tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post7963660353965529432..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Holsti Letter, Munger Responsekcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-31891434490569421222007-10-08T00:42:00.000-04:002007-10-08T00:42:00.000-04:0010:45 Those parents who want their adult children ...10:45 Those parents who want their adult children get into a good graduate school. The 88 have killed any influence they ever had.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-8633260056456304862007-10-07T17:27:00.000-04:002007-10-07T17:27:00.000-04:00Hope everyone who made comments to this blog with ...Hope everyone who made comments to this blog with also take the time to read "Until Proven Innocent". As a graduate of U Va. living in SC with no affiliation with Duke I was appaled with what the 88 professors were allowed to say, do and teach in the classroom. I would tell any of my student to think hard before attending Duke University!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-32375284753501279112007-10-06T00:17:00.000-04:002007-10-06T00:17:00.000-04:00rrhamilton--Actually, that helps a lot, and is som...rrhamilton--<BR/><BR/>Actually, that helps a lot, and is something that I've been mulling over a lot with regards to this long process. I agree with you that these relationships -- I might term it as networks of affiliation and obligation -- are central to understanding what transpired and making sense of it after the fact.<BR/><BR/>I'm still not sure that I agree with you on the role of President Brodhead. I'm not being coy: I've actually been wrestling with this throughout the case. I'm not sure what obligations the president of a University has to students charged with a felony, what he (or she) has to the remaining student body, what to the larger community in which the students reside, etc. This is complex -- we've moved past a point of <I>in loco parentis</I>, but no other model has fully supplanted that. Certainly the consumer-driven model is a possibility -- and has been held up as the understood given on numerous occasions on this blog -- but I don't think that fully encompasses the complexities of the US higher education system.<BR/><BR/>Thus, I'm not disagreeing with you, but neither am I agreeing with you as to your analysis regarding President's "guilt" (for lack of a better, non-legal term). I will say that I think that it would be a bad idea for him to resign: bad for the University as a whole, bad for the students, bad for the faculty, and bad for Durham.<BR/><BR/>Again, thanks for this. You're right in that I didn't follow your comment back to your previous point, and only when read in tandem do they make full sense to me.<BR/><BR/>I'm to bed -- have a good night! --ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-23636317690033415592007-10-05T21:48:00.000-04:002007-10-05T21:48:00.000-04:00ss said...[RRHamilton's] example is based on the i...<I>ss said...<BR/><BR/>[RRHamilton's] example is based on the idea that both Mike Nifong and President Brodhead (or the rapist and the gropist, if you will), broke the law, but ....</I><BR/><BR/>No, it's not based on what they did, it's based on their respective relationships to the defendants. I thought I had made this clear, ... I'm going to scroll up because now I'm wondering what I said.<BR/><BR/>Hmmmm, I can see I did a poor job in my 11:21 PM remarks, and it wasn't helped much when I said at 12:17 AM, "<I>You see, it all goes back to relationships, after all.</I>" Of course, you couldn't see that at 12:17 because I wasn't clear at 11:21. I'll try to be clear now.<BR/><BR/>What I am trying to show you is that whenever analysing a dispute, the <B><I>first</B></I> thing to consider is the <B><I>relationship</B></I> between the alleged offender and the alleged victim. It is <B><I>from such relationships</B></I> that <I><B>all</I></B> of our duties and responsibilities arise. <BR/><BR/>In the lacrosse case, what was the relationship between <I>Nifong</I> and the players? Well, the players were suspects of a horrific crime and Nifong was charged by society with investigating and prosecuting those responsible for that offense -- in other words, they were in a naturally <I>antagonistic</I> relationship. Now, what was the relationship between <I>Brodhead</I> and the players? The players were students at Brodhead's school and they were proclaiming their innocence. There was nothing in this relationship that would impose on Brodhead any duty but to <I>support</I> his students.<BR/><BR/>Was Nifong <I>more</I> antagonistic to the suspects than his relationship with them demanded? -- yes, he was, and for violating certain legal rules Nifong was severely punished, essentially his career ruined.