Monday, June 22, 2009

From the CCI Archive: Documents

It seemed worthwhile to post some of the actual documents from the CCI archive; the first batch will come today, a second batch will appear Thursday.

First, some items from Group of 88’er Anne Allison’s Gender and Sexuality Subcommittee. This summary document from the Allison Subcommittee contains many of the key elements of the Group of 88 approach—from anonymous, random quotes from alleged Duke students to blind acceptance of desired assertions from ideologically preferred groups.

The summary was topped off with the preposterous claim that between 20 and 25 percent of Duke female students are victims of “sexual assault”—which means that the Allison subcommittee maintained that Duke had a rate of sexual assault around 2.5 times higher than the rate of sexual assault, murder, armed robbery, and assault combined in Detroit, the U.S. city with the highest murder rate. (FBI figures show that not 20%-25% but instead around .03% of students are victims of rape while in college; Duke’s 2000-2006 figures, which use a much broader reporting standard than the FBI database, indicate that .2% of Duke students, not 20%-25%, “report that they have experienced a rape or attempted rape.” The Allison Subcommittee never explained why it ignored this data.)

The CCI “surveyed” Duke’s student body to provide insight into cultural attitudes on campus. But the survey was skewed demographically (notice the ratio of women-to-men):

and substantively (notice the topics of the questions, and the manner in which the wording of many of the questions assured the desired result):

Duke professor Joseph Dibona made one of the most outrageous suggestions of the entire case—a call for Crystal Mangum to receive a $1.5 million bribe in exchange for withdrawing her false accusations. In this September 2006 email, he urged more aggressive action from the CCI. The spell-check function appears not to have been Prof. Dibona’s forte.

The CCI was obsessed with changing Duke’s admissions standards to get in more “diversity” students who would be receptive to the Group of 88’s ideology. As part of this agenda, they demanded ending legacy admissions, in the name of raising standards.

Yet the CCI’s own data undermined a central argument of the initiative. Legacy students do, indeed, have slightly lower SAT and admissions scores than non-legacy admittees—and so, under a merit-based admissions process, most, if not all, would not make the cut. Yet, according to the data in this CCI document below, legacy admittees score far more impressively on both the SAT and the admissions tally than do African-American students admitted to Duke (as seen in this recently released data). The CCI never explained why Duke should raise standards to exclude legacy admittees while simultaneously doing the opposite to increase the number of minority students admitted.

The Sociology Department letter, signed by ten faculty members and 27 graduate students deserves to be read in its entirety. This letter, to reiterate, was issued three weeks after the DNA tests Mike Nifong had promised would exonerate the innocent revealed no matches.

As does the document produced by the undergraduate “Concerned Citizens at Duke University.”


Anonymous said...

My favorite quote from the Sociology letter:

"When this process concludes, community and history will judge the quality of our vision and the extent of our effort."

They are nitwits, yes, but they make up for it with their pomposity. Experience has taught me that anybody who uses the word "vision" in a first-person context -- and their name isn't Thomas Edison or Leonardo da Vinci or the like -- is potentially dangerous. I have to admit, though, that in the end they were unintentionally prophetic.


[This space reserved for apologies from Charles Piot, Brian Leiter and Robert Zimmerman to Professor Johnson]

[Please Insert Apologies HERE]


Did anyone else find it ironic that the CCDU, who claimed to be so "disempower[ed]," were still empowered enough to "demand" that Duke University completely overhaul its student judicial process and change its curriculum based on the fake rape?


The number of faculty caught rushing to judgment increases. I predict that discovery will add another 100. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Let the "social" discovery begin! Legal discovery will begin, with any luck, soon.

Gary Packwood said...

RE: Selected Student Background Characteristics, by Duke-Legacy Status
How did sociology faculty members and their graduate students gain access to confidential information concerning education, earnings, home ownership, occupation, and net worth for the families of Duke students?

