Wednesday, September 12, 2007

More Blue Committee Questions

Thursday, I offered ten questions the Blue Committee might consider in evaluating President Brodhead’s performance in the lacrosse case. At the time, I asked readers to offer their questions, and said I would post the more interesting ones. I slightly rephrased some questions for consistency.

1.) While speaking at “A Duke Conversation-Chicago” on April 18, President Brodhead defended the Group of 88 by stating they were “representing students who felt threatened by the lacrosse incident.” Who were these students that “felt threatened?” The only threats at that point were to the lacrosse players who had been plastered all over campus and threatened with a banner stating “castrate.” How exactly was the G88 endorsement thanking people for not waiting for the truth to come out defending people who felt threatened?

2.) Duke has settled a grade retaliation lawsuit filed by one of the 2006 lacrosse team members. Has President Brodhead seen to it that the professor who used the grades of Duke University for their own ends has been punished? And has he investigated whether or not this was the only incident of grade retaliation against lacrosse student or other Duke students who don’t conform to the worldview of its faculty?

3.) On April 5, 2006, President Brodhead said, “I pledge that Duke will respond with appropriate seriousness when the truth is established.” On April 20, 2006, he said, “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.” What information appeared between April 5th and 20th to make the president change his focus? More specifically, what did Reade and Collin say or do personally that led President Brodhead to believe Crystal Mangum’s “story,” or did he blindly follow your activist professors in believing that “something happened”?

4.) What concrete steps has Duke taken to address the issue of the Durham Police Department targeting Duke students?

5.) In spring 2006, President Brodhead claimed that to start “interviewing” people would be interfering with the police investigation. Yet he made a number of strong statements and decisions in the meantime. Was putting himself in a self-imposed information vacuum while taking action the best way to run a university?

6.) One of my many questions to Brodhead/Burness would be in connection with one of his final statements on the matter, after the indictments were dropped. On his area of the Duke webpage his comments mentioned his willingness to help the Duke community heal. I’d like to know what he intends to do to help the Duke community “heal” since I’ve seen no evidence of any action on his part.

7.) Given that several additions to the faculty that were hired during a transparently “diversity-first, merit-second” hiring binge (self-described by an influential Dean as a tool to “change” the perceived “whiteness” of Duke, in his words), reacted so irresponsibly as to provoke the University to write undisclosed settlement checks to at least five families, has the president given any thought to restoring merit to the top of the hiring criteria at the University he has been entrusted to steward?

8.) Does President Brodhead agree with the statement that the reason leftward leaning faculty fill the ranks of the faculty—to the virtual exclusion of other viewpoints in many departments—stems from the fact that liberals tend to be more intelligent people than conservatives? Does the president even know who on the Duke faculty made that statement?

9.) What tangible steps has the administration undertaken to achieve a greater intellectual diversity on its faculty?

10.) What risk-management steps has the administration undertaken to avoid having to sign additional undisclosed settlement checks (also drawn off of other people’s money), in case members of the faculty are again presented with a political issue they are not mature enough to handle?

11.) Will the administration continue to support Duke’s student athletes as well as it supported the men’s lacrosse team during an investigation from a rogue District Attorney?

12.) Does President Brodhead agree with the Group of 88’s characterization of their listening ad as a response to general conditions on campus regarding race relations and sexism issues or does he believe that in the context of the timing it was released, it was dealing with the alleged gang rape on March 13? If he agrees with the Group’s characterization of the ad as being a social commentary on the Duke culture, why does he feel he should continue to be president of a university which is apparently rife with racism, male privilege and sexism?

13.) President Brodhead disciplined an innocent lacrosse team by canceling their season and firing their coach. What discipline has been meted out to Duke’s faculty and administration for their less than innocent behavior?

It's worth remembering that the Blue Committee appears stacked in Brodhead's favor--its seven members include Group of 88'er Sherman James, and no member of the committee has in any way expressed concern with Brodhead's leadership.

87 comments:

Jim in San Diego said...

It would be a shame to wind down this blog, although KC certainly has other responsibilities. What greater task is there for an educator, however, to unmask the dryrot which political correctness has invaded our elite campuses?

Major segments of academia hold irrational beliefs with incredible fervor, and are intent on implanting those beliefs on as many students as they can. These beliefs seem impregnable to fact or logic. Sort of like the faith held by religious zealots.

Dangerous. Wrong. Anti-intellectual at heart.

Thanks, KC

The Scrapper said...

KC,

I attended your lecture tonight in Page Auditorium and I just want to thank you again for everything you have done in your thorough and unbiased analysis of this case. I hope you realize just how important you have been throughout this whole fiasco. You've been one of the only sources for an objective analysis of this case (along with the Chronicle and N&O). On behalf of all Duke students, THANK YOU KC!

Anonymous said...

Why "appears stacked" in Broadhead's favor. Are you asserting that these people can't be fair?

Is that reasonable or part of the your crusade?

Anonymous said...

Do Duke alumni have no shame about the way the current administration has performed? Why haven't the alumni led the charge against the arrogant and inept Brodhead group? Is Duke impervious to reasoned opinion?

Sid said...

Wishful thinking supports many of the unanswered questions.

The Duke faculty members are insulated and they damn well know it. The key issue of the settlement was that no member of Duke's faculty or administration would pay a personal price for their actions and inactions. Anyone holding out for justice in this area of the LAX scandal is just wasting time and energy.

The Gang of 88 represents the product of poor scholarship and diversity hiring practices. Having read passages of their work, I would gain more from a course taught by Charlie Brown's teacher than I would this group.

Duke will not pull a magic wand out and make things right. The university would seem near magical if it suddenly had the courage to start treating students and faculty as deserved resulting from this incident.

They are running out the clock. Giving us the sorry face and hoping that we all move on to the next scandal. In a few months and years, we will see "investigative reports" of Duke coping with the aftermath. The individuals chosen for interviews will not share a realistic view of the incident. We will still hear that the world may never really know what happened that night. We see how Mangum has "suffered" and will most likely see her child playing on a public park while she sits on a park bench for the interview. We will see the token steps Duke took to ensure that the next incident does not cause a national scandal. But do not look for a mass firing of the Gang of 88. Do not look for a foundation established and solidly funded to work on changing the legal environment in Durham.

Justice will never be served at Duke.

Anonymous said...

Get over it. Go to Israel. Move on.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see #12 modified slightly. If he agrees with the Group's characterization of the ad as being a social commentary on the Duke culture, what actions have been taken to discipline an Admissions staff that continually populates the campus with racist, sexist, mysogynist students?--Buddy

P.S. Not that I agree with that characterization of Duke students.

Anonymous said...

"Intellectual Diversity"

Ha. That requires Duke actually hire someone who can compose a grammatically correct sentence.

Anonymous said...

KC, you are full of it. Read the report that Jim Coleman's committee issued. The LAX team was out of control long before Brodhead stepped foot on Duke's campus. This was widely know all across campus. The question is why it took Brodhead so long to understand it. You want to make everything about the alleged rape. Try as you might, the facts seem to get in your way.

You know damned well that none of the faculty who signed that ad were exposed legally in any way for having done so. Faculty, like all other Americans, are entitled to free speech and freedom of expression. If you disagree, why didn't the LAX boys sue them? Don't give me that shit about the university's agreement with the guys that ended all future legal claims. You know that that is standard boiler plate language for such settlements. It does not at all imply that there were actions committed for which one might be sued.