<BR/><BR/>Was Brodhead <I>less</I> supportive of his students than <I>his relationship</I> with them demanded? -- yes, he was, and thus far, we've seen little in the way of punishment. <BR/><BR/>I hope that makes it clearer: I am not starting out by looking at the <B>ending point</B> -- at where the parties (Nifong, Brodhead, and the players) ended up, but rather at the <B>beginning point</B> -- at where the parties started out. Nifong's relationship imposed on him a duty of antagonism (within legal bounds); Brodhead's a duty of support (within moral bounds). Both of them failed, but only Nifong has been punished.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-43597703195529510642007-10-05T18:31:00.000-04:002007-10-05T18:31:00.000-04:00rrhamilton at 1:17 said... ss, I understand what ...<B>rrhamilton at 1:17 said...</B> <BR/><I>ss, I understand what you are saying [...] and will try to use it to persuade you of my point.</I><BR/><BR/>First off, thanks for the civil and constructive response. I to understand and sympathize with the desire to not reduce moral and ethical violations in such a way that they are entirely covered by the law. Certainly, we accord a reverence for a morality that stands outside of -- and at times opposed to -- the law.<BR/><BR/>However, your example is based on the idea that both Mike Nifong and President Brodhead (or the rapist and the gropist, if you will), broke the law, but that we can only prove it in one case. And I understand that there are many times that that is the case. For instance, I honestly think that OJ Simpson is a murderer, but he was found innocent in a court of law. Still, I think he is a criminal.<BR/><BR/>I don't feel this way about Professor Brodhead. I do think that he made mistakes, but I don't, in any way, think that did anything criminal. Further than that I simply don't feel comfortable positing at this point -- I haven't done enough careful research to do so.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry that I haven't responded to you sooner, but sleep and work intervened. Take care, --ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-81120836743699679532007-10-05T18:22:00.000-04:002007-10-05T18:22:00.000-04:00Debrah at 1:31 am said...Please be advised that th...<B>Debrah at 1:31 am said...</B><BR/><I>Please be advised that the "ss" poster is from the Duke community... </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, Debrah, I am a graduate student at Duke. <BR/><BR/>However, as I have only posted on one other thread -- the one that you attacked me on -- it would be hard to say that I'm "always" anything. But if I am always to be something, I suppose that there are worse things than to be polite. I'm afraid that it's simply how I was raised: manners and respect can be granted to anyone, until that violates that unspoken agreement.<BR/><BR/>You clearly do not hold to these values. So be it.<BR/><BR/>In response to your specific point that I am "outfitted with a negative vibe" (like a jacket? or more like I'm Bluetooth enabled?), I would reiterate that I was in no way trying to disparage Prof. Johnson's performance at Duke in my previous posts. Similarly, I'm not trying to cast aspersions on anyone (except, in passing, Mike Nifong) here: I simply asked Prof. Johnson for a listing of the lacrosse players' apologies. He provided that, and I thanked him.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your continued interest in me. Thanks, and enjoy the rain -- we certainly need it!<BR/><BR/>Have a good weekend all, --ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88613680016966354302007-10-05T09:50:00.000-04:002007-10-05T09:50:00.000-04:00Why the hell should they apologize for having a co...Why the hell should they apologize for having a college party? They are college kids and that's what college kids do. Who are these sanctimonious, holier-than-thou phonies to criticize? I think what we are seeing here is simply ugly jealousy of the players financial status, both real and imagined, and pure old fashioned racism towards whites.<BR/>BobCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-65886848309797088032007-10-05T08:28:00.000-04:002007-10-05T08:28:00.000-04:00Thanks Debrah, but lacking your steamy panache, I ...Thanks Debrah, but lacking your steamy panache, I cannot rely on a writing style that summons visions of stilettos, corsets, and cats-o-nine-tails the way only the Divah can. :)<BR/><BR/>RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-16340157090205236322007-10-05T02:57:00.000-04:002007-10-05T02:57:00.000-04:00And here we have another message from a slightly d...And here we have another message from a slightly disgruntled student:<BR/><BR/>"Without Sin??