focused on zip codes (Summit and Harding Township, NJ; Mamaroneck and Bedford, NY; Darien and Westport, CT; Wilmette, Il) as they are on SAT’s and community service. Many so-called minority and foreign students are come from the same demographic as the suburban white kids (prominent professionals, diplomats, corporate executives). Simply put: It’s where moneyed people send their kids, if they can get them in. If you don’t think anything is wrong with this type of selectivity, that is your choice, and Duke’s choice, and, as a private institution, they are free to exercise such discretion. Just don’t pretend to be otherwise, or be shocked when the simmering resentment finally boils over.

Anonymous said...

Not clear what all the race comments are about, but I want blacks to be part of the American dream also.

Anonymous said...

KC and all, I registered this Blog site months ago. It is open and all can vent on it.

Graduation is coming up, what should we parents do?

Kemp

http://brodheadmustgo.blogspot.com/

Terrence said...

To Mike @2:31
Your remarks about Duke students reminds me of a comment my mentor at Dillon Read used to say about such kids: "they were born on third base and think they hit a triple"

Anonymous said...

The post by "Chicago" was interesting. He did a good job of giving a panoramic take on the evening.

How gratifying--albeit brief--to know that Brodhead was grilled with some pointed questions.

That man gives me the heebie-jeebies. How on earth is such a person allowed to continue with this BS act?

What a little pointy-headed weasel!

I'm glad KC posted this.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Kemp--

Your blog won't be any good without "bar buddy".

:>) Debrah

Anonymous said...

P. Rich--(11:04AM)--

Such a hot post!

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Wow, Mike at 2:31, what's really behind your diatribe? Your comments sound like Westport, Connecticut's Selena Roberts, who did a blanket condemnation of the "privileged players of fine pedigree," except that you're condemning almost the entire student body.

Anonymous said...

Beckett's (11:52AM) post says it all. This is the very same experience I have had...very similar circumstances.

Even before the Duke lacrosse hoax was illuminated before the entire country, numerous events such as the OJ case or anything having to do with the battle of the races most always produces a kind of irrational response...a kind of endless obfuscating and excuse-making exercise....even from those who are educated and successful.

It's like a disease and it's long past time that excuses be made for this self-defeating mindset.

It should also be stated in bold relief that this irrational and self-indulgent mindset erodes the goodwill and sense of trust and friendship that could exist among those of different backgrounds.

Sad, that.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

1:27
Have to hand it to you . This one is dead-on.

Mike said...

To anonymous @ 3:39

I certainly did not intend for my remarks to come off as a diatribe – flippant? Yes. Diatribe? No. I was simply voicing my impressions of Duke, their students, families and some of the alumni I've encountered over the years. Duke has had a wannabe attitude for years now, with a public relations department that has attempted to position the school in that exclusive upper tier of institutions mostly occupied by the Ivies. There was nothing in my comments that could, or should, have been construed as condemnation of the athletes, or even the students. Just a belief, from my perspective, that Duke does, in fact, target, cultivate and attract a student that fits the stereo type described. I know the Seligman family, my sons have played in lacrosse leagues with their kids; nice enough people, but they are certainly focused on having the right resume for the circles in which they travel – right prep school, right college, the home in Avalon (my personal preference over Stone Harbor, but, hey, that’s just me), all the pieces in place. I couldn’t tell you how many men I know from Chaminade, two dozen, maybe? I, for one, live in one of the mentioned communities, have four children who attend and hopefully will attend some of the top schools in the country (UVa, Michigan, so far). I paid my way through Manhattan College and could not imagine the reaction of my father if he knew the materialism I appear to embrace. Don't confuse recognition of certain aspects of the Duke student body, or Duke admission practices, as condemnation, for I am looking into the mirror, to some extent. Likewise, in its desire for acceptance among stars of higher education, Duke should not confuse "elite" with "elitist".

Anonymous said...

Mike, let's dispense with the bullshit. Do the students from these wealthy neighborhoods support the physics and math departments, or do they use their influence to coerce Duke to fund cognitive losers like Holloway?

Who gives a fuck how much money the Seligmanns have. Is it your point that they didn't earn it?

Polanski

Mike said...

Polanski,

"Who gives a fuck how much money the Seligmans have. Is it your point that they didn't earn it?"