And why why why do you think that you are entitled to have any of your questions answered by Duke? What is your connection to the place other than been an outside agitator? Why don't you feed your questions through Professors Steve Baldwin, Roy Weintraub, and Lawrence Evans as you have done in the past? Maybe that PS grad student can help you out as well.

Wow, how far will you go to sell a book?

Anonymous said...

Is Broadhead a Communist?

Duke Alun said...

Not to get off subject, KC, but please post your take on last night's "talk" at Duke. Did any members of the Group of 88 show up? What about Duke administrators? Were you asked any challenging or hostile questions? Is the lacrosse case still a festering issue with students? etc. Those of us who could not attend would love to hear some feedback from you. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I have written Mr. Blue and was very surprised to receive a nice reply from him--an not an auto-generated one, because he specifically replied to some of the items I mentioned.

Anonymous said...

KC,you should praise both Broadhead and Nifong. They certainly prevented Durham from being known for "a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl."

gs said...

It was illegal to appoint Saacks as DA. He does not live in Durham . The law saids you must be able to vote in the election for that office.

You can't make this stuff up.

Saacks, a Wake County resident, was sworn in last week as the top prosecutor in a county where he is ineligible to vote.

Anonymous said...

To 7:33

Did the Lax players drink. Yes. Other students? Other Duke students? Way more citations that the Lax players. Yes. Noise? Yes. Groups often do make noise. Out of control? Not! The Trinity Park complaints, with rare exception, were the Lax houses. Did you read the full report or only what you wanted to remember. The report was actually a really good one. They are a great group of smart, respectful guys. Coleman report states that...read it all instead of making selective remarks.

gak said...

I agree with duke alun
Please post your take on the atmosphere at the talk and anywhere else on campus that you might have seen. It would make a good days post

gak

Anonymous said...

KC got a very warm and civil reception last night at Duke. In spite of the beliefs of many here, he was not heckled by G88 members. One wonders if any of you would believe it had you not actually been there in person.

Ralph Phelan said...

Another question for the Blue committee:

Have you read KC's book?

Anonymous said...

2:10 whines: "Why "appears stacked" in Broadhead's favor. Are you asserting that these people can't be fair? Is that reasonable or part of the your crusade?" (sic.)

Yes and yes. Go back to your cultural anthropology dept., troll. And learn to write.

haskell said...

Anonymous 7:33

"KC, you are full of it. Read the report that Jim Coleman's committee issued. The LAX team was out of control long before Brodhead stepped foot on Duke's campus."

The Coleman report:

"By all accounts, the lacrosse players are a cohesive, hard working, disciplined, and respectful athletic team. Their behavior on trips is described as exemplary. Players clean the team bus before disembarking. Airline personnel have complimented them for their behavior. They observe curfews. They obey the team's no alcohol rule before games. 11 They are respectful of people who serve the team, including bus drivers, airline personnel, trainers, the equipment manager, the team manager, and the groundskeeper.

"Paradoxically, in contrast to their exemplary academic and athletic performance, a large number of the members of the team have been socially irresponsible when under the influence of alcohol. They have repeatedly violated the law against underage drinking. They have drunk alcohol excessively. They have disturbed their neighbors with loud music and noise, both on-campus and off-campus. They have publicly urinated both on-campus and off. They have shown disrespect for property. Both the number of team members implicated in this behavior and the number of alcohol-related incidents involving them have been excessive compared to other Duke athletic teams. Nevertheless, their conduct has not been different in character than the conduct of the typical Duke student who abuses alcohol. Their reported conduct has not involved fighting, sexual assault or harassment, or racist behavior. "

Professor Coleman clearly differentiated the behavior of the team, from the inappropriate behavior of some members of the team.

Your statement about the team being out of control is clearly incorrect, and unfair to the members of the team who behaved in an exemplary and appropriate fashion. I observe that your stance in provocative and confrontational. Don't think people are gonna buy into what you are selling much longer.

Anonymous said...

Along with 7:35, I would be interested in your evening there. Please, report.

Thanks, KC, for everything you have done for freedom of speech and the presumption of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". Great Book!

Anonymous said...

7:33 writes (in a screed): "Wow, how far will you go to sell a book?"

At least K.C. can *write* a book in standard written English. All you and your *colleagues* in Duke's various humanities depts. do is give *diversity* hiring a bad stench and reveal the hard truth underneath it.

Ginger said...

These questions hit the mark. But, in my experience as a university administrator, since 1978, nothing will happen. Nothing. Faculty are all about protecting their tiny fiefdoms. Period. No cojones, liberal, conservative or agnostic. No interest in "rocking the boat."

And, no acountability by the Trustees or governments. "Higher Education" gets a pass everytime. Any action that would put a corporate employee in jail, or fired is papered over by new processes in higher education. Too bad, but that's the way it is.

Prof. E said...

1. Yes, tell us how your talk at Duke went. (I'm a faculty member, but not at Duke)

2. A question that Broadhead needs to address was cogently raised by somone else on this blog: Duke has a very high scholarly reputation, but setting aside the hard sciences, this reputation in the humanities and social sciences was established by the PREVIOUS generation of scholars who taught and published at Duke. THOSE scholars were not charlatans, or ideological fanatics. But NOW Duke has hired in the humanities and social sciences what to many people appears to be a large number of scholarly imbiciles and ideological fanatics. The faculty has not acted with responsibility and appears incapable of holding itself to any standard of conduct, either in scholarship or on campus. Duke's scholarly reputation is running on a PREVIOUS generation's achievements--not this one's. Similarly, insofar as Duke University Press has a national reputation, the shelf-life of THIS reputation too is approaching expiration because of the crazy sort of books it has taken to publishing.

Does President Broadhead even realize there is a problem here? Will he in fact DENY that there is problem here, as exemplified in the G88? What steps is he doing to restore Duke's scholarly reputation, which was established by the good work of a previous generation of scholars but is being destroyed (and indeed made a national laughing-stock) by this generation of faculty?

Anonymous said...

There is an awful lot of anger at K.C. this morning. I guess getting called out hurts, and apparently it hurts pretty bad.

If you want to stop getting embarrased for making race-based, knee-jerk decisions in support of the Holy Liberal Trinity of Race-Class-Gender; I suggest you stop making race-based, knee-jerk decisions in support of that Trinity. Getting mad at the people who call you on it---in stunningly precise and irrefutable detail---is not the solution.

I got out my Diversity-Hire to English dictionary this morning and I think I have deciphered "Get over it...Move on" actually means "You absolutely have me and my fellow frauds pegged and there is nothing I can do about it and wish it would just stop."

Nice work, Prof. Johnson. With a hat tip to the best disinfectant known to the U.S. Supreme Court, this blog has truly been "K.C. and the Sunshine Band."

Anonymous said...

It must be odd for G88ers to realize that, aside from their own few hand-picked AA admits, pretty much of the rest of the entire Duke undergraduate population thinks the professors are truly beneath them, intellectually and morally. I can't imagine teaching or working in such an environment where everyone thought you were a scum-bag and idiot.

Anonymous said...

7:33 calls KC an "outside agitator," and in so doing, he says more than he realizes. Those of us who actually lived through what is now known as "the civil rights era" remember that the standard (southern) white racist view was that blacks were quite happy with things as they were, and that black protests were caused by "outside agitators." The chief outside agitator, of course, was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Well, sometimes a little outside agitation is what it takes to shake up a community ruled by complacent bigots who think they can keep things from changing forever. Today's racists may look different from yesterday's, but inside they're all the same.

