Saturday, June 30, 2007

Brodhead Wins a Sheldon

Last week, in the New York Sun, commentator John Leo awarded President Brodhead the 2007 “Sheldon.” As Leo noted, “The award is named for Sheldon ‘Water Buffalo’ Hackney, the former president of the University of Pennsylvania and the Babe Ruth of modern Sheldonism,” and is given to the president who showed the least courage in the previous academic year.

Brodhead’s first public appearance after the arrests of Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann was enough to nominate him for the award: he informed the Durham Chamber of Commerce, “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.” No Duke official has ever retracted the statement.

Leo also pointed to Brodhead’s inability or unwillingness to stand up to the Group of 88; and his refusal to condemn or even comment upon the extremist protesters that made their way in and around campus in late March or early April.

But Leo singled out Brodhead’s April 5, 2006 “letter to the Duke community.” In light of Leo’s column, the letter, in full, is reprinted below, with a few sections bolded. Remember, Duke’s official line is that upholding the presumption of innocence formed one of two central Brodhead goals.

Durham, N.C. -- April 5, 2006

A Letter to the Duke Community

I want to speak to the issue that is troubling our community and announce five steps we are taking to address it.

Allegations against members of the Duke lacrosse team stemming from the party on the evening of March 13 have deeply troubled me and everyone else at this university and our surrounding city. We can’t be surprised at the outpouring of outrage. [This outrage included signs saying “castrate” and “wanted” posters plastered around campus, all of which had been widely reported in the media. Neither Brodhead nor anyone in his administration ever condemned such acts.] Rape is the substitution of raw power for love, brutality for tenderness, and dehumanization for intimacy. It is also the crudest assertion of inequality, a way to show that the strong are superior to the weak and can rightfully use them as the objects of their pleasure. When reports of racial abuse are added to the mix, the evil is compounded, reviving memories of the systematic racial oppression we had hoped to have left behind us. [How would any fair-minded reader not come away from the sentences above with the belief Brodhead was associating these allegations with the lacrosse players?]

If the allegations are verified, what happened would be a deep violation of fundamental ethical principles and among the most serious crimes known to the legal system. Such conduct is completely unacceptable both within the university and in our society at large. If the truth of the allegations is upheld, it will call for severe punishment from the courts and from Duke’s disciplinary system. This university has cooperated and will continue to cooperate to the fullest to speed the ongoing investigation by the police, and I pledge that Duke will respond with appropriate seriousness when the truth is established. [Now that the “truth” has been “established,” what, exactly, has Duke done?]

But it is clear that the acts the police are investigating are only part of the problem. This episode has touched off angers, fears, resentments, and suspicions that range far beyond this immediate cause. It has done so because the episode has brought to glaring visibility underlying issues that have been of concern on this campus and in this town for some time—issues that are not unique to Duke or Durham but that have been brought to the fore in our midst. They include concerns of women about sexual coercion and assault. They include concerns about the culture of certain student groups that regularly abuse alcohol and the attitudes these groups promote. They include concerns about the survival of the legacy of racism, the most hateful feature American history has produced.

Compounding and intensifying these issues of race and gender, they include concerns about the deep structures of inequality in our society—inequalities of wealth, privilege, and opportunity (including educational opportunity), and the attitudes of superiority those inequalities breed. [How would any fair-minded reader not come away from the sentences above with the belief Brodhead was associating these themes with the lacrosse players?] And they include concerns that, whether they intend to or not, universities like Duke participate in this inequality and supply a home for a culture of privilege. The objection of our East Campus neighbors was a reaction to an attitude of arrogant inconsiderateness that reached its peak in the alleged event but that had long preceded it. I know that to many in our community, this student behavior has seemed to be the face of Duke.

Given the history of this campus and city, this has been particularly painful. Only forty years ago, the first African American student was admitted to Duke and at that time men and women lived on separate campuses. Today, more than one-third of Duke undergraduates are members of minority groups. Many, many dedicated members of the Duke and Durham communities have worked hard to bring us all forward. Duke has worked to be a good neighbor, supporting health care, K-12 education, affordable housing, neighborhood stabilization, and economic development through the Duke-Durham Neighborhood Partnership. Duke is not, as some have reported, just an institution for the children of wealthy families. This university admits undergraduates without regard to their family’s ability to pay, and we invest more than $50 million a year to enable the 40% of students who receive grant aid to afford a Duke education. Duke’s Women’s Initiative, launched by my predecessor Nannerl Keohane, took the national lead in exploring issues of gender inequality across the university. Perhaps most important, I know—and I suspect our students’ harshest critics know too—that the huge majority of Duke students are well-behaved and good-hearted, and many work hard for the larger social good.

But if the dark aspect is not the whole truth, this is not a moment to take comfort or mount defenses. To get the good of the current situation, we all need to face up to the profoundly serious issues that recent events have brought to light and address them in a positive, substantive, and ongoing way. If none of these issues is peculiar to Duke, that’s no reason why we should refuse to address them in our midst. As we decide what steps to take, let me underline the values that must govern our actions.

The university is guided by the principles of openness, inclusiveness, mutual toleration, and mutual respect. Everything that furthers these causes advances our ability to work together toward the truth no individual or group can reach alone. Everything that hinders these causes retards the search for wisdom and knowledge. The university is also founded on the principle that we have an obligation to seek the truth, and that truth is established through evidence and disciplined inquiry. Reaching certainty without evidence or process is a double wrong in a university because it opens the door to injustice and violates our commitment to the truth.

In keeping with these values, I want to announce five steps Duke will take to address the issues before us. Some will be accomplished in a short period of time; others will require our sustained attention.

1. Investigation of men’s lacrosse. In regard to men’s lacrosse, I have announced today that the men’s lacrosse season and all associated activities have been cancelled. Lacrosse coach Mike Pressler submitted his resignation today to Athletics Director Joe Alleva and it was accepted, effective immediately. [As Brodhead admitted in his May 2006 meeting with the lacrosse team, he demanded Pressler's resignation--or, effectively, fired the coach. It remains unclear why the administration simply did not admit this fact from the start.]