A similar socioeconomic analysis for the families of Duke University Men's lacrosse team members would have resulted in a high 'prestige' score for the families of Dave, Reade and Collin.

How Convenient!

Is this how Dave, Reade and Collin were selected by the faculty and Mike Nifong for criminal charges?

The SEI - the Duncan Socioeconomic Scale - is discussed here.

miramar said...

While a number of groups used "anonymous, random quotes from alleged Duke students," curiously the group of 88 ignored a petition signed by almost 1,000 Duke students demanding an apology for the listening statement.

I guess they really weren't listening to Duke students after all.

Anonymous said...

In the last posted document there next to last sentence complains that
"the oppressed are always asked to justify their oppression, to put their hurt, trauma and pain in language that those who are not oppressed can understand, although these feelings have no rational basis." Well there you have it. You will never get a rational answer from a group that acts in a non-rational way based on non-rational ie. emotional motivations. Being self identified as oppressed gives all the reason in the world to drag any others you do not like and with whom you do not identify into court and ignore due process to satisfy your non-rational needs. It is a hissy fit. Does anyone of this group ever reflect on their actions?

Anonymous said...

"The summary was topped off with the preposterous claim that between 20 and 25 percent of Duke female students are victims of 'sexual assault.'"

Radical feminists make this absurd claim by arbitrarily re-defining "sexual assault" as "verbal coercion" -- examples of which are asking a woman for a date or complimenting her.

How can you know ahead of time whether you are about to "assault" or "harass" a woman? You can't. Under the feminist interpretation of the law, each woman gets to decide after the fact whether the advances were "wanted" or "unwanted."

Such a Medieval view of criminal law has wrecked the lives of many male undergraduates.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone of this group ever reflect on their actions?"

Such reflection would require a conscience.

Duke Prof

William L. Anderson said...

Yeah, those poor, oppressed faculty members who have to deal with those poor, "oppressed" students at Duke who are treated with kid gloves. Here we had faculty members attacking students solely because of their race and sex, demanding that the administration classify the lacrosse players as rapists, and then they wonder why the rest of us think these faculty members are evil.

Lest anyone think these poor, "underpaid" (with salaries of over $100K) faculty members who are expected to work and slave at least 20 hours a week, nine months out of the year are being daily brutalized, think again. Oh, I realize that it is a hard life, especially when one every day must deal with Ku Klux Klan rallies happening right out side their office windows each day.

(OK, I made up that last line, but to read the nonsense these people put out there, one would think they are threatened by the Klan.)

If these people were to put the same amount of time and effort into actual teaching and quality research as opposed to scheming and complaining, they might be as effective as K.C.

Debrah said...

Reading these documents is an out-of-body experience.

This level of outlandish assertions only serves to illustrate, once again, just how completely void of authenticity their brand of "scholarship" is.

This is total blackmail and extortion delivered through bumptious filters.

The phrase "At this juncture....." is used and overused. I've probably heard the Gang of 88 use that phrase five hundred times.

As they praised Brodhead, they issued advice to him in such a way that can only be characterized as a tone of warning from the 'hood of race/class/gender. And I see they have also included those for whom a sexual preference is still being negotiated. LOL!

Bellicose and comical all at once.

These cleanly delivered documents inside Wonderland are even more shocking when you know they were concocted AFTER the DNA evidence showed the lacrosse players had been set up.

Under a highlighted section in yellow, this horrific analogy was thrown into the mix:

"White supremacy operates not only through the overt actions of groups like the KKK; it is 'elusive and fugitive'...(my emphasis)...and it is perpetrated intentionally and unintentionally."

The person or persons who would write such statements and attempt to draw comparisons with the Lacrosse Hoax need to be either held up for ridicule or put into a mental institution.

And that would later include one Bill Chafe, who used the Emmett Till case in much the same way.

Try to imagine the amount of time and the excited energy that it took to put this collage of stupidity together.

These are dislocative and useless people. They fake being taken over by emotion and concern in order to further fleece the university.

They shrink from arguments over facts because facts are tedious and they require familiarity with the subject under discussion, but most of all, they can be ideologically toxic to those whose agenda---inauthentic and cancerous as theirs is---is set in stone.

One can clearly imagine how utterly afraid Brodhead was at that time---and perhaps still is.

In addition to the deluge of threatening nonsense we see here, the New Black Panthers descended on Duke's campus.

Lastly, one of the elements of these reports that is most disgusting is how the black faculty and graduate students try to bring the neighborhoods of Durham into the discussion.

Are they serious?

Duke University students should be more afraid of the residents of Durham than vice versa.

The police blotter just this weekend was appalling. And the perpetrators were all from Durham.

Duke's administration is really to blame for going along with this endless and expensive fairy tale.

Anonymous said...

Some commenters allege that the G88 and their ilk have no influence at Duke. It is worth noting, therefore, that one signatory to the Sociology letter is recent chair Philip Morgan. Another is the newly appointed chair Kenneth Spenner.

Duke Prof

Debrah said...

Duke obviously has a long history of hiring faculty who put much energy and fake emotion into the issues of race.

And particularly race issues in the South.

Those "activists" who were born here want to rehash every experience they've had and embellish the story line each time.

Like Timothy Tyson aka "Puffy T", and so many others, they want to create a heroic role for themselves by claiming to have been "different" and "progressive" early on.

When I think of the extent to which people like this have fabricated scenarios and deliberately relayed only one side of reality, I am inclined to believe that they are criminals in the unadulterated sense of the word.

The needless discord they cause for private gain and the concocted facade of "all knowing and tolerant" are things that must be exposed and corrected.

A reader just sent me an article from a newspaper in Granville County (hometown of Tyson and the place from where his book tales originated) with reports of controversy over yet another Confederate statue.

It is noteworthy that some black residents and officials suggested moving on and discontinuing the effort of making stone and bronze an issue when more pressing problems in life need attention.

But it seems that Duke University has been employing people like Tyson and the Gang of 88 for a long time.

A former (white) Duke history professor spoke up for tearing down the historical statue.

His offensive and insular language leveled at one group of people is appalling:


The vote came after Commissioner Tony Cozart, who is black, read a prepared statement calling for affirming the plans for the Thornton Library, including with remarks that "we should not allow ourselves to be drug into an argument over a monument to those long dead." Commissioner Ron Alligood seconded.

During the subsequent public hearing phase of the meeting, the speakers included Lawrence Goodwyn, an 81-year-old retired Duke University history professor who is white. Goodwyn said he believes the memorial should be put at a place where one does not have to pass it when going to get a library book.

"I hope you come to think it's time to let it go, let it go," Goodwyn said.

Goodwyn was referring to when he was a teenager and was reading a book about the Confederacy. Goodwyn said his father — who served in the U.S. Army 43 years and retired as a colonel — asked him what he was doing.

Goodwyn said he told his father the Confederate army was a good one, prompting his father to lean forward and say, "Southerners do the things they do because they don't know any better. I don't want to hear about this army anymore." And Goodwyn said his father told him, "Let the Civil War go, boy."


Nauseatingly condescending and gratuitous.

Anonymous said...

Is Allison a Communist?

gtp12 said...

wait i'm confused.....the sociology letter says privilaged white males are the enemy yet they feel broadhead (priviledged white male) can set an "example for appropriate behavior and as a model of integrity and accountability"

Anonymous said...

"Where do I start?," is probably an over-used phrase, but, seriously, where do I start?

--- The rush to judgment involved in convicting the innocent students without evidence and no DNA?

--- The failure to use real statistics instead of made-up statistics?

--- When finally using real statistics such as those involving legacy admittees), using it for the wrong reason? (Who on the lax team was a legacy admittee)?

--- DEMANDING an absolute sea change in fundamental university policies and procedures based on a lie?

--- Equating the lax hoax to the KKK?

--- Any connection there might be between the shoddy science, bad statistics and complete lack of common sense these people displayed in their attacks in this case and their other work for Duke?

--- The vehemence of the attack on their students and fellow students?

--- The amount of faux outrage or misplaced outrage able to be leveled at the Duke president by people with an agenda (i.e. keeping their jobs, recruiting like-minded fellows, etc.)?

--- The speed with which many groups formed and jumped on the back of the lying prostitute for their own gains?

--- The lack of any subsequent apology or even a "my bad"?

--- The increasing numbers of Duke University facutly and student body, who we previously didn't know about, involved in the Hoax?

--- The fact that actual professors and PhD students would sign their names to such stupidity?

It is all pretty overwhelming.

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof: "Some commenters allege that the G88 and their ilk have no influence at Duke. It is worth noting, therefore, that one signatory to the Sociology letter is recent chair Philip Morgan. Another is the newly appointed chair Kenneth Spenner."

Is that true? If so, then the investigation has reached the BOT again. That's on top of Chairman Steel's complicity as alleged in the Amended Complaint:


445. The Chairman was aware that Mangum was a deeply disturbed young woman who exhibited signs of psychosis, and that her accusations were false.

446. The Chairman was aware that Gottlieb was on a vendetta in response to the Gottlieb Dossier.

447. The Chairman was aware that Nifong was preparing to ride the case into office.

448. The Chairman knew that Addison was lying publicly about the evidence.

449. The Chairman was aware that the investigation belonged to the Duke Police Department.

450. The Chairman knew that, if the public perceived Duke abandoning the Plaintiffs, the public would conclude that Duke knew they were guilty.

451. The Chairman knew Plaintiffs were innocent, and, to the extent he was not certain, he ensured that neither he nor any senior University officials saw the evidence of innocence that he knew was offered.

452. To the Chairman, Plaintiffs’ innocence was irrelevant: what was 'best for Duke' turned upon perception.

453. Aware of these things, the Chairman announced that it would be 'best for Duke' if Plaintiffs were tried and convicted on Mangum’s false accusations.

454. In response to a plea for Duke to show some measure of support for the students who were being framed in plain view of the University’s leadership, the Chairman explained, 'sometimes individuals have to be sacrificed for the good of the Organization.'”

These documents show that the Hoax at Duke University went deeper, higher and was broader than even I expected.

af said...

[i]"Does anyone of this group ever reflect on their actions?"

Such reflection would require a conscience.

Not to mention a brain.

[i]We want the university to be considerate of the trauma that this incident and the climate that allowed its precipitation have caused amongst the student body, irrespective of the results of the investigation.[/i]

The unicorn must have pierced the brain before it began functioning. Is Lorde serious?

[b]My favorite demand[/b][i]We demand administration institute a system of checks and balances which ensures that the University follows its regulations for punishing offenses.[/i]

As of March 30, this group seems to be calling for the dismissal of some of its own members for violations of the faculty handbook!

Perhaps this crowd should have found a reliable cause to jump on. Instead, they chose to put all their marbles in the bag of a compulsive liar. With judgment like this, we now know why Duke's reputation is in the tank, don't we?????

Anonymous said...

Duke prof, I'm the poster who made the mistake about the Sociology chairs. Sorry. That was all my fault. It certainly goes to prove your point about department chairmen and the power at Duke.

Anonymous said...

KC syas: "A second batch (of documents) will appear Thursday."

That comes under the heading of "forthcoming". I'll believe it when I see it.....


Anonymous said...

One can complain about the various members of the Duke faculty who acted like "lemmings" in support of sub-par collegues who had no sound data or position in the LAX matter, but the real villians or Steel and Brodhead. Steel "orchestrated" ALL Duke actions and reactions and APPROVED ALL statements by Brodshead and his henchmen and henchwomen during AND since the event.Steel maintained an active administrative presence and office on campus throughout this process and called ALL the shots as if Duke was a Wall Street Financial firm (or Wachovia Corp) and we now know the depths of unethical behavior and the heights of earnings these scions of finance like Steel either initiated or actively participated in.