Anonymous said...

Thernstrom, ever the wordsmith, put it just right--Brodhead is *craven.* How can he get out of bed each morning realizing that people think he is an abject joke? He must be lugging some serious psychological baggage. Just what the BOT evidently wants running the good ship Duke.

Anonymous said...

To 9:02 AM

Yes, Duke undergraduates have little respect for some of the 88-ers, but it's the views of other faculty members that really sting. Comments are rarely made aloud and certainly never in the faculty dining room. But *they* know their position in the academy. If they don't they are even more obtuse than I thought.

Anonymous said...

9.23 notes: "But *they* know their position in the academy. If they don't they are even more obtuse than I thought."

Agreed. *Everyone* understands the quid pro quo in the academy re: diversity hires, even the ass-clowns themselves. But the implicit (if explicit) deal was that, OK, we'll hire these under qualified idiots, but cabin them into a few discrete specific departments where they won't be able to wreck more havoc than their mere presence on the faculty accomplishes. What Duke just learned, however, was that even the most irrelevant of its departments--cultural anthro, AA studies, etc.--can cause unbelievable damage as the G88ers ably illustrated. This will have the consequence of having the *real* faculty members re-think the original deal re: *diversity* faculty hires. The ass-clowns just over-played their hand.

Anonymous said...

"Why "appears stacked" in Broadhead's favor. Are you asserting that these people can't be fair?"

In order to believe that the second statement is implied by the first, you must believe that there are no other alternatives between "completely fair" and "completely unfair". This is the only way you can justify 2:10's syllogism:

* KC says the committee appears stacked (i.e., potentially biased by its composition and therefore not completely fair).
* Anything which is not completely fair is completely unfair.
* Therefore KC is saying that the committee is completely unfair, that "these people can't be fair" (not clear whether 2:10 means "some of these people cannot be fair", "none of these people can be fair", "an aggregate including some of these people who have already demonstrated their unfairness cannot be fair", or some other variant.)

Of course, I believe 2:10 is trying to argue the contrapositive of his p->q statement: If you do not believe that the committee is completely unfair, then you must reject any suggestion that the committee "appears stacked". However, all of 2:10's argument is based upon his enthymeme "anything not completely fair is completely unfair", which is of course fallacious, since there are numerous gradations between those two extremes.

Anonymous said...

Excellent questions that will never be asked.

Anonymous said...

SID: "The key issue of the settlement was that no member of Duke's faculty or administration would pay a personal price..."

Wasn't that agreement between Duke and the 3? How can that protect them from the rest of the vilified who paid HUGE personal prices... loss of respect, loss of opportunity to play for a National Championship ( wouldn't that be a breach of agreement between Duke and the players who were recruited to PLAY Lacrosse?), fears for personal safety, being routed from their homes to sleep elsewhere out of fear for their lives, fear and intimidation in the classroom, hallways, walkways, and everywhere that the "Duke enabled" poster with their faces on it appeared?

How can Duke's "settlement" with the 3 protect them from the vulerability to suit from the rest?

Did the other players permit the 3 to be their "token" ( don't know the legal word here) offerings and beneficiaries?

Is there not ample room for MANY more lawsuits to be filed against Duke?

Question is, are the other vilified players standing in line to have their whack? Do they have the stomach for the battle?

How do you "move on" when justice is not yet served?

Money is not real justice. It is just a symbol of injustice. The $ settlements can never atone for the intentional damage done by Duke to the LAXers, the alumni, the INNOCENT faculty, the current and future students.

If only there could be just ONE honest, heartfelt apology from ANY of the perpetrators, it would serve as the first boards in a bridge toward resolution and restoration.

So far... NONE. Not from any person at Duke who has been implicated.

That is the scariest part of all. If they REALLY believe they have behaved in ways that they would want others to behave toward their OWN sons and daughters???? Well... I think the answer to that is perfectly obvious.

EVERYBODY who was implicated in this scandal owes an apology... including a recognition of wrong doing... to the parents, the LAXers, the Student Body, the Alumni, the Donors, just for a start.

That the Gang of 88, and the Duke Administration are unable or unwilling to at least take that step toward emotional and moral resolution, is further evidence of their selfish, self-serving, and mypotic view of life and the disdain they hold for others.

While preaching the religon of tolerance, their practice is bigotry.

"Moving on?" Glad to. AFTER the truly guilty pave the way with the first steps of personal responsibility and apology.

Money, no matter how much, is not restoration or reconciliation. It is a form of restitution, but it will not cause healing of the broken image of the (formerly) great Duke University.

Duke1965 said...

I'm continually struck by how, in the minds of many, this case has little to do with due process (rich white boys need due process? HAH!!), and how much it has to do with Duke's past history and white guilt. Many seem to think that it's now payback time for the sins of the past. And yes, there were many sins, and not that long ago...... in the fall of 1961, Duke had but one black student(a law student) in its entire undergraduate/graduate population. A rumor on campus at that time was that one Duke law professor had said that he would not give a passing grade to that student, regardless of the black student's academic performance..........

That said, here we are 46 years later......... Duke is now known as one of the most liberal schools in the South, with a very diverse undergraduate/graduate and faculty population. Anyone who thinks Duke is a "white" school just isn't looking at today's reality. Is it perfect? Of course not..... but to think of Duke today as a dangerous place where racist/sexist privileged white males roam free, is ridiculous........ it bears no relationship whatsover to reality.

If you've been following the story of the "Jena 6" in Louisiana, you know that racial tensions were inflamed when someone (presumably white students) hung nooses from the "white students'" tree on the school grounds...... a despicable act, to be sure. But about the tree supposedly "reserved" for white students...... is that really different than the "black bench" at Duke (in front of Alpine), which is "reserved" for black students? As far as I know, there is no "white bench" at Duke........ I certainly don't have the answers to this difficult and complex social problem, but I doubt that payback and reverse racism are going to be effective solutions.

Anonymous said...

TO 9:22

My thoughts exactly. If the Group of 88 were acting and speaking as they have during the civil rights era, some would have labeled them "racist, sexist, pigs." Why not now?

Anonymous said...

The Duke chronicle today regarding KC's appearance last night:

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/09/12/News/Johnson.Chastises.Lauds.Lax.Case.Actors-2963662.shtml

Note the comment by the organizer that many of his fliers were removed before the event.

Anonymous said...

I am a prof at Duke and went to the talk last night. My first time posting. A few thoughts...

