Friday, September 15, 2006

Clarifying the Record

A few days ago, I noted that significant aspects of this case are available on the public record--open to any journalist who wanted to take the time to examine the material and explain its significance. Shortly thereafter, I received a gentle reminder from a person who knows the case much better than I do that while an unusual amount about the investigation has been made public, it's almost certain that much remains unknown about this affair.

My correspondent was, of course, absolutely correct. But--Byron Calame's journalistic advice notwithstanding--it's unlikely we'll see much new information emerge about the lacrosse team, or that this matter represents the critical unknown at this stage.

On the other hand, the public record contains virtually nothing about internal conditions in the Durham Police Department. In the Mostafa trial, Nifong investigator Linwood Wilson took the stand to impeach the testimony of Inv. B.W. Himan (regarding the claim in Himan's notes that Nifong wanted to be contacted immediately after police arrested Mostafa). A piece in Wednesday's Herald-Sun--confirming every day its status as a Nifong house organ--implied that the three other District 2 supervisors weren't following Durham Police policy regarding the targeting of Duke students. (The article sought to excuse Sgt. Mark Gottlieb's record of arresting 10 times as many Duke students as the other three supervisors combined.) The willingness of Nifong&Co. to suggest incompetence for any police officer whose conduct in any way might hurt the state's position in the rape case can't be good for morale.

We also know relatively little about the attitudes and actions within the Duke administration between March 14 and April 5. (The Bowen/Chambers report was supposed to investigate this question, but instead, as Stuart Taylor observed, produced a "parody of race-obsessed political correctness.") In recent weeks, Duke has presented an image of the administration going out of its way to protect the rights of its students, while dealing with overwhelmed, even "frightened," lacrosse parents. I suspect that the more we learn about the administration's actions during those critical three weeks, the less defensible Duke's approach will appear. Along these lines, I reproduce below comments that I recently received from a lacrosse parent.

I read with interest your recent post and the link to the March 27 Chronicle story. The article referenced a meeting the team parents had the afternoon of March 25 with university officials after they had cancelled that day's game against Georgetown. Larry Moneta, the vp for student affairs, was quoted in the story as stating that the meeting was to "keep the parents informed and focusing on the consequences for their kids and the way we will proceed pending the conclusion of the investigation." Moneta also said "the parents were frightened and nervous for their children."

This statement, like so many other statements put out by Duke officials, was misleading and false. I was one of the 40 or 50 parents who were at that meeting that day. We were nervous for our sons, but we were also furious at Duke. That was the day we all realized that Duke was not on our side and was not going to do anything to protect its students. That was the day Brodhead turned his back on our sons.

When Duke forfeited that day's game, Coach Pressler asked the parents who were in town for the game to meet with Athletic Director Alleva and Dean Wasiolek. The two of them told us that this game and the next had been forfeited as the team's punishment for holding the party. Alleva said the "party was inconsistent with the values of Duke athletics and Duke University and is unacceptable." He could not tell us when, or if ever, a Duke team had forfeited a game for disciplinary reasons. He could not explain why he had not forced all of the other Duke athletic teams, fraternities, and sororities which had held similar parties to forfeit their games or activities. And he refused to admit that his actions canceling the games just might make it look like Duke thought the team was guilty.

We were furious, and felt totally betrayed by Duke. We knew our sons were innocent of these outrageous allegations, and so did Duke. We had all grilled our sons about what happened, and so had Duke officials. No charges had been filed, and the Duke police had told university officials the allegations were not credible. A university lawyer had told team parents there was nothing to the allegations and they would go away. Top university officials, including the number two man EVP Tallman Trask, Alleva, and Wasiolek,* had met with the four team captains the previous afternoon, learned exactly what had and had not happened, including the extent of their cooperation with the police, and had told them they believed they were innocent. In fact, Trask told the four captains as they left the meeting to "Beat Georgetown." Yet less than 24 hours later, Duke was forfeiting the games and putting out statements that moved this story from the local papers to the front page of the New York Times.

During the meeting, we pleaded with Alleva to amend his statement to say that Duke officials had met with the team captains, knew they were cooperating with the authorities, and believed they were innocent. When Alleva refused to do that, we asked to meet with President Brodhead. After a short break, Alleva returned with Trask and Moneta, who told us flatly that Brodhead would not meet with us. When we asked them to put out a statement from Brodhead saying that Duke was confident that its students were innocent, they refused, and informed us that no further statements would be released by anyone at Duke. They also told us that no further action would be taken by Duke against the team until the legal investigation was concluded, and that steps would be taken to ensure that the team members would be treated fairly by their professors.