I would like to see Professor Johnson analyze the Duke Board of Trustees as he has so carefully and expertly done in the legal,social and faculty areas of this case.I believe that Duke's alumni and the rest of the world would be shocked to know the depth of depravity at the helm of Duke.

It is clear the Steel, Brodhead and , at least the Executive Committee of the Boards, if not the full Board could have prevented this sad, sad state even if faculty members spew hatred toward students and anyone who "appears" to them to be privileged.

No justice, no peace said...

One wonders how many of the Duke faculty, the CCI committee, and especially the Klan of 88 would agree with Alexander Hamilton?

"[T]he Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution."

--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 81, 1788

Anonymous said...

I find it bizarre that Professor Goodwyn who is from Duke University and Durham would even be in Granville County running his mouth at a town meeting.

The common theme among all of these attacks are not some poor oppressed group of downtrodden minorities seeking sufferage, but misinformed, uneducated, and in some cases race baiting "leaders" and "reverends" simply blaming their followers' shortcomings on a statue there.

Unless he was invited by one of the group of 88 or their mascot Timothy Tyson.

Debrah said...

Some readers might want to check out the latest, and heretofore, most aggressive attempt to rehabilitate the image of Durham.

This one by the current publisher of the Herald Sun. This guy wasn't around during editor Ashley's embarrassing and cowardly handling of coverage of the Lacrosse Hoax. They had a temporary guy, then, who took over as publisher for a few years when the first one died.

What bad luck to have been left with Ashley and a temporary fill-in publisher. The town's own newspaper didn't bother to investigate anything. They merely parroted Duke's administration.

Bean seems to have dug in for the long haul and is now in bed with the ever-flowery Durham booster, Reyn Bowman, who is head of the Visitors Bureau.

These future offerings promised by the H-S publisher should be very interesting as well as hilarious.

Especially when he decides to cover higher education.

Can't wait to see the amount of perfume that will be required to describe NCCU as well as Duke's administration and faculty.

Someone should write a letter-to-the-editor for each one of their glowing portrayals.......imploring the H-S:

"Hey, don't get all brand new on me bro'!"

"Keep it real!"

The dialect of Durham.

I would have pasted the column, but it was too long. For those who can register with the H-S website---scant as it is---following the next 52 weeks of booster mania might be fun.

Celebrating What Makes Durham Special

Debrah said...

A lot of NC politicians and former politicians are in the news lately.

Former Governor Easley (who appointed Mike Nifong as DA) and his wife are being investigated by the Feds.

A former speaker of the House is in prison and is begging to have his five-year sentence commuted for accepting thousands in payoffs and bribes.

John Edwards is being investigated by the Feds for possibly having used campaign money to pay his mistress.

Andrew Young, who took the fall for John and Elizabeth Edwards so they could continue their charade of a campaign is writing a book on them now that the cash flow has dried up.

And last, but not least, it is reported by someone on the N&O website that.....

"MIKEY NIFONG !!! .... as we speak the newly-formed 'Committee For Justice For Mike Nifong' is canvassing the General Assembly to garner support for the embattled Durham buffoon. The head of the Committee (CFJFMN) is none other than the infamous Victoria Peterson ..... For those of you not familiar with this 'piece of work' you have a treat in store for you."

AMac said...

A few threads back, "Duke Prof" noted that the CCI's suggested reforms of Duke's admissions standards seemed self-contradictory, but were not.

The CCI proposed raising admissions standards while increasing diversity (the proportion of matriculating black students), even though black applicants--as a group, note--have much worse performance than do white and Asian candidates (as groups).

In Grutter and other decisions, the Supreme Court has disallowed the use of explicit race-based quotas, while permitting admissions procedures that increase diversity.

