I’ve repeatedly said Duke’s President Richard H. Brodhead wants to see three Duke students put on trial for gang-rape.
In a number of posts I’ve cited many reasons why that statement is true. The students have been indicted for multiple felonies including rape. Those indictments, unless overturned, make a trial necessary. Brodhead has refused to say a word of criticism of DA Mike Nifong or the investigative travesties that led to those indictments.
Duke Law Professor James Coleman has called for Nifong to step aside and allow a special prosecutor to take over the case. That would include a review of the indictments by the new prosecutor who could possibly ask for their dismissal. In that case, we wouldn’t see the students put on trial.
So if you want to see the students put on trial you should say nothing critical of DA Nifong; and for heavens sake, you don’t say anything like: “I think Professor Coleman is right. Nifong should step aside.”
You especially shouldn’t criticize Nifong or endorse what Coleman has said if you’re the President of Duke University, because your words would carry great weight with public officials and the general public.
President Brodhead has been under great pressure from many sources to speak out but he's resisted the pressure. That’s because he wants to see those three Duke students put on trial.
When President Brodhead doesn’t want to see Duke students put on trial, he says so. And Brodhead says so in no uncertain terms.
Take, for example, Brodhead’s Aug. 3, 2005 letter to the President of Armenia, in whose country a Duke student, Yektan Turkyilmaz, was scheduled for trial. Saying he was writing as the President of Duke University, Brodhead appealed to the Armemian President:
you have the ability to intervene in this matter and to determine the appropriateness of the actions of your government and the Armenian prosecutors and police. You also have the ability to release Mr. Turkyilmaz. With respect, I urge you to do so.Soon after Brodhead made his appeal, Turkyilmaz was allowed to leave Armenia.
Friends of Duke University spokesperson Jason Trumpbour, a former Asst. Attorney General for the State of Maryland, was happy for the resolution of Turkyilmaz’s case. But Trumpbour also noted (scroll to Sept. 13 statement):
Brodhead was evidently willing and able to speak up in the case of Yektan Turkyilmaz and express concern about the irregular circumstances of his arrest as well he should have.I’ll repeat: President Brodhead wants to see the three Duke students put on trial for gang-rape.
Moreover, President Brodhead was also willing to go further and actually express an opinion as to the proper resolution of the case.
It is truly sad to learn that President Brodhead’s willingness to intervene on behalf of his students when they are faced with injustice is selective and not based on any sort of principle, whether right headed or wrong headed, whatsoever. Thus, in addition to injuring Reade, Collin and David with his silence, President Brodhead insults them as well.
If that ever changes, I’ll say so.
If Brodhead writes a letter to the same effect as he did in the case of Turkyilmaz, I’ll publish it in full here and link to it.
If Brodhead even just says something like: “You know, maybe we ought to take another look at those indictments. Professor Coleman may be right. Let’s bring in an special prosecutor,” I’ll be sure to put a post up ASAP.
Until such time, it isn’t fair for trolls to misrepresent Brodhead’s position by claiming he doesn’t want to see the students put on trial.
I can’t control what happens at the millions of other blogs that are out there, but I can at least delete comments here that misrepresent Brodhead.
Now I have to get to work on that email I’m sending Brodhead asking what he said in response to the racist remarks and death threats that were hurled at Reade Seligmann on May 18.
What do you think he’s going to tell me?
51 comments:
Don't forget about Brodhead's letter to the parole board about Kathy Boudin, while at Yale.
It seems incredible that Brodhead would want to see three of his own students put through the trauma of a trial under these circumstances. It's clear that there has been massive procedural misconduct and violation of their constitutional rights. It's also clear that there is no credible evidence against them.
For some unknown reason, Brodhead really does seem to want a trial. My own view is that he prejudged the students guilty from the get go. His comments, when he's made them, have been extremely damaging to the players case. His silence has been damaging as well. He hasn't said a word in their defense or even expressed concern about their rights. I'm left to conclude that he thinks they are guilty although I have no idea how anyone could arrive at that conclusion. It's inexplicable.
The one thing I'm certain of is that he doesn't care what happens to them. He won't even speak to their families. What will he say about the death threats hurled at Reade Seligmann? He said nothing at the time. You might get a few platitudes now. But ultimately, Brodhead just doesn't care about Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and Dave Evans. That's clear. Crystal clear, actually.
Another excellent commentary from John. GC also makes a good point on Boudin. How does someone reach the Duke trustees? And wouldn't Professor Coleman be a much better president of Duke than the pathetic Brodhead? And what about Easley? How can he continue to do nothing in the face of fellow Democrat Nifong's behavior?
Another excellent commentary from John. GC also makes a good point on Boudin. How does someone reach the Duke trustees? And wouldn't Professor Coleman be a much better president of Duke than the pathetic Brodhead? And what about Easley? How can he continue to do nothing in the face of fellow Democrat Nifong's behavior?
John,
I don't know where else to post this question, and the Triangle MSM hasn't said much- how is the Recall Nifong campaign going? Have any polls been published yet on this contest? Are Durham residents up in arms over Nifong, or is it just a loud minority we are hearing? Does anything you or the other reliable sources publish resonate in the community?
A list of the trustees and some contact information may be found at the Liestoppers discussion board.
Brodhead wants the players on trial (and convicted, to be honest) in order to save his own skin. If the charges are dismissed, and as the truth keeps coming out, his role in railroading these innocent students is going to be prominent.
That makes him vulnerable to a lawsuit and further criticism. The only way out for him is a conviction or at least a hung jury. The problem is that the ID process was so flawed that it is hard to imagine it getting past even the North Carolina judiciary, as evil and squalid as it may be.
In the early days of the LAX mess, the entire country thought the LAX players were guilty. During that time, Richard Brodhead was one of the very few voices of reason. While the media conducted what can only be described as a high-tech lynching of the entire LAX team, Brodhead went before the television cameras in countless press conferences and submitted to countless newspaper, magazine, and television interviews. He reminded everyone that there was no evidence of any rape other than the allegation of the accuser. He pointed out that there is a big difference between being guilty of underage drinking and being guilty of rape. He said that it was important for everyone to remember that the LAX players are innocent until proven guilty, and he said that we should rely on the criminal justice system to discover the facts and find the truth. He also stated that he looked forward to a speedy resolution of the case in which the LAX players were shown to be innocent. During one of the most difficult times in the entire history of Duke University, he stood up in front of the entire country and defended the LAX players with great intelligence and eloquence. However, I do not see him getting much credit for his efforts on this website. All I can say is that people have short memories because it was not too long ago that Richard Brodhead was just about the only person in the country who was standing up for the LAX players, other than their lawyers and their own families.
Anonymous ay 1:16. That's not what the families tell us. At their hour of despair and crisis, he refused to meet with them. REFUSED TO MEET WITH THEM.
Your words are at odds with theirs. How nice, that for YOU, from YOUR easy perspective , he did enough. Your child, I assume, is not at risk?
T.S. Eliot comes close to describing Brodhead in this quote...
"No I am not Prince Hamlet nor was meant to be...
Politic, cautious, and meticulous
Full of high sentence and a bit obtuse
At times, almost ridiculous...
Almost, at times, the fool."
The Wasteland.
"Brodhead went before the television cameras in countless press conferences and submitted to countless newspaper, magazine, and television interviews. He reminded everyone that there was no evidence of any rape other than the allegation of the accuser. He pointed out that there is a big difference between being guilty of underage drinking and being guilty of rape."
He did? Funny, my memory is of Nifong's countless media presence, newspaper, magazine and television interviews. Nifong, reminding everyone, that he believed the accuser (despite the complete lack of evidence) and the horror of a young black women from Durham by the Duke Lacrosse team. I do not recall Mr. Brodhead speaking out strongly in support of these students. I do recall his very soft words -- paraphrased of course, let the judicial system slowly lumber along... and allow the accused to prove their innocence.
In writing the 19 Sept 2006 post The Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax: Witnessing a Media Train Wreck at the Winds of Change web-log, I made use of John in Carolina's compilations and comments. These efforts in clarifying aspects of the rape hoax are appreciated, very much
1:16 AM troll,
What rock have you been under?
Here's your homework assignment:
Take an hour or two reading the dozens if not hundreds of eloquent recaps of the Duke Adminstration's pathetic response to this hoax, and then come back here and explain to the lax families, Duke students, Duke alumni and other fair minded people around the country how Brodhead's response has been proportional to the damage this event has engendered.
When the 600+ student athletes and coaching staff joined for a pep talk this past week, did Brodhead speak and if so how did he demonstrate his empathy for the scorn leveled at the Duke athletic program?
1:16 A.M Troll
Your description of what Brodhead did and said is a farce. It almost appears that you have been on another planet. Please produce the supporting links for these statements of Brodhead that were so supportive of the Duke students charged with rape. Your post is one of the most extreme examples of spin I have ever seen. Clinton would be proud. "It depends on what 'is' is." Are you a spin master? Are you Brodhead?