As it turned out, none of these assurances from the Duke officials were true. Less than an hour after the meeting broke up, Brodhead issued a statement praising Alleva's action and stating that "physical coercion and sexual assault are unacceptable in any setting and have no place at Duke. The criminal allegations against three members of our men's lacrosse team, if verified, will warrant very serious penalties." Brodhead also urged everyone on the team to cooperate with the authorities. With this statement, Brodhead turned his back on his students, and threw them to the wolves, and helped create the media firestorm that erupted.

We were shocked and dismayed. How could Duke take such a radical turn…moving from "we believe you are innocent" to issuing a statement that all but declared the team was guilty? We now know that Brodhead caved to a small but very vocal group of professors who wanted to drive athletic teams off the campus. At a faculty meeting that Friday afternoon and another meeting with faculty that Saturday morning, Brodhead was severely criticized for not forcing the team to cooperate with the investigation and for not disbanding the team. Instead of explaining to these officials the constitutional rights of their own students, Brodhead caved to their pressure and took the side of the mob. He has been there ever since.

The apparent unwillingness or inability of Duke administrators to follow through on their minimal promise in this meeting--that the institution wouldn't tolerate academic harassment of lacrosse players by their professors--represents one of the most disturbing, if least examined, aspects of this affair. It does seem that a few people within the Duke administration--Trinity College dean Bob Thompson, for instance--that tried to approach this case with the fairmindedness it required. Unfortunately, Moneta, Trask, and Wasiolek appear to have carried the day.

[*--Update: I have been told that Wasiolek was not in the meeting with the captains, though Trask and Alleva, as the parent recalled, were.]


Anonymous said...

Don't forget the inflammatory, biased and fundamentally misleading stories published by the News&Observer on March 24 and 25. These stories helped create the atmosphere that made it possible for Nifong, Brodhead, Gottlieb and the vigilante poster policeman, Addison, to operate.

Anonymous said...

Dear Heaven! Thank you Lacrosse Parent for your letter. Who knew that Broadhead and his lieutenants were quite this duplicitous? We knew they were cowardly, but not that they were telling the parents one thing and immediately throwing the whole team to the jackals.
Texas Mom

Anonymous said...

Good God...Broadhead is a back stabber...he has no business being the president of Duke or ANY university...the man needs to lose his job...leaders lead...they don't cave...tough to do sometimes, but being a leader is not easy, and it's not for the faint of heart.

Anonymous said...

Where on earth was the Board of Trustees during this period. This is a well written and articulate post which can be verified by any number of attendees. Has this information ever been shared with the Board members individually?

Anonymous said...

^^The Chairman of the Board of Trustees is Bob Steel. He brought Brodhead to Duke. Don't expect any changes there.

Anonymous said...

This does not give me any comfort, but I listened to Brodhead deliver one of his first speeches at Duke Chapel on the first day of school (August 2004). My kid was one of the 1200 or so starting school that day. I was quite disappointed to hear Brodhead speak endlessly about himself and very little about the kids whose ceremony that was supposed to be. He striked me as a "me person" right there and then. I know that personality well -- they are not easy to cure! These people see themsleves as the center of the universe and the sun revolving around them. They are not aware that there are others in the universe. They figure, if there are others, they must be there to serve them in one way or another. In short, Brodhead is an extremely self-centered man who worries about one being: himself.

Luckily, nobody is buying his quotations from Shakespeare anymore. Even those too frequently repeated quotes do not make him into a decent person. He and Nifong are the guilty parties in the Duke Lacrosse Case; they will both pay the price. Duke will soon become a prison for Brodhead, an uncomfrtable place, there will be people shouting from all corners of the campus. He will wish to leave the place before too long, and that will be a good day for Duke. I am looking forward to it.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead and Nifong---Narcissists to the core.

Anonymous said...

Where is the Duke Alumni? If I were a graduate of Duke I would have formed a group of other alumni by the thousands to take on on Brodhead and the board of trustees forming an independent and thorough investigation of these so called leaders of their alma mater. I would demand as answers.

This absolutely sickens me. Not only has the "all powerful" at Duke turned on their very own but it would appear years of alumni don't even care enough to take a stand.

I am appalled by the actions and inactions of Duke as well as those Alumni that care so little about what has happened to these boys and what their University has turned into.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead is where the majority of the blame should be directed, but it seems we also need to write every member of the Group of 88 to give them a BIG "thank you" for their open-minded foresight that fueled this condemnation.