Few people outside the education establishment understand what non-quota quotas amount to, in practice. Prof. Bruce Fleming of the U.S. Naval Academy recently wrote a kiss-and-tell essay on Annapolis' admissions procedures and their results, in The cost of a diverse Naval Academy.

The specifics of Duke's diversity measures are certainly different. The reasons that the CCI and its allies likely want to avoid scrutiny of Duke's programs and their effects are probably similar to those already known for U. Michigan (Grutter), the USNA, and other elite institutions.

Anonymous said...

Slightly off topic, but I wonder how many of the college 88ists -- both at Duke and nationwide -- does KC think would endorse the nomination of self-professed "perfect Affirmative Action baby" Sonia Sotomayor?

You know, there are bumperstickers that mimic the Obama campaign logo for Obama voters that say, "I'm Sorry". As KC has been in the forefront of the drive to ask university professors to apologize for their misbegotten support of Affirmative Action, I wonder if we can send a such a bumpersticker to him at Brooklyn College? (If you don't have a car, KC, then your office door could be an appropriate exhibit place.)


kcjohnson9 said...


I think that Sotomayor was a brilliant choice politically and a poor choice in terms of jurisprudence; I was hoping that Obama would have nominated Elena Kagan, whose performance as dean of Harvard Law School I much admired.

That said, apart from the Sotomayor selection and Obama's authorization of the troubling DOJ brief on DOMA, I remain a strong backer of Obama. I have been most impressed with his foreign policy performance--especially toward Iran, where he has cleverly crafted his policies with an understanding of the troubled past in US-Iranian relations.

[A note: this thread is about the CCI, not Obama; I will not be clearing additional comments on Obama.]

Jim in San Diego said...

KC: re: Obama posts

You open the flood gates.

Interesting, but not a good idea to mix politics with your impregnable position on the issues we have all been monitoring on this blog.

It is of course possible to stand for due process, equal treatment, civility and scholarship, and against those who do not, regardless of one's politics. It is this focus which unites us and give us strength and staying power.

Jim Peterson

One Spook said...

In contrast to the CCI who believe in "the myth of the meritocratic ideal," here is an absolutely remarkable story of a young woman who will be attending Harvard next year. By all accounts, it appears that her selection is based primarily upon merit and the "content of her character."

What she has overcome to make it to Harvard is unbelievable.

She Finally has a home: Harvard

The report mentions that she was also "accepted to more than 20 universities nationwide, including Brown, Columbia, Amherst and Williams."

Obviously, she's wise to avoid attending Duke where her character and what she has earned would take second place to the color of her skin. As KC and others have pointed out, the best among those who can be classified as "Diversity" applicants, steer clear of Duke.

One Spook

kcjohnson9 said...

To Jim:

I didn't do an Obama post; I merely answered a direct question, asked by a longtime commenter, in the comments.

Anonymous said...

To af said.....

It's obvious that it's not a requirement of employment at Duke University to have a conscience or tell the Truth

To 8:07 .....

This is just a reminder of Bob Steel's investments. Makes you wonder how many others from Duke invested in this?

Jonathan Cohen said...

It is important to remember that long after the court cases are decided and most of the administrators are gone and the LAX players have graduated, the sociology department will still be staffed by many of the people who wrote the letter posted above.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many supposedly educated people could sign their name to a document that is so completely lacking in either decency or common sense.

How could anyone in good conscience recommend taking a course in sociology at Duke.

A serious campus cultural initiative would began with the disbanding of the sociology department. Sociology is clearly no longer an academic discipline at Duke. Perhaps it could be kept around for observation by that branch of psychology that studies the behavior of cults.

Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson:can you tell me (and others Kristin Butler fans) what happened to the Tru Ble blog? The last post I can find is the March 9, 2009 on the investment losses. It is understandable if she devoted her time to her law school studies, but I have enjoyed and appreciated her writings to the extent that I miss her.

