Sunday, November 04, 2012

Penn State, Duke

Former Penn State president Graham Spanier was indicted last week; I wrote about the move at Minding the Campus.

The move came as little surprise, given the evidence against Spanier uncovered by the Freeh Report. Indeed,  perhaps the most noticeable aspect of the grand jury presentment against Spanier was how closely the document tracked--in terms of evidence and basic argument--the Freeh Report.

As I have noted previously, a variety of campus figures--including, perhaps most troublingly, a group of former leaders of the Penn State faculty senate--criticized as flawed the Freeh Report, even as they steered clear of identifying exactly what the report had gotten wrong. To date, it appears that few (if any) have criticized the line of argument offered by the AG--even as they have also declined to retract their previous criticism of the Freeh Report.

It goes without saying that Duke has never provided an explanation as to why the university elected not to engage in the type of critical self-reflection that a Freeh-style investigation entailed, and instead stood behind the fatally flawed Bowen-Chambers committee report as the sole official investigation of how and why the administration mishandled its response to the lacrosse case.

On another front, and for those interested: Duke's crusade has attracted the attention of the Maine media.


skwilli said...

I stand with KC and his First Amendment Rights. He was and is the preeminent member of "The Press" (coined by B. Franklin himself!) concerning the Duke debacle. I stand ready to defend his Rights against Duke University in any way I can assist him.

Jim In San Diego said...

Chutzpah now has a new name.

Where is Duke Law? (Ha Ha. This is not really a hypothetical question - it is just a joke).

Please let us know if there is anything any of us can do to assist you. Petition? Declaration? Money?

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

I agree that the only "Press" that was worth anything in this case was Professor Johnson. He interviewed. He reported. He dug into the facts. He kept a timeline. He did everything a responsible journalist should do. (When nobody else was doing it even though the national media was involved!)

I also agree with the linked article. Duke lawyers have an alternative route to get the information. They can depose the people who gave the Professor information.

Chilling First Amendment protected Free Speech, especially important speech involving government and education problems, is one reason the university is going after the Professor. The other is revenge. I think a third reason involves the university's guilty conscience. The fourth is because this is another windmill to tilt at for the lawyers to churn more billable hours and maybe see the Autumn leaves in Maine.

Anonymous said...

Good for you, SKWilli! I have no doubt the right side will triumph at last.

Gus W.

Anonymous said...

Is Spanier a Communist?

Pay per Head said...

I think in the lacrosse case there are many situations that people can see. Things are not clear also that the Duke is using the publicity in the case. Definitely they are hiding something.

Anonymous said...

Would someone care to translate the 3:22 post?

Anonymous said...

KC - I wrote you some comments in the middle of the summer about the Penn State case and continue to be amazed that because the PSU BoT paid a consultant to produce a prosecutorial style indictment, in the direction they wished - away from them - that you and your site continue to toe the party line about PSU. You and your site who went against the grain on Duke Lacrosse. You will be surprised about what continues to come out about this scandal over the next six months.