Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Protecting the "Duke Brand"; Part of a paper I am writing
Topic Started: Jan 15 2009, 07:21 PM (2,256 Views)
Bill Anderson
Member Avatar

I am working on a paper that I will present at a conference in Charleson, SC, next month in which a co-author and I examine the Duke University response to the lacrosse case, using crisis models that are standard in management studies. However, as I have been working on the paper, a question that others have asked has been in my head: Why would Duke's administration try to frame innocent people?

Obviously, Brodhead has denied that he was active in the frame, but certainly the Duke administration tried to protect Tara Levicy, even though it was obvious that she was lying. What we will claim in the paper is that the so-called Duke Brand had changed over the years with the Keohane and Brodhead administrations from one that emphasized high-level academics to one that was concerned mainly with political correctness. Thus, they wanted the lacrosse story "framed" in a way that would demonstrate the university would not put up with students who were "politically incorrect," as the new "Duke Brand" which the university has been promoting since the days of Stanley Fish is very different than the "old" brand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Think about Quasimodo's post the other day where he theorizes that Brodhead and Co. thought that if RCD plead guilty or were convicted of something - anything - that would deflect a potential lawsuit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

See the "case of the day" thread.

It seems that SWA in their case hoped for a prosecution and a conviction because that would help deflect any suits against them.

Then read Brodhead's remarks. He always waffles. He almost sounds as if he has an imaginary lawyer at his side. For example, he won't even admit that he might have known about any other groups which held stripper parties that year :

"You said there are documented cases [of other groups hiring strippers]. I would say that to my knowledge, there are rumored cases. The difference between this and other cases is that this one came to our attention.... It's not my idea of how to run an undergraduate school to have dragnets and police officers to investigate people and trap them in bad behavior."

IOW, "I know nothing...I admit nothing..."

But he urges a trial or letting the legal process proceed--assuming (or hoping) that there would be convictions on at least some kind of charges.

That would be the best defense not only for the university, but also for Brodhead and others in the Admin. personally. (A jury would hear that the players had been guilty, and that would mitigate whatever judgments they made about Brodhead and co.)

(JMOO)


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Both Keohane and brodhead were very much concerned about political correctness. In fact, it was keohane who introduced the absolute concept of PC on to the Duke campus with her PC directed hires (probably more from the point of view of keeping up with the harvards rather than an independent project that would make duke a better place for students).

But I think the major concern by both keohane and brodhead was money. Kephane's thinking that if they talked like Ivy and smelled like Ivy and had ivy growing on the elitist walls, then maybe people would see them as Ivy and donate lots of money....which they did. Brodhead, of course, was Ivy and was more interested in increasing the donations by major benefactors and continuing the sham of political correctness to the point of not caring about anything but the money. When the LAX frame/hoax got out of control, then brodhead did what all PC university presidents do (except harvards president who got fired)... yield principal of truth for donor millions. With the LAX case in full bloom, brodhead fell apart as a leader and committed DUKE to the destruction of the trouble makers for the duke brand. His thinking was most sincere in his own mind telling the world....we have taken care of the trouble makers, now donate millions so that my legacy will be heralded throughout the halls of higher education.

My question now is why has Duke University not updated their annual fund site to show how many alumni have donated how much money through Jan 15th 2009. Maybe it is because they did not meet their goals set last year.
Edited by chatham, Jan 15 2009, 08:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

Bill Anderson
Jan 15 2009, 07:21 PM
I am working on a paper that I will present at a conference in Charleson, SC, next month in which a co-author and I examine the Duke University response to the lacrosse case, using crisis models that are standard in management studies. However, as I have been working on the paper, a question that others have asked has been in my head: Why would Duke's administration try to frame innocent people?