Thanks for responding to an "off topic" question.

Debrah said...

Coach K's salary is tops at Duke

By Neil Offen : The Herald-Sun
Jun 24, 2009

DURHAM -- Two of the five highest-paid employees at Duke University during the last fiscal year don't, in fact, work for Duke anymore. And the highest paid employee of all got a hefty salary boost.

According to the university's Internal Revenue Service Form 990, men's basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski once again received the most compensation from the school among those who are not officers, directors or trustees of the university. Kryzewski, who like many other famous collegiate coaches also receives money from outside sources for endorsements, took home $3.6 million from Duke during the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2008. His compensation was $1,482,532 more than he received the previous fiscal year, an increase of 68 percent.

Two years earlier, the coach had entertained a reported offer of $40 million over five years to coach the NBA's Los Angeles Lakers. The flirtation took place just days after Richard Brodhead assumed the presidency at Duke, Krzyzewski ultimately turned down the pros, but officials said at the time adjustments were made to his lifetime contract at Duke.

Krzyzewski's pay in 2006-07 was around four times that of the second highest-paid employee, former Duke University Health System CEO Ralph Snyderman, who received $982,968 in compensation. Snyderman, who is now chancellor emeritus at Duke, stepped down from his CEO post in July 2004.

Another Devils' basketball coach -- former women's coach Gail Goestenkors -- was also among the top earners during the period covered, receiving $498,878 in compensation, according to Form 990, which many tax-exempt nonprofits must submit to the government each year. Duke filed its report May 15.

Goestenkors left Duke for the University of Texas in April 2007, just a few months before the beginning of the 2007-08 fiscal year.

"The [990 filing] refers only to the money paid out during that specific time," said Michael Schoenfeld, Duke's vice president for public affairs. "Since Coach Goestenkors was no longer employed by the university during the period covered, that money would presumably be deferred compensation."

It's important to understand, Schoenfeld explained, that the Form 990 is "simply a snapshot of a particular point in time. People who are no longer employed by the university now could still have been paid during that period."

Among the list of the five highest-paid employees also was Gordon D. Williams, the former executive vice dean, chief operating officer and vice chancellor for operations of the health system, who left Duke at the end of 2007. He received $548,664 in compensation from the university for the fiscal year.

The last of the top five was Barton Haynes, the Frederick M. Hanes professor of medicine and immunology at the health center and director of the Duke Human Vaccine Institute. Haynes received $489,933 in compensation during the year.

The filing also separately lists the compensation for officers, directors and trustees of the university. Among those, the highest paid was Victor Dzau, who replaced Snyderman as CEO of the health system and vice chancellor for health affairs. Dzau received $1,617,727 in compensation during the year.

Brodhead, the university's president, was next, with compensation of $662,500. Other highly paid officers of the school included R. Sanders Williams, senior vice chancellor of Duke medicine, who received $659,308, and Huntington F. Willard, director of the Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy and vice chancellor for genome sciences.

Debrah said...

Giuliani's legal chip shot lands in court

By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun
Jun 24, 2009

DURHAM -- Andrew Giuliani's lawyer has asked federal judges to ignore a magistrate's recommendation that they dismiss his client's breach-of-contract lawsuit against Duke University.

The recommendation ignored basic North Carolina contract law and a federal statute, and brushed off legal rulings that support Giuliani's claim that Duke policies amounted to a contract that should have barred a coach from cutting him from the school's golf team, Durham lawyer Bob Ekstrand claimed.

Moreover, Giuliani's and other recent lawsuits involving Duke show that there's a need for judges to issue a "clarification on the legal relationship between the university and its students, and Division I coaches and their student-athletes," Ekstrand said.

Giuliani -- the son of former New York City mayor and unsuccessful presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani -- was kicked off Duke's golf team early in 2008. Duke in its legal filings has said the move followed a series of disciplinary transgressions that included a fight with a teammate.

