The other paragraph reads as follows:
Throughout the past year President Richard Brodhead consulted regularly with the trustees and has had our continuing support. He made considered and thoughtful decisions in a volatile and uncertain situation. Each step of the way, the board agreed with the principles that he established and the actions he took. As we look back and with the benefit of what we now know there is no question that there are some things that might have been done differently. However, anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board.The statement is interesting both for what it contains and what it does not. The decision to affirm complete Board support for Brodhead's policies is risky: at a time when Duke should be re-examining its entire response to the affair in light of AG Cooper's complete exoneration of the players, it seems premature for the Board to make such a judgment.
More interesting, to me: the Steel statement contains no similar defense of the Group of 88, no claim (as we have heard from Duke administrators in the past) that the Group's free speech rights nullify the contractual requirement in the Duke Faculty Handbook that professors treat all students (not just those with whom they agree) with respect, as fellow members of the academic community.
Brodhead needs to start packing. He was a weathervane throughout this ordeal.
His comments changed according to the mood of the media.
He is NOT a leader.
He can get a new backbone as Crystal get a new brain.
One can hope that Steel's email means that he is beginning to understand the Group of 88's rope-a-dope approach to this affair, ethics and obligations be damned.
It would be a refreshing change if--at this late date--heifer #1 decided to stop playing his role in the game.
However, the poison pens of folks like Purdue's Rud, Weslayan's Potter, Fox's Murphy, Newsday's Marcus, and the NAACP's Barber (all covered at D-i-W) show that the 88's never apologize stance still enjoys considerable support.
True, the old theme song, "Something Happened," is sounding a bit stale. The refrain of the new jingle that's sweeping the nation goes, "It's All Nifong's Fault."
I could almost hear Steel humming along as he typed his email.
While it did not contain support for the Group of 88, it also did not denounce what they have done and said. THAT is exactly what these families and all Duke alums and supporters need to hear. Only that.
If criticism should be shared with the entire BoT, then consider it shared. Someone apologize for Duke's response and don't simply acknowledge that some might not have agreed with it. Most people asscociated with Duke that I have spoken with (I am an alum as well)not only didn't agree with the response, they were sickened by it.
Fare thee well Crystal - the world has turned its back you. Your glory will be our revenge.
As a Duke graduate and parent, I received the letter this morning. I certainly agree with KC that the letter represents a welcome and necessary change in tone from the recent Newsday article that was clearly dismissive of criticism. I would have preferred, however, if Steele had written the following: "As we look back and with the benefit of what we now know there is no question that there are some things that might have been done differently, AND FOR THAT WE APOLOGIZE."
I'm no Brodhead fan, but I also know that the university needs a period of calm, so he will be around for a while. I just hope that he has learned from this experience, and that he now knows that he must stand up for Duke students and graduates and stand up to the noisemakers in the faculty.
Steele is circling the
wagons: the BoT is as
culpable as Brodhead.
The failure to mention
the Crazy 88's is mostly
a lawyering-up tactic.
Lawyers MIGHT recommend
arbitration, but they likely
would also (maybe) advise
the BoT to use this as a means
of removing these villains.
Perhaps this is wishful
thinking, but this could
also be why Steele didn't
address the 88's complicity.
After all, their rush to
judgement was part-and-parcel
of Nifong's. They were
very important enablers
of the Hoax.
What Steel's saying,
in other words:
"They're not ours."
Until it is financially costly, Duke's trustees, administration, and the G-88 will continue to follow the same management and teaching models they have been following since March, 2006. The only way to force a change is to hit them where it hurts - their wallets. If alumni stop giving, if litigation against the university and select faculty for their treatment of the players occurs, then and only then is change likely.
Sadly, I am not optimistic that the outrage against the knaves at Duke can be sustained. What higher education in this country needs is thorough fumigation.
Steel and Brodhead need to go. Every Duke alum should be ashamed and demanding a new direction. Time to clean house, Dukies! sic semper tyrannis
I suppose we are to take from Steel's statement the Board found Brodhead's behavior honorable & leadership inspiring. Personally, I must take exception.