The criminal allegations against members of the team must continue to be investigated by the Durham police and we will continue to cooperate with that investigation to the fullest. Many have urged me to have Duke conduct its own inquiry into these charges. Frustrating though it is, Duke must defer its own investigation until the police inquiry is completed, first because the police have access to key witnesses, warrants, and information that we lack, and second because our concurrent questioning could create a risk of complications—for instance, charges of witness tampering—that could negatively affect the legal proceedings. I assure you, however, that the Duke disciplinary system will be brought to bear as soon as this can appropriately be done. Until that time, I urge us to be patient and remind ourselves that allegations have been made, the team has denied them, and we must wait until the authorities act before reaching any judgment in the criminal case. [Hardly a ringing defense of the “presumption of innocence,” especially after the “authorities” act and charge someone.]

Quite separate from the criminal allegations, there have been reports of persistent problems involving the men’s lacrosse team, including racist language and a pattern of alcohol abuse and disorderly behavior. [As the Coleman Committee report would make clear, there were no reports of racist language, much less “persistent” use of racist language, by the lacrosse team.] These are quite separate from the criminal allegations, and these we will address at once. The Athletic Council, the body with oversight of athletics in Duke’s governance system, is the right group to perform this investigation. The Executive Committee of the Academic Council and I have asked a faculty subcommittee of the Athletic Council to investigate all the evidence regarding objectionable behavior prior to March 13. The intention here is not to single out the behavior of individuals but to understand the extent to which the cumulative behavior of many over a number of years signifies a deeper problem for which significant corrective actions are called for. I have asked this group to report its findings and to make any recommendations it may have by May 1. I am pleased that Professor James Coleman of the DukeLawSchool, an Athletic Council member, has agreed to chair this committee.

2. Investigation of Duke Administration Response. I have heard a good deal of criticism of the Duke administration for being slow to respond to the allegations against the team associated with March 13. At meetings with faculty, students, community members, and others, I have explained why it took time to know how to respond: we learned the full magnitude of the allegations only gradually, as police and other information was reported in the media, and indeed it appears it took the police themselves some time to understand the nature of the case. Nevertheless, I want to address the concern that my administration did not respond as quickly as we should have and to learn any lessons this episode can teach. To that end, I have asked two individuals with outstanding experience in higher education and civil rights to look into the role of the Duke administration and Duke Athletics in handling this episode. I am grateful to William Bowen, President of the Andrew Mellon Foundation and former President of Princeton University, and Julius Chambers, former Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and past Chancellor of North Carolina Central University, for agreeing to take on this task. They have agreed to report their findings and make any recommendations to me by May 15.

3. Examination of student judicial process and practices. Questions have been raised within the Duke and Durham communities about the way Duke deals with problems of student behavior and the applicability of our Community Standard to social life. The Executive Committee of the Academic Council has charged the Council’s Student Affairs Committee, chaired by Professor Prasad Kasibhatla, to study Duke’s existing judicial processes and practices for students and make any recommendations for change to the administration and faculty by June 1.

4. Campus Culture Initiative. Duke traditionally has given its students a great deal of freedom, but at times the exercise of that freedom is not matched with a commensurate sense of responsibility. We must be concerned about issues of campus culture this episode has raised quite apart from the lacrosse team. This is a time for Duke to take a hard look at our institutional practices to assess the extent to which they do, or do not, promote the values we expect students to live by.

I have asked Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Dean of Trinity College Robert Thompson to direct a Campus Culture Initiative involving faculty, students, and staff. The task of the Initiative is to evaluate and suggest improvements in the ways Duke educates students in the values of personal responsibility, consideration for others, and mutual respect in the face of difference and disagreement. [One wonders how CCI member Chauncey Nartey, whose e-mails prompted the Presslers to file a police report for harassment, embodied these goals. Or CCI race subgroup chair Karla Holloway, who released a mass e-mail containing scurrilous fifth-hand gossip about the lacrosse players. Or CCI athletics subgroup chair Peter Wood, who appeared to slander Reade Seligmann in a June 2006 interview.] The goal of this initiative is not to tell students “what to think” in some simplistic or doctrinaire way. Nevertheless, this is our chance to take the ethical dimension of education much more seriously than heretofore. An important task of the Initiative will be to enlist the faculty more fully in this broader work of education. Since we need to engage the whole of the student population in this process, we will also need to involve all of Duke’s overlapping student groups and communities and learn how they can be parts of the solution.

Although the academic year will soon draw to a close, I believe the Initiative’s work should begin this spring. We should not lose the chance for education in large and small groups supplied by this moment of heightened sensitivity. Some work can be done over the coming summer, and we are looking to pioneer a period of focused engagement on campus issues for upper class students in the fall. In honesty, some of the Initiative’s work will require long-lasting attention and is unsusceptible to any quick fix. This would include promoting a more responsible approach to the culture of campus drinking, a major factor in Duke’s recent crisis and the source of much bad college conduct throughout the United States. I have asked Vice Provost Thompson to report on the Initiative’s progress at the end of this term and again in the fall. [We all know how this initiative turned out—dominated as it was by extremist critics of the team.]

5. Presidential Council In addition to these steps aimed at the lacrosse team culture and our larger student culture, I will convene a presidential council to give advice and offer guidance to me and the Board of Trustees. This group will be made up of wise figures from within the university community, from the larger Duke family, from the national higher education community, and from the city of Durham. I will ask it to receive and critique our internal policies and self-assessments regarding the promotion of these central values; to inform our on-campus efforts with the best practices in other university settings; and to consider ways that Duke and its community can work yet more closely to promote these values in a larger social setting. Emeriti Trustees Wilhelmina Reuben-Cooke, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs of the University of the District of Columbia, and Roy Bostock, Chairman of The Partnership for a Drug-Free America, have agreed to chair and I plan to convene the first meeting of the Council this spring.

