Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014).
(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.
(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.
(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.
23 comments:
Broadhead could have been a "man" about the lacrosse allegations, that he did not is proof of the fear that is created by the feminist and racist agenda that dominates campus politics. He is "allowed" to discuss this matter differently. It is all too predictable.
500 jobs. $100,000,000.00. I'm in the wrong field.
Do you really think that Broadhead was "far less clear-cut" in defending the due process rights of the LAX accused? He seemed pretty clear-cut to me. Until he had absolutely no other choice, Broadhead wouldn't defend those students at all.
To the 8:34: I think it's a mistake to paint people as completely "good" or completely "evil", since reality is often complex. Actually, Broadhead had it right when the lacrosse case first broke. His first public statement was that people should wait for the legal process to run its course. That statement only served to anger and energize the activist elements in the faculty, leading directly to the "Thank you for not waiting" statement in the letter from the Group of 88. It was at that point that Broadhead began backing down in order to appease the activists, showing his weakness as a leader.
If you believe in karma, I think the current Potti scandal at Duke will ultimately be Broadhead's undoing. From the perspective of the Duke administration, the Potti mess is far, far more serious than the lacrosse scandal, since the (perceived) damage to Duke's reputation, not to mention its wallet, is far greater in the Potti situation.
In the current political new speak, the question is not how many jobs were lost, but the number saved!
NoD
An acquaintance of mine said that Duke will pay out millions to the cancer patients receiving Potti’s treatment recommendations, if he is found guilty. Starting, stopping, restarting, and again stopping the treatment of cancer patients, is just plain cruelty in my opinion. And, what if Potti is a hoax? A Duke/Brodhead Hoax? Surely not!
I admit I had to get up to speed on this, and [http://dukechronicle.com/node/152380/talk] was a good place to start.
Fact Checker writes: “My fellow Dukies, this is a scandal that is going to metastasize.”
Potti - Information tidbits:
“Duke will permanently divest all equity and potential royalties related to the science…”
“The American Cancer Society has suspended payments on the $729,000 grant that Potti received for his research.”
“Last week, the University shut down three clinical trials that depend on Potti’s work.”
“Paul Goldberg, Trinity ’81 who is covering the story for The Cancer Letter, said the situation is now an institutional problem for Duke and no longer the matter of a single dishonest researcher.”
"It could have been the problem of a rogue researcher based on silence—now it's the problem of the rogue researcher and [the administrators that protected him,”] Goldberg said. "This is a question of the administration. They are taking a problem that they could have solved, and turning it into a problem that is structural to the institution."
http://dukechronicle.com/article/administrators-commission-internal-external-investigations-potti
---
Seems like I heard this song before.
Is Brodhead a Communist?
I had to laugh at the notion that this Potti scandal will be the undoing of Brodhead. It will be the undoing of Potti, and that's about it. You people are absolutely clueless.
BTW, that FactChecker person at the Chronicle comment section is a complete nutjob.
Is Broadhead a Communist?
Perhaps as Brodhead states, "Every allegation is not a truth."
But according to the already-established meme of Brodheadian "truth," would not such a statement would be superseded by the unflattering ascertation that, even if Potti is innocent, what he [Potti] "did was bad enough"?
Posted by Hound No. 2
The Hounds of TASSers'ville
This was amazing from the N&O piece linked by Professor Johnson: "Potti also apparently falsely claimed to be a Rhodes Scholar on applications for federal funding." If true, that devalues the Roads Scholarships that us real Roads Scholars got. MOO! Gregory
We've have had plenty of time for discovery. Isn't court suppose to start soon?
Every allegation is not a truth?? Epiphany ? Nah....
jmoo
It is difficult at times to defend President Broadhead but he really is relatively new to the scene at Duke and Durham.
Perhaps in a year or so he will compose a poem and enlighten us about the inner working of the Methodist Mafia.
::
GP
To the 6.34:
I was wondering where you saw me write or say that the Potti case would be the "undoing" of Brodhead. I don't recall ever making such a statement--but I've been busy, and perhaps forgot doing so.
KC, I am confused by your reply to 6:34; there does not appear to be any reference to you in his/her derision of the notion that the current crisis will be the undoing of Brodhead.
And I, for one, think Fact Checker is remarkably thorough, and well informed.
To the 10.26:
My apologies for your confusion.
I invite the 6.34 to clear up the point: it had seemed reasonable to me that in a comment that referenced "you people" to a post written by me, I was included in one of the "you people."
But perhaps, as you suggest, the 6.34 simply lacks the intelligence to adequately express his/her opinions in easily understood language.
KC, I am the 10:26 poster. While it is not unreasonable to presume the 6:34 poster may be a Duke apologist, tasked to diffuse commentary on very painful issues, as I said previously, there was nothing I read that inferred you, personally, had asserted this latest cancer issue would be
Brodhead's undoing.
But let's be clear - there is nothing implicit or explicit in my comment to cause a reader to believe I had suggested the poster lacked the intelligence to adequately convey their opinion. Take credit for your own conclusions.
The new metric is "Lives Touched".
6:34 here. If you read all the comments here it should be clear what my post was referencing.
Please read the third comment in this thread. Poster Duke 1965 wrote: "I think the current Potti scandal at Duke will ultimately be Broadhead's undoing"
Clearly this is nonsense. I apologize for implying that more than just one bonehead here believed this, but it was a safe bet given the history of this place.
To the 9.43:
I am grateful to the 6.34 for clarifying him/herself, to the effect that "you people" (a plural construct) actually referred only to one person.
My apologies to the 6.34 for interpreting "people" as plural.
KC, I am the "bonehead" referenced by Anonymous @ 7:38, as well as one who believes the Potti scandal could well be Broadhead's undoing, for the reasons discussed below.
As a general matter, Duke's prestige, such as it is, comes to a great extent from its status as a research institution, with the Duke University Medical Center as its crown jewel. While it is true that academic fraud is not unheard of in the research world, the Potti scandal potentially goes far beyond a single rogue medical researcher, and calls into question some systemic problems at Duke, including its leadership.
There are two different issues involving Potti. First, there are allegations of false statements in Potti's resume which was submitted both to Duke and on grant applications, raising a legitimate question as to Duke's background checks on new hires. Second, for over a year a number of highly regarded scientists have questioned the science behind Potti's work, particularly since his genome data has been used as the basis for clinical trials on over 100 cancer patients. In late 2009, amid questions concerning Potti's methodology, Duke conducted an internal investigation and concluded that the science was sound. That finding is now in question, and Duke has finally responded by turning the investigation over to an independent third party.
It's too early to predict the final outcome of this mess, but it is already quite clear that the current administration has again failed to get out in front of the problem, and like the lacrosse fiasco, is simply running around trying to protect the Duke brand, hoping against hope that the problems will go away.
Finally, to the 7:38, I may be a bonehead, but I can at least articulate the reasons for my views. Can you make the same claim?
Post a Comment