Obviously, Brodhead has denied that he was active in the frame, but certainly the Duke administration tried to protect Tara Levicy, even though it was obvious that she was lying. What we will claim in the paper is that the so-called Duke Brand had changed over the years with the Keohane and Brodhead administrations from one that emphasized high-level academics to one that was concerned mainly with political correctness. Thus, they wanted the lacrosse story "framed" in a way that would demonstrate the university would not put up with students who were "politically incorrect," as the new "Duke Brand" which the university has been promoting since the days of Stanley Fish is very different than the "old" brand.
And Brodhead already had committed himself to protecting the "Yale Brand" at whatever cost to the life of James Van de Velde.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

It helps me to think of "Political Correctness" as a religion. There is dogma that is non-negotiable. Brodhead was well aware that the once powerful Cardinal of Harvard had not so long before been excommunicated for careless adherence to the faith.

The whole "drama" of the Burris appointment has had a lot of similarities. Reed was outfoxed when the rogue priest Blagojevich held up the "race card" crucifix ...and essentially dared the Senate Dems not to bow before it. They tripped over each other as the genuflecting began and haven't arisen from their knees yet.

Brodhead was "played" in the same fashion by his own "troublesome priest"...Nifong...and the other High Priests Of Durham.

Nifong boxed him in. What commandment of the Faith was he to deny before the fanatics in his own flock (and in Durham) after Nifong recited the creed in defining the case Could he admit that...a womyn might LIE about rape....and a Black womyn...a poor womyn...a Durham womyn at that? Was he to defend...white...male...Lacrossse players...from well-off families???? Cross yourselves and don't think such thoughts.

Brodhead spent the duration until dismissal doing repentance and smiting the Devils whenever possible to gain whatever absolution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

I view political correctness, at least at the university level, as a way of acting that shows fear of someone else or a way of acting that allows the truth to be altered or a way of acting that may require lies to be told to judge another's deeds. Political correctness is the way one acts to be part of a group. Independent thought is frowned on. Political correctness is a way for one group of people to berate another group of people for no other reason than to feed an ego. Political correctness also approves of one group of individuals banning the thoughts, expressions or actions of another individual based on no other reason than they do not agree with those thoughts, expressions or actions. Political correctness is an excuse for incompetence. Political correctness is someone hanging a rope on a doorknob and blaming others as racists.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

"Political correctness is the way one acts to be part of a group. Independent thought is frowned on."

Good post, Chatham. Most Duke faculty would sneer at evangelical Christians and what they see as their rigidity and mindless adherence to the faith. They no doubt feel "superior."...more "evolved" than these Christians. Their writings often reject Evangelicals supposed "judgemental" nature" and what they see as intolerance to anyone who does not share the faith...not to mention their imposition of their beliefs on others. (so they seem to think)

Now pretend the PC tenets were "religion" and golly, gee, what do we see? Professional "mote-removers" could be a growing industry.

One of the reasons the Duke Frame has to relegated to the ashbin of history...is that it shows the PC zealots acting with the same religious fervor that they despise in Christians. (but excuse in Muslims) What matters the creed..if the end result is to reject fact over whatever "faith." and try to "impose" the same on others?

From the Feminist zealot-nurse who saw "blunt-force trauma" where others might see stigmata...to the Durham racists who would not allow facts to interfere with their fervent holy mission to get three white Lacrosse players to trial....to the disgustingly craven Brodhead who could not meet the families for fear a word of comfort or reason might displease his "Gods."...to the silent fearful faculty watching their Zealot counterparts bray across the media .... they are as rigid and mindless, and intolerant and suspicious of each other...as Spanish courtiers in the shadow of Ferdinand and Isabella's tribunals.

Someday, I'd like one of the 88 to explain how PC zealots differ from the evangelical zealots they purport to despise for the same actions and qualities.

Bill, I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts.

(Off-topic) I'm giving a program for a Club I belong to this May. The President's wife of a University close by...and a few other University wives belong. I have heard them say that they feared Sarah Palin as VP simply because of her evangelical faith. I intend to use the above as the premise for my program. I am SO looking forward to it.

:hd: :hd: :hd:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
foxglove

deleted
Edited by foxglove, Jan 17 2009, 09:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Pressler "We must stand for the truth,"

Alleva replied, "It’s not about the truth anymore." He went on, "It’s about the integrity of the university, it’s about the faculty, the city, the NAACP, the protesters, and the other interest groups."