<BR/><BR/>posted 10/04/07 @ 3:34 PM EST <BR/><BR/>How many of the 88-1+27 Duke faculty monsters have records from the '60s - '70s showing they were using not only weed, but also stronger substances? (I am not including here Ole Hasty here. Good ole Ole. He's just a benevolent, senile old man. Dick Brodhead disturbed the poor bed-wetter in his bed, in order to torture out of him some half-baked defense of Brodhead, and of his faculty exceedingly disgusting behavior. Leave Ole alone. He's still alive, but his family has an increasingly hard time in telling the difference.) <BR/><BR/>However, we know that almost 46% of the judgmental faculty imbeciles have police/judicial records indicating their more-than-passing familiarity with illegal substances. <BR/><BR/>How can these hypocrites, participating in sexual orgies compared to which hiring of strippers would be chamomile tea compared to absinthe, be so judgmental, when they should know that an even cursory check of their own records would bring out things they thought - and hoped - forgotten? <BR/><BR/>Bring it on, losers. This is going to be fun. However, don't forget, your past will hunt and haunt you all, more than you signed up for, when you added your worthless signature to the lynching documents you've adhered to. <BR/><BR/>Next weeks will be very interesting for many of the faculty involved. <BR/><BR/>That's a promise, not a threat. "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-9178150860410648012007-10-05T01:31:00.000-04:002007-10-05T01:31:00.000-04:00TO RRH--Please be advised that the "ss" poster is ...TO RRH--<BR/><BR/>Please be advised that the "ss" poster is from the <I>Duke community</I> and is always civil as well as always outfitted with a negative vibe about anything deeply critical of Brodhead and Duke's administration.<BR/><BR/>This is the one who almost choked to death arguing with me about the number of people at Page.<BR/><BR/>Remember?<BR/><BR/>Soft as a feather, surfacely......but a dead weight for objectivity on this case.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-34992019391924732872007-10-05T00:37:00.000-04:002007-10-05T00:37:00.000-04:00It is sad but not surprising the craziness that co...It is sad but not surprising the craziness that continues to come from Duke "professors" <BR/><BR/>"demand that the lacrosse players apoligixe for the party"<BR/><BR/>These men are citizens and as such have a right to have a party and some of them had the right to be drinking. Then they are Duke students (or were), then lacrosse players. They are also sons, brothers, nephews, cousins, etc.<BR/>They are people who did not deserve to be treated as they were, especially not from their "own" university. <BR/><BR/>Duke on the other hand had accepted them as students and accepted their tuition money, therefore they did have a responsibility to them. What a shame that Duke let them down.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that all these young men will go on as planned and be leaders, great, famous, humble whatever, each in their own strength and way. I know they will be better than any of the "famous" professors or administration but that is not saying much as that bar has not been set very high. <BR/><BR/>I suspect they will be following the examples set by "(Some) Good Things Did Happen in Durham" <BR/><BR/>I hope the Duke professors continue to speak out, show the world, maybe some prospective students will go elsewhere and alumni will begin to talk with their pocketbooks. <BR/><BR/>Maybe some changes will occur but somehow I doubt it. I suspect the lacrosse players won't care and who could blame them. What a shame for this story to be part of their college education. What a shame that some of the adults that had been entrusted with their care, let them down. I wish them ALL the best and look forward to reading great things about them over the years to come.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-53213133473714428062007-10-05T00:17:00.000-04:002007-10-05T00:17:00.000-04:00ss, I understand what you are saying, and I accept...ss, I understand what you are saying, and I accept your statement of facts and will try to use it to persuade you of my point.<BR/><BR/>First, Nifong violated the law? Perhaps, but I will tell you a lawyer's secret: Every lawyer knows why Nifong was disbarred and it had nothing (ok, <I>very</I> little) to do with what he did to the Lax boys. Every lawyer knows there is <I>one offense (among very few)</I> that will earn a disbarment nearly everytime: Lying to a judge -- either under oath or in open court. Thus, no matter how the matter may be dressed up for public consumption, Nifong was not disbarred for hiding evidence from the defense; he was disbarred for <I>lying to the judge about hiding evidence from the defense</I>.