Ekstrand has argued that the team's former coach, O.D. Vincent, lacked the authority to cut players from the squad, or even to discipline them without first consulting Duke's athletics director.

He's also contended the school reneged on the deal Vincent's predecessor, the late Rod Myers, made with Andrew Giuliani before the youth joined the team as a walk-on.

Myers is said by Ekstrand to have promised Giuliani, a pro golf hopeful, a "lifetime right of access" to the school's training facilities if he joined the team.

In return, Giuliani agreed to attend Duke and pay more than $200,000, Ekstrand said in his latest filing, presumably referring to the school's four-year total estimated cost, which includes tuition, books, fees, room and board.

Duke has denied that Myers made any such promise to Giuliani or anyone else, and in filings has argued that a student's participation on a varsity sports team is a privilege, not a right.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Wallace Dixon's May opinion sided with Duke's take on the legal issues, quoting among other things a key federal appeals court ruling that said judges "should not take on the job of supervising the relationship between colleges and student-athletes or creating a new relationship between them."

A federal district court judge has to decide the matter.

Ekstrand's argument gained support last week from lawyers representing 38 members of Duke's 2005-06 lacrosse team, who are suing the school over its handling of stripper Crystal Mangum's false allegation that members of the team raped her.

Their friend-of-the-court filing, submitted by Durham lawyer Bill Thomas and Washington, D.C., lawyer Charles Cooper, said the lacrosse players "have a significant interest in the outcome" of Giuliani's case because their lawsuit also addresses their contractual rights vis-â??â? -vis Duke.

Anonymous said...

There have been "Womens Studies" surveys that place the rate of "sexual assault" against college women, as high as 50 per cent.

Which is ludicrous. These results need to be viewed together with the original questions, which can include things like, "Have you ever had sex, and then regretted it the next day?"

Or, "Have you ever had sex while intoxicated?"

And if "Yes," these of course count as rape, or at least, "sexual assault".

And those are just two examples of how the data can be manipulated.

Look, I despise rape or anything whatsoever that legitimately resembles it. But these surveys are concocted from an agenda, with a pre-conceived aim to achieve pre-desired results. They ain't worth crap. And if the Duke committee didn't admit knowing this, they are either morons or liars.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
To af said.....

It's obvious that it's not a requirement of employment at Duke University to have a conscience or tell the Truth

To 8:07 .....

This is just a reminder of Bob Steel's investments. Makes you wonder how many others from Duke invested in this?

6/23/09 6:44 PM

I would think that a good lawyer could find a nexus between Bob Steel's investments and his actions in the Lacrosse Hoax.

I would also say that the Charlotte Observer opened itself to a slam-dunk libel lawsuit in that article by saying things such as, "racist white shopkeepers in Oxford ... murdered a fleeing black Vietnam veteran".


Anonymous said...


"A note: this thread is about the CCI, not Obama; I will not be clearing additional comments on Obama."

Excellent. That makes the commentary far more rational.


Anonymous said...

The Kerry Haynie letter spells 'Broadhead' incorrectly. Wow...


Bob said...

I had to laugh at one of the comments under the "Community Characterizations" document.

The (presumably female) student says:
"I wasn't like this in high school. But people do many things they'd really rather not (hooking up, drinking excessively) because they really believe it is what makes them a 'Duke' Student".

This stuff must have been like manna from heaven for the extremists. "So - you were a good person until you came here, but this "culture" has forced you to drink and "hook-up" against your will?"

Not hard to see where they got their sexual assault figures from when logic like the above was the norm.

It reminds me of my friend's girlfriend at University. She was supposedly vegetarian, but was "forced" to have chicken soup one day at uni because there were no vegetarian options.

Anonymous said...

According to the annual US News and World Report, Duke has a high undergraduate retention rate. If the crime rate against women students is that high, you would think that the retention rate would be lower which could push Duke's ranking lower. So these are two conflicting data but the US News data seems more accurate.