Pretty much explains the fear of intimidation

Political Correctness is really just a reaction. It has more to do with the fear of being on the wrong side of the issue and the ramifications of it. Don't dare cross the party line!

The mantra of race, class, and gender has been a main focal point of many of these administrators and professors for the last three decades. Whole departments and careers are determined by adherence to it. If you don't, you are called a racist, even though that is not what a racist is. Promotions, tenure, and funding will be denied if you don't follow the political correct stance. To achieve the higher ranks of power in a University you must be a believer or you simple don't get ahead. Simply put, one black hooker's accusations had more power than 46 Lax team members denial in the Duke Administration.

We see it in VP Moneta's ridiculous statement that the Sex Worker's Art Show was educational and the party was personal gratification. Something he surely must know was hypocritical. But who knows? We know his history with water buffaloes, so maybe he has bought the pile of manure for so long he can't tell the difference anymore.

This case was about intimidation. Professors, Administrators, Police, and Reporters all were afraid of being called racists and the potential of personal retribution. Remember back on Court TV and how anyone who said Crystal was a stripper was attacked?

It didn't take a genius to figure out this case when one wasn't afraid to Look! Which is why Brodhead refused to look at the defense files when offered. He knew it was BS, but he also knew he had to toe the line of political correctness or God forbid, he would be accused of being a racist

The truth only comes into play with people of courage.

Of course there were those pushing the Frame/Hoax. You will find many of them over at the Duke John Hope Franklin Center, oddly a place which had as one of its goals, racial harmony
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Yes, and one of the greatest sins in a PC-centric world is a racial slur,
ESPECIALLY a racial slur allegedly uttered by a supposedly privileged white male.

"What they did was bad enough." Just think about that statement by Brodhead,
think about its implications. These boys were accused of a horrific gang rape
of a poor AA woman, where it was alleged that she was beaten as well as
raped multiple times in multiple ways. That is a far, far, FAR cry from hiring
strippers and ALLEGEDLY uttering a racial slur.

If you ask me, that statement by Brodhead is very telling. I read into it that he knew
there was no rape, but that the LAX players still deserve everything they have coming to
them, because "what they did was bad enough."

Again, I argue that in the PC world, if one is capable of a racial slur, then one is
capable of rape of an AA woman. And even if they didn't do it, it's their own fault
if they get falsely charged with such and convicted.

Listening to the 911 call gave Brodhead a clear-PC-conscience
to allow the boys to be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.

And Ryan's email was the perfect catalyst to put the whole process into high gear.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Locomotive Breath

Really it was under President H. Keith H. Brodie that all this foolishness started. He and Chancellor William Anlyan, both M.D.s, ran Duke long enough to make sure that getting Duke Hospital North constructed was Duke's #1 priority. Brodie was sarcastically called "Humana Keith Humana"

Meanwhile, no one minding the store, Provost Phillip J. Griffith set about hiring as many radical faculty members (e.g. Stanley Fish) as he could find in order to "boost" Duke's reputation. Here's an example of the debates that broke out

Campus Life: Duke; Scholars' Group, Accused of Bias, Divides Faculty
Edited by Locomotive Breath, Jan 16 2009, 01:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concerned
Member Avatar

I agree that political correctness has turned into a religion, and shame on the person who breaks the tenets of the faith.

The alleged racial slur was the unforgivable sin. Brodhead distanced himself from the players and their families like the parent of an unwed pregnant daughter in the year 1900. He was so afraid of being judged by Durham and the PC crowd at Duke that the truth didn't matter. Just let the criminal justice system take care of it, send them away, we have a reputation to protect.

Values and priorities are so different for the PC crowd.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
darby

MikeZPU
Jan 16 2009, 11:37 AM
Yes, and one of the greatest sins in a PC-centric world is a racial slur,
ESPECIALLY a racial slur allegedly uttered by a supposedly privileged white male.