Brodhead's rude refusal to meet with the lacrosse parents, his silent assent to the "Listening Statement" and his speech that "whatever happened was bad enough" clearly shows his character. By implication, it now shows the character of the Board that supports such behavior. No responsibility. No contrition. No apology.
Brodhead reminds me of Saul of Tarsus who gave his consent and held the cloaks of the Pharisee while they stoned Stephen the Martyr. Apparently the Board is content to hold cloaks also.
I am outraged out how this country has turned a blind eye to the racism that these players had to endure. Many black American advocates called for harsh punishments against the players because the accuser was black and the acussed all white. They want to force the firing of Imus yet act like they did nothing wrong,they are no better than him. Demand an appology on their behalf, their comments were made based on race, isnt that racial profiling????
I recieved this e-mail overnight. Here is my response:
Dear Chairman Steel,
May I suggest a needed measure to make the Duke community stronger. Each member of the Group of 88 should individually be asked either to publicly and completely apologize for their extremely prejudicial actions against the three students or to begin seeking employment elsewhere.
That will be more courtesy than those faculty members deserve. And it's the least that furthering a safe, welcoming, and just atmosphere for students demands.
Steel is right that anyone blaming Brodhead should also blame the BOT. So both should resign before this University faces further degradation and diminishment of its elite status. The the new President and BOT can finally what should have been done a long time ago - fire each and every one of that Gang of 88.
I am outraged at the blind eye this country has turned on those players. Many black advocates called for harsh punishments against the players because the accuser was black. that is racial profiling, prejudgement. The actions of the system on these players had alot to do with the backing that the accuser had,is that fair,shouldnt they be appologising for the racism on their part? They want Imus fired but seem to forget the only reason they backed this girl was the color of her skin, they are worse than Imus,atleast he appologised, they think they are excused due to the color of their own skin, how is this not racism in it's purest form? DEMAND APPOLOGIES
The Washington Post article suggests that even Nifong has figured out the whole thing is crazy, although he naturally has an excuse, or should I say alibi:
"Nifong did not return calls to his office, but his lawyer, David Freedman, told ABC News that 'he pushed the case as long as he did because at that point he believed in this case.'"
Of course, our good buddy Irving Joyner has not, which means that he is the only lawyer in NC who is even dumber than Nifong:
"Irving Joyner, a law professor at North Carolina Central University who has been monitoring the case for the NAACP, said the black community will want to be satisfied with the reasons for the dismissal -- especially since early days in the case, black leaders were concerned that a low-income black woman's word would not be taken against that of privileged white men.
Joyner added that he is 'troubled and concerned by the carnival atmosphere being created here -- that these three men are somehow coming home for a victory party.'"
Can you imagine the audacity of Joyner saying that people have to be satifisfied with the reason for the dismissal? I'm quite sure that the overwhelming majority of the black community in Durham knows this is crazy, so I think he's really talking about himself. Earth to Irving: the DA clearly stated that 1) Crystal is unstable, 2) Nifong is a rogue prosecutor, and 3) the evidence shows no crime was committed. Now are you satisfied?
How can Joyner say that "since early days in the case, black leaders were concerned that a low-income black woman's word would not be taken against that of privileged white men"?
These comments are ironic since in the early days of the case, the word of privileged white men was not taken against that of a low-income black woman. I hope that by now we have learned to ignore the big three of race, class, and gender, since the truth does not depend on these factors.
Broadhead is an idiot. Let's look at some facts; 1. 3 young men had to live through a year of pure hell, imagine being railroaded to 30 yrs. in prison at the young age of 20. 2. A coach, with a family, outstanding reputation and ethics lost his job for a mentally ill, lying prostitue and a city full of race baiting scum. 3. An entire Lacrosse team was put on trial by (an unfair) media. They were villified by Duke and Durham, and people they should normally trust (their school and professors) turned on them. 4. Many familes are out LOTS of money defending themselves and their names from the Hoax. 5. Some of the G88 were actually taking part in the potbangings, I mean, my god, that is sick.
What a hero he would have been had he not cancelled the Lacrosse season, spoke out against the G88 as rushing to judgement, condemned any posters that were hung on campus, put his faith in coach Pressler (whose career had been nothing but exemplery). Yes, he should have had the 3 young men on administrative leave, but not for the reasons he led us to believe, but to protect them from the "cowards" while presuming innocence. Let's face it, presuming innocence is harmless, if people accused end up being guilty, then you can jump on them all you want, but until then, people need to be treated with dignity and respect, something Mr. Broadhead did not do.