<BR/><BR/>You see, it all goes back to relationships, after all. No lawyer is going to be disbarred for playing hardball with his opponents -- even if he veers pretty far over the (seldom bright) line of the law. A lawyer owes no duty of good faith or fair dealing to his opponents. On the other hand (and it's a HUGE hand), all lawyers are "officers of the court", and they owe non-negotiable duties of honesty and loyalty to the courts. It was when Nifong was shown to have violated <B>those duties</B> that we all knew he was toast.<BR/><BR/>Now, back to Brodhead: Let's assume that you're right, he broke no laws. I doubt that you could ever prove a father groped his daughter in a court of law -- barring videotaped evidence. But you don't have to think that such a father should be punished the same as a rapist to believe that he is unworthy of respect and that children should not be placed in his care, do you?<BR/><BR/>And, I never attack first, but I like to think that my counterattacks are near-Divah quality. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-60813393944855669172007-10-05T00:07:00.000-04:002007-10-05T00:07:00.000-04:00If I made public disparaging remarks about a custo...If I made public disparaging remarks about a customer, I would expect to be greeted by a security guard with a cardboard box the next morning.<BR/><BR/>Does Brodhead have the guts to fire this guy or otherwise remove him from Duke? His department chair made a good start with a rebuke letter - does he have the means for sanctions?<BR/><BR/>When do we start seeing Duke joke on Leno?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11381497683202091939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-12400554592548856732007-10-04T23:53:00.000-04:002007-10-04T23:53:00.000-04:00rrhamilton at 11:22 said... As a comparison, if a ...<B>rrhamilton at 11:22 said... </B><BR/><I>As a comparison, if a teenaged girl is forcibly raped by one man and the same girl is merely "felt up" by another man...</I><BR/><BR/>I understand what you're saying, but I reject your analogy. In your example both men have violated both the letter of the law and generally accepted morality. However, in the case of President Brodhead I think that it would be a stretch -- and quite an amazing one, at that -- to prove that he broke the law. We can certainly disagree with the ethics of his stand throughout the case, but I don't think many people think that he broke the law.<BR/><BR/>Mike Nifong, on the other hand, clearly did break the law: in fact, he's now spent a night in jail, surrendered his law license, and vacated his office as a result of doing so. In addition, I think that most people agree that his greater violation -- that of the presumption of innocence, and an individual's right to a fair trial -- is an even greater ethical breach that goes above and beyond his legal violations.<BR/><BR/>This is way I originally shuddered to put Mike Nifong and President Brodhead in the same sentence, and disagree with your characterization.<BR/><BR/>I hope this is makes sense, as it's late. More importantly, thank you for disagreeing with me without attacking me -- truly the best that this board has to offer!<BR/><BR/>Thanks, --ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-12108537356133891622007-10-04T23:35:00.000-04:002007-10-04T23:35:00.000-04:00For RD at 7:35,I'm glad that my 2:41 made you laug...For RD at 7:35,<BR/><BR/>I'm glad that my 2:41 made you laugh, but I now realize that I would <B>not</B> owe any apology for my youthful commercial relationships with exotic dancers (or is it "strippers" now that we are attacking the boys instead of defending the woman?)<BR/><BR/>You see, Prof. Ole and the other 88ists would <B>not</B> need an apology from me, just as they have not asked for apologies from all the other Duke students who have hired strippers or drank beer before age 21. Why do Ole and the 88ists not ask for an apology from me or the other, non-lacrosse, Duke students who hired strippers? Because unlike the poor Laxers, none of the strippers I or other, non-lacrosse, Duke students hired ever went spastic and began making accusations of rape. See, none of <B>our</B> lives were threatened with ruination due to our failings to uphold the moral standards the 88ist hold for all white males -- so we are off the hook. We sinned and paid no penalty, so we owe no apology.<BR/><BR/>I do expect Prof. Ole, however, if he doesn't want to be hypocritical, to call for an apology from that girl who was raped at the frat party last February. After all, she made some bad choices, including underaged drinking and partying when she was only 18. And now because of her bad choices, Duke is suffering the "blackeye" of having one of its students raped at one of its frat parties.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-75213783175707756072007-10-04T23:21:00.000-04:002007-10-04T23:21:00.000-04:00ss (not The Bard) says ...I don't believe that Pro...