Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits to Move Forward, Judge Rules; Discovery ahead !!
Topic Started: Mar 31 2011, 04:21 PM (12,240 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quasimodo
Apr 4 2011, 10:33 AM
and THIS, from 2007, cited in todays' Durham-in-Wonderland blog, bears repeating:

Quote:
 
http://www.metronc.com/article/?id=1374

My Usual Charming Self

July 2007

Shame on Duke

By Bernie Reeves

(snip)

I can detect their fingerprints earlier than most, and they were all over this case from the beginning. I wrote in this space in May 2006 that “trial by candlelight vigil,” referring to the Buchanan Street protests at the time of the accusations by Nifong, meant the same nasty “tenured radicals” and their groupies were declaring class warfare against the lacrosse players without regard to evidence or fairness.

(snip)


Thus, the army of fanatics who gathered forces to ruin the lacrosse players was confident of victory.
Those who would disagree were never hired or drummed out of the University corps. Relying on their typical arsenal of righteous indignation, it was damn the torpedoes of truth and legal procedure. The boys were the enemy simply for being affluent white male lacrosse players. And the victim was wholesome and truthful simply because she was a black female. Nothing else mattered.

With this cast of characters, no wonder the Group of 88 never worried that their newspaper ads and media statements would come back to haunt them. Nifong was one of them, he too spouting the party line that Duke was “inhospitable to women and people of color,” as the mantra still goes from the campus activists. And none of them cared about the effect on the boys or their families.

(snip)

But they have gotten away with it again because Duke’s administration has protected them with the settlement to the lacrosse families. As is the case at most of the heads of our top liberal arts schools and universities, Duke President Richard Brodhead is either in sympathy with the radicals, afraid of them or simply a coward.

It’s probably a little bit of all that, but this time you would think Duke would take the opportunity — with the entire world watching — to face down the radicals. Instead, as all campus presidents do, he backed down and covered up the abuses of the treacherous class warriors. I believe this action will come back to harm Duke in the future.

(snip)

Nifong was just a pawn — a useful idiot, as Lenin put it — in this battle royale. But at least he is receiving punishment for his crimes. But the key players are free to continue to radicalize scholarship and wage class warfare unscathed, to pounce again on those who don’t agree with their radical point of view. A vigorous house-cleaning at Duke could have gone a long way to repairing the sorry state of liberal arts and social politics in America. Shame on Duke.


read the whole thing
Excellent analysis.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Bill Anderson
Apr 4 2011, 04:47 PM
OK, guys, will someone answer this question for me? Why is my course syllabus legally considered to be a "contract," but a university student handbook is not? I have to put disclaimers all over my syllabi, but apparently a university can tell its students what it wants, break agreements, and that is considered OK.

:bill:
Too much to go off memory from, so what I recall needs to be checked.

I thought the "handbook" in question was the faculty handbook. IIRC, that is most likely NOT a part of the contract between the student and the university.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

I'm going to post this here because Bill mentioned the 5 April 2006 letter. I have put this on my blog and facebooked and tweeted it.

BRODHEAD's letter:
DURHAM, N.C. -- April 5, 2006
A Letter to the Duke Community
Allegations against members of the Duke lacrosse team stemming from the party on the evening of March 13 have deeply troubled me and everyone else at this university and our surrounding city. We can’t be surprised at the outpouring of outrage. Rape is the substitution of raw power for love, brutality for tenderness, and dehumanization for intimacy. It is also the crudest assertion of inequality, a way to show that the strong are superior to the weak and can rightfully use them as the objects of their pleasure. When reports of racial abuse are added to the mix, the evil is compounded, reviving memories of the systematic racial oppression we had hoped to have left behind us.

THAT IS BRODHEAD’S OPENING, AND HE GOES ON ABOUT HOW SERIOUS THE ALLEGATIONS ARE AND THE PUNISHMENT THAT WILL FOLLOW IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE UPHELD. HE GOES BEYOND THE ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE AND SODOMY:
But it is clear that the acts the police are investigating are only part of the problem. This episode has touched off angers, fears, resentments, and suspicions that range far beyond this immediate cause. It has done so because the episode has brought to glaring visibility underlying issues that have been of concern on this campus and in this town for some time—issues that are not unique to Duke or Durham but that have been brought to the fore in our midst. They include concerns of women about sexual coercion and assault. They include concerns about the culture of certain student groups that regularly abuse alcohol and the attitudes these groups promote. They include concerns about the survival of the legacy of racism, the most hateful feature American history has produced.

BRODHEAD IDENTIFIES DUKE’S PROBLEMS AS BEING CLASS-BASED, RICH VS POOR:
Compounding and intensifying these issues of race and gender, they include concerns about the deep structures of inequality in our society—inequalities of wealth, privilege, and opportunity (including educational opportunity), and the attitudes of superiority those inequalities breed.

[BRODHEAD TAKES ON COLLECTIVE GUILT FOR DUKE AND UNIVERSITIES LIKE DUKE:]
And they include concerns that, whether they intend to or not, universities like Duke participate in this inequality and supply a home for a culture of privilege.

NO BREAK HERE: BRODHEAD CONTINUES:
The objection of our East Campus neighbors was a reaction to an attitude of arrogant inconsiderateness that reached its peak in the alleged event but that had long preceded it. I know that to many in our community, this student behavior has seemed to be the face of Duke.

IS IT CLEAR WHAT BRODHEAD HAS SAID HERE? “The East Campus neighbors” are Durham citizens who live near 610 North Buchanan Street, where two stippers were hired in the expectation that they would be competent enough to perform a dance before members of the lacrosse team. Brodhead is talking about an attitude of “arrogant inconsiderateness” which he says the lacrosse players displayed toward their neighbors. He says as a fact that the attitude of arrogant inconsiderateness “reached its peak in the alleged event.”

NO, NO, NO!
BRODHEAD MIGHT TRUTHFULLY HAVE SAID THAT THE NEIGHBORS (JUDGING HASTILY BY WHAT THEY HAD HEARD ABOUT A RAPE COMMITTED AT 610 NORTH BUCHANAN) DECIDED THAT THE ARROGANT BEHAVIOR OF THE LACROSSE PLAYERS HAD PEAKED IN THE ALLEGED RAPE.

I DON’T SEE HOW YOU CAN READ THIS AND NOT THINK BRODHEAD IS TELLING THE DURHAM EAST CAMPUS NEIGHBORS THAT HE BELIEVES THE “ALLEGED EVENT” TOOK PLACE: OTHERWISE HE WOULD NOT HAVE SAID THAT THE ATTITUDE OF ARROGANT INCONSIDERATENESS PEAKED AT THE EVENT. HE WOULD HAVE PUT THE ONUS ON THE NEIGHBORS FOR BELIEVING THAT A BAD ATTITUDE PEAKED THEN.

Brodhead’s rhetoric trips him up: He had prejudged the lacrosse players.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply