| Steel and Brodhead; a bonded pair | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 16 2010, 10:45 PM (299 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Oct 16 2010, 10:45 PM Post #1 |
|
Brodhead and Steel were joined at the hip from the start:
A very, very strong statement in support of Brodhead. IE, "we got your back", we are behind you 1000%, we are not going to throw you under the bus like the city threw Nifong under the bus. This is not going to be dismissed as a case of a "rogue president". (Does that "rogue president" know too much to let that happen? And know too much to permit himself to be fired--no matter what his periodic reviews may show? No matter what alumni may demand?) (JMOO. For discussion purposes only) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 16 2010, 10:54 PM Post #2 |
|
Throughout the past year President Richard Brodhead consulted regularly with the Trustees and has had our continuing support. What does Alisson Haltom know about these "regular consultations"? Each step of the way, the board agreed with the principles that he established and the actions he took. To what extent then can the entire BOT be held equally responsible for Brodhead's actions? (IE, since they employed him, and after consultations with him, the approved his actions "each step of the way"?) As we look back – and with the benefit of what we now know – there is no question that there are some things that might have been done differently. Weasel words, not an apology. However, anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board. See above. Brodhead IMHO is reassured that he will not be hung out to dry. (Is that why he remains untouchable to this day? Is this also a possible snag for the suit settlements--that the plaintiffs demand his resignation but he refuses to go, invoking his assurance of backing from the BOT?) (MOO. For discussion purposes only) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 17 2010, 09:14 AM Post #3 |
|
Let's face it: the picture that emerges is a bunch of Duke officials determining that the one paramount thing to be accomplished is the saving of Duke's standing in the community; ergo, it must distance itself--and be seen to be distinct from--anything to do with those terrible students who are accused of a rape with racial elements. Hence, Duke publicly adopts a stance of, "We, too, are horrified" by what took place. The players were not US. And as proof, Look at all the demonstrators from Duke (who likely have been arranged for) who appear before the Buchanan St. house. (Odd that no demonstrators ever appear after any other Duke or Durham rape.) Look at Brodhead apologizing to NCCU. Look at the fired coach and the cancelled season. WE WASH OUR HANDS OF THESE PLAYERS. (ie., Duke has a reputation to restore that is paramount to the restoration of the reputations of the accused) And to this day they don't consider that they have done anything wrong. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 17 2010, 01:42 PM Post #4 |
|
[Sounds like they're really turning cartwheels in the Allen building...(sarc/off) Not only is there not a sense of celebration for the wrongly accused; there is a total absence of OUTRAGE at what was done to Duke students. How does one explain that? Burness certainly had the media contacts and knew how to go "off the record" to get across the idea that the school knew the accused were innocent and were outraged at how they were being treated. Why didn't he do that?]
Again, where is the sense of outrage? Brodhead certainly gave enough interviews and press conferences about the case early on; why wasn't he before the cameras (as I imagine a university president would be) repeating the innocent announcement himself, and expressing his indignation on behalf of his university at the way the DPD has targeted and mistreated its students, and especially so in this case? Why isn't he touting his students'--and his school's--innocence? Why isn't he demanding apologies from the city, an investigation, and studies to make sure it won't happen again? He had the clout to help set the agenda here; but he wouldn't use it. (And why didn't he have all three of the accused and their families together at the podium with him?) Wouldn't that also be something normally to be expected? Duke almost seemed as if it were straining to get any words out at all. . . (MOO) |
![]() |
|
| jarms | Oct 18 2010, 07:56 AM Post #5 |
|
I think we need to remember that the reason Brodhead and Steel said what they said, and didn't say what they didn't say, after the "innocence declaration" was that - in their minds - innocence of the alleged crimes (rape, sexual assault, etc.) was an interesting legal technicality but not the real story for Duke. The real story for Duke was that white lacrosse players hosted a party where black strippers performed and were subjected to (albeit verbal) abuse. That's it. Case closed. There is no graver sin, and therefore "what they did was bad enough." On this board we try to see the world in a way that suits our view of logic and the broader culture. That view is NOT the view of the modern(ist) academic mind. There was and is no way that Duke, as an institution, could EVER defend the actions of its students in this matter, period. This is why folks on the other side of the "lacrosse debate" continuously point to the fact that the case would never have happened but for the party. We see this as blaming the victims. They see this as the only point to be made. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 5 2010, 12:00 AM Post #6 |