You say the whole country thought they were guilty in the beginning? Really? I hadn't heard that. I heard that most reasonable people had some serious doubts about the case, didn't seem possible that this would happen as alleged. Why would Duke students rape strippers in front of 40 of their closest friends. All orfices too. Never seemed too likely to me. But that's just me, though, and I tend not to buy into Hoaxes.
You have to remember, the folks in local government in Durham are not that smart. If Brodhead came out swinging, it would be like beating up on retarded kids... and that would create more distrust and more separation in the community of Durham.
Leaders from Duke and Durham are trying to appear as fair as possible in this fiasco *in public*. It wouldn't surprise me if there are some back-room conversations about what is really going on...
Just because Nifong stoops to incredibly wrong behavior doesn't mean that Brodhead should defend Duke at all costs. If that were to happen, I wouldn't be surprised if there were an uprising against Duke among the people of Durham.
Brodhead is also handicapped by his liberal background (note, I am not a Republican). Liberals tend to believe that the facts will speak for themselves, and you don't need to prolestize your position if the facts are on your side. The rest of us realists know that it's as much about PR as it is about facts.
Bloggers like you help to even the PR battle -- otherwise it would just be news from friends of the powerful spoon-feeding the public their side of the story. In Durham it is still a good old-boys network to a certain extent.
Sometimes it's hard to separate the good-old-boys from the incompetent and from those who think facts speak for themselves. I think Brodhead is in the third category, but I've never met him and could be wrong.
Why is everyone who disagrees with the "anti-Brodheads" a troll? Why is it that those who disagree can't be credible if their child is not at risk? Why threaten to erase their comments? Isn't that what we've criticized the pro-AV blogs for doing? I happen to agree with 1:16A Post--and I remember clearly those statements Brodhead made in the early days. In fact, almost the entire nation was criticizing him at the time for not being tougher on the players and the team. I also have heard him speak on this subject--last spring and very recently--and I know for a fact that has been very clear in public, saying repeatedly that there is mounting evidence that no crime occurred.
I don't know the details behind his refusal of the parents' request to meet with them at a specific time in the immediate wake of the accusations--I know what I have read that an anonymous, supposed parent, wrote, but i certainly don't know all the circumstances behind that "refusal."
It has been, and continues to be, a difficult time for all involved. I will continue to support the players, and certainly value the facts I receive from this blog and others, but will continue to base my judgment of the individuals on what I KNOW to be true.
I guess he wanted the "facts" to speak to the Lacrosse parents, because he refused to speak to them himself.
Somebody should post some of Brodhead's statements to clear this up for the Trolls. I remember KC Johnson taking apart his statements with surgical precision -- an pain killers were applied either. I have to go, but if someone would post this here, it would go a long way to making putting these Troll comments to rest.
Ah, such tolerance among people who want their views to be tolerated. Anyone who says anything in support of Brodhead is labelled a Troll. I'm starting to see more and more of these "Trolls" post on the various sites covering the case.
I think he made mistakes, too, particularly in his early involvement in the case. If his lower rung administsrators had made him aware of the incident, even with the credibility doubts, he wouldn't have felt the need to play catch up and overreact. Just as the story was breaking and early steps were being taken, the McFadyn email horror was leaked. Not everyone, including me, recognized the parody nature of it.
He should have met with the families , for sure, and he should not have jettisoned Pressler so quickly. Otherwise, he's been OK, IMHO.
And you realise , of course, that "American Psycho" is still being taught by Professors Yee and Hillard this semester. More sounds of silence. Brodhead allowed the impression to stand for weeks that this was an "original" e-mail, showing the violent nature of the team. Pressler was fired in the furor and the kids were crucified. The English scholar president did not correct the impression in the media. He did not correct it at all.
Don't mimimize not meeting with the parents. To paraphrase Brodhead, "Whatever else Brodhead did or did not do, that arrogance ALONE is enough."
I don't call you a troll, but you are an example of the "casual cruelty" that abounds in this case. Since it wasn't YOUR child, or YOUR job, Brodhead is just fine in your opinion. You take time to defend him on Boards when he could not take time to meet with these families at their most difficult moment. You praise him.
I DID know it was parody. Do you truly believe that no faculty member of that esteemed English dept of Duke U. recignised that parody for what is was...when it is part of the curricula? And even if Brodhead was ignorant, that in the weeks that followed, no one advised him of the same? And yet, he never spoke out. Never informed the press. He let a 19 year kid twist in the wind. More Brodhead leadership that you admire!
I think it is important to remember that it was the LAX players who created this mess, not Brodhead. I think one of the things going on here is that the families of the LAX players and their supporters feel so guilty about the damage the players have done to the reputation of the university and so angry at how the players have been treated by the justice system and by the media that they just want to lash out at others in order to assuage their own guilt, and at some point along the way, they decided to beat up on Brodhead. This would help to explain some of the overheated rhetoric and, in some cases, downright false accusations about Brodhead that I have seen on this website and some of the other websites that have been following the LAX case.
Whoa - who created this mess? The LAX players? The AV started this mess, and a Politically hungry DA perpetuated it. The LAX players had a Spring Break party with strippers - pardon me - but Boo Freakin Hoo. I would tend to say its a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. IMHO Brodhead may or may not be handling this the best, but there is no need to call for his head, put in his position the best any of us can do is speculate on how we would have and continue to handle the situation. Love the site.
Another example of your casual cruelty. Was this the first "stripper" party on campus EVER? What had Brodhead done in the past about these parties? There is one racial slur ("cotton shirt") verified by someone other than the two convicted felons you choose to believe. It was given by a 19 yr. old IN RESPONSE to a racial slur.
How much is Brodhead paid a year? This is the best Duke can get for that money? He let a 19 year twist in the wind about that E-mail while he cowered before the mighty 88. He never corrected the context of that E-mail to the media. He refused to see the families..something anyone of any moral decency would have done.
You won't address Brodhead's behavior because you can't defend it. You are so offended by the behavior of these young men..yet you have a different moral standard for a craven coward twice their age and experience.Brodhead allowed a lie to stand that crucified a young man...and refused to meet with the families. Apply the standard both ways or your opinions simply ring hollow and flat.
Would you be saying this...truth now...if you had been begging to see him..and turned away?
Was that directed at me Joan or at Anon above?
Anon above. You and I posted about the same time. Sorry, Joan
Joan, you obviously think that everything Brodhead says gets picked up by the media, and accurately. That is just not true. And while there are certainly things Brodhead, in hindsight, could have done differently, the situation in Durham was as if a bomb had gone off--and new bombs were going off daily. I'm not sure anyone could have handled this to your satisfaction. Broadhead was dealing with all kinds of fires relating to this issue every day--including many that affected the safety of every student on campus. There were hundreds of media trucks on campus, multiple groups protesting, including students. The community was outraged, and the New Black Panthers were in town. There were threats of drive-by shootings, and there was new information coming out daily (including the email.) Initially he did not know the context, and he was as appalled as everyone else--but he had to answer for it to the press and the AA community. I certainly don't blame him for Ryan's email, or for the fact that the public took a while to understand it's context. Why weren't the lacrosse players (through their many attorneys) getting the word to the media about the email? That's where the resposibility for that rested.
You have a lot of good things to say, Joan, but not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. I did not write the earlier post, but I didn't read it as suggesting the writer was "so offended" by the behavior of the lax players--simply that they, in fact, DO bear some responsibility for the situation. While they are not the first to hold such a party, that does not absolve them of all guilt for having it. Emmejo is so correct to say the real blame lies with the AV and the DA. Everyone else has been left to pick up the pieces, Brodhead included.
I have read and reread every written statement Brodhead has issued on this, and note that, even in his earliest releases in March he stated, up front, that the captains denied the allegations. I have heard him speak on this issue multiple times, and have always felt he presented a balanced view, which he always HAD to do. His focus has, from the beginning, been on what the university should do to correct the part of the situation for which it has responsibility. The real "bad guys" in this are clear--that's where our venom needs to be directed.
Anonymous is cheating. He is not offering observations of fact, he is offering no links to data to support his assertions. He made false assertions. Assertions that have been proven by fact shown on this site many times to not have occurred. These assertions weren't directly addressed at that time, because they had not yet been made. But the facts that were noted preclude any chance that anon's assertions could contain any truth.
When called to defend his position he instead bemoans the lack of tolerance for his views and tries to equate that lack of tolerance with error in the facts.
Intolerance of falsehood is not wrong, intolerance of moral cowardice is not wrong, intolerance of deceitful manipulation is not wrong. Far from being wrong all those things justly demand intolerance.
Intolerance for falsity in this case equates to acceptance of truth. To try to paint that intolerance as a fault of the intolerant implies that tolerance of falsehood is the morally superior road. What bunk!