Contrast the class and grace with which the kids handled themselves - during an unbelievably tortuous year - with that of the administration and the 88....
What a joke.
And check out the other news, which came out quietly yesterday. Apparently, Weasel Nifong will seek to have all the Bar charges dismissed this Friday!
I can just picture the motion:
"Since the charges have been dismissed, no harm, no foul on me! I'll be a good boy from now on, I promise!
"Rogue" Prosecutor at Large
See new document on The Smoking Gun website:
"I'm no Brodhead fan, but I also know that the university needs a period of calm, so he will be around for a while. I just hope that he has learned from this experience, and that he now knows that he must stand up for Duke students and graduates and stand up to the noisemakers in the faculty".
This is utterly naive. Brodhead did more than almost anyone (excluding Nifong) to bring Duke into disrepute. I suggest that you re-read his letter to the Duke community of April 6th, 2006. It is a total disgrace. He has to go, the sooner the better. The Trustees are not going to force him out. Their message is a pre-emptive strike against those who will begin to agitate for Brodhead's scalp. They've proven completely loyal to him to date, and never uttered a word in support of the lacrosse players, against Nifong or the Gang of 88 until now. Ideally, the whole lot of them (including Brodhead) would be flushed out. THAT's what Duke needs now.
1. To trick or deceive.
Thesaurus: delude, hoodwink, hoax, swindle, trick, deceive, cheat, bamboozle, defraud, rip off (slang), con (slang).
1. A person who is deceived.
Thesaurus: victim, pawn, puppet, gull, stooge, slang:sucker, pushover, easy mark, sap, fall guy.
Etymology: 17c: French.
I was not sure that "dupability" was a real word, but apparently it is. Having written that, I write this,
The dupability level of most black people in Durham is Orwellian.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Orwellian describes a situation, idea, or condition that George Orwell identified as being inimical to the welfare of a free-society. An attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past (including the "unperson"--a person whose past existence is expunged) practiced by modern repressive governments.
Simply, the Duke administration proved a disaster during this ordeal. If there aren't MAJOR changes at the very top, then we cannot say FULL justice was done here. Brodhead (with the BOT's backing) made his choices. He chose NOT to support his innocent-until-proven-guilty students. But they are innocent, so he MUST GO. And if he must go, so must the BOT. Duke requires a complete change at the top... now.
Sorry, there is no way the BOT will resign. The only people they have to answer to is themselves, and they obviously put their self-interest before the good of the school - "L'universite c'est moi." Remember, future BOT members are selected by...current BOT members, with no outside input.
There is a medical term for a segment of an organism that is self-perpetuating at the expense of the the organism itself: cancer.
There should be a list,
similar to one that might
have been conceived of in
the French Revolution.
In this case, the heads rolling
should be a metaphor for "looking
for employment elsewhere."
we might trade one Imus for
one Nancy Grace. Imus didn't
perpetuate a fraud that could
have resulted in 30 year sentences
for innocent young men. Who advertises on her show?
Similarly, some trades ought to be
considered vis a vis Duke:
each of the 88s fired means
1 million less they'll be
expected to cough up.
Higher-ups, like Brodhead,
will have a higher pricetag.
Viva la Revolution!
And through it all (to this very moment!!) the NC NAACP still has its famous talking points listed on its website.
They include this gem-
"The three defendants they have two mountains to climb. First, they must deflect public attention from their boorish, racist, and illegal behavior by mounting outlandish attacks on the survivor and the D.A. Second, they must deal with a mountain of physical evidence, that is corroborated by, we have reason to believe, accounts of some of the men who were at the party who have cooperated with the police and the D.A. from early on."
I guess it makes no difference what anyone including the state's Attorney General says. The NAACP will continue to tout the mountain of evidence.
Memo to Roy Cooper- the NAACP of NC is calling you a liar on their website to this very moment.
Congratulations NAACP, you've shown your true colors and where you really stand on race relations!
I the board is responsible for every step made by Brodhead, they must all resign.
I will likely die in the next few months. My planned giving directed high 7 figures to Duke. At the moment that has been revised, it will now stay in the family, as a permanant trust for the education of my decendents. If they do the right thing I will reconsider. But so far, they are only making it worse.
Barack Obama called for the firing of Imus. I wonder what Obama thinks of Al Sharpton, New York Times, H-S, Gang88 statements?
Only Imus must be fired, because..?
I thought he is above race pandering. I should have known better.
"I will likely die in the next few months. My planned giving directed high 7 figures to Duke. At the moment that has been revised, it will now stay in the family, as a permanant trust for the education of my decendents. If they do the right thing I will reconsider. But so far, they are only making it worse."
Is this a joke?
Period of calm needed?
The alumni arrive on campus this weekend.
Calm will have to wait until next week, I reckon.
"Barack Obama called for the firing of Imus. I wonder what Obama thinks of Al Sharpton, New York Times, H-S, Gang88 statements?
Only Imus must be fired, because..?
I thought he is above race pandering. I should have known better."
He also supports a federal investigation of this case. That doesn't sound like simple race pandering.
Cowards...the Group of 88 are cowards, each and every one of them.
You can already see the "marginalizing" comments to put into "context" their "true concerns."
So much depends upon the reaction of the Duke alumni and the actions of the three students and their families.
If the collective response of the alumni is outrage over the treatment of the lacrosse players, the team itself, and Coach Pressler by the administration and the gang of 88, backed by a substantial reduction in financial support, the trustees and Brodhead and the administration will be in jeopardy.
If, Collin and Reade transfer to finish their education and play lacrosse elsewhere, and along with Dave and their families voice their extreme disappointment at Duke for the treatment they received, and if they decide to sue the university, fundamental changes will be initiated.
If, on the other hand the alumni feels and acts as if all is now OK, and the players and families put this behind them not much, if anything, will change.
For those of you who are alumni you have the opportunity to influence substantial change.
I sincerely hope to God that the families sue Duke University, Brodhead, G88, and, now, the BOT. Yesterday, through Steel's letter, the BOT and Duke displayed *precisely* what it should have done to Pressler and the 3 lax players. While the BOT is willing to protect Brodhead, it didn't so much as flinch to throw the LAX team--its very students--under the bus.
Sue 'em. Just sue their freaking pants off. These idiots deserve no less.
Imus's slander is more against females (ho) and successful athletics (final four) than about race. There are white females on the Rutger's team.
There is a difference....
and it was absolutely inappropriate.
Please delete comment 11:07 from Anonymous.
It is so unkind. The reference poster identified himself and took time to add personal information to this blog. The blog had been asking people to stop donating to Duke until they address the Crazy 88 And One (brodhead)
Re Irving Joyner--even more outrageous, really, than his predictable statement about concerns that a poor black woman would not be believed is his being "troubled and concerned about the carnival atmosphere." First, what carnival atmosphere? The AG held a very professional press conference. The defendants and their attorneys held an equally professional, extremely dignified, and--under the circumstances--admirably constrained press conference in which they went out of their way not to vilify the accuser personally and not to criticize African-American leaders specifically for their actions and responses to the case. Far from the atmosphere of a "victory party," we heard the young men dedicate themselves to finding something good in their experience, to valuing family and friends, and to working to make sure others (including especially those with fewer resources) don't experience what they did. The only reason I can think of for Prof. Joyner to object to this is if he believes either a) that they actually are guilty and the NC AG's office is engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover this fact up, or b) that they should be ashamed of being well-off white students falsely accused of a crime they did not commit.
Or perhaps the "carnival" is the return of the press to report the outcome--in which case Prof. Joyner simply joins those many who think that it's wonderful for the press to report their erroneous views, but terrible for the press to point out when they are wrong.
""I'm no Brodhead fan, but I also know that the university needs a period of calm".
Duke needed some calm when people were threatening the accused and calling for them to be castrated. Where were Brodhead and the Board then? It's too late for them. They have no credibility. They played this all wrong.
[Anonymous said... (11:07:00 AM)
Is this a joke?]
No it is not. Svolich is a valued contributor on Liestoppers, and in the last week or so wrote what I consider the most powerful statement on the importance of the Duke case.
Anybody have a link to that post handy?
The Board is virtually immovable, alas. It would take united collective action by alums, contributors, students, to dislodge them, with boycotts and letter campaigns, etc. That won't happen. After all, everyone with links to Duke has a vested interest in the bad publicity going away. It is causing their stock to fall. The Board will survive with the acquiesce of the extended Duke family. But Brodhead must not.
"I sincerely hope to God that the families sue Duke University, Brodhead, G88, and, now, the BOT. Yesterday, through Steel's letter, the BOT and Duke displayed *precisely* what it should have done to Pressler and the 3 lax players. While the BOT is willing to protect Brodhead, it didn't so much as flinch to throw the LAX team--its very students--under the bus.
Sue 'em. Just sue their freaking pants off. These idiots deserve no less".
This is precisely correct. The Board should have made SOME formal statement in the last year calling for presumption of innocence for their students. They chose not to. Now they should pay for their choices. The only way to get at them is through litigation. Release the (legal) hounds...
What I'd like to tell Steel:
This is the most transparent “CYA” drivel that I have seen in a long time. You, Brodhead, and many of Duke’s faculty, would do well to listen to one of Duke’s former undergraduate students, Reade Seligman, who said “This tragedy has revealed that our society has lost site of the core principle of our legal system, the presumption of innocence.”
You did however hit the mark dead on with the comment “anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board.” I’m sure that there is no lack of criticism for Brodhead, nor you, nor your fellow board members.
Duke profs. Jim Coleman (Law) and Tom Nechyba (Econ Dept. Chair), are Brodhead's two logical (internal) replacements. Every move these two made--and from within that cesspool called the Duke faculty--was both courageous and dead-on. These two had the cajones to *lead* while other faculty members either followed or made public asses of themselves.
"Please delete comment 11:07 from Anonymous.
It is so unkind. The reference poster identified himself and took time to add personal information to this blog. The blog had been asking people to stop donating to Duke until they address the Crazy 88 And One (brodhead)
"No it is not. Svolich is a valued contributor on Liestoppers, and in the last week or so wrote what I consider the most powerful statement on the importance of the Duke case.
Anybody have a link to that post handy?"
I did not intend to be unkind, certainly not to someone who is terminally ill. I asked if it was a joke because I don't think it's beneath blog commenters to fabricate something like that. If that really was a true statement, I truly offer an apology.
KC, my email system seemed to have filtered out the part of the email from Mr. Steel where he promised to restore alumni confidence in the university by firing at least the leadership of the G88. Surely a promise to fired Waheema Lubiano and Kim Curtis must have been in there somewhere, right?
Winomied, well said. Hyprocracy of some that claim to represent the black community stinks to the heavans. Where is the community outrage and when will some come to the players defense? Uhhhh, oh ya! They are innocent.
"anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board.”
This is a strategic move on the part of the Board to preempt calls for Brodhead's removal. So if you go after Brodhead, you must go after the Board. But since the Board is virtually untouchable, so too is Brodhead. A cynical and arrogant move. It implies that either both go or neither, and it is well-nigh impossible to remove both. It would be wonderful to accomplish the well-nigh impossible and flush the whole lot of them down the drain.
McCain should resign as head of the Academic Council IMMEDIATELY, or be removed. Now that the accused are "officially" innocent, her remarks are "officially" a disgrace.
The line we're going to hear a lot now from people who did not support the presumption of innocence is that it is a "time for healing" and that we must now "move on". They would say that, wouldn't they? It is not (yet) a time for healing. That will come when those who acted wrongly are held to account. And there are LOTS of them.
There are many lessons to be learned in all of this. One of the most obvious is that anti-white racism is alive and well and institutionalised in the US. The racial double standard here is staggering. There is simply NO QUESTION that the races of the accuser and the accused was a decisive factor in this case. When Brodhead initially invoked the long history of racism in his open letter to the Duke community on April 6th 2006, that's not the kind of racism he had in mind. Evidently, in the US today, racism against white people is quite acceptable. That's one obvious lesson to be learned here.
"(A)nyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board."
Those words of Steel are not meant for the players but for his Board. The fury of the players and their families at how Steel and Brodhead betrayed them this last year is frightening. And the Board is justifiably scared.
Steel knows that - which is why his email is directed at the Board. His meaning is clear - "if I and Brodhead go down, we're taking you with us."
In his email, Steele had the gall to assert that "we believe that it was essential for the
University to defer to the criminal justice system."
He must be delusional.
How is suspending the accused deferential to the system? Firing the coach? Suggesting what "they did" is "bad enough"? Were professors deferring to the system in lamenting "what happened" to this woman? How about allowing Wanted Posters to be put up on campus property?
Even if Steele et al. want to believe that they acted deferentially to the system, they cannot justify deferring to a BROKEN system. As KC Johnson as said all along, flawed procedures beget flawed results. When the system is being misused by a rogue prosecutor and the rules of law bent by the unruliness of flawed men, doesn't the University have an affirmative obligation to try to prevent that system from harming their own students?
"I did not intend to be unkind, certainly not to someone who is terminally ill."
Apologies for my tone. I guess unless you're following three blogs at a time, you might not know all the regulars.
Or maybe I just remember Svolich because he drinks single malt...
From the statement: However, anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board.
Forgive me, KC, but I read that a little differently -- it's almost an invitation to dump the Board and start over. That would take an enormous effort from lawyers, courts, alumni, faculty and students, but it strikes me that the Board is saying, 'if you go after Brodhead you are going after us.'
Fair enough. The Board may not resign. But they just might get pushed.
The lead on removing Brodhead won't come from here. Professor Johnson has so far pulled his punches with the President, for some reason. (ALthough he has not been uncritical.) This is not to detract in any way from the great work Professor Johnson has done. A genuine hero. But I have the feeling that he is little interested in Brodhead. The Gang of 88 are a different matter.
"Fair enough. The Board may not resign. But they just might get pushed".
Easier said than done. It is extraordinary for a Board to resign. Granted, this case is extraordinary. But I doubt this Board thinks it has done anything wrong. So they won't go voluntarily. (To do so would be to admit responsbility.) So who will push them? Most students, faculty, alums just want a quiet life now, to let their Duke stock rise again. (I hope they view it as a very long-term investment.) Don't count on a Board resignation. But they can be pressured to force Brodhead out... soon.
My hope is the anger expressed on these blogs by Duke alumni will translate into action against Brodhead and Steel.
Over the past year, there has been sporadic action by small pockets but by and large the alumni has continued their support of the university. Is there any chance this will now change?
Oh, I hope so the boys and their families deserve it, and the gutless, spineless cowards who run the university deserve their just rewards. As for the gang of 88, I think KC will be relentless..
Well, don't count on it. Further scandal and headlines are not in the interests of those who attend or have attended Duke. They will be defensive, support their institution and its leaders, and let Nifong take all the blame. A pity.
Steel just shared the liability with the entire board. This statement can be used to drag them ALL into court. Up until this point they had at least a little plausible deniablity of Brodhead's actions. Now they're fully responsible.
1:13 PM said: "The lead on removing Brodhead won't come from here. Professor Johnson has so far pulled his punches with the President, for some reason. (ALthough he has not been uncritical.) This is not to detract in any way from the great work Professor Johnson has done. A genuine hero. But I have the feeling that he is little interested in Brodhead. The Gang of 88 are a different matter."
In examining the Gang of 88, one has to examine Brodhead. One of the many disturbing elements of this case is the contrast in the way Brodhead dealt with the agenda-driven faculty and the way he dealt with the lacrosse players and their families.
One administrator clearly revealed his preference. Burness, in his smarmy e-mail to Karla Holloway, was concerned for her well-being, yet in his Newsday comment, "Apologize. For what?" he displayed utter contempt for the accused lacrosse players. I wonder if his divergent attitudes toward key members of the 88 and toward the lacrosse players reflect his superior's attitudes.
D.A. apologizes to Duke lacrosse players
DURHAM, North Carolina (AP) -- The local prosecutor who charged three Duke lacrosse players with raping a stripper apologized to the athletes Thursday, acknowledging that the North Carolina attorney general's decision to drop the case was correct.
"To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three students that were wrongly accused," Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong said in a statement.
North Carolina Attorney General announced Wednesday that all charges against the players were being dropped in the case, which caused a furor over issues of race and privelege.