August West said...

What a letter! Thank you, lax parent, for so clearly exposing the light of truth. And the evil of cowardice.

Anonymous said...

The lacrosse parent's letter reveals quite poor behavior by Brodhead, Alleva and Moneta.

However, I was at the August, 2004 convocation speech, too, and my reaction to Brodhead was very positive, in contrast to the 10:27 comment above. He spoke glowingly of the incoming class and spoke inspiringly of alum Paul Farmer ("Mountains on Mountains"). I don't recall any emphasis on self, but it is not uncommon and can be effective for a speaker to relate his own personal experience to the subject at hand.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Duke alum. Nothing about the Lax mom's comments do I find surprising. this only confirms the perception so many of us have, that the Duke Administration caved not from the facts at hand but in face of unwelcomed public scrutiny. Brodhead will be measured by his fundraising capabilities and by the perceived quality of Duke's academics. Fundraising is going well based on momentum achieved prior to the hoax case. the perceived value of a Duke undergraduate education has diminished due to the negative publicity generated by the hoax. Anyone who has kept up with the evolving social climate at Duke has noted a trend to suffocate the typical college outlets for blowing off steam which have included parties and social functions that may involve misuse of alcohol. Not to defend alcohol abuse, but when the net result of campus policies is to push a party 50 feet off campus, does that mean the University can absolve itself from a social problem that is the proximate result of the Administrations's own actions?

Highly qualified students have lots of college choices. Sending one's child to a community with a violent crime problem, where stepping off campus means you are truely on your own, and where the school administration has a penchant for abandoning students in their moment of need has diminshed the value of a Duke education. Until the Adminstration accepts Coach K's premise that Duke is in the "kid business",its reputation will remain tarnished.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead and the Duke Athletic Department along with the rest of the Administration threw these players to the wolves. They were sacrificial lambs. Brodhead knew they were innocent. Nifong & the Durham PD knew they were innocent.

This is a disgusting scandal. There are guilty people, but it hasn’t got anything to do with 610 N. Buchanan.

Anonymous said...

The Duke administrators behavior and attitude at the parents meeting after the Georgetown game cancellation was shocking and disappointing to say the least. It was especially disappointing to watch V.P. Trask address us in the most condescending and demeaning way, as if we had inconvenienced him by delaying his Saturday golf game.
When Dean Sue was asked why she had not instructed the captains to retain attorneys when faced by the false and serious possible charges, she responded that she though lawyers were too eagerly sought most of the time.
As an attorney herself, would she not have instructed her own son to protect his legal rights? Did she really expect us to believe her response?
Broadhead never answered any of my emails or returned any phone calls. We were removed from the mailing list and from all email communications from Duke University. When letters went out to the Duke undergrad parents and alumni updating the "lacrosse situation", our family and every team members family I have communicated with were also excluded from receiving the letters.
Larry Moneta would only communicate on the telephone, so there would be no electronic or paper trail is my guess. When I asked why the New Black Panther Party would be allowed on campus to "personally interview" the members of the lacrosse team, Mr. Moneta responded "Duke is an open campus", in answer to my concerns regarding the NBBP policies to carry loaded firearms when they protest, he responded " we don't have reason to believe there is any danger to the students". Nice. Later that day the campus was closed to the NBBP, perhaps other parents called and he got a clue.
Larry Moneta is the Dean of Student Affairs. I feel safe, how about you?

Anonymous said...

As an attorney, Nifong and company sicken me. As an Emory alum, however, I think Duke...

Nah... Nifong still sickens me.

Anonymous said...

If there was ever a time we could appropriately say "the emperor doesn't have his clothes on" this is it! Brodhead doesn't have his clothes on, and it is not a pretty sight. Duke board will have to erase this ugly image from heads, and they will have to do it fast. This is a must; it is not optional any more. When you have a badly defective organ, you remove it so that the rest of the body may survive. Brodhead is Duke's badly defective organ right now. He has to be removed so that the rest of Duke may survive. That day is getting closer and closer. I can smell it in the air...

Duke T01

Anonymous said...

Wow, LAX Team Mom, what you report is sickening. The whole administration turned their backs on your boys. Now we have this guy Burness failing to take any serious action to protect Duke students when it is revealed that Duke students receive disparate treatment from the DPD. Nice there too.

In my opinion, Duke needs to clean house. All of these administrators have been there way too long and have lost sight of the fact that the students make the university what it is. When I went to Duke in the 80's under the reign of Uncle Terry there was a feeling that Duke cared about its students and that it would take care of them if they got into trouble. I will never forget how well I was treated.

Things have changed.

LAX MOM: There are a lot of Dukies who feel for you and your sons and who are doing everything they can to see this horrible injustice stopped. Hang in there.

Anonymous said...

There are some great comments on this thread:

Anonymous said...

The next Duke President should be a person with athletics in his background. I am not going to be as eloquent as I would like to be, but there are important life lessons learned during practice, games, and from coaches that are necessary to lead a great institution like Duke University.

Anonymous said...

Thank you to the Duke Mom for verifying the complete nightmare the families have endured. The they are the real victims in this travesty. Kerstin Kimel of Duke is one individual who did the right thing.

Profile in Courage
Kerstin Kimel

Last time I wrote about Dave Evans’s speech to remind us not to forget that amid the darkness of the Duke Lacrosse Case, there have been some true heroes. Duke’s women’s lacrosse coach, Kerstin Kimel, is such a hero. While other members of Duke’s faculty and administration chose to sacrifice the lacrosse players to advance themselves and say what the media wanted to hear, Coach Kimel stood alone as the only Duke representative to make any public statement supporting the lacrosse players until law Professor James Coleman joined her in May. Heroes rise to the occasion, lead by example, and bring out the best in us. Coach Kimel did all three.

With media staked out all over campus echoing every word of the District Attorney and trumpeting every negative statement about Duke and its lacrosse team, one might have expected more Duke representatives to speak up and defend their students and their institution. Instead, 88 Duke professors signed a divisive letter placed as an advertisement in the student newspaper publicly thanking protestors for making “collective noise” and "for not waiting and for making yourselves heard." Professors reportedly did not hesitate to express their condemnation of the lacrosse players to their students with the lacrosse players present. In face of all of this scrutiny, Kimel not only continued to coach and inspire her team, but she demonstrated the type of leadership coaches are hired to instill in their athletes. When Duke administration officials turned their backs on the Duke lacrosse players, Kimel was a shining voice in the collective silence.

She had the courage to tell Stuart Taylor of the National Journal that her players ‘were shocked, disillusioned, and disappointed that their professors and the university community were so one-sided in their condemnation of the lacrosse players.’ She personally wrote to Duke administration officers asking them to intervene when some lacrosse players were blatantly targeted in class and subjected to unprofessional conduct by Duke professors. Finally, she stood behind her players as they wore wristbands with the accused players’ numbers on them as an expression of support during their national semi-final match with Northwestern.

Interviewed by the press immediately following the game, Kimel broke into tears when describing what her players had been through. Her tears were not tears of weakness, but tears of courage--the pressures of a grueling, emotional season finally ended. In contrast to the words of others from Duke, Kimel's comments to the media were never opportunistic, but honest and genuine:

"I can't express how proud I am of our team for what they've endured. For 31 18 to 22 year-olds to witness real life and real world in very real ways."

"Any attention we got for the wristbands paled in comparison to having the media staked outside of our practice and the girls' dorms, of watching your friends arrested, of watching your fellow students not support fellow students, watching professors not support students."

Those words express the deep commitment that Kimel has for her players and Duke as a coach, educator, role model, mentor and friend. She received vicious criticism for standing up for the truth and honoring her commitment to her players and the university. Stephen Smith cited her team as evidence of racism at Duke in an article for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Katherine Redmond called the team ‘stupid, spoiled little girls’ in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Coach Kimel never backed down and never backed away from her promise that "You're not joining a team you're joining the Duke family."

Despite the difficult circumstances of this past season, Kimel led the women’s team to a school record of 18 wins and their third Final Four. During that Final Four, the team adopted the men's motto of ‘No Excuses, No Regrets.’ In the shadows of a university's lack of leadership during a time of crisis, perhaps best described as ‘all excuses, no regrets’ Coach Kimel led her team honorably and courageously. She epitomizes leadership by example and courage in action. In a sea of darkness, she has been a beacon of light showing us the way.

Kerstin Kimel is a true hero.

Joan Collins
Garden City, NY

Anonymous said...

In the early days of the LAX mess, the entire country thought the LAX players were guilty. During that time, Richard Brodhead was one of the very few voices of reason. While the media conducted what can only be described as a high-tech lynching of the entire LAX team, Brodhead went before the television cameras in countless press conferences and submitted to countless newspaper, magazine, and television interviews. He reminded everyone that there was no evidence of any rape other than the allegation of the accuser. He pointed out that there is a big difference between being guilty of underage drinking and being guilty of rape. He said that it was important for everyone to remember that the LAX players are innocent until proven guilty, and he said that we should rely on the criminal justice system to discover the facts and find the truth. He also stated that he looked forward to a speedy resolution of the case in which the LAX players were shown to be innocent. During one of the most difficult times in the entire history of Duke University, he stood up in front of the entire country and defended the LAX players with great intelligence and eloquence. However, I do not see him getting much credit for his efforts on this website. All I can say is that people have short memories because it was not too long ago that Richard Brodhead was just about the only person in the country who was standing up for the LAX players, other than their lawyers and their own families.

Anonymous said...

I read the message you posted from the Duke Lacrosse Team Parent. Paragraph 6 of the message quotes from a statement by President Brodhead and then states that with this statement, Brodhead turned his back on his students, threw them to the wolves, and all but declared the team to be guilty of rape.

I decided to track down the statement so that I could decide for myself whether the characterization of the statement by the Lacrosse Team Parent was accurate. When I read the entire statement, I discovered that the Lacrosse Team Parent had quoted only one part of the statement and had left out another very important part. In the part of the statement not quoted by the Lacrosse Team Parent, Brodhead stated that the facts of the case are not yet established; no charges have been filed, and in our system of law, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty; and we also know that many members of the team, including some who were asked to provide DNA samples, did not attend the party.

My question to you and to the Lacrosse Team Parent is how does this constitute turning your back on your students, throwing them to the wolves, and all but declaring them to be guilty of rape? This just seems like a flat out lie. After reading the entire statement, the impression I get is that the Lacrosse Team Parent wanted to stick it to Brodhead, and he decided that the best way to do that was to misrepresent what Brodhead said by selectively quoting from his statement.

Anonymous said...


I enjoy your blog, and I agree that the LAX players are clearly innocent of the charges that have been made against them. However, I have a more favorable view of President Brodhead than you and most of the other people posting on your website. While I certainly would not try to argue that he has done a perfect job of handling the LAX situation, I do think that he has done a very good job under very difficult circumstances.

As someone who has a favorable view of Brodhead, I have to say that I am appalled by some of the comments posted on your website. For example, anon 8:22 PM states that Brodhead was a spineless jerk at Yale and that concepts like loyalty and fairness elude him completely. What exactly is the basis for this statement? Anon is just smearing Brodhead without citing any evidence whatsoever to backup his statements.

Brodhead is a very brilliant man, one of the world’s leading scholars of American Literature. He served for 11 years as Dean of Yale College, one of the highest administrative positions in all of academia, and he was a highly respected figure at Yale. When Duke managed to lure Brodhead away from Yale, it was considered a coup for Duke and a sign that Duke had arrived as one of the top universities in the country.

Brodhead did not become Dean of Yale College and President of Duke because he was a spineless jerk with no concept of loyalty or fairness. As far as I am concerned, the post by anon 8:22 PM is nothing but a hatchet job by an anonymous poster with absolutely nothing to back it up. I guess I am surprised that you allowed this item to be posted. Have you made a decision not to exercise any censorship at all on comments submitted to your website, even when they constitute baseless smears like this one?

kcjohnson9 said...

To the above: I read all comments, but once a post gets down in the thread (two or three days), I don't check the comments in it every day.

Thank you for bringing that comment to my attention: I agree with you that it was inappropriate, and I deleted it.

To the 9.35: We disagree on Brodhead. As I've written on several occasions, I think the sum total of Brodhead's actions was, in effect, to give the team to Nifong on a platter. The fact that he regularly inserted one line into his statements reminding of the principle of innocent until proven guilty doesn't compensate for the fact that the large portion of his statements had to have been read by fair-minded people from the community as suggesting his belief that the players were quite possibly guilty.

Anonymous said...

Professor, with all due respect, I think you are dodging the question. Just to make sure everyone understands what we are talking about, I am going to quote the March 25 statement by Brodhead, including both the sentences selectively quoted by the Lacrosse Team Parent and the sentences referred to in my post. The statement says:

Physical coercion and sexual assault are unacceptable in any setting and have no place at Duke. The criminal allegations against three members of our men’s lacrosse team, if verified, will warrant very serious penalties. The facts are not yet established, however, and there are very different versions of the central events. No charges have been filed, and in our system of laws, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We also know that many members of the team, including some who were asked to provide DNA samples, did not attend the party. I urge everyone to cooperate to the fullest with the police inquiry while we wait to learn the truth.

The Lacrosse Team Parent selectively quotes only the first, second, and last sentences above and concludes that with this statement, Brodhead turned his back on his students, threw them to the wolves, and all but declared them to be guilty of rape. However, this characterization is flatly contradicted by the other portions of the statement which the Lacrosse Team Parent did not quote. Obviously, the Lacrosse Team Parent wanted to stick it to Brodhead, and he decided that the best way to do that was to misrepresent what Brodhead said by selectively quoting from his statement.

You have tried to defend the Lacrosse Team Parent by saying that Brodhead only inserted one pro forma sentence into the statement saying that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, which does not really mean anything. However, as you can easily see, he did not insert one pro forma sentence into the statement. He inserted three sentences which say that the facts are not yet established; there are very different versions of the central events; no charges have been filed; the players are innocent until proven guilty; and we know that many members of the team, including some who were asked to provide DNA samples, did not attend the party. In fact, the number of sentences in the statement which are clearly designed to support the LAX players is exactly equal to the number of sentences found objectionable by the Lacrosse Team Parent. You might even say that the statement is perfectly balanced. So I will ask again: How does the issuance of this statement constitute turning your back on your students, throwing them to the wolves, and all but declaring them to be guilty of rape as the Lacrosse Team Parent alleges?

The fact is that the Lacrosse Team Parent has mischaracterized the statement through selective quotation, a major act of intellectual dishonesty. As a professor, I would think you would be appalled by something like this. I find it quite disturbing that you have given the statement by the Lacrosse Team Parent a prominent position on your website and effectively endorsed it as proof of what a terrible guy Brodhead is when one very important part of the statement is completely false, and demonstrably so. I have another question: Will you print an article on your website which advises all of your readers that the Lacrosse Team Parent mischaracterized Brodhead’s statement of March 25?

Anonymous said...

If the LAX parent mischaracterized the statement by Brodhead, I wonder if there are other parts of the story that he mischaracterized.

Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson,

What is the basis for your comment that the large portion of Brodhead’s statements had to have been read by fair-minded people from the community as suggesting his belief that the players were quite possibly guilty. Did you conduct a survey of the people in the community to determine if this is what they think, or is it your position that anyone who reads Brodhead’s statements differently than you do cannot possibly be fair-minded?

Anonymous said...

I love the way in which the LAX team parent manages to level so much criticism at Brodhead and the Duke Administration without ever once acknowledging the key role that his own son and the other LAX players played in bringing this entire debacle down on Duke.

Anonymous said...

I am also a lacrosse team parent and I will tell you that everything that the other lacrosse team parent said is absolutely true. The one thing he didn't say is that Alleva was at the parent meeting the day of the cancelled Georgetown game and Trask and Dean Sue were brought in BECAUSE Alleva was incapable of saying one word to the parents. He said nothing.
The Duke lax parent did not quote Brodhead's whole first statement but I agree with him, Brodhead did feed into Nifong's agenda by pushing the race, class, gender buttons. If he had said something like-we stand behind our students who are innocent until proven guilty. Should they be proven guilty-they should be punished to the full extent of the law. Instead, the innocent until proven guilty is put after how horrible rape is leading one to think Brodhead considers the players guilty (which he obviously did in the beginning). Basically Brodhead believed a convicted felon, a stripper, over three Duke students who did everything the police asked them to and offered to do more. Brodhead will ruin Duke if he hasn't already done so. There is no social life on campus and now it's obvious how dangerous it is for Duke students to live and party off campus. And no, I'm not condoning the hiring of strippers, but it's not the first time this has happened at Duke, at any other college,etc. Brodhead has to go. He is incapable of running a university of Duke's caliber.
He hasn't even had the courage to speak out about the corruption in the Durham police dept. and guess what Brodhead? Duke is in Durham and there's nothing you can do about it. Don't you think the top students will think about Duke being in Durham-clearly the worst college town at this point- when choosing a school?Great-come to Duke and if you have an open container of beer-you may be arrested by Gottlieb and spend the night in jail. And if we can nail you on something else-we will! Brodhead doesn't consider these type of very serious, threatening matters, he's too busy quoting Shakespear.


Anonymous said...

Great article! Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting site. Blog is very good. I am happy that I think the same!

Anonymous said...

Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!