Anon, either provide proof and links to prove your assertions and disprove the evidence already on display or admit that you tried to con evcrybody here with and argument of moral equivalence where there is no right or wrong, only differences of equal acceptability.
That is morally repugnant.
STraightarrow--thank you for your kind words. I realize we disagree--I am trying to express my opinion without name-calling or assumptions about one's motives. I am, in fact, very supportive of the three indicted players, but I have a different opinion about how much we should blame the Pres. of the university. Does that make me morally repugnant?
I don't know what facts you want,straightarrow, but all of Brodhead's statements are available on the Duke website, which has a link to it's own lacrosse website (which includes almost all major media articles on the lacrosse situation and some others as well, positive or negative.) Everything else I wrote about--the things that were occurring during the early months (drive-by shooting threats for students, protests, Black Panthers, community outrage) that's all well-documented. There were no false assertions--but if you question one of my thoughts, let me know and I'll be glad to tell you what I'm basing it on. I certainly don't feel morally superior--and I certainly don't think Brodhead did everything perfectly, in HINDSIGHT. I simply think that he did a pretty good job given the circumstances (and he did have his "regular" job to do as well.) Remember, he was trying to keep the Durham community calm as well. We are all looking back now, given all the evidence available now, and judging his early actions assuming all these facts were available then, too. They weren't! Much of the real evidence that calls into question the AV's story wasn't available until the first discovery was released. And in spite of the availability of information now which makes it very clear that this was a hoax, there are many who EVEN NOW don't necessarily agree with us on that, and think that either the DA has more evidence and/or that the defense has only released what helps its case. Brodhead has had to deal with all these factions every day.
Regarding the poster who said that "Brodhead was one of the few voices of reason". That must have been Brodhead's ghost talking!!!
Straightarrow,
You sound like Barry Goldwater in 1964 when he said that extremism in the defence of virtue is no vice. Barry thought he had a better grasp of what was virtuous and what was not virtuous than the rest of the country. As I recall, 49 out of 50 states disagreed with him.
I am the 10:09 a.m. poster and agree with the 3:55 p.m poster.
Much of the analysis of Brodhead's self-issued statements interprets those statements and ascribes motivations to him. KC Johnson's analysis has been better (IMHO) than that of this blog, but both have been worth reading. But I don't think it is fair to label those who read the statements differently as trolls or morally repugnant.
Brodhead made mistakes and he appears to have been unprepared from the beginning of his term to deal with issues which can be raised in a university with major college athletics. One of those issues is how to deal with people like Coach K who has his own power base within and outside the university. He (and we Duke fans) got lucky with that episode. Brodhead also was unprepared to deal with controversy sparked by misconduct or alleged misconduct of varsity athletes and the attitudes non-sports fans at Duke and in the surrounding community have toward those athletes.
I think many people have unrealistic expectations of what a major university president should do.
Joan,
If Brodhead were a “craven coward” as you say, he would have expelled Ryan McFayden from the university for his disgusting email, which did so much to hurt the university, and he would have been cheered by many in the Duke community and elsewhere for doing so. Instead, he took the very measured step of suspending McFayden for a short time, a step which was motivated in substantial part by concern for his physical safety in Durham among widespread threats of drive-by shootings which surfaced after the email became public, and then took the very generous step of reinstating him, a step for which he was roundly criticized in some quarters. McFayden and his parents should be very grateful to Brodhead for allowing him back into Duke. However, I gather from your post that they are not grateful at all and that they instead prefer to beat on him for supposedly allowing their son to “twist in the wind.”
"I think it is important to remember the LAX players created this mess". Are talking about the same case???? They had a party. There was underage drinking (a nation wide problem). They hired 2 dancers and paid them to perform.
Nifong jumped the gun. LE botched things up real good. Chalmers was MIA and Nifong was running the LE aspects of the case. The AV changed her story 5 or 6 times. Brodhead hung them out to dry. And they created this mess!!! If they need to be punished for underage drinking that's one thing. Besides,Durham LE never filed charges again RS and CF for underage drinking. DE was of legal age to drink.
They cooperated with the police. They helped provide evidence. All the players (except the AA one) provided DNA voluntarily. They met with the Brodhead and Pressler to tell them nothing happened. They hired lawyers and Nifong refused to meet with them. And none of their DNA is on this woman. Exactly how did they create this mess?????
Instead, he took the very measured step of suspending McFayden for a short time, a step which was motivated in substantial part by concern for his physical safety in Durham among widespread threats of drive-by shootings which surfaced after the email became public, and then took the very generous step of reinstating him, a step for which he was roundly criticized in some quarters.