* I think the book is well written and tells a compelling story. I thought Prof. Johnson was well spoken and v. clear in person. His stated reason for getting involved (He was appalled by the listening statement) rang true to me.
*Many of the the things I now believe to be in clear error seemed correct to me at the time. The biggest example was the firing of Coach Pressler. It is inherently easier to judge later than it is to have to make decisions in the midst of crisis. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be accountability for decisions made, but the QED nature with which Prof Johnson lays things out is only possible in retrospect.
*The book makes clear (correctly in my mind) the large role the released email played in jacking the campus up against the players. It had a far bigger effect than did the ad on the common sentiment among faculty/staff that the players were most likely guilty of something worse than drinking a beer. Prof. Johnson didn't touch on the role of the email much in the talk, but he did mention it.
*The timing of the email and the ad make it v. difficult to disentangle the impact of each on sentiment on the campus, so others may think the opposite.
*Did the email get released by the police who had gotten it from the computers of the players who lived in the house (and voluntarily gave email passwords to the police as reported in book)? If not, how they got this email is a big question.
*The email stemmed the tide that was starting to move toward the defense/players around the water cooler (at least in my circles), esp once you had Cheshire, etc. publicly dumping the chance of a consent defense. That made people take notice that maybe Nifong's banging away wasn't the whole story. But, the email was like gas on a smoldering fire
*The email seemed totally depraved to me at the time. A couple of students I had immediately saw it as a 'joke' and told me so based on the book, etc. I didn't find it funny in any way, so have always had trouble seeing it as a joke (b/c jokes are supposed to be funny, right?). But, I do accept that this was not some secret view into sinister, depraved students. And I am sure the student who sent the email profoundly regrets it and he has publicly apologized for it. And I think I am glad we didn't have email when I was 19.
*The email allowed the following line of thought....a player has rolled over on the others and will testify. Then when the defense attys released only part of the discovery (I think I recall this correctly?), the how did the email get released line of thought helped keep the 'silver bullet' notion alive after it should have died
*clearly there was no silver bullet...Nifong would have made public any such person/info he had to save his law license. It is odd that I still hear some saying there must have been some other evidence that Nifong didn't bring out to save his skin. No way.
*Stating the email was more imp't than the listening statement doesn't mean it isn't fair game to criticize the statement, motives, etc...if you make a public statement you have to expect public discussion of same.
*I think there needs to be a civil trial. I don't have confidence that we will ever have any accountability for the police/city without a trial. It is clear to me there are damages the players suffered. I have no idea how to monetize the harm. So, let a jury decide (and it won't be a Durham jury, but a Greensboro jury--federal trial). Letter writers to the Herald-Sun don't get this. By the way, the 4th circuit is not the best place to have a large jury award for civil rights violations or civil liability reviewed (from the plaintiffs perspective).
*If Nifong would have gone into court after the primary election in May 2006 and said "Judge, you will not believe it, but the accuser is mentally ill and is giving inconsistent statements. And there is no DNA. While I believe there was an assault, I can't prove it so regretfully must drop the case" he would still be DA today and the reputation of the players would not be rehabilitated. I am glad this did not occur, but am sorry that the players and their families had to suffer through being wrongly accused for nearly a year longer.


DukeProf

Anonymous said...

8:30 am, You're not going to make a very good grammar nazi. The sentence isn't seem to be incorrect. It's questioning someone else's comment, ie, KC Johnson's.

But why is that person a troll? A cultural anthropological troll at that?

Are you a nazi jerk ie worse than a troll because you were rude? Yepper, keep it up. Keep giving KC Johnson a bad name with your stoooooopod posts.

Anonymous said...

9:02 And how do you know that? Did God come down and tell you? Or is it just another inane assertion by a Johnsonite? He'd do better to cut you loose...

Anonymous said...

11:54 (must be a G88er) wrote: "The sentence isn't seem to be incorrect."

If you had but a single brain cell I would have assumed your sentence, above, was an ill-played effort at satire. But, alas, you do not.

Nice to see ass-clowns reveal themselves.

Anonymous said...

9:02 wrote: "It must be odd for G88ers to realize that, aside from their own few hand-picked AA admits, pretty much of the rest of the entire Duke undergraduate population thinks the professors are truly beneath them, intellectually and morally. I can't imagine teaching or working in such an environment where everyone thought you were a scum-bag and idiot."

9:17 (a G-88er) replied with: "And how do you know that? Did God come down and tell you? Or is it just another inane assertion by a Johnsonite? He'd do better to cut you loose..."

Game, set, and match to 9:02.

Anonymous said...

Duke prof, et. al.

This email story is so bizarre. You didn't think it was funny. Ok, fair enough. What did you think? Did you think it was a genuine statement of intent to murder and skin strippers? Did it occur to you that they might have been placed under arrest if the police could have pretended that they believed it?

Maybe what you thought was that any stick was good enough to beat rich, white males with.

Recommendation: Further thought.

Ralph Phelan said...

Referring to the sentence:

"Is that reasonable or part of the your crusade?"

anonymous 11:54 a.m writes

"The sentence isn't seem to be incorrect.

I will be charitable and assume he is a very subtle satirist rather than an extremely stupid loser.

Anonymous said...

11:30 DukeProf: Thanks for the comments and welcome to D-i-W.

Sid said...

To anon@10:52

I think we basically agree. However, I do not hold any hope whatsoever that the truly guilty at Duke will apologize or make amends in any fashion. My point being that they are insulated from real consquences by university process.

If the Trustees had the fortitude to make things right, Brodhead would be reading the "Help Wanted" section of a major newspaper. The Gang of 88 would be meeting with the lawyers to evaluate their termination under tenure.

But, follow me closely here, I do not believe that will happen. I think that it SHOULD happen. I just do not believe that it WILL happen.

I hold justice as a civic virtue. Duke will not seek justice. They will just wait as passion subsides.

Anonymous said...

To 1:34:

I think I thought it was an insight into the mindset of the people at the party when I first heard it. Made the charges seem more believable to me at the time. I don't believe I thought it was an actual conspiracy to commit murder (though I believe that is what the search warrant for this students room stated). I agree with you that more dispassionate, clear thought was much needed on that day and in those weeks.

Also, I am a white man for what it is worth, and most any Professor is monetarily rich as compared to 95% of the US population.

DukeProf

Anonymous said...

I normally agree with much of what you have to offer, because it is usually supported with evidence and tries not to rally around the whole notion of 'heads should roll regardless.' However, some of the questions are pitched in a very slanted manner in which they presume the answer and there is evidence to show that maybe they could be dealt with in a more frank and dialogue driven way.

I'll go through one by one...

1- I think he was saying he supported any group that wanted to essentially express their views. I didn't see this as staunch defending the 88ers... rather saying in a non-committal way that if they or students felt threatened they could say whatever they wanted to. Sure it wasn't the best choice of words ever, but it wasn't Brodhead 'siding' with them.

2 - The faculty member in this was not in actuality a full professor. That individual is now gone. So get the facts on this one....

3 - I read into this the subordinate clause where Dick thinks that hiring strippers is bad enough and not classy. While I wouldn't make that an official statement as a Univ. President, I didn't interpret it as him saying he thought they were guilty despite being proven otherwise like Nifong boldly states.

4 - Duke took many steps and I'd recommend someone talking to Assoc VP Aaron Graves to discuss matters of Duke Police / Durham Police. The Duke Police are in fact a great resource and regularly side with the protection of students in a very professional way.

5 - Don't conflate interviewing people directly involved with an ongoing police investigation with talking with people and trying to get a feel whats going on around you. You can make strong statements about how you'd approach a problem generally or how you'd think about outcomes without interfering with a police investigation. And that is exactly what I think Brodhead did.

6 - This is just wholly untrue with its lead. Healing a community is not always big sweeping change and burning books on the quad. There have been more internal initiatives and mechanisms opened for communication in the last 10 months than Nan did in all of her years combined. Examples include biforcating L-Mo, Burness, and giving Alleva a kick in the pants with a sudden review. Duke installed Nowicki, Phail, and now an ombudsperson to deal with issues. If that isn't helping to heal I don't know what is.

7 - Check out what hiring procedures actually include before assuming merit is not part of the equation. If you want to point this question somewhere, point it at the Board of Trustees. All big hires have to include a blessing from them. If you want to know who railroads this stuff, look at Spike Yoh (who has a named football building, but still was the chair review person for Alleva... conflict of interest much?)