No, my point is that the Seligmans fit the Duke stereo type, as do the Evans and Finnerty families, that's all. What makes you think I question the legitimacy of their economic status?

Gary Packwood said...

Mike 2:31 said...

...I have a great deal of familiarity with colleges in general, and I know full well that Duke’s admission standards are as focused on zip codes (Summit and Harding Township, NJ; Mamaroneck and Bedford, NY; Darien and Westport, CT; Wilmette, Il) as they are on SAT’s and community service. Many so-called minority and foreign students are come from the same demographic as the suburban white kids (prominent professionals, diplomats, corporate executives). Simply put: It’s where moneyed people send their kids, if they can get them in.
::
How about successful people tend to have successful kids and successful people tend to go where they are wanted and feel comfortable?
Looks to me like Duke has done a great job helping these people understand that they are wanted and will feel comfortable on campus.
Now the G88 and the President don't want these successful people and are changing their promotional plan to attract another several groups of students.
Why not do both?
::
GP

Mike said...

GP @4:42

It is naive to think Duke can do both. The Gang of 88 is philosophically opposed to the value system of the prosperous, suburban Duke stereo type. Their behavior toward the lacrosse players during this whole mess has not engendered a sense of peaceful co-existence, or a sense of being on the same team, united in the same cause, pursuing the same goals. The Gang of 88 is engaged in class warfare, and the Duke stereotype is in their cross hairs.

Gary Packwood said...

HOLA Duke

Mike 4:50 said...
GP @4:42
...It is naive to think Duke can do both. The Gang of 88 is philosophically opposed to the value system of the prosperous, suburban Duke stereo type. Their behavior toward the lacrosse players during this whole mess has not engendered a sense of peaceful co-existence, or a sense of being on the same team, united in the same cause, pursuing the same goals. The Gang of 88 is engaged in class warfare, and the Duke stereotype is in their cross hairs.
::
Then you would be correct. It is not a promotional challenge.
Violence towards your own customers is a management problem that starts and ends with the Board of Trustees.
When they solve that dilemma then they can promote to successful Latino people...as one example.

HOLA Duke?
::
GP

Mike said...

Gary
How comfortable do these kids feel on campus now? The Gang of 88, particularly the African Studies faculty, has expressed unvarnished antipathy toward a segment of the Duke student body that is anything but small. The Administration sat by while demands for castration of the lacrosse players were voiced; demonstrators came on campus, attracted nation-wide media attention in their declarations of likely guilt, presumptions of boorish, racist behavior. The president of the university presumed something terrible happened! Duke's own faculty, publishing condemnations of the players, and disdain for the students! How unbelievable! That's a safe environment?

Anonymous said...

The Gang of 88 like and enjoy the comforts and easy living ostensibly belonging to the "affluent" kids and their families from the suburbs. They just want it all given to them.
They want to continue the centuries past slavery talk as a way to make themselves look noble and long suffering.
When in reality these professors have gotten where they are today the easy way. A free ride courtesy of affirmative action in every phase of their careers.
It's a fact. So many of them have no capacity for real scholarship.
The white Gang 88 members are basically the same. They like the easy ride, but enjoy passing themselves off as heroes and saviors just by going along with the "suffering minorities".
The entire 88 group are a bunch of worthless baggage whose only purpose is to do damage to those they envy.
As we have seen this past year, their envy now manifests in rage and libelous acts.
They need to be held accountable by law enforcement.

Gary Packwood said...

Mike 5:03 said...
Gary
...How comfortable do these kids feel on campus now?
::
You have to have faith.
Either the board of trustees will solve the problem by September or the kids will solve the problem by Christmas.
Been there, done that and ...watched it happen.
Children have an irrepressible sense of celebration.
They will get 'er done if need be.
:-)
::

GP

Mike said...

Gary,

The dilemma Duke faces, if they, indeed, consider it a dilemma at all, is how to reverse reverse discrimination, when they've allowed such a strident anti-white sentiment to grow in their midst?

Btw, what does "HOLA Duke" mean? I'm new to this.

Anonymous said...

All this talk about Duke not being a safe environment. So where is there a safe campus, folks? Read the papers lately?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cindy said...

I was wondering how long before we'd be subjected to your dim witted, narrow minded pejorative dribble.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"Yes, we know you loathe Polanski, but perhaps you're loath [also loth] to agree. "Loathe" is a verb, and "loath" an adjective".