<I>ss (not The Bard) says ...<BR/><BR/>I don't believe that Prof. Brodhead's missteps -- whatever they may be -- are any where as close as the lies and perversions of the legal system perpetrated by Mike Nifong. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it seems like a relatively reasonable opinion...."<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>This is essentially the same position taken by the esteemed Prof. Horwitz. And from a certain point of view, it makes sense. <BR/><BR/>As a comparison, if a teenaged girl is forcibly raped by one man and the same girl is merely "felt up" by another man, we could certainly say that the offense of the former was far more dastardly. In fact, compared with the forcible rape, a momentary "grope" -- all with clothes on -- would seem almost not in the same league. But what if we add to our comparison these facts: The man who raped the girl was a stranger; the man who "felt up" the girl was the girl's father. Suddenly the levels of reprehensiveness of the two acts seem much closer, don't they?<BR/><BR/>This is the point that many of Brodhead's critics have tried to make.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-42441391562836640552007-10-04T22:45:00.000-04:002007-10-04T22:45:00.000-04:00What parent would shell out tuition dollars (with ...What parent would shell out tuition dollars (with a healthy 2 digits to the left of the comma) to help pay the salaries of professors at Duke that have so little in common with their own values?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-24073572430840907672007-10-04T22:19:00.000-04:002007-10-04T22:19:00.000-04:00This faculty obsession with students' apologies f...This faculty obsession with students' apologies for attending (!) a spring break party featuring 20 year olds drinking beer while hosting a couple of strippers , is simply fascinating.<BR/><BR/>What you have on bold display is a two facetted hypocrisy; on the one hand (1) you know damn well most of these "professors" smoked pot (breaking the law) and drank beer and went to raucous parties in their youth, and (2) you know they couldn't care less if it were African American frat boys (like the Duke basketball team) or white women doing exactly the same thing. <BR/><BR/>It is just astonishing at how deep and transparent their jealousy/hatred/resentment of young white men who don't have their value system, really is. There's no way in heck they should be teaching at an esteemed university, but there you have it. Post modernism at it's finest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-66811323982650865892007-10-04T22:09:00.000-04:002007-10-04T22:09:00.000-04:00Anonymous 6:52 said... ...The comments (over 100 n...Anonymous 6:52 said... <BR/><BR/>...The comments (over 100 now) following Holsti's letter on the Chronicle site are something to behold.<BR/>::<BR/>Did you see the following students comment? I just howled. So funny.<BR/><BR/>Does anyone know if Baghdad Bob Burness new textbook "Effective Damage Control" is out yet? The Mayor is asking.<BR/>::<BR/>GPGary Packwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177986821224068759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-7863270227413294072007-10-04T22:05:00.000-04:002007-10-04T22:05:00.000-04:00ME at 8:46 said:To ss at 1:34 and 8:02 pm,Despite ...<B>ME at 8:46 said:</B><BR/><I>To ss at 1:34 and 8:02 pm,<BR/><BR/>Despite your preemptive parenthetical protestation [...Your writing is] quite similar to those those used by the Duke Chronicle commenter ‘William Shakespeare.’<BR/><BR/>One would certainly hope you are not the Chronicle commenter ‘William Shakespeare.’ That William Shakespeare is clearly a jackass of the highest order.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>And it begins.<BR/><BR/>No, I'm not "William Shakespeare," either as a pseudonomynous identity or as the Bard himself. I am a regular reader of this blog and an occasional poster. Most recently I posted up my reflections on Prof. Johnson's talk at Duke, comments that got me attacked rather viciously by Debrah. (See the end of the discussion regarding the September post "On the Schedule": http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-schedule_11.html)<BR/><BR/>You're right that I don't believe that Prof. Brodhead's missteps -- whatever they may be -- are any where as close as the lies and perversions of the legal system perpetrated by Mike Nifong. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it seems like a relatively reasonable opinion, and not one that deserves the kind of scorn that you offer above.