The other paragraph reads as follows:
Throughout the past year President Richard Brodhead consulted regularly with the trustees and has had our continuing support. He made considered and thoughtful decisions in a volatile and uncertain situation. Each step of the way, the board agreed with the principles that he established and the actions he took. As we look back and with the benefit of what we now know there is no question that there are some things that might have been done differently. However, anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board.The statement is interesting both for what it contains and what it does not. The decision to affirm complete Board support for Brodhead's policies is risky: at a time when Duke should be re-examining its entire response to the affair in light of AG Cooper's complete exoneration of the players, it seems premature for the Board to make such a judgment.
More interesting, to me: the Steel statement contains no similar defense of the Group of 88, no claim (as we have heard from Duke administrators in the past) that the Group's free speech rights nullify the contractual requirement in the Duke Faculty Handbook that professors treat all students (not just those with whom they agree) with respect, as fellow members of the academic community.