8 - Do you think Brodhead would say 'gee I'm against conservatives and am a ill-informed ideologue'... This is a ridiculous question. Look at the political science dept at Duke, it is replete with libertarians, and so is the law school. You may want to go back and look at transcripts.. someone might have actually already asked this inane question.

9 - If you only pay attention to the group of 88 or the vocal people who have spoken out in this debacle, then you'd think this question is relevant. Look at the breadth of Duke faculty across all of the standard Trinity College Depts. Then step back and say 'gee, the Law School, Business School, Medical School, Nicholas School, and Engineering School all have large faculties.... maybe we haven't thught about them yet and recognized that it already is pretty diverse here.'

10 - If you think you'll get a straight answer to this statement you're sorely mistaken. The Board Of Trustees decides who gets the big fat cover your ass checks. Take it up with them.

11 - Simple answer is yes, but qualified to mean if Duke manages to get rid of Alleva. A few faculty have already tried to deep six the entire athletic dept and/or try to encourage it be scaled back or cut in some ways. Brodhead has fought HARD to stop that from happening. Look at Wood.... he's retired now... I wonder why :)

12 - He doesn't necessarily have to voice an opinion on this. Freedom of speech allows them to say whatever they want (good bad or otherwise, excluding fire in a crowded theatre kinds of things). Look back at the responses in the chronicle to the reparations advertisements a few years ago. Or the PM conference. The university admins should be quiet, and for the most part are quiet about those kinds of things.

13 - The sound argument here that I agree with might be that it was for their safety. Having watched all that happened during that time I would agree with the decision for no other reason than to protect the players from being tortured by lunatics who would feel compelled to come and treat them all with disrespect. Brodhead then went to bat for them immediately to the NCAA for getting the eligibility back. Also, Alleva screwed over Pressler. Go investigate the notion that Alleva told Pressler to give him a resignation letter and then Alleva promised to not accept it publicly to show support.... then what did he do? So look at Alleva and the Board of Trustees for the Pressler issue.



Did Brodhead make mistakes in this mess... YES! Were they as sensationalist as these questions inspire.... NO! I fault Dick for not getting rid of Alleva... and I fault him for not feeling comfortable enough to stand up to the Board of Trustees and tell them to shove off... however, if he did those things he'd already be gone by now and we'd be in much WORSE shape. He's played a very good game of diplomacy the last year and a half. Give him credit for going around the country and letting people blast questions at him left and right. He reached out to hear people and still does. He genuinely listens to them too. If you're going to find fault, make sure its real, and then make sure its something one can learn from and do better.

Anonymous said...

To Duke Prof who wrote: "If Nifong would have gone into court after the primary election in May 2006 and said "Judge, you will not believe it, but the accuser is mentally ill and is giving inconsistent statements. And there is no DNA. While I believe there was an assault, I can't prove it so regretfully must drop the case" he would still be DA today and the reputation of the players would not be rehabilitated. I am glad this did not occur, but am sorry that the players and their families had to suffer through being wrongly accused for nearly a year longer."

Nifong's unethical pre trial statements were made before the primary; he used the baseless allegations of the accuser and the publicity to secure the primary election win. Once there was no DNA match plus exculpatory DNA, which he would have still been required to turn over to all 46 players, he knows that the defense attorneys would have immediately released that info. to the press (which would have been to counter the negative publicity of the State and therefore not in violation of any ethical rules). Had he proceeded as you indicated, even with the "something happened" statement, the team could have countered with the facts and still would have likely won the battle for public opinion.

I do agree with you though that May 2006 was just one point where Nifong and his enablers could have stopped this run-away-train of civil rights abuses but did not.

Also, blaming a college kid for sending a joke via email which you found to be (admittedly) in poor taste for the ensuing mayhem caused by the adults in charge is the old "blame the victim" mentality that decent prosecutors have worked for decades to eradicate. Thanks for bringing it back! Along with the presumption of guilt, it seems to be the standard operating procedure at Duke. (you must agree that it was ridiculous that the student was suspended for an admitted joke yet another student that sent an email that was reasonably taken as a threat by its recipients was rewarded!) Only in the Wonderland that is Duke.

duke09parent said...

DukeProf,

Thanks for you comments from a long time reader and occasional poster on this forum. I agree with you completely that it is a little unfair to judge the actions of the Duke admins working in a crisis atmosphere with 20/20 hindsight. Clearly the email release sparked an overreaction, partly because the administration was still reeling and trying to contain the p.r. crisis.

I am not disappointed in the President so much for his actions then as I am in his refusal 1) to alter his course when he returned to campus from his international travels in the Fall of '06 when more facts of the case were known, and 2) to acknowledge his actions in the Spring of '06 were wrong and that he would do things differently in future crisis situations. Indeed he has said that faced with the same situation he would do the same things.

KC Johnson said...

To the 2.40:

Let me quickly note that these questions came from readers: my questions were in the link provided.

One quick response, as to (3): "I read into this the subordinate clause where Dick thinks that hiring strippers is bad enough and not classy."

But, of course, neither Seligmann nor Finnerty had hired strippers.

Anonymous said...

2:40 writes: "however, if he did those things he'd already be gone by now and we'd be in much WORSE shape. He's played a very good game of diplomacy the last year and a half. Give him credit for going around the country and letting people blast questions at him left and right. He reached out to hear people and still does. He genuinely listens to them too. If you're going to find fault, make sure its real, and then make sure its something one can learn from and do better."

This is a joke, right? If you truly, honestly believe that you, as a tenured faculty member at Duke, are *better off* **with** than without Brodhead at the helm, then you deserve nothing more than the fate that your G-88 "colleagues" have delivered onto Duke's steps. I mean, would you honestly send *your* kids to Duke and subject them to Brodhead's "leadership"?

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof.,
You seem to have a strong fixation on a very minor item. You agreed with the decision to fire the lacrosse coach even though the facts of the case had not been proven. I suggest that you have behaved in (what seems to be typical for many at Duke) a somewhat craven manner. Now that the truth has come out you make excuses for your and others behavior. You still don't get it do you?

no justice, no peace said...

11:30 Inre: Duke Prof and American Psycho email.

Good points, thanks for posting. Though I would tend to disagree about the relative importence of the email vs. the continued stiff-arm in the face from the Klan of 88 and their abettors, your post raises a few of questions.

1. American Psycho was required reading in one or more Duke classes.

Why? Can we do no better?

2. I've always been concerned about both the access/release of the students email (FERPA privacy and possible civil rights violations) and the chain of command that granted access to the students dorm.

And others bitch about the Patriot Act?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2:40: I appreciate the time you took to address these, and I'm the person that submitted the comment that became #6. As an alum, I have to tell you we got several emails as this was all hitting the fan and the silence from Brodhead has been deafening since the truth came out. I haven't seen a public apology or anything bearing a faint resemblance to one. Anyone should be able to publically say that if I knew then what I know now, things would have been different.

I am an alum with 2 sons. The oldest is a high school Senior with the SATs to follow me to Duke. His brother is a year younger and probably as qualified. I don't plan on letting either of them even apply to Duke given the current circumstances. I don't have millions of dollars to defend them if they get framed by the local cops and I expect there will be some retaliation someday. They'll both be engineers, so I don't worry about them being exposed to profs without credentials in some of the other departments, but I just don't see the Duke that I loved (under Terry Sanford, if that gives you a frame of reference) being the same school that's there today. And I lived in the Durham area for seven years until August 2006, so I'm very familiar with what was going on at Duke until about a year ago.