|
The following letter was suggested by Duke alum Ed Rickards for Duke’s President Richard H. Brodhead. Naturally, he didn't use it... http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/01/brodhead-ducked-this-draft.html TUESDAY, JANUARY 09, 2007 _________________________________________ RICKARDS' DRAFT LETTER As we begin the Spring Semester, the lacrosse crisis has quickly moved in several new directions and I want to review them with you. First, a recent graduate is suing a professor and the University, alleging he was flunked because he is a member of the lacrosse team. This is a most serious allegation, going to the heart of academic integrity. While the legal process is engaged, we are suspending the professor involved. This incident is not alone. We are investigating another with the same professor, plus as some of you know the Dean of Arts and Sciences issued warnings to a number of professors soon after the crisis enveloped our campus about advocacy of their position in the classroom. Members of the economics department faculty have written a letter to the Chronicle, which has been distributed even though the newspaper has not resumed publication after the holiday break. I regret the atmosphere is such that these professors felt impelled to assure all students that they are welcome in their classes and would receive fair treatment. I want to add my personal assurance -- that is the standard at Duke and we will tolerate no less. Second, Duke University took a number of actions immediately in March and April that are not warranted: A) We fired Coach Pressler, compounding our error by putting out a news release that he quit. I personally stated that his resignation was "highly appropriate. Coach Pressler did not walk away from his team, and as the special commission I appointed reported, the actions Duke took and the comment I made are not supported by the facts. We offer to Coach Pressler our apology. We made a colossal mistake. As inadequate as it is, we have asked him for an economic accounting of any financial loss, and will indemnify him. In doing so, we will not require a release from any legal action he might take. B) We inflicted group punishment on the lacrosse team, cancelling its season. As Chairman Steel has stated, we did so for public relations reasons to cut off the flow of video. This was wrong. As our own investigation established, the team may have had rough edges, but it conducted itself even better than other teams that we field. I apologize to the team members, an apology even deeper because their destination might well have been a national championship. C) We suspended lacrosse team member Ryan McFadyen. His parody on a movie that was being studied last semester in three different classes was inappropriate; but so was the punishment we enacted. He committed no crime, he violated no university policy. And the circumstances under which Duke secured from him a waiver of his federal right to privacy as a student were also inappropriate. D) I have criticized in strongest terms the nature of the team party last March 13 -- even if a rape did not occur. I was in error in suggesting the party itself and the rape allegations were equal. In fact the party violated no law and was not against university policy, although we have since modified policy. To many my criticism of the party smacked of blaming the victim, and I understand their point. The Campus Culture Initiative is underway to study how we treat each other in all circumstances; while spurred to action by the lacrosse crisis, in no way do we believe that a crime that did not occur teaches us anything about ourselves. E) Just before Christmas, I issued a call for the replacement of prosecutor Nifong. Many of you reached the same conclusion earlier; I may have been slow. We all stand together now. F) Similarly we will welcome Reade and Collin back anytime they want to return -- as students and as athletes -- and will take special steps as appropriate to insure their experience at Duke is all they expected it to be. Many of you who saw the compelling evidence accumulate reached this conclusion earlier than I did. But we all stand together now: no rape, no sexual misconduct by any team member, no kidnapping, no dancer as victim. These two important decisions -- calling for the replacement of Nifong, and welcoming back Reade and Collin because it is the right thing to do -- I hope you see in these two actions new leadership and new fortitude that you have not received before. G) I want to make it clear that the legal process should embrace anyone who was untruthful -- anyone -- prosecutor, DNA lab director, and the accuser. Justice requires no less. I recognize our campus is divided; I hope the coming months see a resolution of many of these issues, so we all shout together again, GO DUKE!!! Drafted for Richard Brodhead by Ed Rickards, Class of 63 and Duke Law 66. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:14 AM Jul 11