|
Brodhead couldn't even say this much
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 31 2011, 08:22 AM (301 Views)
|
|
Quasimodo
|
Mar 31 2011, 08:22 AM
Post #1
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007_01_21_archive.html
January, 2007
Brodhead’s Basic Alibi
- Quote:
-
“The facts kept changing. Every day we learned new things that no one knew the day before. Every day we were being urged to speak with certainty about facts that were full of great uncertainty at that point. Our policy all along was to act on the basis of the things we knew for sure and to withhold action and decision on the things we didn’t know for sure.”
Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead speaking to the late CBS newsman Ed Bradley during a 60 Minutes interview aired Oct. 15, 2006.
- Quote:
-
"Once the situation existed, it had to be dealt with. I'm really not immune to self-criticism in any way, I believe we've handled this as straightforwardly and honorably as we could have, given the extraordinary nature of the situation and the changing nature of the facts."
President Brodhead to Chronicle reporter Rob Copeland during Q&A published Jan. 22, 2007.
(snip)
Brodhead also knew the players had cooperated with police. But when Nifong, the N&O and others attacked the players with false charges of cover-up and stonewalling, Brodhead said nothing to correct the false charges.
When faculty-members, students and others swarmed about the lawn in front of his office the night of March 29 waving “Wanted” and “Vigilante” posters and targeting the players with threats of physical harm, Brodhead once again said nothing. Nor did he say anything when Duke’s faculty Group of 88 used a full-page ad in The Chronicle to, among other things, tell the protestors: “Thank you for not waiting”
Brodhead excuses his silences with his BA that includes:
“The facts kept changing. Every day we learned new things that no one knew the day before.”
But fact’s don’t change. The Constitution’s been the nation’s law for more than 200 years. Brodhead knew the players had cooperated with police. And he knew the “wall of silence” lie was enabling hateful people and endangering the players. Yet he remained silent.
The protesters who targeted the players on Duke’s campus March 29 took over a previously planned event: Take Back The Night, an annual march against violence.
On Apr. 2 the N&O published a letter from one of the TBTN organizers who said in part:
As one of the organizers of the March 29 Take Back the Night (TBTN) march and speak-out at Duke University, I want to clarify that we did not plan, nor do we endorse, the distribution of names and pictures of members of the Duke men's lacrosse team.
The distribution of the pictures, the targeting of the lacrosse team, and the violence implicit in the defacement of the pictures are nothing less than violations of the space that TBTN exists to create. The event is neither a protest of the kind we've witnessed recently, a forum for accusation nor a place to target and defame. That some attendees tried to make it so is saddening and not at all in the spirit of the event.
The letter writer, Geoffrey Lorenz, recognized he had a duty to speak out about the events on campus March 29. Brodhead had a much greater duty to speak out. Does anyone doubt Brodhead knew that then and knows it now?
I can’t accept Brodhead’s BA.
I think Duke needs a new president.
What do you think?
|
|
|
| |
|
Quasimodo
|
Mar 31 2011, 08:30 AM
Post #2
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
POSTER COMMENT AT SITE:
- Quote:
-
I hope Duke is forthcoming about its initial response to the hoax. One question is whether Duke's behavior emboldened Nifong.
Some clues are in the March 28 press conference available at ----- I cannot get the version at Duke to play nor does there seem to be a transcript.
I transcribed a few lines of Brodhead's statements about 8:20 into the videoconference.
Brodhead: I met with the students today, and I urged on them the notion that they should come forward. I was pleased to the extent they had, in their statement, given some, given some, account.
[not a FULL account? Why wouldn't he say immediately that they had given a full account? Because he couldn't deny that they had said something--but he wanted to keep to the storyline that they weren't cooperating?]
All I can tell you is I have to assume that they have legal counsel, and that legal counsel has foreseen complexities associated with speaking out. ... And so I have to say they are exerting a right that is a very important part of our process, even if I question how good their judgement has been in exerting that right in this case.
======
That was March 28, the next day Nifong seemed to connect those dots when he told ESPN:
"And one would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong."
