Thursday, May 10, 2007

Twelve (and One) Questions for the Trustees

This weekend, Duke’s 37-member Board of Trustees descends upon Durham for its quarterly meeting. Some questions that the Trustees might want to consider:

Faculty

1.) On April 6, 2006, an advertisement appeared in the Duke Chronicle claiming the endorsement of a variety of departments and programs, including the following five academic departments:

  • Romance Studies;
  • Psychology: Social and Health Services;
  • Classical Studies;
  • Art, Art History, & Visual Studies;
  • Asian & African Languages & Literature.

A hallmark of academic self-governance is the principle of democratic, majority rule. Yet no record exists that any of these officially constituted academic departments ever conducted a vote—either in person or via e-mail—on whether to sign onto the statement. (Less than 50 percent of the professors in each department endorsed the ad individually.) Indeed, in the case of at least one department (Classical Studies), I have been told explicitly that no vote of any type occurred.

Will the Board publicly explain the procedures under which these five academic departments—official administrative units of Duke University—endorsed the advertisement?

2.) Chapter Six of the Duke Faculty Handbook opens with the following passage: “Members of the faculty expect Duke students to meet high standards of performance and behavior. It is only appropriate, therefore, that the faculty adheres to comparably high standards in dealing with students . . . Students are fellow members of the university community, deserving of respect and consideration in their dealings with the faculty.”

Does the Board believe that all Duke professors adhered to the terms of Chapter Six during the lacrosse case? If not, why are some Duke professors allowed to operate under different rules?

3.) This case exposed some ugly voices coming from quarters of the Duke faculty, and also shone the spotlight on some professors whose quantity and quality of publications seemed subpar for a world-class institution such as Duke.

Does the Board believe that the hiring of apparently under-qualified but ideologically suitable professors such as Wahneema Lubiano constituted an anomaly; or is there a need for a thorough review of personnel procedures in all departments to ensure that Duke brings aboard only highly qualified professors?

4.) Does the Board consider the existence of semi-permanent “visiting” professors such as Kim Curtis consistent with Duke’s mission of academic excellence?

Administration

5.) In an April 11, 2007 e-mail, Bob Steel wrote, “Each step of the way, the board agreed with the principles that [President Brodhead] established and the actions he took.”

On April 20, 2006, President Brodhead informed the Durham Chamber of Commerce, in his first public appearance after the arrests of Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, “If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn’t do it, whatever they did is bad enough.”

Did the Board agree with President Brodhead’s remarks at the time? If so, does it continue to endorse this statement? If not, will the board issue an apology to Seligmann and Finnerty?

6.) No later than April 7, 2006, at a meeting with Duke coaches, President Brodhead was informed of allegations that some professors were treating lacrosse players in their classes inappropriately.

Were those reports ever investigated? If not, why not? If so, will the Board release the findings of that investigation?

7.) Looking back on events last spring, it seems clear that the poisonous atmosphere created by Mike Nifong, the Group of 88, the potbangers, and the Herald-Sun all but necessitated cancellation of the lacrosse season, since Duke could not ensure the safety of either its own players or visiting teams.

Yet in their contemporaneous explanations of the cancellation, Bob Steel and Richard Brodhead* did not mention the safety issue. Here’s what they said:

  • Steel: We had to stop those pictures [of the players practicing]. It doesn’t mean that it’s fair, but we had to stop it. It doesn’t necessarily mean I think it was right—it just had to be done.”
  • Brodhead: “Sports have their time and place, but when an issue of this gravity is in question, it is not the time to be playing games.”

Did either or both of these statements reflect Board policy?

8.) In its April 5, 2006 announcement, why did Duke choose to describe Mike Pressler’s departure as a voluntary resignation rather than a forced dismissal?

Security and Public Safety

9.) On September 12, 2006, Capt. Ed Sarvis informed the Herald-Sun that the Durham Police Department has an official policy of punishing Duke students more severely than other Durham residents for identical offenses.

Will the Board publicly state what steps since that date the administration has taken to ensure that Duke students are treated according to the same procedures as all other residents of Durham?

10.) In late March and early April 2006, the e-mail accounts of at least two Duke lacrosse players were hacked into, and an unknown party or parties sent out false e-mails under their names. In addition, it now seems possible or even likely that a third e-mail, that of Ryan McFadyen, was supplied anonymously to police by a Duke employee.

Was this troubling breach of security thoroughly investigated by the administration, and will the Board release the results of that inquiry?

11.) In January 2007, 87 Duke faculty members issued a public statement describing a “disaster” that allows “sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus.” Yet according to Duke’s official statistics, in the past six academic years around .02 percent of Duke’s students have been victims of sexual violence—hardly a “prevalent” condition.

Are these faculty members privy to data on criminal acts that the University has not publicly released? If not, does the Board have another explanation for such a sizable portion of the Duke arts and sciences faculty making what appears to be a demonstrably untrue statement?

12.) Why did no one from the Duke administration publicly condemn the death threats against Reade Seligmann delivered at the Durham County Courthouse on May 18, 2006?

General

On April 5, 2006, President Brodhead created five separate investigatory committees to look into the lacrosse players’ behavior; campus culture relating to the lacrosse players’ behavior; the administration’s response to the lacrosse players’ behavior; an examination of the student judicial process; and a presidential advisory council.

In recent months, however, there has been little or no interest in engaging in critical self-reflection. Instead, the mantra has been “let’s move forward,” so as to leave unexamined how both the administration and a significant segment of the arts and sciences faculty responded to the lacrosse case.

Will the Board create a truth and reconciliation commission, composed of outside experts and internal figures of integrity, to conduct a thorough, top-to-bottom review of how the University responded to the case—not for the purposes of assigning blame, but instead to pave the way for the healing process to begin?

*--corrected

183 comments:

Anonymous said...

One of your best yet, KC. Pardon me if I don't expect to get the BOT to answer any of these.

Alum8284

Anonymous said...

A small point--I don't understand why you suspect the Ryan McFadyen e-mail was turned over to police by a Duke employee. Given that the residents of 610 Buchanan apparently gave the police access to their e-mail accounts (according to published reports--are these not correct?), isn't it far more likely that the police found the e-mail, which was sent to the members of the team, in their examination of those accounts?

(It also seems possible that this would explain their ability to send a faked e-mail, since Duke e-mail can be accessed from the web with a user name and password, although if this did not come from one of the accounts for which they were given the passwords, it would have been complicated.)

miramar said...

The reason the professors at Duke don't follow the Faculty Handbook is that they have never bothered to read it. If they had, they would have realized that it uses poor grammar.

Rather than say "It is only appropriate, therefore, that the faculty adheres to comparably high standards in dealing with students...," it should say "the faculty adhere..."

Memo to faculty: use the subjunctive. Memo to the 88: the subjunctive is too complicated for you, so don't even worry about it.

Anonymous said...

I am writing from Blacksburg ,Va. where a real disaster struck the campus directly. I would ask the Duke board to reflect that the students and faculty are there together and need each others support and respect. Faculty and students acted bravely to protect their classmates here. I'm sure Duke has good people too. I would hope the Durham community would help as much as the local community here has done. When hundreds of press trucks are on your campus that is trouble in itself.

AMac said...

A few members of the faculty have been quietly and consistently speaking out on matters such as respect for due process, fair treatment of students, collegiality among the faculty, and civility on campus. The statements of Prof. Coleman are well known. The constructive role played by Assistant Profesor Michael Gustafson of the School of Engineering may not be recognized by the Trustees.

14) Will the Trustees invite Prof. Gustafson to speak to them about the effects of the Hoax and the response to the Hoax on the University community?

KC Johnson said...

To the 12.17:

That the police accessed the e-mail was my original suspicion as well. It is, however, my understanding that the AG's inquiry disproved that theory.

At the time the other two e-mails were sent, police did not have access to the computers or passwords of either of these two players.

Chicago said...

KC-I understand if you can not discuss it, but what exactly did the e-mails that were falsely sent out after the accounts were hacked say?

KC Johnson said...

Both of these e-mails actually got reported at the time, though have generally been forgotten. Both hackings occurred before any arrests were made.

The first victim was Collin Finnerty--in an event that gave the always biased Irving Joyner his first chance to comment on the case.

The second was an unindicted player whose e-mail, sent to other team members, said he was going to "confess" to the "crime."

These were incredibly serious breaches of security. The "Finnerty" e-mail was sent to an NCCU message board and clearly increased his personal danger. The other e-mail heightened belief of guilt.

Op Ed said...

KC - Send out Twelve Questions as a press release.

P. Rich said...

KC,

I am happy to see the focus here on the Board of Trustees. I would be happier still if the Board were to take some appropriate actions. I won't be holding my breath, though. Blue is not a good color for me.

Questions for anyone who is more familiar with Duke Board procedures than I: How much if any of their proceedings will be made public, or will most of their deliberations occur behind closed doors? Does anyone know a cooperative mole? How about bugging the meeting space? (OK, just kidding about that last bit.)

Hyde Park said...

I'm not sure if it is relevant to this particular email, but you don't need to have the user's password to fake an email. Most SMTP (outgoing mail) servers don't require a username and password. If the Duke server did require a username and password, you could just send it from another server. It is unlikely anyone would notice.

Many severs do keep a log of the IP address of the computer that initiated the session. Somtimes this information is included in the email's header. But this information can be forged to some extent as well.

Anonymous said...

It is clear the BOT has no respect for Duke students, so there is no sense for Duke students to respect BOT members. 37 members? Get their pictures: Sounds like a good number for a poster.

Anonymous said...

The most important question the Board of Trustees should consider is Why did neither of our exonerated students decide to return?

Mr. Finnerty's and Mr. Seligmann's decision to leave Duke is a powerful judgment of the cowardly performance by the administration and selfish and temerarious behavior of many faculty members. Had the administration and vocal majority of faculty acted with the best interests of the student body and institution at heart, I have no doubt both students would be returning to campus next fall.

Alum '98

Anonymous said...

12:44
Great idea. I hope he does it.

Anonymous said...

When people talk about "a healing process"

it seems infantile to me.

No one can un-do what has been done.

Try as one might, history cannot be rewritten.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

KC, I'd like to ask the Trustees what they think of (a) Professor Curtis trying to flunk two of her students because both were on the lacrosse team, (b) how Duke found there was no basis for the "F's" she gave but (c) refused to remove or even discipline Curtis, thereby (d) forcing one of the students, Dowd, to initiate a lawsuit as the only way to stop her from doing that to other students.

Reade, Dave and Collin will sue Duke. If the trustees are even remotely familiar with law, they will know that Duke has placed itself at terrible risk of losing that lawsuit because plaintiffs can now prove a history of abuse (thank you, Curtis) and a refusal to stop that abuse (thank you, Brodhead).

Just asking.

Deklan Singh said...

So, it would seem that....

Waheema Lubiano is a completely unqualified fraud of an academic, at least in terms of the standards that should be applied to Duke. Of course, it's possible that her qualities are "forthcoming".

Broadhead should have been fired on the spot for the "bad enough" line.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Brodhead himself did not EXACTLY lynch the three students, but what he did was "bad enough."

Anonymous said...

IMO, the trustees will be concerned with 1 thing: CYA.

I have a feeling that the boys' attorneys have a whopper ("evidence") of a lawsuit against Duke in the hopper, and won't settle for chump change. It will be a PR disaster if it's not handled properly.

The Duke brand is at stake, and that is what they'll be discussing. If I were on the board, I'd make a move against the principal perpetrators among the faculty--AAAS. We won't know what happened, but you can be sure Wahneema's and Holloway's days are numbered at Duke.

I believe there was a conspiracy among some of the faculty to deliberately railroad the boys. The results of the discovery process will be a nightmare for the BOT.

Polanski

james conrad said...

its obvious the BOT are in a bad spot here but hey, didnt they hire broadhead? at some point one would think DUKE would try and stop the bleeding however, given the past performance of this administration and the BOT, i am betting they will dither while the drip, drip, drip of discovery in the civil action sure to come entertains the nation for years to come. very sad indeed

Anonymous said...

the bass family, well represented on the Duke board, are renouned for rejecting YALE when it ABUSED their gifts...

if there were a group of fair minded texans, its the bass family

they arent afraid to challenge an elite institution like duke

to get the boards attention, someone has to raise the issue who isnt afraid to challenge unfairness and lack of common sense

Anonymous said...

Y'all want to make Duke feel much-deserved pain?

It won't happen through white students refusing to enroll. It won't happen through alumni refusing to donate. It won't happen through lawsuits.

The only thing Duke truly fears is the cutoff of government research grants. If y'all can come up with a realistic way to threaten THAT, then you Duke will pay attention to you.

Not until then.

Anonymous said...

the only place that change can come to duke is the supposed board of trustees

they have a huge endowment and the loss of government contracts isnt likely with democrats in control

long ago the elite school professors KNEW that only republicans wouldnt understand the importance of having the love of educational institutions as a political asset

mcdonalds long ago knew that getting a child as a customer would insure they had the same person when he became an adult

republicans spend money on dumb things as bush has proven...but it would have been far better to have approved the grants to ivy league professors than to reject them until the democrats control spending

so, sadly ypure very innacurate

just as in private corporate life, the board has to lose confidence in broadrot if anything will change for the better at duke

thats why sending KCs comment to every board member, or publishing them in the local papers and the chronicle is the correct strategy

Anonymous said...

