| Julius Chambers Dies; Co-Author of Lacrosse Response Report | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 3 2013, 07:35 PM (517 Views) | |
| sceptical | Aug 3 2013, 07:35 PM Post #1 |
|
http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/NC-civil-rights-leader-Julius-Chambers-dies-at-76-4705308.php Mr. Chambers was the co-author of this widely-criticized report about the response of Duke University to the lacrosse crisis: http://today.duke.edu/showcase/mmedia/pdf/Bowen-ChambersReportFinal05-04-06.pdf Edited by sceptical, Aug 3 2013, 07:39 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| sceptical | Aug 3 2013, 07:48 PM Post #2 |
|
From Michael Gaynor in December, 2006: http://webdelsol.com/The_Potomac/newpotomac-mgaynor.htm "America's top legal commentator, Stuart Taylor Jr., had written that 'the available evidence leaves [him] about 85 percent confident that the three members who have been indicted on rape charges are innocent and that the accusation is a lie.'" Mr. Taylor opined that the Duke case has a large rogues gallery that does not include the Duke Three, but "does include more than 90 members of the Duke faculty who have prejudged the case, with some exuding the anti-white racism and disdain for student-athletes that pollutes many college faculties" as well as "former Princeton University President William Bowen and civil-rights lawyer Julius Chambers [who] went out of their way to slime the lacrosse players in a report on the Duke administration's handling of the rape scandal — a report that is a parody of race-obsessed political correctness." |
|
|
|
| sceptical | Aug 3 2013, 07:51 PM Post #3 |
|
From KC Johnson in 2012: "In 2006, the Duke lacrosse case featured an extraordinarily high-profile intersection of college athletics, academic culture, and the criminal justice system. Six years later, the tragedy at Penn State far surpassed events in Durham in the annals of campus scandal. There were clear differences between the two cases (chiefly, of course, that at Penn State, horrifying crimes occurred, while in the Duke lacrosse case the only criminals were rogue DA Nifong, who spent a day in jail for contempt, and accuser Crystal Mangum, currently awaiting trial on a murder charge). But both instances were characterized by a massive administrative breakdown--in Penn State's case, based on an unhealthy degree of power held by the football program; in Duke's case, based on the administration's apparent fear of alienating race/class/gender faculty on campus. Yet the two schools responded to these breakdowns in very different fashions, as Stuart Taylor and I explained in our Wall Street Journal op-ed. While Penn State spent millions on a comprehensive inquiry that spared no one (not the trustees, not the former president, not fired coach Joe Paterno, not the overall culture), Duke's investigation into the administration's response was timid and obsessed with issues of "diversity" (why, that is, Duke needed more of it, except of the intellectual variety). Anyone reading Duke's investigative report, penned by former Princeton president William Bowen and former NAACP Legal Defense Fund director-counsel Julius Chambers, would have had no idea that the university's conduct would ultimately cost millions in settlements and legal fees from suits filed by the former lacrosse players and the former coach, whose resignation had been demanded by the school amidst the furor. - See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2012/07/duke_didnt_come_clean_penn_sta.html#sthash.EdBWZGQ8.dpuf |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Aug 4 2013, 12:34 AM Post #4 |
|
I will be interested to see if Brodhead has a statement. (What can he say, that won't be interpreted as commenting about the case?) |
|
|
| chatham | Aug 4 2013, 05:48 AM Post #5 |
|
Brodhead does not ave the backbone to comment publicly. |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Aug 4 2013, 01:03 PM Post #6 |
|
One wonders, given the PR line taken by the university, and the Admin in full gear racing to place itself as far away from its students as possible, why Bowen and Chambers were chosen to write the report. What did Duke expect to get from them? Was it expecting a full investigation, or just reinforcement for its position that the lax players were bad actors, racially insensitive, and quite likely to have been capable of a gang rape of a poor working woman of color? (Questions...) Who chose them, who recommended them (instead of "neutral" observers from outside the state with no connections to Duke or the Durham community, and hence no axes to grind); were they paid; if so, how much; etc.? Don't know. But curious what the answers might have been... (MOO) |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Aug 6 2013, 08:51 AM Post #7 |
|
Thus far (Aug.6),I haven't found any response from anyone at Duke (to include anyone in the Admin). I would think some sort of mention might have been appropriate for a former chancellor of NCCU, a prominent attorney, and someone chosen to write an "outsider" report about Duke (something which Duke has not done since about its handling of the lacrosse case, btw). Is this another instance of "out of sight, out of mind"--another "Buchanan House", in which Duke only wishes for the embarrassment to go away? ("Let's not have to mention the Bowen-Chambers report ever again")? Don't know. But I find the silence (if in fact there is a silence) curious... |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
11:41 AM Jul 13