""To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three students that were wrongly accused," Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong said in a statement".
WAY too little, WAY too late. Unleash the dogs of war (lawyers)...
I read the letter from Steel as a shot across the families' bow. Duke has decided not to throw Broadhead under the bus. The families cannot argue that Broadhead was a rogue...he was acting with the full knowledge and support of the board. If you are going to get Broadhead, you are going to have to take on the institution. It closes off the rogue president argument and raises the stakes on a suit.
We will be watching this play out for months. First the Nifong inquiry. Then inquiries into the assistant DA's.Then criminal trials. Then Civil suits against Durham and Nifong. Then Duke. The Dukies can quietly pay the families' legal bills and throw a couple of the gang of 88 as propitiation. Will the families still have the steam for a fight with Duke?
The idea that there are a lot of alums commenting on this blog is absurd. There may be a lot of people who know very little about Duke commenting because of their dislike or jealously of Duke, but few are alums. These 3 men were charged with felonies. Duke has had a policy for years to suspend students charged with felonies.They didn't treat this any differently. There is currently a member of the ATO fraternity at Duke who has been arrested and charged and duly suspended. He may very well be innocent as well. Think back and remember the Holy Trinity of race, class and gender, the explosive climate at Duke when the news of this allleged crime came out. The tough reality is that Brodhead had no choice but to act as he did, and I'm sure he acted under the advice of lawyers from the very beginning of this mess. In a world where a 66 year old white former DJ will probably lose his job because of a stupid, racial comment, what do you think would have happened in Durham, NC when the District Attorney stood up and said that he was absolutely certain that anal, vaginal and oral rape of a black woman had occured by three white male students, and the white president of the wealthy, mostly white university responded by saying, OK, we presume they are innocent, but in spite of the certainty expressed by the DA,in spite of the fact that this officer of the law says they are rapists, with all the evidence he says he has, we are going to let them play lacrosse and carry on as usual?? I mean really, could he have said that? If your daughter was a student at Duke, would you have wanted him to say that? I doulbt it. He said that we have to presume they are innocent, but suspend them for the protection of their fellow students and themselves, and wait for justice to take its course, and that is what has happened. The problem here is and always has been Nifong, and criticism of Brodhead is fun for the Duke haters, but that's about all. And Duke will not be sued. What would Duke be sued for? What in their behavior is legally actionable? Everybody loves to say "SUE" but it is long, expensive and the outcome is never guaranteed. Now I agree that the Group of 88 is despicable. They should have just kept quiet. They should leave Duke. I can't stand people who take their paycheck from people they hate. If you don't like wealthy, white students, don't work at Duke. There are those kinds of students there (along with many, many other types of students) What I saw when I watched those 3 young men speak were 3 Dukies. Intelligent, thoughtful and poised. Not perfect ( no more stippers, OK?) but wonderful examples of the quality that is all over the campus of Duke University: white, black, wealthy or not.
What would Duke be sued for?
1) (Racist) defamation of character by tenured Duke faculty
2) Grade retaliation
3) Threats against Duke3 (apparently, Duke funds were used to buy the posters and Duke mail system was used to send the racist rants)
4) Demanding and advising that Duke3 does not contact their lawyers
5) Enabling illegals home searches by DPD
I'm sure ambulance chasing trial lawyers can come up with more ideas. Look all the fake lawsuits by John Edwards.
THE HATE 88
They need to be summarily fired for bringing disgrace to Duke University.
Abe, Stan (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies)
Albers, Benjamin (University Writing Program)
Allison, Anne (Cultural Anthropology)
Aravamudan, Srinivas (English)
Baker, Houston (English and AAAS)
Baker, Lee (Cultural Anthropology)
Beckwith, Sarah (English)
Berliner, Paul (Music)
Christina Beaule (University Writing Program)
Blackmore, Connie (AAAS)
Jessica Boa (Religion & University Writing Program)
Boatwright, Mary T. (Classical Studies)
Boero, Silvia (Romance Studies)
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo (Sociology)
Brim, Matthew (University Writing Program)
Chafe, William (History)
Ching, Leo (Asian & African Languages and Literatures)
Coles, Rom (Political Science)
Cooke, Miriam (Asian & African Languages and Literatures)
Crichlow, Michaeline (AAAS)
Curtis, Kim (Political Science)
Damasceno, Leslie (Romance Studies)
Davidson, Cathy (English)
Deutsch, Sally (History)
Dorfman, Ariel (Literature & Latin American Stds.)
Edwards, Laura (History)
Farred, Grant (Literature)
Fellini, Luciana (Romance Studies)
Fulkerson, Mary McClintock (Divinity School)
Gabara, Esther (Romance Studies)
Gavins, Raymond (History)
Greer, Meg (Romance Studies)
Glymph, Thavolia (History)
Hardt, Michael (Literature)
Harris, Joseph (University Writing Program)
Holloway, Karla (English)
Holsey, Bayo (AAAS)
Hovsepian, Mary (Sociology)
James, Sherman (Public Policy)
Kaplan, Alice (Literature)
Khalsa, Keval Kaur (Dance Program)
Khanna, Ranjana (English)
King, Ashley (Romance Studies)
Koonz, Claudia (History)
Lasch, Peter (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies & Latino/a Studies)
Lee, Dan A. (Math)
Leighten, Pat (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies)
Lentricchia, Frank (Literature)
Light, Caroline (Inst. for Crit. U.S. Stds.)
Litle, Marcy (Comparative Area Studies)
Litzinger, Ralph (Cultural Anthropology)
Longino, Michele (Romance Studies)
Lubiano, Wahneema (AAAS and Literature)
Mahn, Jason (University Writing Program)
Makhulu, Anne-Maria (AAAS)
Mason, Lisa (Surgical Unit-2100)
McClain, Paula (Political Science)
Meintjes, Louise (Music)
Mignolo, Walter (Literature and Romance Studies)
Moreiras, Alberto (Romance Studies)
Neal, Mark Anthony (AAAS)
Nelson, Diane (Cultural Anthropology)
Olcott, Jolie (History)
Parades, Liliana (Romance Studies)
Payne, Charles (AAAS and History)
Pierce-Baker, Charlotte (Women's Studies)
Petters, Arlie (Math)
Plesser, Ronen (Physics)
Radway, Jan (Literature)
Rankin, Tom (Center for Documentary Studies)
Rego, Marcia (University Writing Program)
Reisinger, Deborah S. (Romance Studies)
Rosenberg, Alex (Philosophy)
Rudy, Kathy (Women's Studies)
Schachter, Marc (English)
Shannon, Laurie (English)
Sigal, Pete (History)
Silverblatt, Irene (Cultural Anthropology)
Somerset, Fiona (English)
Stein, Rebecca (Cultural Anthropology)
Thorne, Susan (History)
Viego, Antonio (Literature)
Vilaros, Teresa (Romance Studies)
Wald, Priscilla (English)
Wallace, Maurice (English and AAAS)
Wong, David (Philosophy)
Wall Street Journal Article - Note: Reference to Faculty
Justice at Duke
April 12, 2007; Page A14
"We believe these individuals are innocent." With those six words, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper yesterday ended a travesty of justice that had lasted 395 days.
That travesty has been known from the start as the "Duke lacrosse scandal." It began as a narrative all-too-familiar to those schooled in the "race-class-gender" ideology taught at Duke and other prestige universities: White male privilege, in the form of the Duke lacrosse team; black female victimization, in the person of a stripper from the other side of town hired to entertain them. Into this template came the allegation of rape, unleashed amid the modern world of media saturation that elevates instant judgments.
Mike Nifong, the Durham County prosecutor, harnessed the power of his office to this machinery of political correctness to bring charges against three of the team members and, in the process, win an election. As it is, Mr. Nifong now may face disbarment, which seems apt for such an abuse of his authority. We wonder, though, whether any analogous sanction will be meted to those on the Duke faculty who rushed to condemn the accused long before their guilt could reasonably be established.
At a press conference yesterday, formerly accused student David Evans noted that "we're just as innocent today as we were back then. Nothing has changed, the facts don't change." He's right. Facts don't change, which is why they are free. But unless we get past the narrative that prematurely judged them, similar miscarriages of justice are bound to follow.
URL for this article:
Post a Comment