I also believe Burness should quit issuing platitudes and putting a positive spin on everything. Why not admit that there has been some negative fallout in terms of admissions or donations? Putting a "happy face" on everything just leads to a decrease in what little credibility they may have left (or not).

And why can't you also admit there have been some negative repurcussions? Some people just seem determined to disagree with every point made....and there are enough great minds and intelligent people posting on this blog over the past several months to know that there's a LOT to learn here!

no justice, no peace said...

inre: 2:40

Help, help the building is on fire!

Is there a diplomat in the house?

Brodhead should be fired because he is not a leader.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 2:40 said...

...He's (Broadhead) played a very good game of diplomacy the last year and a half.
::
And he enabled the 'the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax' game you mentioned to be played out so that he could have something to be diplomatic about.

Hate Springs Eternal would be a great title of a book written by an English teacher who fancies himself as a diplomatic.
::
GP

hman said...

To the Duke Prof
Yours is obviously an authentic voice and your input is`much appreciated.
The public revelation of the "vile" email was a decisive turning point in this saga; there is no doubt about that.
However, the few individuals to whom it was sent had no problems with it and could not have been expected to. College humor is what it is. Brodhead does not know about this?
The issue is similar, imho, to the outrage over the stripper party. There were indeed 20 something such parties at Duke that year including one by the beloved basketball team. Who in higher Administration was un-aware of this?
I get the impression that Brodhead was extremely angry at the Lax team for forcing such things out in the open where he might have to defend them, in any fashion at al. But he had to have known about stripper parties, etc at his school and the Lax guys absolutely needed someone like him to defend them once it became clear (as it did real quick) that Nifong was an unscrupulous monster willing to send innocent kids to prison for the rest of their young lives.
When things got serious in a way academic matters rarely do, he just stood there while some of is kids were in moral danger because, I suppose, he did not like them.
Not forgiven

Anonymous said...

duke 1965 says...

...But about the tree supposedly "reserved" for white students...... is that really different than the "black bench" at Duke (in front of Alpine), which is "reserved" for black students?...

Can we see a picture of this bench?

240 Point By Point said...

I wrote the 240 post...


to the Duke Alum...

I think that the one year you weren't here since Aug 06 is actually what has mattered the most for your query. Healing is not a simple, quantifiable, thing; one cannot simply write emails that 'prove' or demonstrate 'healing' to the alumni base. I wish you were here to feel the various ups and downs and notice some of it.

I agree with your comments about Burness. I also agree with the statement that they all could simply say 'in retrospect we could have done better if we knew then what we knew now.' However, I can't imagine that being of any utility. That statement to me is as bad a platitude as any there is.

I am aware of the Uncle Terry days. The institute bearing his name has given me much in many ways. I also , like you, am a Duke alum. I also, like you encounter HS students who have the aptitude to attend Duke. I also watched media vans hawkishly parked outside my home during the beginning as they hounded a close friend of mine routinely as he drove from the athletic facilities to my home. I expect that you did not intend for your explanation of your connection to Duke to sound as if it was 'on authority,' but if it was I figured I'd at least disclose mine. I would say more and more, but honestly I'd like to remain as anonymous as possible.

The silence is deafening part is repeated constantly. It plays into something I am unsure I am willing to agree with. It is this notion that there should be a jump to respond, and for the person you want to say the things you want to hear. Haven't we all learned the lesson of jumping to respond or make conclusions? The silence was deafening because the gap between reflecting before speaking vs. spouting the mouth before thinking is HUGE. That gap is much bigger than being quick to respond versus slow to respond or even downright sluggish to respond. I would characterize Brodhead as slow to respond, but not downright sluggish or lethargic.

Anonymous said...

To DukeProf:

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I don't understand why some have reacted poorly to it.

Regarding the e-mail, I agree that it comes off as shocking to those of us who have not, and have no interest in, reading American Psycho. I now understand his poor attempt at humor, which seems to be ridiculing the required reading at Duke. I believe your e-mail was intended to reflect the mood on campus at the time, which is fair enough.

Also, while I agree that it is not entirely fair to judge the actions of individuals in a crisis situation with benefit of hindsight, the real issue to me is the almost total lack of retractions or apology by the offending faculty and administration. To make a mistake in judgment proves one to be human, to refuse to apologize or otherwise own up to the mistake says more about one's character.

-RD

Anonymous said...

To 2:42:
I agree Nifong was plenty culpable by late March, and neck deep in the soup by May 1. I am just saying he would have gotten away with it and not been disbarred had he pulled the rip cord in May.

I don't blame the student that sent the email for what I thought of it. I was merely recounting.

I agree the treatment of the 2 students we are talking about with respect to the emails they sent is inconsistent.

To 2:49:

Prof. Johnson surmised last night that if Pres. B could do-over one thing from spr '06 it would be the firing of Coach Pressler.

To 3:19:

I am not proud that I thought it correct to fire the coach the day I heard that it had happened, but now think it to have been a mistake. It is just the case.

To 4:12:

You are correct that the students got it much quicker than the 'adults' (me) about the book allusion. And Prof Johnson said last night that he thought the Chronice and therefore the students had handled this better than any other paper. Seems a fair conclusion to me.

And much of the discussion about drinking/student culture being held today was being held nearly verbatim on my undergrad campus in the 1980s...


The entire episode has lead to a lot of soul searching and thinking about my role/responsibility to students.

DukeProf

Anonymous said...

To 4:52:

The faculty/admin at Duke have got to come up with a way to talk honestly about all that has happened and apologize/make amends where they are due. It is difficult to see how this will happen. Professions that are granted a great deal of autonomy in policing ourselves by society (professors, lawyers, doctors) tend to circle up and protect the guild when outsiders start looking in. But, we have to earn the trust and privilege we have been granted by society. I am not sure of the way forward.

DukeProf

Ralph Phelan said...

DukeProf praises with faint damns:

"I agree the treatment of the 2 students we are talking about with respect to the emails they sent is inconsistent."

It's far more than merely "inconsistent." It's outrageous.

If you're a white jock on the "wrong" side of the case and you make a joke that's misunderstood, you get suspended. If you're a black "activist" on the right side of the case and you make a threat that results in the police being called, you get awards and go on national tour with the university president.

The stunning double standard based on racial and political grounds is the heart of what's wrong at Duke.

Ralph Phelan said...

"we have to earn the trust and privilege we have been granted by society."

DukeProf

Thank you for getting that.

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof,

In the wake of the Waco fiasco (the Branch-Davidians), there were investigations of the actions of both the ATF, which began the confrontation with the B-Ds, and the FBI, which ended it.

Then-Treasury Sec. Lloyd Bentsen rejected requests by the ATF that it be allowed to investigate itself, and insisted on an outside investigation. Then-Atty Gen. Janet Reno permitted the FBI to investigate its own actions. Guess which investigation "found no wrongdoing" and was immediately and forever denounced as a fraud.

Duke needs an investigation into its actions during the Hoax by a (small) committee of outsiders -- and should not be all academics. One or two should be from the legal and business communities.

That's my advice.

RRHamilton

Anonymous said...

DukeProf,

Welcome. I have posted here before and it seems that our reactions to this mess have much in common. I too was not paying much attention to the case and to how the university was handling it. When I started paying attention I learned things that surprised me quite a bit. I am still struggling to process much of the information that KC has made public. I wonder how many of us are there and whether the inexcusable actions of some of our colleagues have started something that they did not foresee and might soon regret. As I said in an earlier post, the events of the last 18 months have changed the way I look at things quite substantially.

Another Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

"I am not sure of the way forward."
-- DukeProf

You do know the way forward. The problem is you are (quite understandably) afraid just like the prof Johnson discussed at the end of his talk Tuesday night.

The way forward is to be the first to leave the circle. You have correctly stated that "we have to earn the trust and privilege we have been granted by society." This is a way to earn back the trust and respect that has been lost.

Here is a (poorly kept) secret. Academia is going to feel the foot of society on its neck a lot more in the future. There are more and more stories coming to light that give people reason (or an excuse) to hate social sciences and humanities academics. It would be tragic to throw away the many good with the few bad. If academia fails to get its house in order, it will be done for you. Public universities are especially vulnerable but private universities like Duke are not immune.

Germany in the 1930's was filled with decent people who did not like what they saw. You seem like a decent person.

But, will you merely watch or act?

Best of Luck. I appreciate your candor and your struggle.

SAVANT

PS - I left a circle myself once. You quickly find out who your friends are (and you WILL have friends). And, you learn you don't really care about or miss the rest.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 5:13 said...

...Professions that are granted a great deal of autonomy in policing ourselves by society (professors, lawyers, doctors) tend to circle up and protect the guild when outsiders start looking in.
...DukeProf
::
I think you need to expand your thinking about professions with respect to the idea of protection.

Duke professors don't seem to understand that there are hundreds of thousands of citizens in America who are angry with Duke professors...and many of these angry people have money and more importantly they vote.

The profession you are talking about include ALL faculty at ALL universities who may protect their profession from angry citizens by diverting attention towards Duke and suggesting that Duke be investigated before all universities fall under the funding microscope...because of Duke.

Professors at Duke need to develop a strategy of response knowing that if you don't respond quickly, other university professors across the country may feed all of you at Duke to the lions.

Before all of you get all weepy about the trust of society I advise that you concern your self with not pissing off other professors in other Universities along with citizens who vote.
::
GP

inman said...

Dear 240,

Your defense of Brodhead is noted. But I think your characterization of him as a "diplomat" is sorely misplaced.

He is in fact a consummate "politician," holding his finger in the air to guage the winds of opinion.

Richard Brodhead's successes have been previously noted and there have surely been some. But he had a singular failure that is symptomatic of an egregious and unacceptable trait for a person in his capacity and his repsonsibility.

He made a choice early on. He chose to NOT BELIEVE his students who told him they were innocent. He chose to believe another politican and a prostitute. He chose to allow extreme members of Duke's faculty to influence his decision. He surely did not listen to me and my letter to the Chronicle dated March 30, 2006.

I wrote that letter with no information other than that which was available to everyone else. But what I did know was that there was too much that I didn't know.

If someone for whom I am responsible says to me -- "I am innocent" -- and I have no facts to show otherwise, then I have a duty to defend vociferously their right to a presumption of innocence. But Brodhead CHOSE TO NOT BELIEVE. HIS WAS A CONSCIOUS CHOICE.

For that, he should never be forgiven.

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I understand Duke's view of "justice." A very successful coach is fired, errr "resigned." A student sends a private email expressing a joke in poor taste, and is suspended for a semester. 88 faculty abuse an entire group of innocent students and violate numerous principles of professional responsibility -- and nothing is done.

This is hyprocisy, not justice.

Yet another Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

But the inconsistencies continue, and I have to wonder if anyone's learned anything. The private email we've been discussing results in Pressler's termination and the student's dismissal.

Now we have a DUI (as I understand it) with a football player and what? He had to sit out a game? Huh? Maybe this is an effort to not over-react yet again, but again, the silence is deafening.

Anonymous said...

my nominee for ...

P-O-S-T....O-F....T-H-E....D-A-Y

Anonymous said...
9.23 notes: "But *they* know their position in the academy. If they don't they are even more obtuse than I thought."

Agreed. *Everyone* understands the quid pro quo in the academy re: diversity hires, even the ass-clowns themselves. But the implicit (if explicit) deal was that, OK, we'll hire these under qualified idiots, but cabin them into a few discrete specific departments where they won't be able to wreck more havoc than their mere presence on the faculty accomplishes. What Duke just learned, however, was that even the most irrelevant of its departments--cultural anthro, AA studies, etc.--can cause unbelievable damage as the G88ers ably illustrated. This will have the consequence of having the *real* faculty members re-think the original deal re: *diversity* faculty hires. The ass-clowns just over-played their hand.

9/12/07 9:51 AM

Anonymous said...

Correction on 8:06

s/b NOT the lax houses...

Anonymous said...

7.17 PM (graciously) writes:
"P-O-S-T....O-F....T-H-E....D-A-Y"

Thanks.
9.51 AM

Anonymous said...

INMAN quoted:
"Dear 240,

Your defense of Brodhead is noted. But I think your characterization of him as a "diplomat" is sorely misplaced.

He is in fact a consummate "politician," holding his finger in the air to guage the winds of opinion."

Tom, I believe you are being too kind to Brodhead; obviously, a skilled politician would heve sought middle ground--eg, proclaimed that Duke would support a thorough investigation, etc,, but would also not suspend the players, not fire the coach, not cancel the season. Above all, a skilled politician would NEVER have agreed to elevate black studies to full departmental status.

What Brodhead is, is a mediocrity with an 88 agenda.

Anonymous said...

RRHamilton @6:10:

Such a committee would be a good idea. Civil trial for accountability for city/policy and such a committee for faculty/admin. Could it ever originate from the faculty alone? Trustees? Duke Endowment?

Trustees + TDE + some faculty = maybe

SAVANT:
Yes, we must act and not only analyze.

G Packwood:

Not just profs at other universities, but even around the world...I was questioned about the case while in the Middle East this past summer by 2 people. In fact, it was the first thing a taxi driver asked about when I told him I was a prof @ Duke!

DukeProf

Gary Packwood said...

Duke Prof 9:25 PM
...G Packwood:
...Not just profs at other universities, but even around the world...I was questioned about the case while in the Middle East this past summer by 2 people. In fact, it was the first thing a taxi driver asked about when I told him I was a prof @ Duke!
::
Good point. I need to think differently about Duke's Global stakeholders. Thank You.

Also, I don't see much discussion tonight concerning the ...Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of the United States of America.

The Duke University Clery Report is here
http://www.duke.edu/web/police/cleryreport/

Professors at Duke need to know that there are a number of people in this country who believe passionately that universities should be prohibited from receiving federal grant funds (Arts, Humanities, EPA, National Science, Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) etc.) if their Clery Report suggests their campus is a sewer of crime. That would include universities who spend more than $500,000 each year on settlements with students because of alleged wrongdoing on the part of faculty and staff. The castrate banner comes to mind.

If research professors at Duke are going to sit back and allow the G88 and their staff and student friends to harm undergraduate students, there are those who wish to expand THE CLERY REPORT to reflect those types of criminal acts where 'settlements' and not jail time are the punishment.

That change will dry up funding for public and private university.

It is about this time of year that I begin to be annoyed at the federal taxes I pay each year and therefor it is not the time to tell me that Duke faculty and staff are waving about 'CASTRATE banners' and harming their students with me paying part of the nickel for their 'research' projects.

I can only imagine how annoyed Harvard, Yale, U Chicago and even Texas A&M are going to be when they learn that Clery Reporting is going to be expanded became of the action and inaction of faculty/staff on the campus of Duke University.