Thanks for that. Now I know the difference... and you're still a nutcase.

Anonymous said...

Polanski--

"You also say that he's "fully tested." It's my experience that blacks are rarely fully tested, so great is [sic] the preference goodies thrown in their direction. I really have to laugh too at the overpraise on this site for Coleman. He has a teeny-weenie CV, and I am sure he benefited from the sams [sic] affirmative policies that Obama benefits from [sic]. What's good for the goose..."

I count no less than three spelling/grammatical errors in this paragraph alone.

Anonymous said...

you mean fewer

from is acceptable, but redundant

is is wrong--are

the other is a typo

Polanski

Anonymous said...

"Those who talk about "tobacco endowment" need to get a clue. Washington Duke, creator of American Tobacco, created a small fund for Trinity College in the late 19th century, to bring the nearly bankrupt college to Durham. It was his son, James B. Duke, who created Duke Power, who endowed the Duke endowment in Charlotte in the mid 1920s, some of whose income comes to Duke. He also "funded" construction of the main campus. Duke is smoke free and has been disconnected from serious tobacco money for a century".

Duke has a large endowment presumably invested in private companies, either directly or indirectly (through mutual funds, for example). Are you 100% certain NONE of that money is in invested tobacco companies? Have you checked? Or other things that would leave a left-wing Duke professor looking like a hypocrite?

Anonymous said...

"Students are seeing the truth behind the academics at elite institutions".

They are? Some are, most are not, and don't care.

Anonymous said...

Kemp--

http://brodheadmustgo.blogspot.com/
Well done! I didn't know about that. I will start taking a look. He most certainly does!

Anonymous said...

"The Gang of 88 is philosophically opposed to the value system of the prosperous, suburban Duke stereo type".

I suspect that the left-wing hypocrites on the Duke faculty have been so strident and vocal against the lacrosse players to convince themselves and others that they are committed to "social justice". Their salaries/pensions are paid by the large tuition fees that Duke charges its rich undergraduates. They know this, so they protest loudly against their students to show the world that they remain loyal to their principles. In a word, FAT HYPOCRITES.

rrhamilton said...

Polanski said, Someone should try to obtain info on Duke's affirmative discrimination policies, and then turn the data over to the Government. Don't hold your breath.

I think most Americans have no idea just how huge is the "affirmative action advantage" in college admissions. The findings of a federal court on a lawsuit involving the University of Texas Law School reveal the truth: http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/hopwood_v_texas_fifth.pdf

My point was: The details of the affirmative action program at Duke must be available for public scrutiny before more public tax dollars are used to subsidize the university.

Anonymous said...

Polanski,

Above latitude 43 degrees north should be considered safe.

Anonymous said...

Polanski--

"...affirmative policies that Obama benefits from."

Ending a sentence in a preposition. Tsk, tsk.

Physician heal thyself.

Anonymous said...

"I think most Americans have no idea just how huge is the "affirmative action advantage" in college admissions".

True. And athletic and legacy admissions count as "affirmative action" admissions too, don't forget.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Polanski--

Why do your posts rarely contain punctuation?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mike said...

Comment deleted

This post has been removed by the blog administrator.

Apr 21, 2007 7:47:00 PM


Polanski,
Are you always this nasty, even in live, face to face personal interaction? Are you emboldened because you can hide on the "Net"? Your coarse language and harsh comments, among what I can only imagine are other personal deficiencies, prevent your engaging in constructive discourse.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Polanski said..

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous said...

Enter Polanski, end of thread

Georgia Girl said...

obfuscating? perjorative? constructive discourse?

are you guys "normal?

GET REAL~! Who speaks with such arrogance in "everyday life"?

I get so fed up with all the fancy adjectives. Why don't all of you take a lesson from KC, and write from your HEART -- rather than competing for the "longest most haughtiest" words.

Anonymous said...

Polanski is dead---

I've been reborn as Rannndyyyy

That's 3n's and 4 y's

Know it, love it, worship it

Rannndyyyy

Anonymous said...

Hi, I'm Rannndyyyy,

I'm a horny philanthropist.

Thank you for the consideration.

Any disadvantaged sluts out there?

scott said...

Come on, 9:20, get real.

If you were a student that had been treated by people within the Duke community the way Reade and Collin were treated, would you go back?