"What they did was bad enough." Just think about that statement by Brodhead,
think about its implications. These boys were accused of a horrific gang rape
of a poor AA woman, where it was alleged that she was beaten as well as
raped multiple times in multiple ways. That is a far, far, FAR cry from hiring
strippers and ALLEGEDLY uttering a racial slur.

If you ask me, that statement by Brodhead is very telling. I read into it that he knew
there was no rape, but that the LAX players still deserve everything they have coming to
them, because "what they did was bad enough."

Again, I argue that in the PC world, if one is capable of a racial slur, then one is
capable of rape of an AA woman. And even if they didn't do it, it's their own fault
if they get falsely charged with such and convicted.

Listening to the 911 call gave Brodhead a clear-PC-conscience
to allow the boys to be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.

And Ryan's email was the perfect catalyst to put the whole process into high gear.
I think it's telling when looking at Duke and specifically Brodhead to note what they did "affirmatively" compared to what they did "passively" or didn't do at all.

I've always been very bothered by the actions taken by Brodhead after the meeting he had with the captains. It was following this meeting that he affirmatively cancelled the season based on the aforementioned "whatever they did was bad enough" escape clause.

Following his meeting with the captains he "knew" there was no rape. I'm sure the guys were spilling their guts about every detail so they would be more believable when they claimed no rape, no sexual contact at all. I'm guessing they even told Brodhead they offered to take polygraphs, gave up their DNA voluntarily, showed police where evidence was located, probably even said the rest of the guys would do the same... etc.. Brodhead would have to been a moron to not know they wouldn't have made those concessions if something had happened.

So what part of the interview does Brodhead act on.. He acts on anything negative he can take from the meeting to publically punish and humiliate the players. By using the admitted offenses he would get the entire team including the suspected rapists. Whatever they admitted to was bad enough to warrant punishment. Including firing Pressler.

How did he respond to the portion of the interview which included "no rape, no sexual contact whatever"? He welcomes their opportunity to prove themselves innocent.... What??? Does he use his inside information to control the chaos on campus? no.. does he meet with the parents to console them with the knowledge that he is confident the team is innocent of the rape charges and is behind them? no... Does he attempt to influence the DPD or Nifong from pursuing a false case? no...

What else happens where Brodhead/Duke acts affirmatively to the detriment of the innocent players but helps highlight his/Duke's (remember Steel's statement of support) true mindset? The treatment of certain email authors Chauncey Nartey compared to that of Ryan McFadyen. Ryan writes a parody email based on a widely known and Duke "sponsored" grunge novel and gets suspended... Chauncey Nartey injects himself into the case by writing a "teaching moment" email directly to Coach Pressler which includes veiled threats to his daughter and is rewarded with a position on the reconciliation tour. An honor bestowed on only the best and brightest of the Duke inner circle.

There are other affirmative actions (pun intended) that Duke took that I won't go into in detail such as the hoo.. hum of the "other" rape on campus, the "we've gotta get those pictures off tv", the "it's not about the truth anymore", the on campus sex trade show sponsorship, et al.. that point us to their culture.

I'll say this again for the umpteenth time. Brodhead took action against the team saying he believed what he was told in the interview with the captains was bad enough to justify punishment. He must have believed they were being truthful or he wouldn't have acted. He then claims the actions he took later (suspending the indicted players, not "influencing" the DA, various statements, including 60 minutes, let's have a trial) were based on his belief that the DA "must have something".... He could not have believed both, therefore he was acting on some other principle... (Hah!)

Brodhead/Duke gave us insight very early on in his responses to and the conclusions of the Bowen/Chambers after action report. Their "sudden" interest in the case only after it was determined the so-called victim was black and the increases in minority representation in the decision making teams would prevent future failings is so transparent as to be offensive.

See for youselves on page 11...The Duke Administration's Response to Lacrosse Allegations
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill Anderson
Member Avatar

Of course, Duke had Tara Levicy in its employ, and she was Ground Zero in the frame. The leadership of Duke had to know she was lying, but decided to protect her. Funny how the fraudulent Bowen-Chambers Report leaves out that one important item....

:bill:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply