I suspect that the 9/11 Commission public hearings introduced most people to Jamie Gorelick. In contrast to ineffective questioners such as Bob Kerrey, Jim Thompson, or Richard Ben-Veniste, Gorelick—and fellow commissioner Tim Roemer—proved an incisive cross-examiner, someone with impressive knowledge of the myriad issues associated with the commission.
How, then, to explain the contrast between the brilliant Gorelick of the commission hearings and her intellectually pedestrian motions in the civil case? Partly, of course, it’s a matter of role: as a 9/11 commissioner, Gorelick was seeking the truth; as a lawyer in the civil case, she’s representing a client.
Even given her role as an advocate, though, how does this Gorelick passage advance her client’s legal case?
A patient was brought to the hospital claiming an atrocious deed had been done to her; the hospital staff rendered her assistance, as they should have done; and subsequently, when the police officers and prosecutor carrying out the investigation asked a hospital employee for information, the employee cooperated. There is nothing tortious, much less a violation of civil rights, in this conduct.
[The claim, of course, is that the “hospital employee,” former SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy, provided false and misleading information when she “cooperated,” and that her supervisors either looked the other way or simply failed to perform their duties.]
Or how does this passage help Gorelick legally?
[The lacrosse players] contend that Duke and its employees violated their legal rights by providing the police with information about the alleged rape during the investigation. They also contend that the University had a legal obligation to quell public debate about the alleged rape. In essence, Plaintiffs argue that the University had a legal duty to stand between themselves and the prosecutor, and to try to prevent the police and prosecutor from investigating them for a very serious crime.
[Nothing even resembling such a claim was ever made.]
Federal judges have a reputation as no-nonsense jurists; it’s hard to see how such transparently absurd descriptions of the case will enhance Gorelick’s credibility.
Nor is there any obvious legal explanation—given that motions to dismiss assume all plaintiffs’ facts as true—for Gorelick’s strange assertion that the Group of 88 enjoyed an academic freedom exception from complying with Duke’s anti-harassment policies; or her claim that Levicy actually have given honest testimony, despite the wording to the contrary of the Attorney General’s report.
Such passages do, however, serve another interest of Gorelick’s client: maintaining the narrative of the case that Duke has presented to its alumni. Some alumni followed the case closely: recall the 88-cent donations to the alumni fund; or Jay Bilas’ public demand that Richard Brodhead and Bob Steel resign.
But most alumni (unsurprisingly) know about Duke’s response to the case via communications from Duke and from the alumni magazine, whose narrative suggested that after a brief initial difficulty (and perhaps an extremist statement from a scattered professor or two), the university did everything it could to bolster the players. In this narrative, the lacrosse players are nothing more than gold-diggers, out to get money from the university that stood behind them in their time of trial.
This narrative was relayed effectively when Charlie Rose interviewed members of the Duke family, in a July 4 broadcast.
CHARLIE ROSE: Let me talk about today.
has gone on to be a great university. Duke University
MARY DUKE BIDDLE TRENT SEMANS: It really has. It really has.
CHARLIE ROSE: You’ve both contributed to that, the endowment and the trustees.
MARY DUKE BIDDLE TRENT SEMANS: Uncle Buck, grand pa, it is what they wanted.
CHARLIE ROSE: Uncle Buck is James Buchanan Duke.
MARY DUKE BIDDLE TRENT SEMANS: That’s right. I’m telling you, I’m sure they would be amazed at how fast it has grown . . .
CHARLIE ROSE: So Duke went through this great difficulty with the problems with lacrosse.
ANTHONY DREXEL DUKE: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: And you’ve got some lawsuits going. Has the university -- how has it handled this? What damage has it done to the university?
MARY DUKE BIDDLE TRENT SEMANS: I don’t think a whole lot. The giving to the university has not been arrested in any way. It hasn’t gone down. We had more applications, I think, than ever. And that means something. We have very loyal alums.
CHARLIE ROSE: People still want to go.
MARY DUKE BIDDLE TRENT SEMANS: Yes, they do.
ANTHONY DREXEL DUKE: When I go down there and I take a bunch of them out for dinner and so forth, it’s almost as though it never happened among the students, current enrollment.
CHARLIE ROSE: Even though there are lawsuits.
MARY DUKE BIDDLE TRENT SEMANS: They all talk about it a little bit.
CHARLIE ROSE: Fingered a lot of people that they thought should have done this or that.
ANTHONY DREXEL DUKE: Well, everybody has got their different opinions on that. But I find that student -- among the student body, they are unaffected. They love the university as much as people who went before this incident. And I think it’s going to come through. I personally am very fond of Dick Brodhead.
CHARLIE ROSE: He’s the new president they got from Yale.
MARY DUKE BIDDLE TRENT SEMANS: That’s right.
ANTHONY DREXEL DUKE: And he’s a heck of a good guy. I think that he was caught a little bit as a young president, as a new president, I should say. And maybe he didn’t take the right advice for a few days or something.
CHARLIE ROSE: But he got control.
ANTHONY DREXEL DUKE: He got control. But there were some problems on the way towards getting control.
MARY DUKE BIDDLE TRENT SEMANS: And what a dreadful thing to happen to somebody who has just come. It is just an awful thing.
ANTHONY DREXEL DUKE: Anyway.
“Maybe he didn’t take the right advice for a few days or something.” “He got control.”
When, exactly, did Brodhead get control?
- In mid-April 2006, when he declined to investigate allegations brought to him that Duke professors were abusing their classroom authority in dealing with the lacrosse players?
- A few days later, when he responded to the arrests of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty by saying, “Whatever they did was bad enough”?
- In June 2006, when he issued an open letter minimizing the (by then massive) evidence of the players’ innocence?
- In summer 2006, when he wrote to Friends of Duke that a trial would give the falsely accused students their chance to be “proved innocent”?
- In fall 2006, when he used his interview with 60 Minutes to denounce the lacrosse players for their “highly unacceptable behavior”?
- In the spring 2007 semester, when he declined to enforce the Faculty Handbook against Karla Holloway (who distributed malicious rumors about Duke students via e-mail) or Grant Farred (who publicly accused Duke students of perjury)?
- In April 2007, when he wildly asserted, “The Group of 88 are a group of professors who signed a petition to assist students who felt threatened.”
The Duke family didn’t say—and Rose, unfortunately, didn’t press them—on exactly when in the timeline above Brodhead “got control.” Their view of the case must have left them mystified as to why Duke settled at least three lawsuits (from the falsely accused players, from former coach Mike Pressler, and from the Dowds) that flowed from the administration’s conduct.
The Duke family’s interview raises another question: if, during this period, Brodhead “didn’t take the right advice,” from whom was he getting this wrong advice? That’s a question that, doubtless, Jamie Gorelick would prefer never be answered.
A personal anecdote about the amazing obliviousness of Mary D.B.T. Semans:
Graduation Day 1993. 90 degrees in the shade and the graduates are on the football field for an hour and a half wearing black acetate gowns and wondering if they're going to need IV rehydration after this is finally over.
The five recipients of the honorary degrees come up to speak in turn. The first, a marine biologist if I recall correctly, went on for ten minutes recounting her Duke career and just how much this award meant to her. Polite, sweaty applause followed.
The next guy gets up and just says something simple like "I just want to say I'm really honored and touched by this award, and thank you all very much."
The crowd greets the brevity of these remarks with applause jacked up an order of magnitude. Subsequent speakers take note of this:
Speaker three, grinning: "Thank you very much."
Speaker four, William Raspberry, grinning even more broadly: "Thank you."
The crowd goes wild.
The last speaker, Bill Bradley, then strolls up to the dais and wins my support for whatever the hell he ever wants to do for the rest of time with a single word: "Thanks."
We explode in a joyous, please-God-this-might-actually-end-sometime-today spasm of Dionysian ecstasy.
Taking a hint, perhaps, from this overwhelming crowd response, subsequent speakers keep things brief and the program continues at an agreeably brisk pace. The degrees are awarded, and we reach the end of the printed program. Hurray! We start lining up for the processional out of the stadium.
But wait...there's more.
With a collective groan, we then learned that there would be an extra program at the end to honor outgoing and little-loved president Keith Brodie, who didn't even bother to attend this, his last official duty of office, but rather begged off sick so the provost had to stand in for him that day and award our degrees. We were told that someone was taping the ceremony so they could show it to Brodie later, so we sat there -- having now graduated, mind you -- listening politely to a number of people saying nice things to honor a guy who couldn't be bothered to show up to be honored. Keeping the honorary degree recipients in mind, each speaker kept it mercifully short until Mary D.B.T. Semans went up to the dais.