If you were the parent of a student that had been treated by people within the Duke community the way Reade and Collin were treated, would you whip out your checkbook and pay another $100,000 for the student to spend 2 more years at Duke?

People who answer yes to either of these questions have masochist stamped on their forehead.

Not to mention the possibility of them facing physical harm should they ever return for an extended period of time without ongoing security. There are still a lot of people in the Durham community at large who would like to see these 2 pay for what they didn't do.

People at Duke who suggest Reade and Collin should consider returning need to stop treating this like a Hollywood movie where now that the charges have been dropped everything returns to hunky-dory status and everyone is friends again. It is an attempt to make themselves feel good about their own affiliation with Duke. Hey, if Reade and Collin come back, well then Duke can't be that bad a place, right? Face the facts, where Reade and Collin are concerned, Duke isn't worthy.

Gary Packwood said...

Mike 5:17 said...
Gary,
...The dilemma Duke faces, if they, indeed, consider it a dilemma at all, is how to reverse reverse discrimination, when they've allowed such a strident anti-white sentiment to grow in their midst?

Btw, what does "HOLA Duke" mean? I'm new to this.
::
¡Hola! means HELLO ...in Spanish.
I am offering possible solutions rather than problems.
Bright successful Spanish families should say HOLA Duke!
And Duke should make them feel comfortable and welcome on campus.
::
GP

Terrence said...

How about an admissions policy that is entirely blind - to color, race, national origin, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, ethnicity and geography? How might that work?

Anonymous said...

not too well for stupid people, but i share your sentiments

Terrence said...

Gary,
Your optimism is refreshing and welcome; unfortunately, for me it is not infectious. If Duke is currently comprised with such a vocal group of angry, resentful faculty members, specifically the African American Studies group, I am not encouraged that they would be terribly “welcoming” toward any other minority groups to which Duke may extend a helping hand. The African Americans in the US, in general, have been somewhat resentful of the Hispanic immigrants over the past 30 - 40 years. Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Cubans have come to America and, despite hurdles, have demonstrated more resilience, self determination and productivity than blacks. Whether it is the cultural values they bring, the religious foundations, I do not have the answer, but from my readings and acquaintances, the black Americans believe the Hispanics have co-opted their Most Favored Minority status, diluted their cause (being a deprived minority just ain’t what it used to be). I would not expect any warm embraces of solidarity from the Gang of 88.

Jack said...

to Anonymous 10:07

There are not as many stupid people out there as you might think (or hope). The beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are on the short end of the education stick that started long, long before they considered applying to college. AA has allowed them to think they are competitive, competent and comparable to those for whom the bar is set much, much higher. Society loses under such a scheme, but to correct it now means throwing out 40 years of social engineering. My grandparents and the immigrants and poorer classes at the turn of the last century had an expectation that the next generation would succeed. There is no such foresight or patience today.

Anonymous said...

Jack

You make a good point. But black intellectuals outstrip most everyone in talent and resourcefulness. Gates at Harvard Cornel West Princeton, Holloway at Duke--these are brilliant scholars despite what the likes of racists like Polanski say.

Let all the ethnic studies departments flower, and watch Duke's reputation soar.

Mr Hankie

Gary Packwood said...

Terrence 10:15 said
Gary,
...Your optimism is refreshing and welcome; unfortunately, for me it is not infectious.
I would not expect any warm embraces of solidarity from the Gang of 88(for Latino students).
::
I think you are correct.
I work with young people from Latin America and I can assure you that they don't expect a warm embrace from anyone except from the folks in the Chapel (The Roman Catholic Chapel); other students and professors when the excel and their families.
In private they will be more than willing to tell you what grief the waiting for the warm embrace has caused AABlacks.
The Duke Dining Service folks would be well advised to form a Latino student advisory committee so that Latino students don't have to bring their own sauce to dinner :-)
They are good kids and completely integrated into the culture until you tell them 'to do' Mexico or Brazil and then... they will.
::
GP

Gary Packwood said...

Mr Hankie 11:11 said ...
Jack
...Let all the ethnic studies departments flower, and watch Duke's reputation soar.
::
Duke does not have an ethic studies department. That is the problem.
If you are trying to say that they should merge all their silly Anger Studies departments into a single ethnic studies department that grants an ethnics study degree...I completely agree.
If they need help doing that they should visit Oberlin College. http://www.oberlin.edu
::
GP

Jack said...