In addition to these five steps, I look forward to continuing a dialogue with leaders in Durham and at North Carolina Central University. I’m indebted to Mayor Bill Bell for hosting a meeting on the Duke campus last week that brought together many African American leaders to discuss the incident of March 13. We concluded that meeting with the resolve to meet again; I look forward to further discussions with this group and others at the next meeting, which my colleague NCCU Chancellor James Ammons has offered to host. Durham is a proud city with a rich history and a diverse population that responds to the challenges of the day better than many other cities in this country. I’m resolved to seize the moment to do what I can to strengthen what is in many aspects, but surely not all, a positive relationship between our university and city.

Nobody wishes trouble on one’s house and I regret the trouble that this incident has brought to Duke and Durham. But when trouble arrives, it’s the test of a community and its leaders to deal with it honestly, act accordingly and learn from it. This is a deeply emotional time as well as a rare opportunity for education – for our students, faculty, administrators, and members of our community. Let’s move forward with a serious commitment to make progress on the many complex issues that confront us now.

Richard H. Brodhead

President

Duke University

Those looking for a robust defense of the presumption of innocence—indeed, for any defense of the presumption of innocence—would need to look very hard in this letter.

103 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a pathetic letter that was. It was hard to tell if Brodhead was one of the lynch mob itself, or merely grovelling to it.

Anonymous said...

I pledge to respond with appropriate seriousness once the truth is known.
So when can we expect a faculty culture initiative to determine how so many of Duke's faculty could have been so wrong? How much longer will Duke tolerate instructors who grade on group affiliation and not on scholarship? When will Sally Deutsch be stripped of her new deanship, and Paula McClain of her new chair? When will AAAS be demoted back to program status? When will Burness apologize to the lacrosse team? For that matter, when will anyone at Duke apologize to the lacrosse team?--Buddy

Anonymous said...

From the article by Leo:
"Like Mr. Brodhead, the Group of 88 did not quite call the players guilty, but praised the campus protestors for "shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman." No comment about that from Mr. Brodhead and no comment from him on Mr. Nifong for nine months. An engineering professor at Duke said, "There never was a clear sense that the students were innocent until proven guilty."

Congratulations Richard Brodhead, Sheldon laureate 2007. And you should resign."

Anonymous said...

I hope the Duke Chronicle will announce this award with some delay .. say about the first week of September? I think a ceremony should be scheduled.

Anonymous said...

It's quite chilling reading this letter. I would not allow my children to set foot on the Duke campus, let along attend school there, as long as this administration is still in power. If this university views its own students in such a dim light, then why would you subject your kids to this?

Gary Packwood said...

The Duke class of 2007 can now update their resumes.

Duke University - 2007 - Summa Cum Sheldon.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

broadrot is pathetic and mean spiritied...he loved beating on the lacrosse team..thats his nature

asking minorities with agendas and groups who have past history of crybabing and false victimizations only added to his errors

he deserved the LEO, and the disdain of those money was misued to pay off the players

Anonymous said...

Brodhead's April 5th letter, has, in my view, always been the seminal statement on the culture of the Duke faculty. Many have opined that he was merely playing to the "studies" crowd in an effort to avoid a Larry Summers moment. I disagree. This was Brodhead "unplugged", speaking from the heart and speaking for the majority of Duke faculty. Brodhead's "pledge to respond with appropriate seriousness once the truth is known" was a pledge hedged on the sincere belief that the lacrosse players were, in fact guilty. His refusal to respond with any seriouness or basic human compassion after the Duke three were exonerated in a way that is unprecedented in modern legal history, speaks both to his true motivations and his character.

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

If the allegations are verified, what happened would be a deep violation of fundamental ethical principles and among the most serious crimes known to the legal system. Such conduct is completely unacceptable both within the university and in our society at large. If the truth of the allegations is upheld, it will call for severe punishment from the courts and from Duke’s disciplinary system.


I've always wondered what further action he contemplated against the players if they were found guilty. Was going to put something in their permanent record that would hang over their heads while they were waiting to make parole?

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

This comment was fairly daunting as well and could have been highlighted, "I assure you, however, that the Duke disciplinary system will be brought to bear as soon as this can appropriately be done."

This article and Broadhead's comments are seething with the presumption of guilt.

Instead of saying, our students must be presumed innocent, he says the allegation has been made and the team denies them....we must wait until the authorities act before reaching judgment.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the presumption of innocence. It's clear to me now...Broadhead was 100% with the 88. I would love to have heard some of the conversations he had with Karla and her cronies back when they were riding high.

This really makes Broadhead look like a weasel. I didn't realize the totality of this until KC laid it out. Thanks KC, I had been giving him Broadhead a pass for the most part. After reading this I might have to join the chorus of those calling for Mr. Broadhead to resign.

At this point it appears that would be "highly appropriate."

Anonymous said...

Brodhead's reference to the presumption of innocence never rivaled the 'sincerity' of the health warning on a pack of cigarettes

Anonymous said...

12:49

I like your suggestion, apres Louis Weasel--

The Weasel

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

The tone of this letter that was surely fleshed out in internal e-mails between the 88 gangsters and Brodhead is why Duke has settled any case associated with this hoax.

Michael said...

Sounds like Brodhead gets a big chapter in KC's book.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
No Justice, no peace said...

Why has he not been fired?

Why has he forsaken truth and justice.

Those that keep him in power are pussies, cowards, and deconstructionists.

$60k per year - crazy, no insane...

Anonymous said...

I think Brodhead will not be offered another big-ticket administrative job in academia.

He'll go back to teaching.

He's despicable.

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

[Now that the “truth” has been “established,” what, exactly, has Duke done?]