(Was he emboldened, or was he just following yet another 'talking point' that had been developed?)
|
|
|
| |
|
Quasimodo
|
Mar 31 2011, 08:32 AM
Post #3
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
All I can tell you is I have to assume that they have legal counsel, and that legal counsel has foreseen complexities associated with speaking out. ... And so I have to say they are exerting a right that is a very important part of our process, even if I question how good their judgement has been in exerting that right in this case.
This is rich, considering that he has never sat down and permitted open questioning of himself (or any other Duke officials) about how they handled the lacrosse case.
The excuse would probably be, that their legal counsel has told them not to respond...
|
|
|
| |
|
Quasimodo
|
Mar 31 2011, 08:43 AM
Post #4
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
And by re-hiring Brodhead, Duke (the trustees) gave their endorsement to everything which he did.
Ergo, I accept that they were all guilty of the same (and that means a conspiracy, and that may even involve violation of RICO statutes).
"Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year periodcan be charged with racketeering ." (Wikipedia)
Those crimes include obstruction of justice (to include ordering police to falsify their records), extortion (or I would assume aiding and abetting extortionists), kidnapping (technically, a false arrest is a kidnap) , fraud, etc.
What were the Trustees engaged in, when they assisted a corrupt city in its attempt to frame innocent persons for a crime which never happened?
Which frame was, in part, conducted to further the illicit enterprises of a corrupt city?
A stretch, maybe; but an on-the-ball US Atty who really wanted to clean out corruption in Durham (and Duke) could have a field day...
(MOO)
|
|
|
| |
|
Quasimodo
|
Mar 31 2011, 09:26 AM
Post #5
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
And by re-hiring Brodhead, Duke (the trustees) gave their endorsement to everything which he did.
- Quote:
-
http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=071209
It's official: Duke University's Board of Trustees received the report from a presidential review committee on Richard H. Brodhead’s first three years as president.
Duke's Office of News & Communications dutifully reported:
"Duke regularly conducts such reviews of its officers and deans. President Nannerl O. Keohane went through a similar review in her third year of office." "Trustee vice chair Dan Blue, who chaired the presidential review, told the trustees his committee had interviewed some 120 people and directly solicited comments from members of the university community and others with knowledge of the president’s leadership. Overall, the committee heard from more than 500 people, including some with no relationship to Duke.
"Blue said the 'review committee’s report affirmed Brodhead’s leadership, after considering his goals and vision for the university, his effectiveness in advancing its interests, the exciting challenges and opportunities facing Duke, and the wide range of comments and opinions we heard.'
|
|
|
| |
|
Quasimodo
|
Mar 31 2011, 09:28 AM
Post #6
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
What were the Trustees engaged in, when they assisted a corrupt city in its attempt to frame innocent persons for a crime which never happened?
- Quote:
-
638. From this point forward, the City’s purposes coincided completely with those fixed for the University by the Chairman; what was “best for Duke” was also best for the City. Shortly thereafter, the City, Duke, and NCCU launched a media campaign, called “A Community of One.” It was designed to promote the image of the City, Duke, and NCCU all standing in solidarity against the white, “racist-rapists” on the lacrosse team. The media campaign culminated on the day of the first indictments with a large “Community of One” ad placed strategically in various newspapers.
|
|
|
| |
|
Bill Anderson
|
Mar 31 2011, 01:37 PM
Post #7
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,405
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #135
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quasimodo
- Mar 31 2011, 08:32 AM
- Quote:
-
All I can tell you is I have to assume that they have legal counsel, and that legal counsel has foreseen complexities associated with speaking out. ... And so I have to say they are exerting a right that is a very important part of our process, even if I question how good their judgement has been in exerting that right in this case. This is rich, considering that he has never sat down and permitted open questioning of himself (or any other Duke officials) about how they handled the lacrosse case.
The excuse would probably be, that their legal counsel has told them not to respond... Keep in mind that the captains had met WITHOUT ATTORNEYS with the police, and Brodhead knew about that. Furthermore, his comments were a backhanded criticism of the players for getting legal representation.
Yet, seeing that Duke and Durham tried to frame these young me, I believe it was prudent for them to get legal help. If Brodhead really believes that getting an attorney is morally wrong, then why does Duke have Jamie Gorelick representing the university? Shouldn't Brodhead live by his own words?
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|