Mr. Hankie,

Gates at Harvard, Cornel West Princeton, Holloway at Duke--these are brilliant scholars...

Influential? Yes. Deferred to? Of course! Articulate? Perhaps. Brilliant? Hardly. Let's not forget that Harvard couldn't wait for West to head out (perhaps the first indication to the radical illiterati that Larry Somers had an agenda not aligned with theirs).

And to Gary,
Duke, along with several other "enlightened" institutions could benefit greatly from an Ethics Department, but not at all from an Ethnic Studies Department. If you have to actually "teach" ethics, well...

Ithaca said...

Bottom line - Affirmative Action is a sham and a scam. A sham in that it deludes young minority kids and the general public into thinking that something of substance is being accomplished, that the "disadvantaged" are really utilizing the resources of our communities and institutions to raise the level of accomplishment, and compete evenly. It is scam in that it allows the deceptive leaders and activists to assume positions of responsibility, let's these charlatans actually have a voice on behalf of their constituents, then bitch and moan that the system is against them (it is, but the poor souls don't even know it)

Anonymous said...

Stop Stop!

Mr Hankie is a TV character on Southpark - he is a turd.

Too funny!

Anonymous said...

Howdy hi Kyle,

If Duke has ethnic studies for everyone, there will be peace and prosperity on earth. Chitlins and Bach--that's my idea of a well-rounded education. We should all respect one another, while listening to each other with love and high reverence.

I know it can work from personal experience.

God bless everyone on this board.

Mr Hankie

Anonymous said...

11.52

these are NOT gifted scholars...

RAP SINGER ? maybe

cornell west made a RAP record

they are on the elite campus to organize the many international and domestic minorities who have as BIG a CHIP on their shoulders as the professors

they are all about ARROGANCE, and AA PRIDE...in fact the girl who posted VIGILANTE posters was from SRI LANKA...instead of studying she led a RIOT..

123 or so countires were included in the Princeton admissions, american were severly sanctioned because the alumni have given idiots like broadrot and other ivys so much money the universities DONT NEED their hard earned money anymore or their legacies or their children

the elites THINK life is a lottery ...they have NO idea that INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY is what drives american business

who do they think built this nation...some stumble bum anarchists or leftys OR serious men ,thats right men, who had storng heritage of mind and body to win wars that threatened us, to build the most powerful corporations in the world, and who built the churches etc this nation worshipped at

in the past 30 years, we have allowed all this to atrophy...because life isnt a lottery its about talent risk taking and repentent morals..

duke is a methaphor for whats wrong...thats why its so important to seek accountability

Anonymous said...

"How about an admissions policy that is entirely blind - to color, race, national origin, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, ethnicity and geography? How might that work?"

Ask Cal Tech. That's what they do. I will let you surmise what proportion of their student body is black, white and asian.

Anonymous said...

1152

duke has an ethics department its CALLED PHILOSOPHY

that it employs social marxists, and atheists as professors, who believe in NOTHING so ethics is subjected to MOB RULE...

guess what minorities always RIOT without factual basis ?

Gary Packwood said...

Jack 11:52

Ethnic not Ethics.

Big difference!

GP

Anonymous said...

A New Jersey Lawyer. The Duke lacrosse parent who said Broadhead doesn't get it is right. Neither Broadhead nor his administration nor many (of not most) of the Humanities and Social Sciences faculty at Duke get it. They will never get it, because to "get it" would require an admission that they were wrong. Ideologues like the group of 88 can't do that. Bureaucrates like Broadhead and his administration can't do that becuase too much of their identity is tied up in their institution. Besides, as far as Broadhead is concerned, he will, no doubt, always feel that the Lacrosse team embarrased him in front of his ivy league peers, by showing that Duke students sometimes make very stupid mistakes, as if such mistakes don't happen at ivy league schools.

Punditarian said...

I think that an argument could be made, that of all the participants in this sorry story, President Brodhead's behavior was the worst and most despicable.

Nifong was a self-serving political candidate who was willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent men in order to curry favor with voters whose support he correctly surmised would help him win a close race.

He cruelly used Crystal Mangum, a mentally-ill fabulist who was acting out her politically correct fantasies.

The Gang of 88 are dyed-in-the-wool polemicists who saw an opportunity to further their goal of imposing Marxism-Leninism on America, and simply acted accordingly.

But it was President Brodhead who completely abandoned his responsibilities as the titular head of Duke University, and instead of strongly and firmly insisting that the accused be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and that the case not be turned into the political plaything of extremists, himself joined the lynch mob.

His actions are entirely inexcusable.

In a decent, vigorous society such as the Roman Republic, he would commit suicide.

The Duke Trustees should have the common sense and ordinary decency to fire him.

The sooner, the better.

Anonymous said...

Ithaca@12:10am
You don't know how accurate your post really is. This whole country has been co-opted by the lies and the pretense that you discuss.
But when you ask that "minorities" actually go by the rules and pull their own weight, they respond with attacks and insults of racism.
I also agree with another poster that James Coleman isn't the heavy hitter that some are trying to portray. He's just the only black person who comes close to commenting on the lacrosse hoax with any decency and objectivity.
The blogs and the writers have to latch onto him because they literally have no one else who is black to lean on.
In Coleman's position, he could have been much more demonstrative and outspoken against the 88 professors and this hoax in general.
Let's not go overboard in talking about Coleman. His wife's good friend at the law school , Professor Chemerinsky, was mute. These people did almost nothing to speak out about what was happening at their own university. Stop the high praise already.

Anonymous said...

And 5:47pm has just written a brilliant analysis of it all.
Well done.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 12.22 AM said...
...Stop Stop!
...Mr Hankie is a TV character on Southpark - he is a turd.
...Too funny!
::
Trickery is never funny. It is mean spirited and hateful.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Professor Coleman is a hero - "If KC was walking on water, some would complaing he was not swimming."

M. Simon said...

There is a reason whites are not competitive in some athletics like sprints and in the longer distance races.

It is because whites are genetically disadvantaged.

Inequality

*

Anonymous said...

You want to talk about "almost a caricature"? How about this "Letter" to the "Editor" of the Herald-Sun, published today:

----------

Proud of our city

I was sick and amazed at the grandstanding by the defense attorneys and the lacrosse players during the press conference held after charges against them were dropped. Instead of the cry of justice, they cried injustice. I heard not only a cry for District Attorney Mike Nifong to be strung up for doing his job, but they also accused the Police Department, the Grand Jury, leaders in our community and The Herald-Sun. For what?

We should be proud of the first-class professionalism this case received from the beginning. This case was just one among many cases in our great city and our great state handled day in and day out. Why should this case have been any different?

If a rape happened to you or someone you know, whether the case was founded or unfounded, I would want a DA such as Nifong to try to get to the truth. I am appalled at the unprofessional behavior of the defense attorneys and their cry for division, after there was such a coming together in the beginning to keep the city of Durham in a civil state of peace and to let justice prevail.

This was only possible because of the community, its leaders, the DA, our police department, and our great colleges, Duke and NCCU, working together. The nation saw that, and I was proud to be a citizen of this city.

This all started from what some believe to be a lie told to the police. Sad, but it happens a lot more than people know.

JUDY PARKER
Durham
April 27, 2007
--------

Just how stupid, and how ignorant and wrong, can one person possibly be?

Hey Judy:

Tell us how Nifong "tried to get to the truth". Was it when he refused to even listen to exculpatory evidence? Was it when he failed and refused to interview the accuser, or to contact any of a dozen other important witnesses? Or was it when he rigged the lineup? Or maybe when he conspired to suppress DNA evidence?

You're right about "such a coming together" of potbangers and other pinheads and bigots -- for the purpose of lynching the white boys, not to "get to the truth". You see that now, don't you? Of course you don't -- there are none so blind as bigots who will not see.

Tell us all about the "first-class professionalism" that this case received "from the beginning". If you mean it was a professional attempt at framing innocent people, I agree with you.

Meanwhile, you say it's the defense attorneys who were unprofessional -- what a laugh. Tell us: Who was right, and who was DEAD WRONG? Who saw to it that justice prevailed, and who is it that's facing disbarment and possible imprisonment? In short, when justice prevailed, who won and who lost?

I'm pleased you are so "proud" of your DA's and PD's performance. Everyone with a live brain cell knows that this was the biggest digsgrace brought upon our city in living memory.

I hope you enjoyed embarrassing yourself, and the whole city, in your letter.