To wit: Duke has pissed away millions in alumni fund contributions to buy its victims' forbearance.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead said:
This would include promoting a more responsible approach to the culture of campus drinking, a major factor in Duke’s recent crisis and the source of much bad college conduct throughout the United States.

Is this guy for real? The crisis was because a black woman accused 3 white students of something that did not happed and they did not do.
To add to it, he and the 88 ad Nifong tried to make it a national scandal. That's why problems cannot be solved. These fools cannot identify the problems.

I'd like to know how is it that Durham has such a high murder rate,(Iknow it went down this year) and the only thing he is worried about is students urinating in the front yard? Worry about all the black gangs, the drugs and drug dealers, the murderers. Good greif, parents, are you sure you want to send your teen here?

Anonymous said...

The audacity of Brodhead's letter reflects the power that bigots, as represented by the 88, have at Duke and other effete universities. The continued lack of a professed awarness of this bigotry by the Duke administration, BOT, and most (but not all) of its faculty, reflects continued fear of the consequences of standing up to this bigotry.

I have gained a greater respect for the civil rights activists of the mid-20th century--the black and the white heroes that stood up to bigoted state and academic power structures.

And, it just struck me, that Brodhead, being a white privileged male that behaves in a subservient manner to these 21st century bigots who hate white privileged males, deserves an "Uncle Tom" award for "seeking ingratiation with them by way of unnecessary accommodation" (Wikipedia).

Or, perhaps the 21st Century perjorative should be "Uncle Dick". There seem to be lots of "Uncle Dicks" in the Duke administration and on the BOT.

hman said...

The Duke Lax Rape hoax started out "Nationwide" and has stayed there for over a year now because of the continuuing appearance of fascinating and at times stomach-turning relevations. This is without doubt the highest profile case of prosecutorial misconduct and ill-considered rush to judgment in modern American history. The N.C. Att. General saying word "innocent" was in its way a big deal in itself. Now we see M. Nifong facing unprecedented censure.
There should be little doubt that this case, this saga, will be read about for a long, long time. Items like Brodheads screed that you dissected here will not smell better with the passing of time. Duke will not smell better with merely the passing of time, either. So Brodhead must go.
I think that when someone has been so wrong about a major event, in such a prominent way, for so long a time he should resign. Great institutions deserve a fresh start when they get slimed by leaders like Brodhead

Anonymous said...

At the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, I have repeatedly cited Brodhead's letter on this site, to almost no effect. I have also accused KC of pulling his punches with Brodhead, for reasons I cannot fathom. So why the change now? Just because a writer for the NY Sun makes Brodhead a "Sheldon"?

Brodhead must have been up against a LOT of stiff competition for that "award", given the nature of university presidents.

Brodhead is as guilty for what he hasn't said/done as for what he has said/done. He refusal to do ANYTHING in response to the collapse of the lacrosse case to address the issues that it raised is an absolute scandal, particularly given the numerous initiatives he took when the case first arose. It is all but official: you can shanghai white males with impunity in the US today... and ONLY white males.

Brodhead for ex-President of Duke!

Anonymous said...

This letter alone should be sufficient to justify his dismissal. Its content ONLY makes sense on the assumption the players are guilty. The sanctimonious invocation of the history of rape and racism now seems embarrassing, given that nothing happened. So where's his equally sharp and tough-sounding letter to the Duke community about the value of the presumption of innocence, the dangers of a rush to judgement, and the injustice of false accusations?

What a despicable hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

I cannot imagine why so many think that Brodhead is going anywhere.

The Tawana Brawley incident did not happen that long ago. She lied. The Grand Jury said so. the courts said so. One of her biggest defenders was Al Sharpton. AFTER the courts had obligated him to pay damages to the real victim, he ran for President. I would watch the debates, thinking that for sure one on the reporters would ask him--no they did not. He's black. None of the other candidates pressed him either.

All whites are afraid of him. After Tawana and others had to pay damages, Al was asked if he would appologize? He gave a version on "something" happened. He is celebrated as one of the "moral" leaders of blacks and the Dems.

I bet Brodhead wishes he were black right now.

Anonymous said...

A timely reminder, KC. The letter's a lot worse than I'd remembered. He's had his chance to "respond with appropriate seriousness" to the castraters and the 88, and he's done nothing. Time to resign.

Anonymous said...

What Brodhead said in the April 6 letter to the Duke community was bad enough, but that a member of the BOT or some wise advisor, in reviewing the drafts, did not edit the letter to eliminate the many passages that presumed guilt and the G88ish race-class-gender cliches is worse. It was not the work of one man.

With the likes of Burness, Chafee, and Holloway as advisors, what could one expect.

Kilgore said...

This letter makes me think the group of 88 is really the group of 89.

Downright pathetic.

Boys and the Boy Crisis

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

The national awards just keep rolling into Durham. Earlier this year Nifong managed to win the coveted "Profile in Cowardice" award from The Chappaquiddick Society.

Good things are happening in Durham!

Anonymous said...

"Durham is a proud city with a rich history and a diverse population that responds to the challenges of the day better than many other cities in this country."

heh....

Anonymous said...

I doubt anything Brodhead said was without Steele"s approval.
To get rid of Brodhead Steel would have to go first.

Anonymous said...

12:41

While Duke's president should retract many of his statement (s) about the Lacrosse team, and should resign, Polanski's moronic remarks concerning Heinrich Himmler--the kind of stupidity I've come to expect from him--don't do anything to move this goal along.

Polanski, all of your alleged graduate studies don't seem to have taught you much about analysis.

Anonymous said...

Cato would say:

Brodhead must go.

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

"The university is guided by the principles of openness, inclusiveness, mutual toleration, and mutual respect. Everything that furthers these causes advances our ability to work together toward the truth no individual or group can reach alone. Everything that hinders these causes retards the search for wisdom and knowledge. The university is also founded on the principle that we have an obligation to seek the truth, and that truth is established through evidence and disciplined inquiry. Reaching certainty without evidence or process is a double wrong in a university because it opens the door to injustice and violates our commitment to the truth."

From the mouth of the President himself, the Gang of 88 are officially recognized as retards. How apropos!
AF

Anonymous said...

Do you think that it took this to make manifest the attitudes and distinctions and discrimination of the Duke Group88? To be an independent thinker, to be male, and to be white was all it took to earn their distain. Read Brodhead's so-called address again. There is a new metanarrative, and it's the same one merely directed at a different group . . . a different victim. It's Brodhead's Duke.

Anonymous said...

Brodheaad heard from the lacrosse players and they told the truth. Nothing happened. Brodhead responded with, I hope you telling the truth. He had his doubts. In a rush to save his own reputation he incorrectly defended everything anti-lacrosse as is so evident in his letter to the duke community. Just as his cowardly past record also shows, in this case he also rushed to judgement. He chose incorrectly, just as he always has.

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

It would appear that the Campus Culture Initiative's sole purpose is to promote AAAS and Women's Studies agendas ONLY>

Anonymous said...

The one decent thought contained in this appalling talk is that "when trouble arrives, it’s the test of a community and its leaders to deal with it honestly, act accordingly and learn from it."

OK, Brodhead. Perhaps in your next address you can give us a report on exactly what you have learned from it.

Anonymous said...

We miscounted the Group of 88. It was the Group of 89.

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

I think Brodhead's season (i.e career) should be cancelled, along with the racial hate group of 88. Their self serving bias is so transparent that it should keep prospective students away in droves for decades, but sadly, it won't.

I hope the Duke settlement with the lax 3 was huge, because that MIGHT be the lone justification for not bringing suit against them. The thought of what these vile people did in this case, with no subsequent apologies and no accountability throughout the case is a sad commentary on who is running Duke and where they are headed. Worse, based on what I read, this cancer is not just restricted to Duke. America's best days academically are a distant memory.

Anonymous said...

2:12 AM

There are numerous "white" males in positions of some authority who pander and participate in the transition of power to any black leader or group that pushes them. Uncle Dick went screaming with the metanarrative before he even knew what was going on around him, but, of course, knowing the carefully constructed metanarrative fits all stories and being trained with an English studies background what else could Brodhurst do? His world view and experience despite his protestations aside was very narrow. In reality, the bigotry of the Group88 and its narrow-minded scholarship played a large part in creating this mess.

Anonymous said...

The Gang of 88 was on a roll early. Can't you tell?
Before they went out on campus with their "Castrate" signs, they visited the President's office and performed the act on him. Obviously, he doesn't have a male organ left. If he was WHOLLY a man, he would have decried his own words.
Does The Headless Horseman just trot over to the med school and pick up sample packs of Viagara and Cialis (can't you just envision him in the tub). One thing's for sure, he won't have to worry about priapism--it's anatomically impossible!
Boardhead is just like Mikey. He sought early acclaim and, when the wheels came off, his only defense was a good offense (and it is still quite offensive).
What parent of a white male would be foolish enough to send their son to such a sexist, racist institution?

mac said...

Wayne Fontes,
Thanks for the link to the Chappaquiddick Society.
I hope everyone here ("here?")
sees it.

mac said...

Bonehead:
"I have heard a good deal of
criticism of the Duke administration..."

(Shoulda stopped there)

"...for being too slow to respond
to the allegations against the
team..."

A truly Monty Python moment.
Try reading that line with
the Python narrator's accent,
with that peculiar British lilt.

Sounds like Python's
"The Value of Not Being Seen,"
as described by Wikipedia :

"The film starts with a serene
wide shot of a landscape
in which there are supposedly 47
people, but none of them can be
seen. The picture then changes
to another serene wide shot of
a different landscape. In it is
Mr. E.R. Bradshaw of Napier Court,
Black Lion Road, SE 14,
who cannot be seen.
The narrator asks him to stand up;
he complies and is immediately shot.
According to the narrator,
"This demonstrates the value of
not being seen."'

Monty Python could use Bonehead's
words verbatim.

mac said...

Brodhead:

"Indeed it appears that it took
the police themselves some time
to understand the nature of the
case..."

Perhaps that was when Nifey
stated:
"We're f'd."

mac said...

"But when trouble arrives..."
(sure as the Spring daisies)
"...it's the test of a community
and its leaders to deal with
it honestly, act accordingly
and learn from it."

Hee-haw!

This demonstrates the value of
not being forthcoming.

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

Brodhead:
"If the truth of the allegations is
upheld, it will call for severe
punishment..."

"Punish me, Captain! Punish me!"

"...from the courts and from Duke's
disciplinary system."

"Awwwww...."

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

"The university is guided by the principles of openness, inclusiveness, mutual toleration, and mutual respect.:

Unless one is a upper-middle-class white heterosexual male.

gotc

mac said...

Brod:

"This University has cooperated..."

(um. co-conspired?)

"...and will continue to cooperate..."

(um. will continue to co-conspire?)

"...to the fullest..."

(where are the torches and pikes?)

"...to speed the ongoing..."

(lynching?)

"...investigation..."

(investigation?)

"...by the police..."

(in Darfur?)

"...and I pledge..."

(meant: "I'm a pledge" at the
fraternity known as Uh Bun Tu)

"...that Duke will respond..."

(much like a de-enervated muscle
twitches when ATP is applied)

"...with appropriate seriousness..."

(harrumph)

"...when the truth has been
established."

(Or some months past that point.)

Anonymous said...

No, 9:36, RB is not a communist. He just behaves like the white boys used to when nothing happened to them for being horrible to everyone who wasn't a (rich) white male. What some of you don't get is that real Republican/white/right-wing power doesn't much care for the likes of you either. NOt like it's populist!!!!

Anonymous said...

LEADERSHIP:

Wisdom.

Courage.

Strength.

Judgment.


The failure of leadership has been devastating.

How much has been lost in reputation, respect and resources because strong leaders were not in place at this dificult time?

Had there been men and women of greater wisdom, courage, strength and judgment in the Boardroom and in the Administration, Duke, the Lacrosse families, and those who care deeply about the University might well have been spared this nightmare.

It is time for a fresh start. Only with new leadership at all levels can rebuilding begin.

Dr. Brodhead and Board Members: Please go. Your presence is a hindrance to Duke's future.

A Duke Parent

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

In the context of what else was going on when he wrote that letter, this letter is much worse than if this letter was written immediately after the story broke.

He is obviously a sick cancer to our higher educational system.

People like Broadhead are the worst bigots. The average professor being like an indifferent nazi party member or a majority sentiment segregationist versus Broadhead being like Hilter or a lynching instigator.

Anyway, the state of higher education is so pathetic that I can only hope that the "soft" studies eventually get replaced by a much less costly (but more educational) internet subscription. That is, that the market will provide no value to them.

Anonymous said...

Most of the Duke university administration and faculty is a joke.
Except for past and present students, and parents of past and present students, nobody outside of NC considers Duke a top rated university. Only that they have a couple good sports teams.
Sure, you can tell me how great enrollment is, just don't try and tell me how smart they are.

Duke 85 said...

Don't be ridiculous, Duke is a top rated university. Harvard is the top rated university and suffers from some of the same problems. Princeton too is mired by leftest group think. I became more conservative, not less, when exposed to the looney left PolySci Department at Duke in the 80s, long before the English Department was "Fished". Not everyone exposed to socialist propaganda buys it. The hard science departments are excellent as well as the economics department. Note that the group of 88 came mostly from the "angry studies" groups. Majors of these programs have little future outside of academia and perhaps journalism or politics. Brodhead, as the president of all of the university, is a coward--I doubt his statements sprang from integrity but rather from his desire not to be Larry Summered.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead is yet another articulate incompetent.

Two from Duke in two days here at Durham-In-Wonderland. I 'wonder' if there are some more to be found here.

It sorta, kinda might be like a 'cancer cluster' in the Duke/Durham neighborhood, although another cluster, perhaps more appropriately, comes to mind.

TombZ

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
becket03 said...

I pledge that Duke will respond with appropriate seriousness when the truth is established -- Brodhead

He's laid out some appropriately serious dough. Is that how he keeps his pledge?

Or would a truly appropriate response -- the response he's pledged to give -- have to include an admission that his own deeply flawed reaction to Mangum's transparent lies, and the damage done to Duke as a result, can only be rectified by the serious decision to tender his own resignation?

beckett

Anonymous said...

Like most elitists, Brodhead has no shame because he marches to a different drummer. His drummer lets him do whatever he wishes and never makes him own up the consequences. He lives in the dream world of academia that apparently has a wall to shield it from the unpleasantness of the real world. This will never change as long as we don't demand accountability from those into whose care we entrust our young people. As we saw so vividly, people like Brodhead will throw students under the buss with hardly a flinch, but when his fiefdom is threatened, he is puzzled that anyone would question his motives or actions. Write all you want, KC, Brodhead and his ilk won't change.

Anonymous said...

KC,

I generally agree with 2:58 a.m. above that you have been pretty soft on Brodhead. I always thought of it as the only weak spot in otherwise superb work.

In the last month or two, however, your tone has definitely hardened.

I'm curious. Is there any particular reason why your assessment of Brodhead has become more harsh?

Whatever the reason, keep up the good work! Let me say that I especially appreciated your gavel-to-gavel coverage of the disbarrment hearing.

Feargal said...

To the anonymous writer who wrote "Write all you want, KC, Brodhead and his ilk won't change" -- you are probably correct. That is not the point though. I don't think it is the goal to change those people. I don't think it is the goal to change the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world either.

The people (Duke parents, students, and society in general) who are hurt by these people need to be informed.

The media, in general, does a pretty bad job of attacking political correctness. The alleged "right wing" media outlet of Fox News cares way more about defending the the wasteful Iraq war, and the crooks in the Bush administration who have taken over the Republican party.

I do understand that it is a fight that is probably going to be lost -- at least for the next 50 years or so. Nevertheless, we should at least make it a fight.

Anonymous said...

I've never seen or read that letter in its entirity. It is hypocritical on a number of levels. I'll focus on one.

If the allegations are verified...

If the truth of the allegations is upheld, it will call for severe punishment from the courts and from Duke’s disciplinary system.

What does Brodhead mean here? Was he not sure what the allegations were? Did he need to verify that what he thought was alleged was actually alleged? Shouldn't he verify the allegations before coming up with a five-step plan?

What was Brodhead's standard for determining, "the truth of the allegations"? Conviction might be one standard; endictment would be another. However, Brodhead did not wait until either event before exacting severe punishment on the Duke lacrosse team. The first of his five steps was to cancel, "the men's lacrosse season and all associated activities", and to fire the coach. Brodhead's statments and actions agrue against any presumption of innocence on his part. It is as if he reasoned, 'well the players have a theoretical presumption of innocence, but we all know they're guilty.'

Also, while reading Brodhead's statement I couldn't help but note how antithetical the Dowd, Pressler, and 3 LAXer settlements are to Brodhead's initiatives. While the plaintiffs deserved such settlements, the lack of apology or failure to make any statment accepting responsibility amount to a big broom and large rug as far as fostering any meaningful reform, or even discussion, at Duke.

mac said...

Feargal,

There have been many attempts to
interdigitate political rhetoric
into these threads; many of us
have avoided such pissing
contests.

Pleas don't start a war of micturition.

Gary Packwood said...

Broadhead said..

...They (issue that have been brought to the fore) include concerns of women about sexual coercion and assault. They include concerns about the culture of certain student groups that regularly abuse alcohol and the attitudes these groups promote. They include concerns about the survival of the legacy of racism, the most hateful feature American history has produced.
::
Brought to the fore? Certain student groups?