The woman gushed on and on for over a quarter of an hour about how great a president Brodie was and showed no signs of stopping...until we finally stopped her.
We stood en masse and began to applaud in the middle of one of her rambling sentences, and then simply walked out. There was no processional out of the stadium -- everyone just headed for the nearest exit into the stands and headed home.
I'm actually glad to hear she was in New York on the Charlie Rose show. That means that at some point since May 18, 1993 she realized no one was listening to her, shut the hell up, and went home. I had been kind of worried she might still be there in the end zone singing a paean to Keith Brodie; it's not like the football team has used it lately....
-JackWebb, Duke '93
One possible explanation of Jamie Gorelick's role on the 9/11 Commission was to in fact hinder the process of truth finding. Were you being a little snide with your praise of Gorelick as "someone with impressive knowledge of the myriad issues associated with the commission"?. Having her on the comission forever tainted the findings of the comission in the eyes of those who think her role was central to the miss- communication which led to 9/11 in the first place. We expect no less from her now as a shill for the alternate reality morality play going on in Durham. Why do you call her brilliant?
Jamie Gorelick had a personal stake in the 9-11 investigation as it was her policy of the wall of separation that contributed so much to the failures of pre-9-11 intelligence. With the Duke defense she is representing a client. With nothing personal on the line she doesn't have the fire she had in protecting herself.
What exactly was the reason for the interview with the Duke Family? If Rose was really interested in the effect that the lax case had on the University (student enrollment, fundraising, etc) one would think that he would have had some figures at his disposal to use in his questions (how many 88 cent donations has the university received?).
Why did he not ask the Duke family about Brodhead's learning curve in his job? After all, he did not take over as the president a month or so before the lax hoax occurred.
One has to wonder if Rose's interview was part and parcel of some greater Duke plan to influence the general public's perception of the university given the current civil suites?
TO 6:46 AM--
The interview was primarily to discuss a book written by Anthony Duke and then talk about Duke family history with both Semans and Anthony.
The questions about the lacrosse case came at the very end of the interview.
I can provide a link for you if you want to watch it in its entirety.
The interviews with the Duke family make the best case I've heard yet for increasing the inheritance tax. Like, to 100%.
PEOPLE PROTECT WHAT THEY LOVE OR WHO THEY LOVE
Duke family members love the very idea of Duke University and they will protect WHAT they love.
The Duke lacrosse parents and family members love their lacrosse athletes and they will protect WHO they love.
Early on, was Brodhead and the BOT interested in controlling WHAT they see as the image of Duke or were they interested in protecting their students WHO ARE Duke?
Charlie Rose should have read the lawsuits for facts about the WHO before interviewing Duke family members about the WHAT.
In the final analysis we will eventually learn if the Duke lacrosse rape hoax lawsuits will shine the bright light of truth about the WHAT or the WHO.
Any thoughts Alumni?
"MARY DUKE BIDDLE TRENT SEMANS: And what a dreadful thing to happen to somebody who has just come. It is just an awful thing."
Actually, it was somebodies, not "somebody." There were numerous lacrosse students who had to endure that "dreadful" thing. Oh, wait. She's talking about Broadhead, not the innocent players. My bad.
"If Rose was really interested in the effect that the lax case had on the University (student enrollment, fundraising, etc) one would think that he would have had some figures at his disposal to use in his questions (how many 88 cent donations has the university received?)."
Or he would have invited Taylor and Johnson. As a Duke grad, Rose is a shill for the party line.
A foot-washing honoring lacrosse team-basher Sam Wells in 2006.
All "important" Duke players were there and had their tootsies washed in this most splendid ritual.
I agree with other posters: gorelick and her decision - legal advise to pres clinton- to set up a wall between fbi and cia was one of the reasons for 9/11. It was unethical she was on the committee. Anyway, her legal advise seem to be bad here, too. Would duke go after her once they have lost the case? I thought attorneys had a duty to give good legal advise.
Not to derail the thread, but I'd like to echo the commenters who pointed out that Gorelick had a huge conflict of interest in her role on the commission. One of her close associates also was convicted of destroying documents related to that "investigation". Remember Sandy Berger's underwear?
Below is information left in the comment section of a KC post from April/2007 which lists members of Duke's BOT during the Lacrosse Hoax.
The incestuous nature of these boards cannot be overstated.
I also found William Chafe and Jean Spaulding on the board of one of Mary Semans' philanthropic foundations.
We all know Chafe, but Jean Spaulding is the ex-wife of attorney Ken Spaulding who was chosen by Mayor Bell to be on the impotent and now-defunct Whichard Committee.
So nothing was ever meant to be uncovered by Duke and Durham officials. A cover-up was their only objective and it was to be carried out by those in the well-tended "culture club".
If governmental and administrative incest were a crime, all of these people would be in jail.
This is simply unbelievable.
......the BOT backing Brodhead all the way, their names are available here:
Mrs. Anne T. Bass
Fort Worth, TX
Mr. Bruce A. Karsh*
Los Angeles, CA
Dr. Uwe E. Reinhardt
The Hon. Daniel Terry Blue, Jr.*
Dr. Rebecca Trent Kirkland* *******daughter of Mary D.B.T.Semans*******
Dr. Robert Coleman Richardson*
Dr. Richard H. Brodhead* *********Good, ole Dicky********
Mr. J. J. Kiser III
Pawleys Island, SC
Mr. David M. Rubenstein
Dr. Paula Phillips Burger*
Mrs. Carol Louise Anspach Kohn
Highland Park, IL
Dr. Robert S. Saunders
Mrs. Paula Hannaway Crown
Ms. Kathryn A. Laidlaw
Mr. Alan D. Schwartz
New York, NY
The Hon. Christine M. Durham
Salt Lake City, UT
Mr. John J. Mack
New York, NY
Rev. Charles M. Smith
Mr. Frank E. Emory, Jr.*
Dr. Ernest Mario*
Mrs. Susan M. Stalnecker
Ms. Robin A. Ferracone
San Marino, CA
Bishop J. Lawrence McCleskey
Mr. Robert King Steel, Chair* *********good ole Bobby********
New York, NY
Mr. David Gergen
Mr. William P. Miller
Mr. James L. Vincent
Dr. Thomas M. Gorrie
Ms. Nancy A. Nasher
Mr. Anthony Vitarelli
New Haven, CT
Mrs. Janet Hill
Great Falls, VA
Dr. Clarence G. Newsome
Mr. Karl M. von der Heyden*
Vice Chair; New York, NY
Mr. Kenneth W. Hubbard *******a spouse of one of Mary D.B.T.Semans' daughters********
New York, NY
Mr. G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.*
Dr. Kimberly J. Jenkins*
Chapel Hill, NC
Dr. Lewis T. Williams
South San Francisco , CA
* Member of the Executive Committee
Ms. Gorelick is representing her client's interests which are to delay discovery as long as possible. Public opinion has turned on this case before and might turn again. Duke will maintain the narrative as long as possible, keep trying to settle and hope.
Duke is certain that anything material that is disclosed in discovery will become the subject of a motion and therefore pass into the public domain. Their hope is for time to pass, priorities to change and for memories to fade. If Broadhead flips a few from his senior team, has a few years of relatively competent governance, he might withstand the disclosures. With time, Duke may decide who the scapegoats will be...the Nurse is a prime candidate.
If I were her, I would certainly have my own representation. She can be wrong without anyone else being wrong too. It seems doubtful that Tara has a smoking gun like the others pawns in the case might. Of course Duke should have supervised her better...blah, blah blah but that does not touch the top or anywhere close to it.
When the time came they threw Nifong under the bus and her turn is coming.
Gorelick and Steele will both take expedient action when the time comes. A few may be sacrificed for the good of the whole. Gorelick is just buying time for Duke come to the necessity of sacrificing a few pawns.
To the 6:46 AM...
The nominal purpose of the Charlie Rose interview was to help promote Tony Duke's autobiography Uncharted Course, The Voyage of My Life. Most of the discussion dwelled on anecdotes from the long lives of these scions of Duke family fame and wealth.
I agree that the subtle purpose of the program was to downplay the impact of the lawsuits and the Lax incident generally, as well as to portray the city of Durham, not just Duke University, as a perfect place to grow up, enjoy racial harmony, and send your kids to school.
Like you said...She's representing a client. If she tells the truth about what Duke did she isn't doing her job.
I would simply reiterate the point that Ms. Gorelick should have never been on the commission. She was clearly conflicted on certain issues to the point at which she was not allowed to participate in the deliberation with respect to those issues.
The rest of her performance was simply self-preservation. She was trying to lay the failures to to her actions on others and ingratiate herself with the rest of the committee sufficiently that they would not criticize those actions. A true public servant would have recognized the inherent conflict their presence created and simply turned down the appointment. (All of her other actions on that commission need and deserved to be viewed in the light of this conflict.) Thus her actions in the Duke case should not be surprising in view of her actions on the 9/11 commission but rather should be viewed as confirming her ultimate sleaziness that lead to her acceptance of an appointment to the 9/11 commission.
Its clear Duke is in the business of supporting these people Lee Baker new deanof faculty. Karla Holloway new university chair--seen the english department listing for her recently? paula mcclain still heading the council for a second unprecedented year...these are usually one year appointments. So if Duke thinks these are the people who will run the campsus, what good is it emailing the board, who had to endorse all of these appointments?
Maybe that was really Daisy Duke and the Dukes of Hazzard speaking.
Does anyone recall the compensation Jamie Gorelick received while on the board of Fannie Mae? Not to pick just on her, I've heard it is an equal opportunity employer.
It seems to me that Gorelick both times was being a political animal. In the 9-11 hearings, she wanted to put as much distance between the attacks and her own performance at DOJ (before going off to engage in Enron-type accounting at Fannie Mae).
In the Duke case, she is trying to remind the federal judge that he is first and foremost a Democrat and that he had better be loyal to the party -- or else no future promotions. Gorelick is someone with no soul and no moral compass, a completely amoral person.
Gore-lick is being just as honest and forthcoming in her defense of Duke as she was vis-a-vis her role in 9-11. Since she survived on the 9-11 Commission unscathed why wouldn't the powers that be at Duke be shickled titless that she agreed to lead their defenseless defense? Peas of a pod and all that good stuff!!
Reminder that it is Duke's new fiscal year now that we are in July. Time to make your 88 cent donation again....
That is a pretty large BOT, am surprised that someone on the board didn't "see the light" and know enough to do the right thing.
Pretty sad, one would assume out of all those people, someone would have the brains and courage to "step up to the plate"
"Like you said...She's representing a client. If she tells the truth about what Duke did she isn't doing her job."
So "doing her job" requires her to sell her soul?
View the entire ROSE interview. Both of the Dukes showed evidence of detatchment from reality. Their memories did not seem sharp. Both can be described as "OLD". Neither should be considered to be an expert on what goes on at Duke University - or possibly anywhere else.
Remember Jamie Gorelick was also at Fannie Mae until recently and received $24 million over 3 years. We have now all inherited another one of her messes
I'm surprised that everyone but KC missed this:
"A patient was brought to the hospital claiming an atrocious deed had been done to her; the hospital staff rendered her assistance...."
When I was a kid, when the police would find someone who was publicly intoxicated, often they would throw the drunkard into "the drunk tank" for the night and then release him in the morning without charges. Nowadays, this treatment has a bureaucratic name, "involuntary commitment" and has been overlaid with layers of "process", but its nature is essentially unchanged.
Let's remember how this Hoax got started: The second dancer, Kim, was trying to drive the intoxicated CGM home. When CGM proved too drunk or stoned to give Kim her address, Kim called the police because Kim wanted CGM off her hands. (CGM claimed that Kim stole money from her purse as well.) The police officer who arrived at the scene determined that CGM should be "involuntarily committed" -- f/k/a "put in the drunk tank" -- and so took her to the Duke medical center as the initial step in that process.
Now, let's look at the Gorelick formulation again: "A patient was brought to the hospital claiming an atrocious deed had been done to her; the hospital staff rendered her assistance...."
First, CGM was never a "patient" except in the broadest sense of the term. What she was was an arrestee -- arrested for drunk-and-disorderly, public intoxication, or whatever the modern term is. She was also not "claiming" to be the victim of any "atrocious crime" -- unless Gorelick here is referring to CGM's allegations of larceny against Kim. CGM didn't claim to be a rape victim until the idea was suggested to her by a DUMC employee. That right there sounds like tortious conduct.
Moreover, the hospital staff did not "render assistance". They were never there to render CGM any assistance. Initially, they were there to help the police to process CGM into the "drunk tank" -- by determining if she was in satisfactory health for such a commitment. In other words, the DUMC's function that night was limited to "examining" CGM, not "assisting" her. Maybe that's why SANE stands for Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner and not Sexual Assault Nurse Assistant.
This may seem like semantic nitpicking, but the overall effect of Gorelick's rendition of the events make it sound as though CGM came to DUMC already claiming rape and that DUMC acted as a Good Samaritan. Notice that Gorelick even failed to mention that CGM was in handcuffs at the time. In my opinion, this comes close to crossing that blurry line between "spin" and "false statements of material facts". I don't think the judge (assuming he's informed of the actual events) will be too pleased.
Barry Saunders in the N&O today.
Justice Grinds On
RRH is right. This is an attempt to sanitize what happened that night. Don't forget that in the first response, Gorelick claimed that Levicy was telling the truth, which, given Levicy's statements, meant there really was a rape.
In the second response, Gorelick now says that whatever Levicy said made no difference. That surely does not square with reality, for even now, the True Believers are citing Levicy's statements as "proof" that "something happened."
For example, Counterpunch had the following article last summer after Nifong's disbarment:
According to the writer, Mike Stark (yet another hard-left refugee of the Triangle):
By contrast, Nifong did possess significant evidence to pursue the rape case. There was a traumatized victim, the testimony of an examining nurse who said a rape had taken place, physical evidence of assault and disgusting e-mails that circulated among the Duke students--like one that read, "I've decided to have some strippers over and all are welcome. I plan on killing the bitches as the [sic] walk in and proceed to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke spandex."
As the mainstream media accounts increasingly sided with the student "victims" accused of rape, these undisputed facts were forgotten.
Nevertheless, the lack of a toxicology report made it impossible to prove whether the victim was drugged at the "party" (which, besides the obvious trauma, would explain her contradictory and confused statements), and the lack of DNA evidence may simply have indicated the assailants used condoms.
There was no "exculpatory" evidence proving the innocence of the suspects. Instead, the case dissolved mostly because there was no "smoking gun."
So, what we have is Duke trying to establish two mutually-exclusive positions: (1) Levicy told the truth and "something happened," and (2) whatever Levicy said really did not matter, anyway.
People with even a smidgen of moral conscience would never permit such a defense. But, no one is claiming that Bob Steel and Richard Brodhead have a conscience. After all, it was they who all but demanded that there be a trial in which three innocent people might have been thrown into prison on a false conviction.
Wachovia reports huge losses
A big "thank you" to JackWebb '93. I can honestly say yours is the first thing I've ever read on this blog that made me laugh joyfully - not eye-rolling incredulous shock at someone's big lie or willful ignorance of reality (those happen daily), but just a good belly laugh.
While RRH consistently provides excellent observations, his initial premise for this post is flawed.
Crystal first claimed to have been raped at Durham Center Access--not DUMC. An employee of DCA--not of DUMC--suggested the rape. When she arrived at DUMC, Crystal was no longer an arrestee, but an alleged victim.
RRH makes a good point that the rape suggestion may be a tort: why are DCA and certain employees not named as defendants in the lawsuits? (DCA apparently is a service provided by Durham County and may thus have immunity.)
Processing Crystal into the "drunk tank" was the initial responsibility of DCA--not of DUMC. When she latched onto the suggestion of rape, the DPD transferred her to DUMC. Once attending physicians and nurses quickly determined that Crystal required no treatment, DUMC's only responsibility was the SANE examination. After Crystal recanted her allegation and then recanted the recantation, she waited (and slept) several hours with minimal oversight (i.e., no "assistance") until Tara Levicy reported for work.
Once she launched the rape allegation at DCA, I expect that police removed the handcuffs--if they even had handcuffed her before Barfield transported her to DCA. (Shelton does not state in his report that they handcuffed her, but I suppose that handcuffing a person who had been behaving bizarrely would likely be standard procedure when police took that person into custody. We do not have Barfield's report. Sutton's report only documents events after Crystal arrived at DUMC.)