The calculus of federal funding eligibility needs to be studied by those professors at Duke who have a clue about calculus, I believe.
::
GP

240 said...

Inman....

Your counter argument can be characterized by a disagreement over an interpretation. Your March 30, 2006 letter to the editor is in agreement with what I believe. Innocent until proven guilty.

However, in your post you are making the assertion that cancelling the season, accepting the resignation of Pressler, and the medias rampant presumption of guilt are all somehow still singularly connected with Brodhead. That's just irresponsible reductionist rhetoric. There are many factors and many actors in this horrible saga. I think it is unfair to everyone to make those leaps.

If you believe that Brodhead makes decisions in a vacuum and has never been vetoed by someone who could veto him on a given decision, then you've got to re-examine the decision making roles and procedures for a university president.

I tried to explain as best I could my views on the queries other people posted and KC collected. I stick by my explanations. Just because you wrote a letter in 2006 doesn't mean actually prove in a demonstrable way that Brodhead chose to believe a dirty politician and a stripper. That's just inflammatory, unhelpful, sensationalist rhetoric that doesn't engage in view sharing dialogue.

I too wrote letters to the editor, sent personal messages to administrators and even engaged them in conversations (which I still have via email) about the topics. I have been merely trying to include some of the things I've learned into this discussion and voice my opinion.

In general, one area that nobody likes to think about with respect to complicated issues like this one is that there is both the notion of complexity theory / complexity science..... To keep it simple, it tends to frown upon simple cause-effect relationships being wholly true. That's probably why nobody likes it.

Anonymous said...

to INMAN...

as a reminder (and you can even look at the chronicle replies to your letter) it was made quite clear back then... and is known still to be true... that the lax captains were directly involved in the decision to cancel the remainder of the season...

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof,

Gee, knowing little about Duke University, I don't know if I'm the one to tell you how to choose the members of the investigating committee.

As I said, it should be mostly other academics, with a light sprinkling of attorneys and/or businessmen/women. The critical thing would be that they must all be outsiders. No one who gets a shilling from Duke should be considered for committee membership.

I guess one way to do it would be to go to the deans (or whatever title it is) from each college/department that is not listed in the offending ad and have each of them nominate one committee member. Then have the University's outside legal counsel nominate a member; and have the BOT nominate a member. The latter two members should come from the legal and business communities.

That's just an idea. I wouldn't think the committee should be more than about 10 people, with a staff of no more than one staffer per member.

RRH

scott said...

A couple of the Duke Profs we have heard from on this thread are a welcome relief from some of the academic flamers we have heard from in the last several days.

Some have criticized that one placed too high a degree of importance on the McFadyen email. OK, I don't think the email was that big a deal, but different people are going to have different views on that.

One thing is for sure: Ryan himself has apologized for its insensitivity and Houston Baker still hasn't apologized to the Duke parent for calling her son a "farm animal" so score 1 for Laxers and 0 for Academics in holding themselves accountable for boorish behavior.

Overall, I have found the remarks of these 2 Duke Profs to be thoughtful, sensible, and display a willingness to state that the activity at Duke in response to this case to be worth reconsidering.

All in all, they represent a pleasant departure from snarky comments that indicate a 0 in the thought process department.

I welcome these Duke Profs and hope they comment further. From their position as insiders, they have something worthwhile to offer.

Gary Packwood said...

The Scrapper 2:02 said...
...KC,
...I attended your lecture tonight in Page Auditorium and I just want to thank you again for everything you have done in your thorough and unbiased analysis of this case. I hope you realize just how important you have been throughout this whole fiasco. You've been one of the only sources for an objective analysis of this case (along with the Chronicle and N&O). On behalf of all Duke students, THANK YOU KC!
::
The Scrapper is a Duke undergraduate students with a good sports blog.

Click on his name and sign up.

What he has to say is a good.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

11;19 I thought the Captains were only involved in the decision to cancell two games, not the season.

Ralph Phelan said...

SAVANT

"There are more and more stories coming to light that give people reason (or an excuse) to hate social sciences and humanities academics. It would be tragic to throw away the many good with the few bad."

I believe you reversed the proper locations of "many" and "few". If you disagree, please tell me why.

inman said...

Dear 240 @# 11:13:

I just re-read my post. You should as well for I in no way did I make “…the assertion that cancelling the season, accepting the resignation of Pressler, and the medias rampant presumption of guilt are all somehow still singularly connected with Brodhead.

I focused on one Brodhead decision and one decision only: his decision not to believe the lacrosse players when they told him they were innocent (David Evans being one who told him).

You brought up the cancellation of the season, Pressler, etc. and labled them as part of my argument. You then make a very true statement when you say: I think it is unfair to everyone to make those leaps. You should follow your own advice.

I referenced my letter to the Chronicle because it is clear evidence that at least one person believed that there was a dearth of factual evidence. I’m certain there were many others, but the rush to judgment continued. I’m equally certain that there were many who believed the Nifong narrative because it was consistent with how they wanted to view the world. For them to believe otherwise would have been cognitively dissonant. Further, I suggest that a mere reference to what I thought was a carefully crafted response to a rapidly developing situation was anything other than … inflammatory, unhelpful, sensationalist rhetoric that doesn't engage in view sharing dialogue.

I stand by my statement: Richard Brodhead made a conscious decision NOT TO BELIEVE his students.
_____________________________________________

To Anon at 11:19

Yes, I'll accept as fact that the lax captains were directly involved in terminating the season. But the notion that the lacrosse players voluntarily wanted to cancel their season strains credulity. That’s like saying, confessions of Islamic terrorist hostages aired by Al Jazeera are voluntary.

Anonymous said...

"There are more and more stories coming to light that give people reason (or an excuse) to hate social sciences and humanities academics. It would be tragic to throw away the many good with the few bad."

SAVANT 9/12

I believe you reversed the proper locations of "many" and "few". If you disagree, please tell me why.

RALPH PHELAN 9/13

I do disagree. Perhaps I am the eternal optimist but I believe that 98 percent of people are good.

While elite colleges and universities certainly have a pronounced ideological skew (liberal to Left), I think that it would be difficult to achieve a high concentration of pure evil (Rad Left). The bad in higher education seem to be more prominent for the same reason that we hear about plane crashes on the news but don't hear about the thousands of flights that arrive safely every day. In short, evil is interesting.

Of course, I must add that Duke's evil appeared even more concentrated due to the silence (and the crickets still chirp) of most of its faculty. The sane (mostly liberal) faculty failed miserably at countering their extremist colleagues.

From what I can tell, most academics at elite institutions are bright people who could make more money elsewhere. Their dedication to teaching and furthering knowledge is noble, even if many do a poor job of it.

Having said that, there are some cases at Duke (and elsewhere) that beg for resolution. It is inconceivable to me that Kim Curtis still has a job . . . anywhere.

Also, tenure should be abolished. In what other industry would only 50-75 people out of several hundred thousand be fired annually (that's a tiny fraction of one percent)? Given the types of people who get tenure (and don't), this process is clearly flawed.

In summary, I think that the few rather than the many should be removed from academia. But, that few needs to be dealt with very harshly.

SAVANT

Anonymous said...

I could not agree more about the tenure issue. What an out-moded and self-serving concept.

NO place for tenure. No place for lazy employees. No place for lying politicians and sleazy preachers.

It's time to clean up our act in the good ole USA.

A good hard look in the mirror may shock the *** out of you at first, but it could lead to some good changes. Hope they are more than just skin deep.

dsl`