<BR/><BR/>The discussion on these boards has been illuminating and productive, often at least as useful and occasionally more important than the posts themselves. (My apologies to the author.) However, when they disintegrate into ad hominem attacks based on little to no evidence (and again, let me reiterate that I have never posted on the <I>Duke Chronicle</I> discussion board), they descend into the bad caricature of healthy discussion. I think that this is an important enough subject for us to remain civil, if lighthearted at times. The kind of attacks by Debrah in the above link do nothing to advance the discussion, I don’t think. I don’t put your comment in the same category as that screed – and I may be overacting due to having been burned in the past – but I fear that it has that tone, hence this response. <BR/><BR/>ME, I hope that addresses your concerns. Oh, and I did find the list that Prof. Johnson published to be quite helpful, didn't you? ;)<BR/><BR/>Thanks, --ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-89971565827881657462007-10-04T21:48:00.000-04:002007-10-04T21:48:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-63705603710747964332007-10-04T21:22:00.000-04:002007-10-04T21:22:00.000-04:00Re. the topic of apologies from LAXers, I too woul...Re. the topic of apologies from LAXers, I too would be interested in seeing a list if for no other reason than to have something to shove in the faces of the terminally brain-dead morons who seem to swarm around the angry studies departments at Duke and elsewhere. An example of an LAXer apology would be the appearance of one of the players (Evans?) on <I>60 Minutes</I> where he clearly stated his regret for throwing the party. Contrast the apology made by the Duke LAXer on one the most popular, widely-viewed nationally-broadcast TV shows with the tepid remarks of Broadhead at a forum that received little press outside of the Triangle and we get a sense of the disconnect from reality people like Holsti appear to have. It's just mind-boggling that folks like that are employed at universities at all, let alone (formerly) top-level ones like Duke.<BR/><BR/>It simply blows my mind that the students at Duke have more intelligence and maturity than the administration and the faculty in the angry studies and other humanities departments. Who the hell hires these clowns anyway?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-9515079634069077622007-10-04T21:07:00.000-04:002007-10-04T21:07:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, but Holsti's approach to this issue sim...I'm sorry, but Holsti's approach to this issue simply gives credence to those who wonder why we even have a professoriate. If this is the best a PhD can do, why bother?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-28529298923619302852007-10-04T20:56:00.000-04:002007-10-04T20:56:00.000-04:00To ss at 1:34 and 8:02 pm,Despite your preemptive ...To ss at 1:34 and 8:02 pm,<BR/><BR/>Despite your preemptive parenthetical protestation: “(A note: I have not posted on that message board; I looked there after my comment above.)”, the words you use, your sentence structure, your use of parentheticals and your desire to make a “Comparison of these apologies with those made by others -- President Brodhead and Mike Nifong, for instance (as much as I shudder to put them in the same phrase) -- might be illuminative.” are all eerily (I shudder as I type these words) quite similar to those those used by the Duke Chronicle commenter ‘William Shakespeare.’<BR/><BR/>One would certainly hope you are not the Chronicle commenter ‘William Shakespeare.’ That William Shakespeare is clearly a jackass of the highest order.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-28209146010327731172007-10-04T20:02:00.000-04:002007-10-04T20:02:00.000-04:00Prof. Johnson--I asked at 1:34 (above) that you de...Prof. Johnson--<BR/><BR/>I asked at 1:34 (above) that you dedicate a post to an examination of the apologies made by different lacrosse players at various times and to different constituencies. Since I made that post this issue has blown up on the Chronicle message board in some productive -- and not-so-productive -- ways. (A note: I have not posted on that message board; I looked there after my comment above.)<BR/><BR/>As a result of that discussion, I want to reiterate my request for an examination of the various apologies. As I can reconstruct, there were at least two separate apologies:<BR/><BR/>1) The team captains to President Brodhead.<BR/><BR/>1a) Professor Brodhead's (or the captain's?) release of this apology to the media.<BR/><BR/>2) Ryan McFayden (sp?) regarding his email. (I believe this was made in a press release.)<BR/><BR/>I'm not aware of any other public apologies. That's certainly not to say that they don't exist, but it might be worth listing them all in one place, making it harder for people to plead ignorance.<BR/><BR/>Thanks! --ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com