KC, thanks very much for consolidating a great list of questions for the BOT.

Is there anyone in Durham reading this blog who could could print out these questions and then post and otherwise disseminate them around places the BOT may congregate on campus this weekend.

I would mail the questions to them all individually, but they would not receive them until after the weekend. The questions could lead some trustees to think about the issues and spark some private conversations, without Bob Steele controlling the agenda.

We have no idea what knowledge the individual Board members have about the hoax or from whom they receive information about it. These questions might increase the curiosity of some of the lesser informed trustees and of some who have received only CYA information.

Also, 12:51 anonymous's suggestion of a vigilante-style poster (a humorous one, not mean-spirited) of the BOT is great. Seeing their own mugs posted around campus might help them empathize with the plight of the lacrosse team. Is there anyone in Durham who could put together and post one by this weekend?

I wish I could be there. Alumna

Anonymous said...

ann bass was terrorized a few weeks ago according to press reports..and now she knows how it feels to be in reade seligmans etc place...

maybe this dose of reality, will spur her on to question the confidence the board has in broadrot....

Cedarford said...

I would add #13.

Were President Brodhead and the Board of Trustees made aware by DUMC management of the substantial problems with Duke employee Tara Levicy's "expert" SANE exam and her qualifications? Or were the fateful decisions in late March and early April made by the Brodhead Team and acquiesced to by the BOT in complete blindness to, ignorance of - problems that DUMC was aware of? Does or does not the BOT have oversight over DUMC and control of it?

It appears likely that the BOT was unaware of what had happened at DUMC with Levicy and any knowledge her supervisors were aware of.

And I would have also added question #14:

What did the BOT know of Duke employees involved in the creation of and distribution of the defamatory Vigilante Poster? What was done, if anything, to those implicated?

Anonymous said...

2:30 - Mail won't work, but email and fax might. Fax might be even better as it is likely to get picked up by someone else at the company, who might read it and ask questions.

Google these:

(704) 331-4222
415-365-5601
832-825-3435 duke
(847) 432-1289

Anonymous said...

KC,

A stellar post. The BOT will not likely acknowledge even one of your questions publicly, though they will undoubtably squirm at them privately. They will profess to be unacquainted with the DIW blog while secretly conferring on how to minimize its impact on the public perception of Duke.

Wahneema Lubiano is a self-made caricature of what most Americans imagine an academic to be. My oldest son will go off to college in three years; he is academically likely (at this point) to gain admission to the college of his choice, and due to his basketballs skills (formidable, but no doubt exaggerated) he has allowed Duke to enter his orbit (though Maryland, where we live, remains his first choice). I've already told him he'd better win a scholarship if he has any intention of attending Duke, as it will not be on my dime, certainly not with fakers like Lubiano, Holloway, Curtis et al in residence.

I do find the foregoing to be entertaining: parsing their so-called "speech" is a bit like undertaking the London Times crossword puzzle, though without the intellectual underpinning that so obviously goes into creating the challenge of the crossword puzzle.

Anonymous said...

KC,


Maybe you could ask a list of
questions for the PR King of Duke,
Coach K, in addition to these
well-put questions for the
Trustees.
Such as: why did he sit by and
watch? What would he have done
if it were HIS students?
Since he could have trumped
Broadhead with just one word -
- ("stop") - and since he
could have gotten the press'
attention, as well as the BoT,
why did he choose to do nothing?
Why did he not challenge those
sportswriters who continually
declared guilt?

Why didn't he attempt to save
Pressler's job?

I'm not a huge b-ball fan, but
I used to cheer for Duke - largely
because of the class of Coach K.

Not any more.


Mac

kaz said...

One more question I would like to see asked is whether the BOT has the ability and nerve to find out who paid for the Group of 88 ad. They control the purse, shouldn't they be able to find out if any university funds were used as part of their oversight?

Anonymous said...

KC,

Another excellent post! Another morning read that makes my blood boil!

Anonymous said...

As was made apparent in the recent letter to the alums, the BOT is Brodhead and Brodhead is the BOT. All of them seem to subscribe to the Gang of 88 mantra that after thinking about our response for a year we have discovered, "We were right all along." I suspect the BOT members have devoted themselves in recent months to repeating thousands of times that (1) President Brodhead always stood up for due process right from the very start, (2) Duke had to remain "neutral" and accept the policies, procedures, and statements of law enforcement enforcement, and (3) Coach Pressler was really a bad guy who needed to be fired/ forced to resign. My guess is this thinking is now almost part of their DNA, and despite their intellect and talent (and perhaps in part because of it), they will fail to recognize the important role they still could play in the exoneration process and in redeeming Duke's reputation for the benefit of future generations.

Hope I am wrong. Great job as always, KC.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Excellent post, but the sad truth is that BOT and Administration will dither along ineffectively as long as the money keeps flowing in.

There is absolutely no accountability in higher education financial games (I am a CPA I worked for an Ivy League university, the audit statements are totally useless). BTW why have university prices increased waaaay out of proportion to other costs over the last 20 year? 'Cuz there is financial aid and federal loans and no oversight or accountability?

Anyway, cutting off or challenging the major sources of revenue/income, and federal grants and contracts are the major income streams, is in fact the only way to get the BOT attention.

So how do bloggers help get that to happen?

madder than a hornet said...

Thank you KC

It would seem that the BOT of an institute of "higher" learning would be capable of taking responsibility for mistakes that were made. That had not happened yet.

The statements of John Burness in Newsday were most telling about the attitude of the Admin and BOT, ~"we have nothing to apologize for". But then he did apologize a few days after/seems bizarre that he is still the voice of Duke.

You may remember Texas A&M Universtity suffered the tragic bonfire accident. The President at the time said "we will investigate this and if the University was responsible in any manner I will resign". He did resign and I greatly admire his putting Texas A&M ahead of himself. I'll refrain from more than a comment of "there is a CONCEPT".

Anonymous said...

To: Mac on May 10, 2007 @ 4:51:00 AM

Please tell me how you know that Coach K could have "trumped Brodhead with just one word"? If you have inside knowledge of this, please explain why Duke, against Coach K's very publicly expressed wishes, agreed to accept the expanded ACC, which now includes Virginia Tech, Boston College, and Miami. If Coach K can make things happen by blinking his eye, why did Duke ignore him in this very important matter? I know Coach K has power at Duke, but I think you're taking that idea a little too far. I'm quite sure Brodhead and other administrators would be happy to reject Coach K's wishes. They know he's probably not going anywhere and, as we've learned in the lacrosse case, many on faculty and staff at Duke hate the athletic department and its visibility at the school. My feeling is that they'd revel in giving Coach K the bird.

Kilgore said...

I vote for KC to be a member of the reconciliation commission. That would be sweet.

I think the safety issue for cancellilng the lacrosse season is hindsight and is bogus. If you have a problem with the safety of your students you bring in the security that is needed. If you can't do that then you move to another venue. There were plenty of options other than using this as a punishment to appease the angry studies lynch mob.

I have this funny feeling that the Trustees will offer an apology after this meeting and it will be for the "entire university" thus relieving brodhead and the 88 from taking any responsibility for their individual actions. Sweep it under the rug. Let's move on. Blah blah blah. Oh my.

Anonymous said...

7:55 a.m. wrote:

Anyway, cutting off or challenging the major sources of revenue/income, and federal grants and contracts are the major income streams, is in fact the only way to get the BOT attention.

Our laws governing higher education funding have anti-discrimination provisions.

Duke has effectively institutionalized racism and sexism in its angry studies departments. The faculty attacks on the Duke defendants were blatant illustrations of this.

Also, if Duke uses one set of qualifications to hire white males and another to hire faculty in angry studies, that is a discrimination issue.

Duke's federal funding might be subject to challenge through lawsuits. Some public interest law group should look into this.

Anonymous said...

KC, I am very impressed with this list of questions for the trustees of Duke University. How very thoughtful and insightful of you to come up with this list! As an alumna and parent, I would welcome some answers to all of these questions. Right now, I am thoroughly disgusted with my alma mater, and up until last year, held it very dear in my heart.

The time to turn this around is this weekend. The Duke brand has been diminished by a factor of about 40 percent, in my view. Fire Brodhead, Burness, Aleva (good heavens- the boat incident and he is still there, but Pressler isn't?), Holloway, Curtis and Waheena (those "credentials" are not strong enough for Duke). Put in an interim (Coleman?) and begin a Presidential search on Monday morning. The Duke brand is still sinking, and no action has been taken to repair this. Duke has not acted with integrity. As a parent, I am livid. As an alum, I am heartsick.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 7:55 AM said:

"Anyway, cutting off or challenging the major sources of revenue/income, and federal grants and contracts are the major income streams, is in fact the only way to get the BOT attention.

So how do bloggers help get that to happen?"


Think like Leftists: Contact your legislator/congressmen and put strings on gov't grants to Duke. Strings like transparency in student admissions (show us just how MUCH discrimination against whites/asians), and faculty hiring and promotion practices. This is the only way the truth will ever out of Duke. And they are scared to death that someone will think of this.

jamil hussein said...

instapundit has depressing examples how Gang88 and other marxists totally dominate the academia in today's Amerika.

CRUSHING OF DISSENT
“It simply boggles the mind that a professor could find himself facing termination simply for e-mailing the Thanksgiving address of our first president,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “



Mandatory Gender Quotas in Academic Panels

Anonymous said...

8:04

You could be right: Coach K
might not have that kind of
leverage. However, he is a
brand for Duke. An important
one. He might not have liked
including Virginia Tech in
the ACC; apparently he was
prescient, since Duke lost
to the the Hokies a couple
of times - (Go Hokies!) -
but I doubt he would resign
for that reason.

However...if he did use the
"R" word (resign) it would
have rattled so many cages -
(and it may have brought
cheering from some quarters,
you're right)- that alums and
other supporters alike would
have given the matter it's
proper attention. The public
would have quickly gotten a
clearer view than was
available from MSM.

On the other hand, Coaches
rarely fall on their swords
for other coaches, especially
for coaches of non-revenue
sports.

In this case, however, silence
was not golden, but a golden
shower.

Mac

Anonymous said...

There are anti discrimination clauses in all Federal grants and contracts, but unless the Federal grants person has huge cojones they are unlikely to challenge the usual assurance/blather from the university that it has "institutionalized adequate processes in place" to assure that those anti discrimination rules are followed.

Quite frankly the bureaucracy lacks the same backbone as Brodhead, and doesn't easily challenge major universities. the one substantial exception is when there is a GAO request (initiated by a Member of Congress) OR an hotline complaint to the cognizant Inspector General.

I assume that Duke's major dollar federal grantors are NIH, DoD, NSF and Department of Education.

If there was a VERY specific discrimination allegation, which was directly tied to any one of the grants, then the agency might look hard at those "processes."

Or if there were very specific details about misuse of funds or reporting discrepancies, then those agencies MIGHT start an investigation or more intense review.

More fun for Duke, if the IRS had any reason to suspect that DUKE has misused their 501(c)3 status....like lobbying (they'll call it education) or not adequately reporting unrelated business income, the IRS can be very mean...as can the State of North Carolina Department of Revenue.

Unfortunately mere allegations don't give the bureaucrats enough to go on, one needs to lead them by the hand.

I am 100% pro Duke having to pay an appropriate price for their feckless behavior, and "following the money" gets my vote.

Anonymous said...

2:34 I'm pretty certain her name is Anne Bass. More importantly who reported what about her being "terrorized"?

jamil husein said...

8:45:
Duke funds were used by Gang88 for the usual anti-Bush rants and ads, but I guess it will be "academic freedom" for marxists. It wasn't anything serious, like quoting the first president or US constitution.

Anonymous said...

This posting and most of the comments it has attracted reveal, I fear, a rather naïve assumption about the way the board of trustees of a major university operates. The last thing you can expect from the Duke board would be an open, honest, and consequential discussion of the “Lacrosse Team Affair” in a full board meeting. This is not to disparage the board, which is probably on the whole better than most. It simply recognizes the realities of governance at a place like Duke. The board’s stance—which has already been clearly signaled over weeks and months—has been determined by a small inner group, including President Brodhead, the chairman of the board, and its executive committee.

About a half of the board will be made up of “salmon-eaters”. This somewhat irreverent term denotes a board member whose chief participation in governance appears to be attending the fancy parties, the honorary degree dinners, and the celebrative convocations with which all academic institutions of merit remind themselves of their—well, their merit. At these gustatory conclaves they consume such delicacies as little bits of Scotch salmon attractively displayed on small pieces of crustless dark bread. The salmon-eaters are of several categories. Some are rich people who either do or might give important gifts to the institution. Others represent various sections of the “community” believed necessary to give the board “diversity”. Most boards now have a “young alumni trustee” as well as several trustees whose indispensable characteristic, whatever other talents or advantages they might bring, is their race or sex.

Brodhead is, comparatively speaking, a new arrival. In picking an Ivy Leaguer the board was explicit in sending a message about the “quality” and “direction” for which Duke should aim. He was a social engineer even before he got there. He did not invent Duke’s obsession with race, but he embraced it with pious solemnity. He probably realized that for twenty years Duke had been pursuing “excellence” at the cost of coherence, but he surely must have been unaware of just how spineless and detached the faculty was. That is a feature of the situation that has not been much appreciated. A small group of faculty with extremist views dominated or even monopolized the campus discourse from day one. They could do so only in a vacuum of ethical common sense. The board could not fail to back Brodhead without imperiling their recently proclaimed “vision”.

That doesn’t mean that there will be no discussion of the “Lacrosse Team Affair” at this meeting. There will be quite a bit. Various committees will issue or received various reports. The board will learn that the crisis is past, that we can now move forward with our important agenda, that there has been no serious diminution in annual giving, in minority applications, in federal contracts allotted, that all’s well that ends well, and that a teachable moment presents itself. Numerous other statistics wholly irrelevant to the soul of the institution will be applauded. But you are in a dream world if you think that the board is going to examine faculty behavior.

One recurrent theme in the comments disturbs me: Prof. Lubiano’s publication record. The point of this criticism eludes me. Nobody in the history of the academy has ever been shamed into writing a good book. It is quite hypocritical to fault her for failing to live up to criteria other than the ones that brought her to Duke. She must have been brought to Duke to dramatize certain administrative attitudes and to perform certain revolutionary gestures that the administration thought necessary to their vision. She has done that very well indeed. She certainly has gained more personal celebrity and institutional recognition than scholars who have made important contributions to knowledge.

miramar said...

Since several posts have mentioned Coach K, he said the following back in June:

"I think it is important for me to remember my place. I am the basketball coach. I am not the president, I am not the athletic director and I am not on the board of trustees. You have to be careful not to make statements outside of your realm. However, behind the scenes, I have tried to be very supportive of our athletic department, the coaches, the players, our president and the board of trustees. To me, the real story about this spring, without talking about the case because you have to let that run its course, is the community. I love our community because for the last few months, a number of people who have come into our community and raised a lot of questions, which they are entitled to do, that could have provoked things that where not a part of this situation. Our community is so darn good that they did not allow it. I don’t look at this being a white community, an African American community, a Hispanic community, I look at this being a great Durham community. The students at the two universities [North Carolina Central and Duke] should be applauded.

I do think for us as a university, we have to always be mindful of the fact of the major reason we are here is because of our students. We have to give our students support in whatever situation, you have to be there to support them, to give them guidance and to just to be there and say ‘We are with you.’. That is what I have tried to do behind the scenes. Giving support does not mean you are choosing sides, giving support is what a university should do whether it be at North Carolina Central, Duke, Forham, Illinois or Army. We are in the kid business and that is what I have tried to do behind the scenes."

(http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=299360)

Also, during the Blue White game back in October, he spoke to the crowd as he introduced some of the players from the 1986 Final Four team. With Brodhead in attendance, he began with "There is no university like Duke University in the whole world" (that's from memory, but I think that's a pretty exact quote). Then he went on to say that this is because Duke combines academic excellence and athletic excellence, and both are integral parts of the institution's character. I cannot help but think that although Krzyzewski was addressing the crowd, he was in fact talking directly to Brodhead, and I certainly hope that he got the message.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, like Coach K is the
waterboy or something?
Does he think that his salary
is inconsequential? If
he's not so very important,
why does he make a ton of
money?


Doesn't that say something
about how Duke regards his
presence?

I still think it's chicken-
shit. Please forgive the
vulgarity. If he's not
important enough to weigh
in on this, on behalf of the
students, perhaps he could
take the same salary as
Pressler.

Mac

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm not sure why it would be so bad to assess blame. Seems that the villians could use it.

The premise underlying so many of the leftist causes of the past 50 years has been that white hetero men subjugate the "oppressed" through the use of violence.

When I was a young man in college, I swallowed this BS because I wanted people to think that I was one of those nice white men.

What if this mythology of oppression is absolute nonsense? I have the feeling that it is. White hetero men are the most law abiding, peaceable people in America. What does it say about feminism, gay rights activism and black activism that they keep invoking this obvious lie?

One of the things it says is that our fathers, those white hetero men of the Greatest Generation, were savagely slandered.

Yes, it is time for blame. The opposition has had no difficulty blaming.

Chicago said...

Excellent post KC!

My guess is that the events surrounding the hoax and the reactions will not be discussed at all. My guess is that it will be a HUGE elephant in the room, that no one talks about.

Anonymous said...

K.C.--I'm 12:17, thanks for the info. I'll have to look at the AG's report again; I missed that detail.

To 8:04--other commenters have aptly answered your query about Coach K's power. But I wanted to add that, in fact, Duke and UNC both strongly opposed the expanded ACC. They gave in and accepted it only when it became obvious that they would be outvoted and it was inevitable.

Anonymous said...

"On the other hand, Coaches
rarely fall on their swords
for other coaches, especially
for coaches of non-revenue
sports."

A coach will fall on his sword for the his team, but not for the school. Coach Pressler was willing to fall on his sword (resign) if it would preserve the team. Instead, Brodhead used a dagger on Pressler and a sword on his team.

Anonymous said...

My prediction - the Duke BOT will spend its meeting discussing "settlement negotiations" with the three families.

It is my hope that the BOT will have had access to the extensive body of evidence that must exist (email messages, listserve postings, etc.) that reveal the extent to which members of the Gang of 88, and other members of the Duke faculty and administration, engaged in their rush to judgment against the lacrosse players. It is likely that some of this information will point to a level of complicity with the Durham PD in the attempted "railroading" of innocent Duke students.

The additional evidence, including the involvement of Duke employees in the production of the "vigilante" poster, the hacking of student email accounts, the distribution of private materials to the Durham police, possible complicity in the "planting" of evidence by the Durham PD, and the malpractice occurring at the Duke medical center, will be "icing on the cake".

It is possible that an announcement of a comprehensive settlement agreement will be forthcoming.

Anonymous said...

KC: Great post. Another possible question or series of questions dealing with Solomon Burnette's article titled "Death to all rapists". After Burnette authored his call to violence in an April 18, 2007 opinion piece in the NCCU student newspaper, what actions did Duke take to protect their students from Burnette when Burnette was on Duke's campus taking an Arabic course. If my memory is accurate, Burnette had been already found guilty of assaulting several Duke students. And now he has been allowed on Dukes' campus again after publishing his most recent call for violence. from a non-lawyer/retired professor

Gary Packwood said...

Broadhead's Accomplishments are Duke Trustees' Enduring Legacy to Fisk University.
::
GP

KC Johnson said...

To the 9.44: This item is from my own discussions with people interviewed by the SP's: it wasn't included in the report.

Anonymous said...

"What if this mythology of oppression is absolute nonsense? I have the feeling that it is. White hetero men are the most law abiding, peaceable people in America. What does it say about feminism, gay rights activism and black activism that they keep invoking this obvious lie?"

This strategy is used to bring the innocent and blameless into the conversation. It is similar to the approach used by a political candidate who is far behind in the polls. He/she makes outrageous claims against the front runner, which forces the front runner to deny them. The marginal candidate is now in the coversation and has an opportunity to make his/her points.

There is another subtlety when a provocateur makes accusations against a group. I remember a speech at Duke back in the sixties by a well known feminist who make the most ridiculous accusations towards all the males in the audience. I knew they had absolutely nothing to do with me but for a moment it made me wonder about the other males in the audience and the older males out in the business world. Then, I realized it was just a trick by the speaker.

I think most people understand these manipulations and ignore the claims of the people that use them. Unfortunately, the TV producers love them.

Anonymous said...

New Jersey lawyer. Great set of questions, K.C. On the visiting professor issue. It appears to me that "visitor" status doesn't mean what I thought it meant (and what it may have meant in the past). The visits seem to be indefinite. With apologies to Ben Franklin, I can only state that Duke has demonstrated that visiting professors, like fish, stink after two academic terms!

Anonymous said...

Ouch, that's going to leave a mark.

Too bad none of these serious questions will ever be seriously considered. Which begs the question, "Seriously, is this a serious board"?

Anonymous said...

There's only one real question, as far as I'm concerned:

Why hasn't the board called for the firing of Mike Nifong, Mark Gottleib, and Tara Levicy, and called for the permanent institutionalization of the crazy whore Mangum? Those animals tried to imprison three innocent students in broad daylight?

Anonymous said...

I think a poster with a picture of each board member is a great idea. I imagine seeing their faces splashed across a wanted poster asking them to "PLEASE COME FORWARD" and defend Duke students against rogue members of the faculty would strike a nerve.

And I also agree that might give them some small idea as to what exactly the players had to deal with last Spring.

Anonymous said...

10:04,

Burnette was charged with robbery of two Duke students at gunpoint. His mother was a member of the Durham City Council at the time, and a deal was worked out for him to plead guilty to robbery (a lesser included offense of armed robbery) and receive probation. A couple of years later, he was caught on a probation violation and had to serve a year and a half or two years in the NC Department of Corrections.

Mr. Burnette is listed on the Duke website as a student, even has his own @duke.edu email address. I have shaken my head many times in disbelief and disgust after learning this.

Add question #15 to K.C. List: Why did Mr. Brodhead dismiss Reade and Colin from Duke because of a false accusation of rape at the same time he was welcoming Mr. Burnette, with a felony conviction for a robbery committed with a gun against Duke Students?

Add Question #16: Why, in the wake of Burnette's virulent piece in the NCCU Eagle, is he receiving a continuing welcome at Duke, and Reade and Collin are not?

Sadly, I suspect the answer to both questions lie in a difference that should be meaningless in modern America, but is obviously of prime importance at Duke: Reade and Collin are white, Burnette is black.

Candidly, the mess at Duke did not develop in the Spring of 2006. It has been brewing and becoming worse for the last 20 years. I am a Duke alum, and would have liked very much for my two children to follow me to Duke. Instead I steered them to Davidson, so they could receive the kind of rigorous, classical liberal arts education I received at Duke, because it was obvious that it was not available any longer at Duke.

I'm at the point that I have completely lost faith in Duke's administration, trustees, and faculty. The lingering loyalty I have to the institution is fastened on the majority of Duke students exemplified by the kids on the Chronicle, on the women's lacrosse team, and on the men's lacrosse team. They deserve much, much better than they have gotten, but I have no faith that they will get it from the trustees.

Anonymous said...

My sense is that the Duke BOT won't do *anything* until they are persuaded that Brodhead is squandering the BOT members' personal investment (though donations) in the Duke brand by degrading the university. Once--and if--that happens, the BOT will instantly fry Brodhead. But not until then. Money--and *only* money--talks to the BOT.

AMac said...

anon 8:55am --

Great comment on a good thread. (And not coincidentally, one that's stuck to the topic of the post.)

Those of us outside the Academy do sometimes benefit from insight into how its administrative structures are supposed to function, and what a successful professor's or dean's or trustee's trajectory might typically look like. Thanks.

On hypocrisy, you said:

One recurrent theme in the comments disturbs me: Prof. Lubiano’s publication record. The point of this criticism eludes me... It is quite hypocritical to fault her for failing to live up to criteria other than the ones that brought her to Duke. She must have been brought to Duke to dramatize certain administrative attitudes and to perform certain revolutionary gestures that the administration thought necessary to their vision. She has done that very well indeed...

True, it would be darkly amusing if the Deans, V.P.s, and Professors who recruited her were to belatedly discover the shocking scantiness of her traditional qualifications. The dandies who gladly served on the Committees that elevated her to Associate and then Full Professor status have even slighter excuses. (By the way, the Assignment Desk asks: Who did sign off on the least-impressive Eighty-Eighters' promotions?)

Most of us--students, fellow profs, tuition-paying parents--never stood up to cheer the Emporer's politically-correct clothes. Thus, our "Hey, wait a minute!" may be belated--but it isn't hypocrisy.

Soobs said...

re: Anne Bass

http://tinyurl.com/2psygk

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:55AM is the partner piece to KC's post. The rest of the responses are, by comparison, chaff.

Gayle Miller said...

Why are these queries, so eloquently and calmly expressed by Prof. Johnson, NOT being presented to the Board.

In my opinion, Brodhead should be GONE along with most of the Group 0f 88 - if only for their un-American assumption of guilt on the part of the INNOCENT young men (just have to emphasize that since clearly some in Durham still cannot process that FACT) without evidence.

It is my view that the lacrosse team's civil rights were so violated by all involved at the University that all involved in the violation of those rights must be held to account.

Duke 85 said...

You can add the fact that police "piggybacked" entrance into Edens quad to search a dorm room. They did not have a warrent. The University, as owner, could grant permission to enter but, I assume, did not. So, if I leave a window or door unlocked does that mean the police can search my house? Where was the University in condemning the DPD's warrentless search. Perhaps the Board should come up with a policy regarding letting Durham cops (such as they are) rifle through student dorms at will. Yet another consititutional violation.


Re: BOT. The one all consuming goal is the bottom line. How are they going maximize funds in the long run? Not only do they have to worry about law suits from those damaged in the hoax, who are they going to piss off if they come down on the radical faculty et al?
It's an equation with a few unknown variables.

The federal grants are the pressure point. However, considering that it's fine with the feds for Planned Parenthood to run the sex ed in elementary school, they probably think Sebring is Shakespeare.

jamil hussein said...