Why not, Mr. President, walk over and visit with those 'certain student groups' and talk with them?

I realize that all characters in William Shakespeare's Macbeth are dead and gone but your students in those certain groups are alive and well and waiting for you to do something...if you are so sure that you have a campus problem.

Come to the fore, Mr. President. Do something!
::
GP

Feargal said...

Mac,

Like it or not, politics has everything to do with the topics on the board. If we were on a board related to something else, you might have a point.

Echoing much of what I said, Congressman Walter Jones is one of the few public figures who have tried to advance the causes mentioned on this board.

It took Congressman Jones about 2 or 3 years to longer than me to figure out the Iraq situation, but he has figured it out.

Nifong only had power because of politics.

Anonymous said...

Wow, 10:16. You are so on target. I do not understand how Brodhead is still there at Duke. It is shameful for what is a great university to have this man running it. Complete lack of character and honor.

Thank you. Signed, Another Duke Parent

mac said...

12:21
This is not about Iraq.
Perhaps you are new to the post,
but Bill Anderson is a Libertarian,
KC is an "old-fashioned" liberal,
and many others are conservatives.

You want to make this a screed
about Iraq?

What does that have to do with
Nifong? Nifong's enablers/collaborators/
co-conspirators are likely all
against the war in Iraq.
So are you. Goody, goody.

So-bloody-what?

This is a case about an injustice
visited upon a group of young men.

fmfnavydoc said...

FWIW,

Brodhead is just a symptom of what has been happening in acedimia for years - that those with PC agendas will get heard at the expense of others. When the events of the "case" came out, via Mikey's lies, the liberal elite at Duke probably broke down Brodhead's door, blew up his phone and filled his e-mail inbox with their "complaints" about members of the LAX team. The may have even gone as far as to undermine his power as president if he did not give into their demands for "justice", to include suspending the team's season and the firing of the coach.This sounds so much like the stand of the staff at DUMC (see my previous post) and doing things "the Duke way". The silence we hear from RB and the group of 88 is because they see that they have done nothing wrong - except point out the racism that still lies in wait in the Durham/Duke community.

For those of you that read and post on this blog that are Duke Alumni or have children attending Duke - you have some real power to hold over the university in their conduct on this case. Pressure can be put on the school to remove Brodhead and the other trustees that have allowed this fiasco to happen - every year you are asked to contribute to the school, just withold your usual donation. Contact other alumni, form a group and pressure the school to change the leadership. Look for other schools to send your children to.

One other thing - what would have happened if the athletes involved were members of the basketball team; do you think that the same thing would have happened?

Anonymous said...

1:15

You make a good point.

Anonymous said...

Broadhead now makes G88, G89...

He is the leader of this group...

Anonymous said...

President Broadhead by day; Darth Broadhead by night.

Anonymous said...

To those of you focusing in the racial angle:

1. Look at how Thomas Sowell is treated by the left.

2. Or Larry Elder.

3. And especially (even after > 10 yrs on the Supreme Court) Clarence Thomas. He did receive a "high tech lynching" from the left.


Think about that! Now think about how the left treats the likes of Edward Kennedy, or Nifong, or any of their favorites.

Its very wrong and very dangerous to forget the left's real focus.

Anonymous said...

According to John Leo, all this was long in coming. When education is not about learning but of indoctrination, you end up with where Duke is today.

"Much campus censorship rests on philosophical underpinnings that go back to social theorist Herbert Marcuse, a hero to sixties radicals. Marcuse argued that traditional tolerance is repressive—it wards off reform by making the status quo . . . well, tolerable. Marcuse favored intolerance of established and conservative views, with tolerance offered only to the opinions of the oppressed, radicals, subversives, and other outsiders. Indoctrination of students and “deeply pervasive” censorship of others would be necessary, starting on the campuses and fanning out from there."


In this article "Free Inquiry? Not on Campus", he gives us the beginnings of the racist views tolorated now.
Of course back in the 60s you could be more open about such views, prbably as a backlash to the right-wing extremist. Now that the left has take over campuses, they hide their missions.

Anonymous said...

11:30

Polansky, get a clue. All studies are "political." All rhetoric is. You just don't like those "studies" that don't reflect your (skewed/radical right wing) view point.

You are a really good argument for tenure. The 88/89 behaved badly, but you accuse everyone to the left of you and Genghis Kahn of being part of some great left-wing academic cabal. It ain't happenin' Polansky. It be your overactive imagination, boy!

Anonymous said...

I didn't know there was such a thing as the paranoid, semi-articulate right wing until I started reading the comments on Durham in Wonderland.

I wonder how many of you are white men who just can't stand the really tough competition from others who aren't white & male? You sound so frightened in your attacks...

Anonymous said...

4:00

You got us...every one of us (even Debrah) is a paranoid white male who can't stand competition from the notwhitenotmales.

Dork.

Anonymous said...

4:00:00 PM--
And you are an un-articulate what?

mac said...

4pm
I didn't know how many lefties
(little Ward Churchills,
AKA "little Stalins") there
were at Duke and at other institutions
of fine dining - er - learning
until I read DIW.
And of course, your diatribe.

Now I know!

Thanks for the education.
(Who says there isn't such a thing
as a free lunch?)

gak said...

It is my belief (right, wrong, or otherwise) that Brodhead will not last when the BOT realize how many big checks they've had to sign because the spineless twerp wouldn't act. Just my opinion

gak

mac said...

anon 3:53

Radical Chic went the same way:
Baba asked the Panthers if her
children could be allowed to live,
and they basically said, no.

Everything has to go.

Like a yard sale or something.

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

Of many things that I've learned from this farce,
is that when my kids start looking into
universities located in so-called college towns,
I am going to ask around about the relationship
between the local police and the students.
In particular, I'll be looking to determine if the
local police consider the non-local students to be
spoiled rich white kids.

mb said...

It's quite true that this type of malignant racism, sexism and classism disguised as PC-ness isn't limited to Duke. Witness Larry Summers: All he did was ask a controversial question - with plenty of warning that he would be doing so - and Nancy Hopkins gets the vapours and the rest of the feminists go ballistic. The next thing you know we've got an investigation (very much like the CCI), Summers is out and Gilpin-Faust (noteably, a women's studies wonkette) is in as president of Harvard. The symmetry to the Duke LAX case couldn't be more perfect if we were in Wonderland.

Oh wait, we are in Wonderland. Never mind.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
No justice, no peace said...

4:00 There is hope. That is quite possibly the only nice thing any leftist, fraud has said about me all day.

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

Oh, and in my post of 6:52 I meant symmetry in the sense of negative symmetry, as in exact opposite. I.e., Summers does nothing wrong and gets sacked, while Broadhead does almost nothing right and remains.

My bad for not being clear.

Anonymous said...

Dear Polaski,

I think you're fairly useless. The women I knew in graduate school on average beat out the men at almost every level. And this, w/ very few role models, since there weren't that many female professors in the grad schools.

Will neither religion nor philosophy be taught in your newer & better university?!!! And history will be economic, political, or diplomatic only??? Back to the past with White Men in History? How much fun.

FF & the End of History? What else can he do? And Jack Welch? Is his adultery ok, but Clinton's not? I wouldn't want my kids in a university run on a business model.

PB

Anonymous said...

Let me get back to you.

On deadline.

P

Anonymous said...

To: Gak, 5:20

I believe that Bob Steel (Chairman of the Board) is the puppetmaster here, he hired Brodhead to begin with. The tame (and lame) BOT are supporting Steel, Brodhead, et al. Due diligence?? You gotta be kidding.

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

Mac,

A few simple points here --

Your first Point:

This is not about Iraq.
Perhaps you are new to the post,
but Bill Anderson is a Libertarian,
KC is an "old-fashioned" liberal,
and many others are conservatives.

My point:

Iraq is the latest widescale American example where similar tactics (intimidation, name calling, etc) to the Duke 88 were used. Believe it or not, many different people were against the Iraq war, such as including Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Brent Skowcroft, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs -- all of whom are very different than the gang of 88.

I am sophisticated to understand that there are those who I may revile (like Stalin) might share a common goal with me (the defeat of Hitler).

So, I don't understand your point of bringing up the alleged ideologies of other parties.

Your next point:

You want to make this a screed
about Iraq?

What does that have to do with
Nifong? Nifong's enablers/collaborators/
co-conspirators are likely all
against the war in Iraq.
So are you. Goody, goody.

My point:

You obviously have not paid very much attention to the tactics that mirror the tactics used by the gang of 88 and Nifong that were being used by the people who were pushing the Iraq war (ignore the facts, attack those who question (as racists, or unamerican), frighten people from speaking up (grade retaliation, having your spouse outted).

So, where will you be the next time it happens?

Your last point:

So-bloody-what?

This is a case about an injustice
visited upon a group of young men.

My point:

This case is also not directly about Stalin or Marx, but they are relevant to the debate as is Iraq. Failing to understand historical connections invariably leads to more injustice.

15 years ago, the right seriously promised to try to do something about the more radical elements in higher education. On that level, they failed -- the Duke example demonstrates that (by no means am I stating that no small victory occurred).

The Republicans controlled all three branches of government for most of a 6 year time frame -- and really nothing was advanced in this area.

My last point:

History matters. It matters in the context of understanding the bigotry behind anti-white attitudes by professors (who are white or not). That is, since there never was a "white" conspiracy, and many groups of Europeans historically were victimized just like blacks and American Indians were here -- it is ridiculous to today "blame" those people for sins of people who may sort of resemble them (as they are not even directly related to them).

Politics also matters. Politics gets things done. It get funding dropped, people prosecuted, even people hired/fired.

You might be advised to read a logic treatise or two (I probably own about 6 or 7) all authors have different view points, but all use analagous examples to try to raise the point about a argument/idea/movement that was advanced via techniques not attempting to use any fact development or logic.

The Iraq points are timely. For other reasons, discussing Marx also makes sense (and I have posts that discuss Communists that you have chosen not to take issue with).

mac said...

Feargal,

Your point is much clearer now:
it was not in your previous post.

The point you are making, as I
understand it, is that some people
choose common tactics.

That's fine: two people might
both choose to drink the same wine,
but have entirely different tastes
otherwise.

As far as "history matters,"
I would suggest that you start
looking into a biography of
T.E. Lawrence, (not the tripe
produced by Lowell Thomas, or
the myth produced by the movie
that uses his name.) His official
biography - written by his brother -
is a good historical tome that
helps us to understand the elements
that are now working against us in
the guise of al Qaeda - the Wahhabi/Salafi
connection with Pakistan, the
Taliban and Islamic fundamentalist
schools all over the world.

You might also research Saddam's
support of the Palestinian suicide
bombers - paying money to families
of those who performed such acts
against the people of Israel.
(There is an example of linkage.)
You also had a man who sent missiles
into Israel, developed WMDs,
had (until Israel destroyed it)
an active nuclear facility...
History indeed. We should learn
from it, and more than it's
rhetorical importance as applied
to present concerns.

Just FYI: The Wahhabis were
present in Lawrence's day;
he thought they were virulent
pustules.

So please don't lecture me on
history, missy, nor about logic.
You might begin to edit your
posts so that they are coherent -
(as this last one is that you
wrote) - and not muddled with
incomprehensible mush.

don t. said...

That the feckless stumblebum and Wally Cox clone and the 88+ intellectual maggots are still in place tells us volumes about the current state of Duke U. How humiliating. Sheldon award indeed!!! brodhead is wayyyyyyyyyyyy over-qualified.

trinity60