What, Gang88 was skipped??
China's sovereign-wealth fund manager becomes Duke trustee
"Duke University has named the head of China's sovereign wealth fund to its board of trustees.
Duke also has named two students to its board. Ryan Todd, a 2008 graduate who will enter law school this fall, will have a three-year "young trustee" term in which he has voting power his last two years. And doctoral student Xing Zong, a Chinese native, will serve a two-year term in which he has voting power in the final year.
"Each of our new trustees possesses impressive abilities," says Robert Steel,"
Thanks for the correction, JSwift. This is the first I've heard of "Durham Center Access". I have always been under the impression that Ms. Levicy had been a DUMC employee.
I would also like to second the applause for JackWebb '93 whose account of the 1993 Duke graduation ceremony stands out as one of the best posts of this blog's history. :)
So that means the Board is up to 40 members? I doubt the full Board is anything more than a rubber stamp since no real work can be performed by any group of 40 disparate individuals. I assume the real power, if any exists beyond the Chairman, lies within the 12 person Executive Committee. The full Board appears to be a device to keep the various constituencies happy. I doubt Duke is much different from many others in this regard.
As Wachovia lays off numerous employees, I wonder if Steel will be telling them life sucks, get over it, as they walk out the door!
So much for last week's "pep rally"
Is Holloway a Communist?
anonymous 12:15. Exactly right. Most board members do their job when they write that big check. Somebody ought to tell them how much of that money is going to Jamie, I am sure she is charging by the hour. The Duke family seems pathetic. I am so glad to see that my kid took Duke off the list with no prompting at all from me; he has carte blanche for his college applications. Vandy is still on his list, I am biting my tongue about Houston Baker.
Tara Levicy WAS a DUMC employee. Another nurse at Durham Access asked Mangum if she had been raped -- a violation of protocol, by the way.
Is Holloway a Communist?
7/23/08 3:13 PM
Communist would be a step up for Holloway.
I just wanted to let you know how much I have enjoyed reading your blog over the past few days. Before a week ago I had never visited your blog, though I had read Until Proven Innocent. I had originally condemned the Duke lacrosse team, something I feel ashamed of now, but after more of the true facts of the case came out I started to realize that maybe the case wasn't as black and white as it seemed to be. Your book was a huge eye-opener and I want to thank you for your detailed research. Now monthes later, I was required to read your blog starting November 2007 up until the present for a project. Once again I was shocked by the behavior of Nifong, Durham, and Duke. Your commentary on the case has been beautiful. I know that this comment is a long and gushy one, but I felt I had to acknowledge and thank you for your efforts. Thank you.
Giuliani's son kicked off team, sues Duke
BY ANNE BLYTHE, Staff Writer
DURHAM - Andrew Giuliani, son of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, has sued Duke University, saying the school breached a $200,000 contract with him by kicking him off the golf team.
Giuliani, a rising senior at Duke, filed suit in federal court in Greensboro.
Duke University officials said in a statement that they would "vigorously defend this lawsuit."
"Duke's coaches and student athletes are held to the highest standards, which include a strong commitment to fairness for all participants in our sports programs," Michael J. Schoenfeld, Duke's vice president for public affairs and government relations, said in a statement.
The complaint, drawn up by Robert Ekstrand, a lawyer representing some of the members of the 2006 Duke lacrosse team, outlines strife between Giuliani and O.D. Vincent, the head golf coach. Vincent came on board after the spring 2007 death of Rod Myers, the coach who recruited Giuliani in high school.
As an aspiring pro golfer in high school, Giuliani was promised life-time access to Duke's state-of-the-art training facilities if he came to Duke and paid $200,000 in tuition and fees, the suit claims.
"Things changed when O.D. Vincent took over," the lawsuit says.
Upon taking over the team last summer, Vincent talked about making the 13-member team half its size.
On Feb. 11, 2008, the suit says, Vincent announced that Giuliani would not be on the team.
"Andrew and his teammates were shocked," the suit says. "Andrew had no prior notice of what was about to happen. At no time was Andrew ever given an opportunity to defend himself."
The suit goes on to claim that incidents of misconduct that Vincent cited in his reasons for expelling Giuliani were not appropriate reasons for expulsion. According to the suit:
-- On Feb. 2 Giuliani flipped his putter a few feet to his golf bag.
-- On Feb. 3, Giuliani leaned over his driver and it broke, and "in O.D. Vincent's telling, this became 'throwing and breaking' a club."
-- On Feb. 3, Giuliani walked ahead of his playing partner at Treyburn Golf Course and later that day "gunned the engine" of his car and "drove fast while leaving the golf course parking lot."
-- On Feb. 4, during a golf-team football game, "Andrew played harder than some of the other boys wanted to play."
-- On Feb. 10, while Giuliani was eating an apple, a teammate twice hit the golfer's hand and knocked the fruit to the ground. After that same teammate "slammed a door hitting Andrew's face," Giuliani "tossed the apple at a teammate, glancing off the side of his face."
The golf coach, according to the suit, "imposed a bizarre 'Lord of the Flies' scheme to determine whether Andrew's eligibility would be canceled permanently."
Giuliani claims in the suit that he is entitled to financial relief under the contract he entered with Duke when he agreed to come to the university.
In March 2007, Giuliani talked about his golf game in an internview with the New York Daily News. His handicap was a plus-2. He had a 1 handicap before heading to Duke.
"I'm just trying to work my hardest the last two and a half years here [at Duke] to hopefully one day be playing against Tiger [Woods]," he told the Daily News. "That's definitely the ultimate goal. I wouldn't mind seeing him in the final round of a major, that's for sure."
In 1994, Giuiliani stole center stage from his father during Rudy Giuliani's mayoral inauguration. The mayor's then-7-year-old son stood next to him at the podium mocking his dad's fist pumps, mouthing words and mugging for the crowd. The incident became a talk-show sensation and was immortalized in a "Saturday Night Live" sketch.
What no posts on Guilianis suit against Duke?
To RRH and the 3:58 -
Glad you enjoyed my post. Writing that story was considerably more fun than experiencing it was.
Rudy Giuliani's son Andrew is suing Duke over his loss of a golf scholarship and position on the team. Duke's response by spokesman Michael J. Schoenfeld was that "the university would 'vigorously defend this lawsuit' and insisted on fairness for all participants in its sports programs."
Watch our Rudy--your boy's getting ready for a bus trip--unfortunately, he'll be UNDER the bus!
Off-topic, but an amusing graphic that captures something of the Spirit of the Group of 88:
My hobby: Sitting down with grad student and timing how long it takes them to figure out that I'm not actually an expert in their field.
Now monthes later, I was required to read your blog starting November 2007 up until the present for a project.
Required? By whom I'd love to know.
Surprising to see that on the Liestoppers thread not everyone believes that Andrew Giuliani has a case.
Given the contract he had with the Duke athletics department I believe he does.
Include me in the list of commenters who is bewildered by your disappointment that a hack like Gorelick is acting like a hack.
"...Karla Holloway new university chair--seen the english department listing for her recently?"
It is interesting that the English Department lists her as "Professor of Law", but the Law School listing does not. Hmmmm.
A victory for campus diversity
Unfortunately the Duke Lacrosse Burning and its aftermath is a victim of modern "truth." "Truth" has become a convenience and something that can be defined without regard to an absolute. "Truth" is no longer a single recognizable rock-hard slate, hardened with what one can know as reality. It is a blur, a chimera, a water-colored whisp of possible and not even probable and certainly not sure. "Truth" has become only what one wishes to believe, cloaked in political agenda.
Such is the legal argument and the frailty of modern law.
Between undergrad and grad school I was on Duke's campus for 9 years and attended about 5 graduation ceremonies including 3 of my own ('79, '81 and '84).
Duke couldn't get an actual outside speaker for one of them so they drafted Mary D. B. T. S. She was long winded and incomprehensible. Unlike Jack Webb, our degrees had not yet been awarded and we couldn't walk out.
Like the English Monarchy, Mary D. B. T. S. is a clear indication that ability is not hereditary.
Semans reappointed to Fine Arts panel
Aug 10, 2008
RALEIGH -- Gov. Mike Easley had reappointed Mary Semans of Durham to the Executive Mansion Fine Arts Committee.
Semans is a Duke University graduate and trustee chairman emerita at the Duke Endowment in Charlotte.
The committee provides advice on the preservation of the Executive Mansion. Members serve four-year terms.
Post a Comment