Where was the University in condemning the DPD's warrentless search.

Duke and ACLU are busy protecting terrorists.
Warrantless searches are only condemnded if they are done to Al-Qaida terror suspects (or authorized by Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton). Why would left-wingers care if a bunch of whiteys (who may even be republicans) get intimidated by police?

Anonymous said...

meant to say that when Jimmy or Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps for non-terror suspects, it is ok.

Duke 85 said...

Anon 11:53. I'm so sorry, I forgot that it was Brodhead that hosted the Hamas-recruiter to campus and then sent out letters to the alumni defending free speech. I abandoned my loyalty to Duke at that escapade but I had forgotten it post hoax! It does give you an idea of where the board idealogically resides.

Anonymous said...

What you wish for simply isn't going to happen. Brodhead and the BOT aren't going anywhere. In its collective 'mind' Duke has moved on. Now that the boys have been exonerated there isn't any internal reason for Duke to do anything, certainly not fire any professors. The woman who is alleged to have failed 2 lacrosse players on purpose will likely matriculate to another place, maybe she will join her racist colleague at Vanderbuilt.

I believe it is extremely unlikely that the 3 boys will sue Duke, if Pressler were going to sue Duke he would have done so already.

The only way that worthless majors taught by unqualified professors is going to change is to come from the bottom up, from students, parents and alumni who refuse to buy into them or give money for their funding. This is going to take another 2 decades to accomplish. We are only now beginning to put a stop to race based admissions purposely designed to discrminate against qualified whites in favor of less qualified minorities and the universities are fighting this tooth and nail all the way to the supreme court.

Anonymous said...

re Lubiano's publications record

Remember, Professor Johnson is a liberal, and does not like to candidly denigrate "minorities." But a close reading of Johnson's posts on Lubiano yields the same conclusion I've reached about her: she's incredibly stupid, a terrible writer, a joke.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

re unlikely the boys will sue Duke

What are you smoking, Pops?

If Reade, Collin, or David were my son, there'd be hell to pay.

There is going to be war coming to Duke. The families will demand payback--and the opportunity to humiliate their sons' tormenters.

You obviously are not a businessman, or you would not have written something so foolish.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

KC:
I think you should send a copy of this to the Chronicle. I'm not sure if they're still printing (closed for the summer?), but even if they reprinted it on their website, some of the trustees might access it. As an alum, I believe that it's time that the Board showed that it has an obligation to see that the institution's brand is cleaned up by the degradation that Broadhead, Moneta, and the Gang of 88 have brought to what once was a fine brand and is now clearly tarnished. Maybe the reader who created the NY Times poll could create a similar one for Duke alums to weigh in on.

PO'ed in Baltimore

Anonymous said...

What exactly are the three boys going to sue Duke for, please be specific as to what their causes of action against Duke University could be?

Grade retaliation? Nope.
Suspension? Nope.
Group of 88 ad? Nope.
Other comments by Duke faculty? Nope.

Violation of privacy? Maybe, a stretch.

What else?

Anonymous said...

lawsuits will flow from tortious behavior flowing from Duke's failure to protect its clients--may be federal civil rights violations as well--it's gonna be ugly, and I can't wait

Think Polanski may be right--existence of a conspiracy among some faculty (and police?)--who knows?

Have to wait for discovery results

Gary said...

May 10, 2007 2:13:00 AM sez>
[[The only thing Duke truly fears is the cutoff of government research grants. If y'all can come up with a realistic way to threaten THAT, then you Duke will pay attention to you.
Not until then.]]

I happen to know some engineering faculty at Duke who are top notch. None of them took part in the "Angry Studies" nonsense. So the engineering departments should be punished for what reason exactly? It's the best part of Duke.

Rather, perhaps the Angry Studies (tm) members could be sold off at cost to Vanderbilt while Vanderbilt is still stupid enough to want these people. The proceeds and saved salaries could then be used to establish a LAX scholarship and a couple of endowed chairs in the engineering departments. THAT would be a net gain.

Anonymous said...

Harassment is a cause of action, isn't it?

Hiring racist professors--that might be a cause of action

No justice, no peace said...

Inre: questions...

I'm reminded of the heckler shouting a question at Rodney Dangerfield during a live show. "Hey Rodney, what do you do for a living?"

Rodney's response, "Hey buddy, I make dates for your sister."

It seems to me that is a fair question to ask of Brodhead..."What exactly do you do?"

Clearly, he does not lead. Clearly the value, percieved and real, of the institution is less than when he arrived. The brand has, and continues, to diminish.

Blaming these shortcomings on a rogue prosecutor and his own students is not leadership.

Duke 85 said...

We may have to wait until after the "Under the Bus Olympics" re Nifong, Levicy, Gottlieb, et al. After those cases and /or depositions are filed I'm sure the specific areas where Duke can be sued will be clear. The general area of Duke's fault rises from its role as "custodian". Dean Sue telling them not to contact parents or advising them not to lawyer up seems basis enough without the myriad infractions in not protecting them in the public square or on campus.

Anonymous said...

why sue now ?

when so mnay investigations are providing FREE DISCOVERY ?

the examinations of NIFUNG and the african Chief of Police durham police department and his minnions along with all the discovery by the lawyers for the LAX TEAM, the LAX players, the various great N @ O reporter neff, and the vast amount of love and attention to analysis from the VITAL BLOGS, along with uproar from alumni, and future information about the alleged CIVIL RICO against the players by alleged conspiracies based upon hate not facts, and the COMPLAINTS BY the duke students themsleves, the potential SITDOWNS, the maze of future BAD PUBLICITY. in the end the JUDGEMENT of broadrot and steel, their feckless burness spin masters, will OVERWHELM the BOARD...

why bush hasnt demanded a CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION still stuns me...he is the laziest bumbrain we have ever had as a president...he doesnt know enough to ask any questions about anything..kinda like bradrot

Nifong's hat trick said...

Anon 8:55am
Back in September 2006 on this blogspot, KC acknowledged the "hands-off" role of trustees in academia.
Trustee Bob Steel redefined that role and was (as KC noted) "remarkably hands-on, vigorously defending the Brodhead administration’s actions to interested parties and journalists behind-the-scenes. His actions do not seem to have been designed to uphold either the University’s reputation or its long-term financial standing."

Steel's hands-on approach to his Trustee position, albeit in support of Brodhead, proves that at times Trustees may be more involved than the usual "salmon-eater."

It would seem sensible that the BOT's Institutional Advancement Committee,involved with public relations,(http://www.duke.edu/web/ous/bylaws.html) would take a "Bob Steel" approach to the Duke non-rape issue instead of burying it's head in the sand pretending the University's reputation was not affected.

Afterall, according to Duke's bylaws, "All the Powers of the University shall be vested in the Board of Trustees" with an aim to "... advance learning in all lines of truth."

Of course, there is always the good possibility that the BOT does not practice what they preach...kind of like their faculty.

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no case against Duke for 'conspiring' to violate the former defendants civil rights. Their civil rights were violated by the Durham Police and District Attorney's office.

I can't see any case for 'harassment' coming from Duke. They were accused of a gang rape, a lot of people believed them to be guilty, that isn't a crime. Duke cannot control the speech of its professors or students, there isn't any there there.

The only potential cause of action I can see is if its true that Duke allowed their rooms to be searched w/out a warrant and without permission from the students, if Duke turned over any privileged records w/out their permission and if Duke advised anyone to talk to police w/out a lawyer, though I'm not sure that rises to the level of a crime no matter how repugnant it is.

Anonymous said...

"Duke" conspired against the boys.

Define "DUKE" as Lubiano, et al and u might have an argument. Admin should have known that the racists in AAAS would someday abuse their power

Not a lawyer

Anonymous said...

12:51

How about breach of contract? When a student matriculates to Duke, isn't Duke bound contractually by its articulated policies to the student?

Observer

Anonymous said...

And if not contractually bound, isn't the University bound in equity? We parents who are about to pay a fortune in tuition really should get a handle on WHAT, if anything, the University is obligated to do as we hand over our all our $$$ and our children.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Breach of contract or duty for what? The laws and liability have changed over the last 30 years with the whole in loco parentis idea of the university substituting for the parents, this has been totally watered down to the point of being pointless.

This is why students rarely win cases against universities in cases where they WERE attacked, assaulted, raped or injured due to the universities having lax safety procedures or admitting known felons or failing to take action when criminal complaints are filed.

Anonymous said...

To 1:22. There are other blogs for Bush bashing. The Governor, Nifong, the 88, etc. were all Republicans too. Oh wait...

Anonymous said...

One thing I can't help but laugh at is the notion that all academics are smarter than everyone else. Even if someone is smarter than someone else, it doesn't make them right. You can be smart enough to predict the weather, but it doesn't mean you know to get in out of the rain.

Question for profs (including KC): Do you really think you are the absolute smartest person in your classroom? If you think so, explain how that matters.

Gus said...

"Do you really think you are the absolute smartest person in your classroom? If you think so, explain how that matters."

Certainly not - I'm generally the one who has had the most experience with a particular topic, though. Many times, with the kind of students I get, once they've heard what I have to say they come back with novel and nuanced takes on the material that I'd never considered.

Gary said...

One final thing. Please folks, whatever the outcome, please don't let it be encouraging
"Prof." Lubiano’s to publish more! Not only for our sake, but for her's. Her lack of productivity is her biggest contribution to the academic community.

Anonymous said...

re: 12:22
"if Pressler were going to sue Duke he would have done so already."

Does anyone know the terms under which Pressler left? Was he fired for cause or was he paid under the terms of his contract? Would he have been asked to sign some sort of legal document agreeing not to sue and not to disclose the terms of his departure?

Anonymous said...

Duke's "diversity" problem

The lawsuits will, among other things, ask: Is diversity good for white males at Duke?

Anonymous said...

I would add one other question:

The CCI was formed, among other things, to address issues of racism and sexism. By far the most eggregious incidents that reflect racial and gender bias, and racial and gender-based intimidation were: The Group of 88 Listening Statement, the potbanging incidents (attended by numberous members of Duke's faculty), circulation of a "wanted" poster with the pictures of most Duke lacrosse players on them (and apparently created using Duke resources), alleged grade retaliation and at least one indicent that recently came to light where one person, a member of Duke's lacrosse team, was physically separated from the rest of the persons in a classroom by a professor, who reportedly used words to the effect that it was to "protect others from the rapists." The CCI fails to even acknowledge, let alone address, these incidents. What is being done to address or remedy these racial and/or gender-based incidents? Does the Board have any intention to insure that these incidents will be adequately addressed, and that there will be consequences for those among the Duke faculty, administration and student body who participated in them?

Brand

Anonymous said...

Brand,

You ask good questions.

The best way to protect white students--anywher in US--is to end all affirmative action and destroy all academic welfare studies otherwise known as black, quees, women.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

A revival, led by father and son
By Patrick Stevens
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 10, 2007

a heartwarming story that the DUKE TRUSTEES cant take credit for


http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20070510-123810-7556r.htm

Duke head coach John Danowski hugs his son Matt Danowski after winning the ACC lacrosse championship 12-9 over Virginia. (AP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DURHAM, N.C. -- Well after their season was shattered, their veteran coach was forced from his job and their faces were plastered all over incessant cable talk shows, the Duke lacrosse team tried to consider its future.
Would they be back on the field in 2007? Could they overcome a rape investigation-turned-witch hunt into a crime they knew never occurred? Would things ever revert to the relative anonymity they had enjoyed?
And who could possibly lead them if the program were ever reinstated?
The last one was easy. Players' thoughts easily meandered to the father of one of their own, a man with more than two decades of Division I coaching experience and a far more intimate knowledge of the crucible he would face than any other potential candidate.
Hundreds of miles away from the center of Duke maelstrom, that man — John Danowski — was just finishing an emotional spring. As the coach at Hofstra, he led the Pride to a No. 2 ranking and a trip to the NCAA quarterfinals. As a Duke lacrosse parent, he watched his son Matt and all of his Duke teammates stand trial in the court of public opinion.
John Danowski couldn't help but get caught up in discussions about the case's legal ramifications. But during one of these talks, he was floored by the suggestion of Larry Lamade, the father of Duke midfielder Peter Lamade.
"He said 'There's only one guy these kids could really play for,' and I said 'Who's that?' and he said 'You,' " Danowski recalled late last month. "I remember really being 'Whoa,' taking a step back and saying 'Wow, thank you.' "
His hiring wouldn't come for two more months, and even then he made sure to secure a blessing from Matt, who said he would be perfect for the job. But now, a year after the lost season, father and son have led the Blue Devils to a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tournament and a first-round date with Providence on Saturday.
Duke is two victories from a final four trip and two more from its first national title. Yet the Blue Devils already delivered a remarkable bounty for their new coach, who took an immense professional gamble for the chance to guide his ultra-talented son and his teammates through perhaps the most important season Duke would ever face.
"If you think back to last June, July, August, nobody knew and nobody could tell you for sure how it would work out," Danowski said. "It was a leap of faith, but it was personal."
The working relationship
It was personal because of his son. John Danowski had slipped down to North Carolina several times throughout Matt's career to watch him play, sometimes scheduling Hofstra's games on Friday nights to balance his job and his family.


But after the program was re-instated and Duke made its hire, there was an adjustment period for everyone, including the star attackman whose father suddenly would be around much more.
"It took a little while to get used to," Matt Danowski said. "I realize he's in Durham and he's on campus and I'm going to see him and stuff like that but I think I've tried to keep my senior year to me and my friends who I spent my first three years with. He's kind of been so involved with everything on campus, it's pretty tough to spend time together."
Their personalities — and skills — helped them maximize the time they share on the lacrosse field. John Danowski is a gregarious character who had lived on Long Island nearly his entire life, and his optimism helped Duke cope with the indictments of three teammates — David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann — on charges that were later dropped.
Matt Danowski is a magician with a lacrosse stick and arguably the nation's most complete player. The occasional brashness he displayed earlier in his career is tempered by his on- and off-field experiences.
Slick passes and pinpoint shots are his norm, as is a relentlessness encapsulated in last month's ACC semifinals. With Duke already up 12-6 with eight minutes left, he pressured North Carolina goalie Grant Zimmerman into a turnover that led to an easy score.
There is a coach-star vibe at play in addition to the father-son dynamic. And John Danowski ruefully remembers his days as a high school quarterback when he wanted no part of the advice dispensed by his father, Ed, who led the NFL in passing in 1935 and 1938.
"Listen, not every day is roses," John said. "He's a great all-around player, a great athlete, he cares, he's passionate. He plays the game in every aspect. He plays it from start to finish. He rides, picks up groundballs, he takes no plays off. But he's stubborn and ornery and prideful and butts head with the coach. At those points, it really challenges my maturity as to what do I do. He's a player but also my son."
Matt's also a senior, a captain, an All-American and the likely winner of the Tewaaraton Trophy, college lacrosse's highest honor. During practice and games, those roles take precedence over family.
That was especially true shortly after John's hiring, when the team was trying to adjust to a dramatic change in style from intense former coach Mike Pressler.
"I listen to him, but if it's not what I totally agree with, I'll tell him just because I need to show the other guys on the team that you don't have to listen to everything, that you can speak for yourself," Matt said. "It doesn't have to be 'Yes, sir.' I try to lead the way a little bit, fighting back a little bit just to show the guys they can, too."
Added senior midfielder Ed Douglas: "[Matt's] sort of the interlocutor for us. But it's never been 'Hey guys, this is what he really means' or 'Hey guys, this is what he wants out of us.' It's always sort of [a] more casual way in which he communicated that. But it certainly helps to have someone who's seen him in action before."
A rewarding season
Duke enters the NCAA tournament at 14-2, three victories shy of the 2005 school record. Matt Danowski, who has 36 goals and 36 assists, was the ACC's player of the year and ACC tournament MVP. John Danowski was the league's coach of the year.
There is a convenience factor for Matt, who graduates this month with a history degree. He has a safety valve in the event of car trouble, an extra apartment to visit if he's in need of a meal and easy access to things like a birth certificate, a necessity when he applied for a passport.
Their lives outside of lacrosse don't mix much more than before.
"I've taken him to a couple places to go eat, but his social life, I let him fend for himself," Matt said.
That is a significant change for John Danowski, who moved to Durham alone since he had no idea last summer how long he would stay. His wife, Tricia, still lives on Long Island with their daughter, Katie, who is student-teaching while finishing a master's degree at Hofstra.
It has left John on his own for the first time in decades, but the payoff of watching his son skillfully handle situations with either a defenseman or a dozen television cameras in his face has trumped the hassles.
So has the play and actions of a team with so much to prove after last spring's lost season.
"I have never spent a year like this in my life," John said. "This has been unequivocally the most rewarding year I have ever spent as an educator, as a coach. Its been phenomenal on so many levels. I've experienced a tremendous amount of emotions. I've been lonely. I miss my wife. I miss my dog. ... It was new, exciting, different, weird, never hard, challenging, unique."
The final challenge is the chase for a championship. John Danowski's Hofstra teams made eight NCAA tournaments but never a final four, and he watched with a bit of envy as Matt played in the title game two years ago in Philadelphia.
In a few weeks, they might make it to Baltimore's M&T Bank Stadium together, an emphatic answer to whether Duke lacrosse would ever truly be back.
"I think it would be awesome," Matt said. "The way he was jealous of me two years ago was the way I was jealous of him last year getting to the quarterfinals and having a shot at the final four. To do it together would be something really pretty special."

Matthew said...

KC,


Maybe you could ask a list of
questions for the PR King of Duke,
Coach K, in addition to these
well-put questions for the
Trustees.
Such as: why did he sit by and
watch? What would he have done
if it were HIS students?
Since he could have trumped
Broadhead with just one word -
- ("stop") - and since he
could have gotten the press'
attention, as well as the BoT,
why did he choose to do nothing?
Why did he not challenge those
sportswriters who continually
declared guilt?

Why didn't he attempt to save
Pressler's job?

I'm not a huge b-ball fan, but
I used to cheer for Duke - largely
because of the class of Coach K.

Not any more.


Mac, K said himself in an interview he wasnt more vocal because he would have been viewed as in the athletic department and not as special assistant to the President. If K would have come out and said anything less that "these kids are guilty," the group of 88 stalwarts would have come out with "oh look, the athletic department is sending out the big guns to protect its own."

K would be crucified whatever he would do in this situation.

Anonymous said...

comparing bumbrain bush to broadrot is a perfect analogy...bush was to katrina as broadrot was to the groupof 88

Christi said...

One way to "punish" or limit the influence of the G88 profs is for current Duke students to STOP TAKING THE COURSES THEY OFFER. My husband (also a Duke alum) is a "visiting" professor at a university similar in size to Duke, and if not enough people sign up for his classes, then his contract is canceled or reduced accordingly. So, if people fail to register for "Angry Studies" or "Science According to My Personal Beliefs" or "How to Hate Everyone But Yourself" or whatever, those classes will not be held, and those "professors" will not get paid.

Just my $.02.

Anonymous said...

The issue of the Duke Faculty
Handbook (2) is, in my mind,
paramount. It's been brought
up before: students and faculty
have some overlapping
responsibilities - and rights!

The right not to be threatened
and harrassed is a right that
students should expect to
be honored.

Disagree? Well, see what would
happen if a student behaved
toward the faculty the way some
of the faculty behaved toward
the Lacrosse students. The
students would be removed
in less than a heartbeat.

Matthew said...

I can't see any case for 'harassment' coming from Duke. They were accused of a gang rape, a lot of people believed them to be guilty, that isn't a crime. Duke cannot control the speech of its professors or students, there isn't any there there.

Duke is responsible for whom they hire by respondant superior or whatever it is.

Anonymous said...

Matthew (at 2:20) wrote: "[Coach] K would be crucified whatever he would do in this situation."

Let's assume you're right--that Coach K had no good option. If he was to be crucified regardless, why *didn't* he do the honorable thing, stand up to the railroad job, and defend the lax 3? He absolutely would have done so were they his hoops players, no question. But, at bottom, Coach K took an ethical "pass," and allowed an injustice to unfold under his nose.

As I've written previously, Coach K disrespected his West Point training by not doing the honorable thing during this travesty. To be sure, he didn't start this fiasco, but Coach K occupies a unique role at Duke. He had a role to play, whether he wanted to or not. Shame on him for ducking.

Anonymous said...

So what? People are allowed to have opinions. The 2 guys as I remember were kicked out of school as soon as they were indicted, so there isn't any harrassment going on because they are not at Duke. As far as harassment while they were still at Duke they would have to have complained about it, I doubt they did. As far as lacrosse players not being safe on campus, they would have to prove Duke new this and did nothing, doubtful.

Wishing wont' make it so. I wish Mike Pressler had landed at another ivy league school and that he got every dime from his contract with Duke.

I have yet to hear anything close to a reasonable scenario where the three players have a case against Duke for any reason.

Gary said...

Lawsuits. I'm not a lawyer, but I think clearly the LAX students who got the F grades have a great civil case -- I don't know why Duke isn't settling this immediately, they aren't even asking for a lot of money and just asking to have the grade changed to "Pass". In grad school, I was in an engineering class where the professor screwed up multiple times (he mis-graded homework and tests where we could show we calculated the correct answers given his sloppy instructions, inconsistent data etc). He was consistently error prone and sloppy. By final exam we were worried and complaining about the guy which we documented to the department head. Next thing we knew, we had a letter of apology from the dept. head, finals for that course were canceled, "A" grades were issued to all the survivors, and the contract with that professor was not renewed (he was pre-tenure). The student who organized our well documented academic protest eventually became a Prof. in the same department, initially occupying that Prof's "slot". THAT's what I call an impressive response. Don't feel sorry for the former Prof., he left to join Microsoft and probably made millions on options there.

Mike Pressler was wronged, the team he built was taken when he did nothing wrong and since he was at least nominally forced out, he's left with unfair and false mud on his face about running an out of control team. He's also left coaching in a lower division and should at least get a back-room deal. Maybe he already has?

I can't see where the 3 indited students have a case against Duke. Not that Duke didn't collectively blow it, just legally it seems hard to hang something on Duke itself.

They seem to have a good case against the city/police department and against Nifong (if they can get past his "line of duty" legal protections).

Given the hostility and prejudice against them especially out in the city, I wouldn't return to Duke if I were them either -- they'd have to watch their back, not leave campus etc. No fun. If I were Duke, I'd refund their tuition due to these subsequent realities at the very least.

Anonymous said...

You can measure a person
who will stand up for others,
in spite of the personal cost.
Compare KC to Coach K.
One of the two has no direct
connection to Duke University,
and hasn't - in reality - a
forum.
On the other hand, people who
watch the ACC Basketball
demigods - not just Duke -
can see the tsunami that would
ensue if a major coach made
a major statement when it was
apparent that student-athletes
were being crucified.

The 88s would fume, but something
would be done. You just have to
measure the ferocity of the
ACC.

I could see Coach Beamer acting
differently; I can see KC and
Bill Anderson acting differently,
too.

Mac

Anonymous said...

8:55 says:


She certainly has gained more personal celebrity and institutional recognition than scholars who have made important contributions to knowledge.


I cannot help but think that that is one of those ironic statements and that the author was trying to avoid using the word "notoriety."

It seems clear that Duke can look forward to mediocrity over the long term, as the real talent in society looks elsewhere for a substantive education.

Many people mistake style for substance.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 2.39 wrote: "I have yet to hear anything close to a reasonable scenario where the three players have a case against Duke for any reason."

Must be Brodhead dreaming.

Hell, even if the players lose the litigation, the discovery and depositions alone would make the effort worthwhile. Folks, this is going to get real messy. And those who litigate for a living know exactly what I'm talking about.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 2.44 & lawsuits:

"Hell, even if the players lose the litigation, the discovery and depositions alone would make the effort worthwhile. Folks, this is going to get real messy. And those who litigate for a living know exactly what I'm talking about."

Does anyone know whether Duke is insured for this exposure?

Anonymous said...

Gary,

I agree on the grade retaliation, looks like a strong case and would be surprised if Duke takes this trial because ALL their dirty laundry and PC antics would be public. The other remaining lacrosse players could have similar cases on a hostile education environment, but seems doubtful they will sue rather than move on w/their lives.

I feel terrible for Pressler as well, no idea what kind of severence package they gave him. I hope he gets a better job in a year or two.

Depending on what the facts are surrounding the dorm searches, records and 'advice' given by Duke there may be something there for either the three boys or the other lacrosse players. Other than that, I don't see anything.

Of course they 'could' sue Duke, but a frivolous lawsuit likely destined to be dismissed by a judge
isn't in anyone's best interest, least of all the boys. Their legal team have been scrupulously above board since the beginning, I can't see them changing now.

While I believe they will sue Durham even a 'win' there isn't a slam dunk, there are many layers of immunity for cops and the government. However, I do think Durham will settle rather than have their incompetance, unprofessionalism and probable prior bad acts dragged out in public.

Anonymous said...

It might be a surprise to all
of us who might be included
in the various lawsuits that
MIGHT ensue; it might surprise
all of us if this is quietly
taken care of, with a
non-disclosed settlement -
(and even a non-disclosure that a
settlement has been made, if
that's possible.)

We-the-curious might not ever
know.

I don't think the boys want to
hurt Duke, but they want to see
some remediation; I suspect
that they really DO want the
DPD and Nifong to suffer;
I HOPE that they want to
obtain a court order to
provide ECT to Wendy Murphy
and Nancy Grace, who could
then possibly resume healthy,
almost normal lives.

I think the naysayers on the
lawsuits could be trolls,
they could be on to something,
or they could be doing what
most of us are doing:
guessing.

It will be interesting to watch.
One thing's for sure: the lawyers
aren't giving their hand(s) away.
Trollers might as well forget
that! (you, too, Levicy-o-philes!)

Mac

Nifong's hat trick said...

"If they didn't do it, whatever they did was bad enough."

With these words and help form the G88 Brodhead has painted a picture of Lacrosse players that has affected the perception of Lacrosse players at other institutions as well. My daughter, a Lacrosse player, was told by her professor that she was given a C on her paper because "...I figured that because you were devoting so much time to Lacrosse it was interfering with your academics." I read the paper, it was fine, a B+ at least. My daughter had written a sentence saying "...it was nice to see the advancement...". The professor's comment (and points deducted)"What do you mean by nice?"

Anonymous said...

There is an unfortunate tendency for posters here to call anyone a 'troll' who doesn't conform to the majority opinion.

I believe somebody should pay the legal expenses for three boys, probably Durham. I believe Duke acted terribly in jumping on the PC bandwagon, but I don't see any legal cause of action against Duke by the three players.

I've also posted on Levicy, that she's unprofessional and biased but that there is also no legitimate cause of action against Duke Medical.

I very much doubt Duke is going to enter into any kind of secret settlment with the three students, why would they if they have no legal liability? To do the right thing? HA. If they were interested in doing the right thing they would have done something other than defend the group of 88 and whats her name the grade retaliator would be looking for a job.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Brand said at 2:05: "a member of Duke's lacrosse team, was physically separated from the rest of the persons in a classroom by a professor, who reportedly used words to the effect that it was to "protect others from the rapists."

KC - based on the above, I'd like to ask another question of the Trustees, please.

To the Duke Trustees: You appear to be fine with allowing a racist (Solomon Burnette)to roam the Duke campus at will - despite the fact he's been convicted and served jail time for sticking a gun in the faces of Duke students, plus he's also just threatened in print to kill people of a different race than himself.

Yet when a different Duke student comes onto the same campus - a student who's never been indicted for a rape which AG Cooper has proven never happened - you Trustees are fine with having him segregated from other students like a Jew in the Warsaw ghetto.

Question: Was your judgment to allow completely opposite treatment of these two Duke students based on their race?

Just asking.

Anonymous said...

Just guessing:

Let's face it, folks: affirmative- action beneficiaries, both student and faculty, played a significant role in the hoax.

Duke 3's parents know this, so lawsuits will expose further the deleterios effects AA policies have on the well-being of nonblacks.

Anonymous said...

All these civil suits (none of which have been filed to date except in the minds of some bloggers) are going to be heard in Durham, NC. I doubt the good citizens of that city are on board for huge settlements for the guys.

Anonymous said...

Troll is code for disagree. As has been noted earlier the disagreement is usually with the majority.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 3.49 (a.k.a. "troll") wrote:

"Troll is code for disagree. As has been noted earlier the disagreement is usually with the majority."

Anonymous said...

Whats to settle and keep quiet? Everything is known and written about a thousand times over. There is no point in quietly settling when it is no longer a secret.

Anonymous said...

3:19

I would share your views,
especially with regard to
Duke's willingness to settle,
but I would be circumspect
about making claims with
regard to the viability
of a tort action.

It could depend upon the
ability of the boys'
lawyers, and as I said:
the intent of the families
who have been aggrieved.

You do admit that the
boys have suffered threats,
intimidation, loss of civil
liberties/rights and so forth,
do you not?

As for trolls: I doubt that
you are one of those, but
it's not they haven't been
heard from. They have.
(I would suggest that your
answer to the above question
about the loss of civil rights
and so forth would answer
whether or not you were engaging
in trolling or not.)

I agree with you, too, in
another way: disagreement
does not always mean "bad
intent." Those of us who
want justice to be done
don't have a pony in the
race (dog in the hunt etc.)
but we want to offer whatever
inspiration - (perhaps elucidation)
we can to those who are pursuing
justice.

If your were a parent of one
of the boys, what would you
hope for, and what would you do?

Mac

Anonymous said...

3:53

It's called "discovery."
Lots of people should fear
that.

Mac

Anonymous said...

BTW:

See:
(Lectric Law Library)
Hensley v. Hensley

"Aggrieved," in this case,
depends upon how thoroughly
and completely the boys'
attorneys can make their
case. I'd say getting kicked
out of school is "immediate,
pecuniary and substantial."

But I'm not a lawyer -
(though I once slept in
a Holiday Inn Express!)

Mac

Anonymous said...

If your were a parent of one
of the boys, what would you
hope for, and what would you do?
----------
Sue the Durham Police Department for conspiring to hide exculpatory evidence, failing to follow procedures and attempting to railroad my child for an imaginary rape.

Sue the City of Durham/Durham District Attorney's office for same.

Sue the PI, Wilson? for obstruction of justice/witness tampering and anything else I could come up with as well as encourage criminal prosecution for same.

Sue Mike Nifong personally in the hopes that every $$ he ever earned or will earned is given over to pay for the costs of defending against his witch hunt.

Use whatever influence I had to get Mike Nifong prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.

I would accept a settlement that left me with $$ covering all legal expenses, resulted in new safeguards at DPD and a public apology from the chief of Durham police and the Durham city manager.

As much as I would want to sue Mangum, I would not sue her because the resulting negative PR of beating up on a poor crazy black woman would offset the benefits.

I would however leak any additional damaging information about Mangum that I had on file short of her medical records which is a crime, e.g. if I had info. on her working as a prostitute I would give it to Neif or any other damaging info. on her.

Anonymous said...

The boys were charged with a serious felony, it would be well within Duke's rights to suspend them, though if they had been black football players, they would probably have gotten public support instead of comdemnation. Usually universities underreact when their students are charged with violent crimes, in this case they did overreact due to the black/white issue, but I suspect the suspension is on solid legal grounds.

Duke can't be liable for doing something based on a police indictment, it would be reasonable to assume that there was at least some case to answer.

It all goes back to Mike Nifong and the police.

Anonymous said...

Now: how about the Duke
Professors who continue
to maintain that "something
happened?"
As well as others, who
conntinue to defame the players,
suggesting that the aggrievements
are permanent, and
will have an impact upon the financial prospects (vis-a-vis
references of personal conduct,
"what they did was bad enough,"
a clear condemnation of character,
as well as termination from the
Institution itself.)

How would you treat those
issues, that all may have
LASTING, as well as those
immediate, pecuniary and
substantial effects
upon the lives of the students,
now and in the future (as
evidenced by the expressions
written and spoken by
Mr. Feinstein, who continues
to display the belief in
criminal liability in this
case.)

You made the case against
Durham - thye case is inurred
by the very real damages wrought
by the actions of the DA and
police and the SANE Nurse,
whose testimony and procedures
caused the students to pay
exhorbitant sums of money
for 1) bail 2)attorneys' fees.

Duke, Levicy et al are liable,
in the short-and-long term
damage to the reputations
of the students.



Mac

Anonymous said...

Hey, isn't that a hoot?
Feinstein's rant about the
boys may actually prove
continued injury to reputation!

Except to the boys, it is NOT
a funny thing.

Mac

Anonymous said...

You can't stop people from drawing conclusions about their character or saying 'something happened' that isn't the same as saying they are rapists. It may be wrong, sad, horrible and tragic but its not a crime.

I would say what Wendy Murphy said about Cooper's report comes very, very close to the line on defamation since she infers he lied about witnesses to the rape.

Sometimes in life bad things happen, this was a terrible tragedy and not all the negatives from the tragedy can be wiped away. The damage to their reputations is what it is, we can't turn back the clock and take away the year of horror they endured or lobotomize the idiots who say they more or less deserved it for drinking and hiring strippers.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 3:19 said...
...I very much doubt Duke is going to enter into any kind of secret settlement with the three students, why would they if they have no legal liability?
::
No Legal Liability? You talking about the University of North Korea?
It is my understanding that when we formed this country we left that issue up to a jury of our peers!
Our behavior is governed by the THOUGHT of defending ourselves before a jury of our peers...especially if we harm others.
Let the discovery continue.
We haven't turned our system of government over to the Marxists yet!
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Maybe Coach K did do the "honorable" thing -- just not the "public" thing.

Anonymous said...

Blah blah blah.

You still have to get any civil suit against Duke past a judge, good luck with that.

In this country we don't go directly to the jury, bypassing probable cause. Lawsuits are dismissed by judges all the time.

You sound like the pot bangers demanding a jury trial because you want it, despite a total lack of evidence.

Anonymous said...

4:45
No one is saying that
the defamation is a "crime."
Tort law and criminal law
aren't the same - (though
Nifong may see action
on both sides.)

As far as "damage to their
reputations is what it is,
and can't be turned back..."

Well, you made my point:
the injury is permanent.
There is such a thing as
"redress," however.

Are you saying to the boys:
"eat your losses, now and
in the future?"

I hope not!

Mac

Anonymous said...

Anony at 4.49 writes:

"Maybe Coach K did do the "honorable" thing -- just not the "public" thing."

Huh? Care to elaborate on this? I'd love to hear what Coach K *may* have done privately.

Anonymous said...

4:51

Lawyers fees, unreasonably
high bail? John Feinstein's
continued attacks on the character
of the boys?

Lack of evidence?

You must be a troll, or you
don't have a lick of sense.

Sorry.

Mac

Anonymous said...

Lawyers fees

It costs money to defend yourself against a felony, that's life. When you are charged with a felony that obviously never occured you seek to recoup your $$ from the police and DA, not the college you went to, the media or any other non involved third parties.

unreasonably high bail?

The bail was unreasonably high, but its still within guidelines, what kind of cause of action do you think they have on this?

John Feinstein's
continued attacks on the character
of the boys?

It's a free country, he can attack their character all he wants, he is free to say he thinks their hooligans for hiring strippers and drinking under age, nothing you can do about it, there is no cause of action here.

Based on what is known publicly there is no evidence that Duke University is liable for any damage done to the three boys, other than the possibilitly that their privacy was violated by Duke allowing illegal room searches and/or advising them to talk to police w/out lawyers, but this is a pretty big stretch as well.

Every injustice cannot be fixed in a court of law.

Anonymous said...

5.00

"Based on what is known publicly there is no evidence that Duke University is liable for any damage done to the three boys, other than the possibilitly that their privacy was violated by Duke allowing illegal room searches and/or advising them to talk to police w/out lawyers, but this is a pretty big stretch as well."

You're forgetting that SANE nurse. If she was negligent Duke is exposed. And this one gets through any judge and motions.

Anonymous said...

Didn't say Feinstein was liable:
merely that his demeanor suggests
the injury is permanent.

Duke's Profesors and Broadhead's
comments solidified the public's
perception of the boys -
some of whom still maintain
that criminal behavior occurred.
It is up to a judge or jury
to discern how remote the
injury is relative to the
participation of Duke et al.

I have faith that the litigators
for the boys will acquit themselves
quite well. I only know it it
were you I was litigating against,
I would feel pretty good about
my chances.

Mac

Gary Packwood said...

Christi 2:28 said...
...One way to "punish" or limit the influence of the G88 profs is for current Duke students to STOP TAKING THE COURSES THEY OFFER.
::
Yes. We discussed in detail the supply/demand issue several months ago... here.

The alums also need to determine if the professors who teach CORE courses have ganged up on athletes and forced them into certain G88 taught courses as their only option.

There has been much written about certain professors of CORE courses being mightily annoyed at student athletes needing to be absent from classes occasionally to compete on the playing fields.

The student athletes may be pushed into a bind were they have to take Introduction to Hate and Contemporary African Poetry as their CORE requirements.

As a former faculty member of a private university, I know how that little weasel system works.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

In making a claim for damages based on an allegation of another's negligence, the injured party (plaintiff) must prove: a) that the party alleged to be negligent had a duty to the injured party-specifically to the one injured or to the general public, b) that the defendant's action (or failure to act) was negligent-not what a reasonably prudent person would have done, c) that the damages were caused ("proximately caused") by the negligence. An added factor in the formula for determining negligence is whether the damages were "reasonably foreseeable" at the time of the alleged carelessness.

-------------------------

This is the legal definition of negligence, the SANE nurse's actions are never going to cut it, nor is anything Duke did or did not do.

a) you might make a case that Levicy had a duty to the public not to draw conclusions that were speculative.

b) never make this hurdle, IMO, you cannot prove it was wholly unreasonable for Levicy to believe Mangum was raped since she appeared distraught and did have some brusing.

c) never make this hurdle either, the proximate cause of the damages was Crystal Mangum's identification of the three boys as her attackers, not the SANE nurse believing her story.

Anonymous said...

4:45 That is exactly what the people of Durham and Cash wanted. A jury trial. Well, they did not get theirs either.

Anonymous said...

5:15

In a civil trial, there is no defendant. Respondent.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Duke is liable but not because of the Duke 88 ad, but because of Tara Levicy's conduct, which DUMC did not seem to bother to rein in. Greasy face Dickhead will not get fired because every move he made had the endorsement of the spineless BOT. As far as federal grant goes, I would think that only a very small percentage of it, if any, goes to those departments involved in the Duke 88 ad. Majority of the federal grant money actually go to the medicine and science departments which truly do outstanding work and really are the ones that seek truth in their work. I wouldn't want their funding cut off because that would be guilt by association. Let's put pressure on those people who really made the most damage to the lacrosse team and the university itself. This situation never reached Hitlerian proportions and so putting to task just about anyone at Duke who sat silent throughout this whole thing, it seems to me, is unwarranted.

Anonymous said...

5:23

Do you see any liability accuing to Duke because it had hired unqualified black racists with a subspecialty in antimale bigotry?

It's too bad I'm not a lawyer. I'd have a field day with this case, and I wouldn't care if I lost it. The squirming alone would be worth the price of admission.

Anonymous said...

5:31

Oh lord, get over yourselves guys.

I may be wrong but in order to have a cause of action you would have to prove you were discriminated against based on your race, I highly doubt any lacrosse players were in any african american or women's studies classes, so how are you going to prove discrimination?

Al Sharpton is a racist. Houston Baker is a racist. However, unless they discriminated against me, you, or the lacrosse players based on their racism you got nuthin.

Instead of yammering on about suing Duke it would be much more productive to be doing something to stop/change the climate on univerisities that allow these quasi disciplines to flourish.

Cedarford said...

My answer to the people showing up saying Duke cannot be sued is the same I wrote KC earlier that he should add Duke Employee Levicy, Duke Medical Center to his list of 12 questions for the BOT.

Dr. Victor Hzau and the Nurse Leadership Team at Duke appeared to have failed to correct the institutional failure started by Duke employee Levicy, who made a "diagnosis" of "Evidence consistent with rape" and "blunt force trauma" in the absence of any evidence she personally saw. That diagnosis led to improper warrants being drawn up on her false, misrepresented evidence. Led to millions in legal bills by DUMC and Levicy's credibility as a Duke employee being the prime enabler of Nifong and his allies.

Levicy was put in a SANE job despite her and her supervisor having knowledge she was then unqualified and uncertified. DUMC allowed her to work, and institutionally failed to detect and repair her and her supervisor's malpractice. Duke ignored their own policies and protocols that should have stopped the rogue employee and supervisor. Both are still employed, no disciplinary report made, no effort to have the actual doctor doing the exam that Levicy could not observe but could only imagine - from speaking out and clearing the record in March of 2006.
DUMC was silent as Pressler was fired, and the Grand jury indicted the 3 on Nurse Levicy's "evidence". They appear to have never investigated the malpractice or acted to limit the accumuulating damage done to the civil rights, legal costs of Pressler and 46 Lacrosse players.

DUMC failed to notify law enforcement, Brodhead, or Duke's BOT (their ultimate reporting path) about their big problem with Levicy...instead, apparantly acting on DUMC lawyer's advice to gag the other employees from comment, retain Levicy in her job, and try and cover the matter up in the hope everything would blow over and Nifong would drop the case any day with DUMC "protected" from liability.

Except Nifong was so convinced by Levicy's "expert opinion as a Duke medical professional" that he didn't, and liability for the BOT and Duke looks tremendous.

What exactly are the three boys going to sue Duke for, please be specific as to what their causes of action against Duke University could be?

Grade retaliation? Nope. Yep, in progress, with lawsuits filed.
Suspension? Nope.Yep, if a court determines the 3 would not have been suspended but for misconduct of Duke employees at DUMC
Group of 88 ad? Nope.Yep, if a court bundles it in with slander, reckless endangerment, defamation of character, civil rights violations, pattern of racial bias against whites - done by Duke IN TOTO as an institution. Group 88 tenure means nothing outside Duke's walls in torts committed.
Other comments by Duke faculty? Yep as part of a larger lawsuit where the kitchen sink is tossed in
Nope. Despite your nope, you're a dope.
DUMC is the open barnyard door.
Other stuff that will be in the lawsuits is trimming on the cake.

Add in the reckless actions by certain Duke employees in creating and distributing the defamatory "Vigilante Poster" with players faces names and adresses and accusation all were criminals at a time when players were in physical danger. Failure by Duke Administration to deal with the employees or the Vigilante poster.


Violation of privacy? Maybe, a stretch. Not when a Duke employee's false, unqualified medical testimony led to the court suspending their 4th and 5th Amendment Rights.

What else? If you had followed the case, you might have a clue.

May 10, 2007 12:51:00 PM

Anonymous said...

You are never going to get a judge to agree that Nurse Levicy is the proximate cause of charges being filed.

NEVER. NEVER. NEVER.

If Levicy said nothing there would still have been the accuser and her identification. To this day she still claims rape!!

If Levicy said, "doesn't look like blunt force trauma to me" you would still have the accuser saying she was raped. The SANE nurse doesn't get to say go or stop in a rape investigation, the police do.

That post is one of the silliest I have ever seen.

Anonymous said...

If you had followed the case, you might have a clue.

My guess is I know as much about the case as you do, but I don't let my desire for revenge cloud my thinking.

There is no case against Duke Medical, period. YOu are never going to make a case that the case going forward was due to Levicy's negligence.

Anonymous said...

Cedarford,

Bravo! Bravo!

Thank you for the clear, concise
delineation of the case -
the "other side" has said nothing
but "nope," and the equivalent
of "duh."

In one of my posts, at least
referred to legal references,
which the naysayers have not.

Thank you Cedarford!
Good work!

Mac

Anonymous said...

BTW, 5:54,
Why did Levicy meet with Nifong
so many times if she wasn't
all that important - and when
the Physician who actually
performed the exam was not interviewed?

Mac

Anonymous said...

Mac,

I didn't say she wasn't important to Mike Nifong's case, Levicy was the only other person he had who was willing to support the idea that Mangum was raped. It appears she was still on board as of January.

Being wrong doesn't make one negligent. I don't believe its a reasonable case to say that Levicy was the proximate cause of the boys being prosecuted. She didn't ID them. She didn't accuse them of rape. You can't even say her initial statements WERE negligent since given what she knew in the first week it wasn't unreasonable to believe the accuser. She likely didn't know about her mental health issues, didn't know about her previous false allegations, didn't know she had a criminal record, didnt' know she was known in the ER for trying to get narcotics, didn't know about any other versions of events, didn't know she lied about who she had sex w/recently.

Depending on what Levicy said and did subsequent to the first few weeks, you might make a case against her personally, but as far as DUMC being liable, I very much doubt it.

I can't see the lawyers for these three guys using a scorched earth "sue everybody" strategy.

Anonymous said...

5:55,

I don't see a "scorched earth"
strategy, but I do see - as
Cedarford astutely suggested -
a dissection of the principals,
one-by-one, limb-by-limb.
Starting with the person who
claimed "blunt force trauma."
The doctor didn't. Who did?

Mac

Anonymous said...

Hey, I may be wrong, but I don' think Duke Medical is going to be named in any lawsuit because Tara Levicy determined that vaginal edema was consistent with blunt force trauma.

There are a gazillion rape cases where the victim didn't have any vaginal injury, so how is anyone going to prove that her opinion was so wrong as to constitute NEGLIGENCE???

And even if Levicy herself WAS negligent, how does this necessarily open up Duke Medical to liability?

The root cause of all the damages was not Tara Levicy but Crystal Mangum.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect, Cedarford's contention that everything flowed from the SANE nurse is nonsense. His ideas of 'slander' and defamation of character in regard to this case are also nonsense.

Certainly, they 'could' sue anyone and everyone, but they won't. They aren't going to sue Duke or Duke Medical based on what is publicly known, in my opinion.

Cedarford said...

May 10th Anonymous 5:15 poster comments on reasons why he thinks Levicy and DUMC are immune to malpractice tort of negligence:

b) never make this hurdle, IMO, you cannot prove it was wholly unreasonable for Levicy to believe Mangum was raped since she appeared distraught and did have some brusing.

c) never make this hurdle either, the proximate cause of the damages was Crystal Mangum's identification of the three boys as her attackers, not the SANE nurse believing her story.


Lets put it into a different scenario:

Good Nurse Levicy is a forensic tox "epert" waiting for her certification in the mail, but she sure knows a lot, so her supervisor disregards policy and procedure and assigns her anyways.

Meanwhile in Durham, a black man wiring the new Muslim Mosque collapses, his body in convulsions. He is rushed to DUMC screaming the Muslims must have poisoned him. Tox nurse Levicy is unfamiliar with the tox equipment so a doctor runs the tests. But Levicy listens to the dying patient muttering it must be nerve gas.
Outraged, and inclined by her 4 years of Christian religious studies before she became a 1-year RN wonder at another college, Levicy is not too well disposed to Muslims as is.
When cops arrive, she steps up despite no quals, no authorization to diagnose, and proclaims that she found the dead guy credible."Evidence consistent with Muslim attack", "symptoms indicative of nerve gas poisoning based on my exam..".
Next thing you know, 100 armed cops and Homeland security agents storm the Mosque, gather up the people, and search their places and get blood and DNA samples compelled under a Judge ordered NTO citing "expert tox nurse Levicy determining nerve gas was used". Duke fires 1 employee who is a mosque member, 3 student members are suspended after a grand jury indicts based on "victims last words" and "the Duke tox expert confirming nerve gas attack happened".

Doctors and nurses who actually examined the dead guy state to Duke lawyers that the guy was nuts from a high fever and say the actual tox evidence confirms he died of convulsions and nerve involvement associated with fatal spinal menengitis. They are gagged by DUMC, even as death threats against the 46 Mosque "terrorists" and DA's denunciation of them as the vilest hooligans continues. Two Muslim gas station attendents are shot at, one Duke Sikh beaten up by black toughs at a picnic.

Activist students and employees create a defamatory poster with the faces, names, and adresses of all Duke Muslims using the mosque - denouncing them and demanding they all confess what they know about the Mosque nerve gas..

THen for 10 months, DUMC fails to inform Duke BOT or law enforcement that Tox Nurse Levicy was not a qualified tox expert, commented on an exam and test she wasn't competent enough to do, made diagnosis she wasn't qualified to do...and all they had indicated no nerve gas....Lawyers defending the Muslims are amazed to learn the doctor actually examining the patient for toxic agents was never interviewed.

Now, tell me Muslims in circumstances similar to what actually happened with the Lacrosse players and "rape expert Levicy" would not have a good lawsuit against Duke and DUMC.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what that statute of limitations is for this kind of suit, if it should happen? Whether it does or not, I suspect there will be a lot of sweating people watching the calendar.

Bill Alexander

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry your parallel is not a parallel.

The boys were arrested on the word of the stripper and her identification of the three.

I don't think its even provable that Levicy herself was negligent since you cannot prove her conclusions were UNREASONABLE.

Why you want to blame the whole case on Tara Levicy instead of the lying stripper and criminal district attorney is beyond me.

I posted the legal definition of negligence, and in my opinion there is no way anyone would settle or win a case involving the SANE nurse unless she has committed other much more serious misdeeds than have been made public.

Anonymous said...

It's the end of the day
And the SOB is still the DA

How is this possible?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 10:40 AM said, "Add Question #16: Why, in the wake of Burnette's virulent piece in the NCCU Eagle, is he receiving a continuing welcome at Duke, and Reade and Collin are not?"

I'm sure Brodhead would answer, "Collin and Reade are welcome at Duke!"

To which the response should be, "Then why aren't they here? If they are truly as 'welcome' at Duke as the thug Burnett, why is he here and they're not? Clearly words are not enough: What should Duke do for Collin and Reade so that they will feel that Duke is serious when it says it 'welcomes' them?"

Anonymous said...

6:21

In my profession, when there
is doubt, we refer. If I were
to be asked to testify in a
criminal case, I would be
willing to say "I don't know."

I think the other likelihood -
similar to Cedarford's 5:39 post,
is this:

The suit against Durham and the
DPD is first; the Investigators
Nifong et al are made to squirm,
and to point the finger of blame
at Levicy. This is the
"respondant's" tactic to later
avoid the testimony being used
against them in the prosecution,
during which they will be
the "defendant." They will
probably direct much of their
animus toward Levicy, during both
civil trials and criminal trials.

A lot will depend upon June 12.

The suit will proceed, DPD and
Durham will lose, and then the
attorneys will turn their attention
to Duke Medical.

The testimony of the Investigators
will (in their own defense)
indicate that Levicy was a
loose cannon, and that her
testimony was what made them
act against the boys.
They'll say that she reported
things to prosecutors and
investigators that enabled
them to pursue their
prosecution/persecution.
These things will be known
to the Investigators, who will
be eager to avoid consequences,
even at Levicy's expense.

Too late now for collusion:
didn't work before; won't
work now.

Levicy, however, is just the door
to DUMC. She'll be trying to
keep her own head above water,
and she'll point fingers at
DUMC: "they shoulda known I
wasn't qualified!"

DUMC will have liability coverage,
as all hospitals do. They're the
big guns, the deep pockets.
It'll be settled as most
cases like this involving
medical systems are settled:
out of court.

Next, Duke itself will find itself
minus two co-respondants, and
left with the remaining blame
for the shattered reputations of
the boys. A settlement will
be engineered that will involve
tossing overboard the most
burdensome cargo and and most
expensive deck chairs. Brodhead
will be gone, most likely, and
some of the 88 will agree to be
"transferred" to NCCU.

The talking heads who've crossed
the line with respect to declaring
guilt or innocence - Nancy Grace
and others - will be put in
the hot seat, and forced to
explain their words - and to
retract them in a most
humiliating way. As if the
AG's words weren't enough.

The AG's words were interesting,
too: as they say, argue the
law when the facts are against
you, argue the facts when the
law is against you. In this case,
the Attorney General demonstrated
that both facts AND the law were on
the side of the Duke students.
(This small fact seems to
continue to be ignored in some
minds - such as Feinstein's
and Murphy's.)

Mac

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 4:25 p.m. wrote:

"Duke can't be liable for doing something based on a police indictment"

There's so much uninformed opinion masquerading as fact on this blog.
I don't know of any place in this country where the police has the power to indict.

Duke parent 2004 said...

As I've posted elsewhere, a friend of mine from my graduate-school days is a veteran member of the Duke Board of Trustees. After telling me by e-mail that the Board stood foursquare behind Bob Steel's recent public statement supporting Brodhead, my friend stopped responding to my follow-up questions and comments. Among the scenarios suggested by such hunkering-down is this one:

1. The Board is now listening more closely to legal counsel than to any bloggers.
2. Nevertheless, the Board cannot ignore the public-relations pounding that Duke has been getting of late. After all, the Board is entrusted with protecting the University's reputation, which turns on far more than just avoiding or trumping legal liability.
3. Therefore, by expressing wholehearted support for Brodhead, the Board can more conveniently come to a financial settlement while maintaining to its radical faculty that it never in principle abandoned them.

So . . . , the posters here who elaborate the niceties of actionable negligence on Duke's part could well be right--and yet sail past the likely outcome: Duke will settle before allowing this sorry episode in its history to drag on for years.

Let's not forget a strategy employed by good lawyers: Build momentum, and a war chest, by first cleaning the clocks of the easy targets (e.g., Nifong, the City of Durham, Nancy Grace), and then go after the "tougher" targets (e.g., Duke, the Herald Sun, individual professors, Wendy Murphy). Those targets will prove far more amenable to settlements after they see the damage inflicted on their confreres by the first wave of bombers.

If sued, Duke will settle. Brodhead will eventually leave for an "exciting opportunity" at the Ford Foundation or some other organization that shamelessly betrays the principles of its grantors.

Cedarford said...

Anonymous 6:21

I don't think its even provable that Levicy herself was negligent since you cannot prove her conclusions were UNREASONABLE.

You make the mistake of assuming that anyone can have a personal opinion that is not negligent as long as they can establish they "reasonably believed it". The problem is that certified, licensed people in fields where their opinions have consequenses can only give those "reasonable" opinions according to a strict code and only after they meet certain standards. When they don't, when they misrepresent their qualifications, substitute subjective feelings in lieu of meeting the standards their profession demands be met - courts have no problem finding the employed expert and the institution they served as agents of - as professionally negligent.

Why you want to blame the whole case on Tara Levicy instead of the lying stripper and criminal district attorney is beyond me.

I don't.
There are many personal and institutional failures involved. When the failures are so multiple, so significant in damages that a tort lawyer can credidibly say exceeds 20 million for the harm done to Pressler, the 46 Lacrosse players to various degrees, and outside the torts the significant damage to the reputation of Duke and the legal practice in N Carolina? It is only a person unfamiliar with lawsuits and investigations into other massive failures like the Challenger disaster, the Wanatchee Fiasco, 9/11, the Terri Schiavo Fiasco - that attempts to affix blame on only 1-2 "archevildoers".


I posted the legal definition of negligence, and in my opinion there is no way anyone would settle or win a case involving the SANE nurse unless she has committed other much more serious misdeeds than have been made public.


Your opinion doesn't seem to hold much water. Two NYC major medical malpractice firms indicated they are interested in either suing Duke or helping defend them once the Levicy news came out. At Volokh Conspiracy, law experts have written in that they expect DUMC will pay the most of any party. And payout will vary wildly depending on who knew about Levicy's being unqualified to conduct SANE exams, make diagnosis, and how extensive the coverup of exculpatory evidence was by the institutional managers and lawyers refusing to set the record straight on the actual medical forensic evidence determined by the doctor that actually did the exam.

(An easy mistake made by others with some knowledge of the law, but misled into believing that damage caused by state-recognized "experts" practicing licensed work are subject to the identical legal exposure of Joe Schmoe on the street for negligence lawsuits for "just sharing his opinion".)

People tracking the case now anticipate how Nifing will toss Nurse Tara and her SANE supervisor under the bus. How Gottlieb will be impeached. Then try impeaching dedicated Woman's Studies advocate Tara as a defense. How the state will defend the NTO and Grand Jury indictments and over 5 million in ensuing defense costs by blaming them on good faith based on misrepresented evidence by a "Duke Expert" who they had no idea was
unqualified to practce the medical specialty she was in. And argue plausibly that the legal expenses were more a function of DUMC and Nifong doing separate concealment of evidence than boobery by City of Durham or State of NC..As for the millions of lying whores and drug addicts - anyone inclined to believe them and then go out and expose themselves to career damage and legal liability has only themselves to blame.

Gary said...

Interesting statistics:
RE>
[[
1.) In January 2007, 87 Duke faculty members issued a public statement describing a “disaster” that allows “sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus.”
]]
Does someone who is a lot more obsessive than I want to go through the list of profs who signed the add and figure out their average productivity? Something like papers published weighted more towards recent times. Then compare that for the overall Duke faculty, or to some national average.

I'm just guessing that the productivity number is significantly lower for G88 and G++. Could be wrong.

Anonymous said...

What makes you so sure she was unqualified?

Becuase she hadn't received her certificate in the mail? Pretty lame. As I understand it she had completed all of her training. I REALLY don't think you are going to win anything by stating the woman was unqualified based on paperwork alone, if she had completed the requisite training and applied for the hard copy certificate, there isn't much of a problem. It's a non starter.

There is no evidence that Levicy misrepresented herself in any way. That's something Kethra made up in her imagination because Levicy didn't actually conduct the pelvic exam herself. As far as we know she was there the entire time and as a SANE nurse she's able to make her own judgement on what diffuse edema means.

There were plenty of people who were sure Mangun was also going to sue Duke and win millions, sue her alleged attackers in civil court and win more millions.

I haven't seen a single thing that you have posted that comes close to proving Levicy was neglient or that there is a cause of action against her or DUMC on behalf of the three boys. Time will tell.

Anonymous said...

The justified criticism of La Lubiano is based not just on her feeble publication record and abysmal writing skills, but also on her dishonesty in repeatedly claiming for many years that publications are "forthcoming."

Anonymous said...

Duke Parent 2004 and Cedarford:

You folks are GOOD!
Very sound analysis!
I think I will shut up now.

Mac

Legal Eagle said...

IMCO;

As part of the whole, Duke's Board of Trustees (et al) is liable for a portion of the expenses incurred and damages suffered by the accused and their families, in as much as they, the BOT, participated in perpetuating the unsubstantiated charges.

Duke lacrosse players, the entire team, may also participate in recovery, as they too were damaged by the summary actions of the BOT.

Coach Pressler is also entitled to recover, including full payment of his Duke contract, plus expenses, plus damages.

At to what/who constitutes Duke's Board of Trustees, include all Duke representatives who held -by word and/or action- against the accused; collectively, and individually.

Anonymous said...

Dear Trustees:

The real "disaster" at Duke is not social but academic. As you are probably well aware, the principal architects of the near lynching at Duke hail from your weakest "academic" department, a department whose existence is due, in large part, to the persistence of affirmative action and academic relativism.

Please peruse the course offerings at AAAS. Is this stuff worth funding? Funny, isn't it, that a lot of the courses aren't even described... Do we really need Angry Studies at Duke, or at any institution that prizes the "best of the best."

I'd like to know:

1. How much money is being wasted on AAAS, Women's Studies, Gay Studies? What is the TOTAL cost to fund this stuff? That includes everything--pensions, buildings, etc.

2. Look at the course offerings in AAAS 1 more time. Are some of these professors teaching their students to hate white people? Did this contribute to the rush to judgment? Are they merely politicizing group differences?

3. Do you think Duke's funding of victim studies curricula is outdated...obsolete? We certainly can spend citizens' hard-earned money on more WORTHY academic pursuits that will help make the world a better place in which to live.

4. Don't you think it's time to examine the incredible damage the Gang of 88 has wreaked upon Duke's once-outstanding reputation?

LP, Trinity College '62

rod allison, detroit said...

"I'm just guessing that the productivity number is significantly lower for G88 and G++. Could be wrong."

The average might be low, but a few stars signed the list. One of them is the Frank Lentrecchia (?) guy, who was a proponent of the Stanley Fish school that taught that there is no real original meaning to a text. So Milton or Shakespeare meant whatevever Frank Lenwhathisname said it meant.

That may have been fine in academia, but Lenwhathisname shouldn't have tried it in the real world.

He thought this applied to the listening ad, but it didn't.

The listenening ad had a meaning, and a disgusting one at that. And Lenwhathisname made a fool out of himself by signing it.

The "brilliant" scholar who suffered from the race obsession so prevalant in academia got suckered by a dolt like Wabneema.

Many academics, like KC, function fine in the real world. But guys like Lenwhathisname, Wood, and Chafe are clueless.

Anonymous said...

Gary @ 1:15 and Anonymous @ 5:23, First, try to read more carefully, and second, the pot-banging 88 count on good people like you to lose their nerve in a showdown.

Firstly, has the federal government become soooooooo omnipresent in our minds that if I write "government", everyone immediately reads "federal government"? Do you think the federal government is the source of most research grants? I don't know, but I doubt it. State governments probably rival or even exceed what the feds do in the way of research grants.

And contrary to the hysteria that I've produced, I didn't suggest that we urge government grants be "cutoff". I urged that they be "threatened." Duke will never permit the cutoffs from taking effect. It will comply with a statute or regulation that conditions grants on the performance of certain tasks -- like the one I suggested, creating transparency in the admissions process so that the extent of anti-white and anti-Asian bias in admissions can be measured.

Read again my original statement: "The only thing Duke truly fears is the cutoff of government research grants. If y'all can come up with a realistic way to threaten THAT, then you Duke will pay attention to you.
Not until then."


And then Gary's response at 1:15 PM: I happen to know some engineering faculty at Duke who are top notch. None of them took part in the "Angry Studies" nonsense. So the engineering departments should be punished for what reason exactly? Gary, they won't be punished unless Duke wants to commit financial suicide to keep its admissions process secret.


And Anonymous' response @ 5:23 PM: As far as federal grant goes, I would think that only a very small percentage of it, if any, goes to those departments involved in the Duke 88 ad. Majority of the federal grant money actually go to the medicine and science departments which truly do outstanding work and really are the ones that seek truth in their work. I wouldn't want their funding cut off because that would be guilt by association. Anonymous, they won't be cut off unless Duke wants to commit financial suicide to keep its admissions process secret.

Anonymous said...

Question? To win a tort case would the victims have to win in front of a jury in Durham?

Anonymous said...

Duke parent 2004 at 7:32PM ...

IMO you have nailed it. I suspect that your friend on the Board has been hearing from others besides yourself. Duke's reputation is running down the gutters and the Admin and BOT are frozen in their steps about what to do.

Think that one day Duke will be referred to as the General Motors of American Universities?

Anonymous said...

LP, T 62, at 9:13 pm: Excellent, honest letter to the Trustees that confronts the elephant in the room. Are you sending it to them?

Legal Eagle said...

"Question? To win a tort case would the victims have to win in front of a jury in Durham?"

Jurisdiction may be established outside Durham, although in this case (i.e., Students v. BOT), based on *Breach of Contract* as opposed to a "tort."

Anonymous said...

8:31 Right on - Understanding that the Doctor and Nurse signed in the wrong place is a non starter nor Fraud as Kerta wrote. Kerta has encouraged non professionals to complain about this Nurse to the board based on her own fanasties. She wants Nurse Levicy stripped of her license and job. I think Levicy made a dumb remark if she acturally said what is claimed. It is based on the word of Gottlieb and Nifong which should give anyone pause.Unethical to the extreme.

Anonymous said...

Witt and Freedman may not have much of a defense for Nifong. There will be no mention trying to use Levicy as an excuse for his behavior. Williamson has already ruled that using Law Professor Everett's brief is not acceptable.

Anonymous said...

1:43 is a troll: still can't
spell "Kethra."

After all this time?

Mac

Anonymous said...

Now Mac - you don/t really think that is an accident or spelling mistake - do you?

Anonymous said...

Her duty was to assist in collecting the evidence.

Anonymous said...

Her duty didn't extend
to providing inept, false
testimony for evidence
she didn't witness nor collect.

Anonymous said...

rod allison, 9:14 said "One of them is the Frank Lentrecchia (?) guy, who was a proponent of the Stanley Fish school that taught that there is no real original meaning to a text. So Milton or Shakespeare meant whatevever Frank Lenwhathisname said it meant."
I think he is right. The first place to apply it is his employment contract.

Bill Alexander

Anonymous said...

12:42 We have no transcripts of what you write - just some statements taken out of context by police liars.

Anonymous said...

And Nurse's Peggy Perfect - one of whom we find out thirteen months later is not herself a certified Sane, but is sitting for the exam this fall. Nurse Levicy's hard copy of the certification was at least in the mail.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Nurse Levicy did assist The Doctor in the collection of the material and did most of the Q$A of the SANE report. All the vilification of DUMC having her wait a few hours for the exam. Now turns out that is normal proceedure for the hospitals who have SANEs - a part time on call Nursing job. In most hospitals, they do it the old fashion way. The Doc collects the evidence assisted by a nurse.

Anonymous said...

Junk Science Debunkers has an excellent blog going on about the Manly/Lecvicy event.