The disgusting quote is based on a disgusting book that just happens to be included as reading in a class taught at Duke. If you're going to teach that then you shouldn't be surprised if the students reference it.
Brodhead didn't bother to find out the context and jumped to the wrong conclusion by taking the e-mail literally. Twenty years ago, I lived in the same quad as McFayden. It would be physically impossible for the team to join him in his dorm room never mind do what he proposed in the e-mail. It's absurd on the face of it for someone to take literally something that was clearly figurative.
BTW, it's not "generous" to commute the death sentence of some one who's been falsely convicted. McFayden was not suspended for a "short time" but was suspended for the remainer of the semester which is now lost to him.
Instead of having the guts to stick it out and find out the truth of the situation, Brodhead responded to the "instant justice" hysteria and acted hysterically himself in order to selfishly relieve the pressure on himself.
I can imagine the chaos and turmoil that Brodhead encountered in those early days. I try to factor that into my equation of the man. But, the individuals most affected by that chaos, the ones whose sons were under threat and duress everywhere they turned, begged to see the man and he refused.Refused.
Sorry, I have a hard time getting past that point.
The day the march was to be held and there was a possibilty the Black Panthers would be allowed to use the Lacrosse field, he was again unavailable. Can you imagine the agony of these parents,... their sons were the targets and it was exam week. They couldn't leave. He would not even take their call and reassure them. He had convicted those boys snd kicked the patents to the curb.
Would it be too much to expect he could at least speak to them and allay their fears? This is the source of my absolute disdain for the man, my outrage. THAT was Brodhead in crisis.
I do not presume to know what Ryan McFayden's family feels about their son's treatment.I do not know them. Must I know them to qualify to have feelings about how this boy was treated?
That book is being taught again by professors Yee and Hillard. If you don't want your sons exposed to it, that's another issue to take up with Brodhead. But if it is taught, there just is the chance it might be quoted, come to mind as "appropriate" humor to an immature mind.
Had it in class, didn't we? Then the entire faculty is SHOCKED! SHOCKED! Hypocrites! No one in the entire esteemed faculty knew?
Did no one inform Brodhead in the weeks that followed? No one? He is that out of the loop?
He never spoke a word to ameliorate that Ryan's situation.
This debate cannnot be resolved. I'm sorry. I feel this... as if it happened to me and mine. I'm just programed that way.
You think he's peachy keen.So be it. That's YOUR idea of a fine leader.
I truly hope you never face a situatiion like this some day, helpless, hopeless, frantic with fear...and the man in charge won't take your calls.
I agree entirely with Joan Foster. First, if the Duke faculty does not like a student -- a kid, mind you -- writing an email that quotes a book assigned to him, then perhaps it should not assign said book. Yes, the email was inappropriate, but it was NOT evidence of a crime, and everyone knew it.
Second, when Broadhead refused to meet with the parents, and left them and their sons to twist in the wind, he exhibited the worst kind of cowardice. People like Houston Baker and Peter Wood may yell and scream a lot and get newspaper interviews, but they are not people of respect, and why Broadhead cowered before them tells me more about him than Baker and Wood.
Most important, Broadhead early on deliberately gave the impression that the LAX players were not cooperating with the police, and that helped to set off the "blue wall of silence" feeding frenzy.
Yes, he did not give the racialists and the feminists on the Duke faculty EVERYTHING they wanted, but he gave away most of the store. The "campus initiatives" that followed were part of the hoax: create a "crisis" and then demand bogus "solutions."
The Duke case is a Reichstag Fire, but at least in Berlin in 1933, the Reichstag really did burn. Here, the only people playing with matches were Broadhead and much of the Duke faculty. Interestingly, the same totalitarian mindset that governed Germany in those dark days is pretty much the same mentality we see at Duke and many other "elite" college campuses. Believe me, there are plenty of professors at Duke who want those boys convicted even though they know they did not rape anyone. However, a conviction would aid their political causes, and that is all that matters to them.
William L. Anderson
Some seem to overestimate the power of a university president--he cannot dictate what is taught in a course. Also,I hope everyone realizes that, as much as the lacrosse players have suffered (and obviously most certainly the three who have been indicted), all other students were threatened by the protests, including Black panthers, as much as the unindicted players. In fact, the threats of drive-bys, the pot-bangers, and many of the protests that occurred even during exams affected not the lacrosse players but the students who were still living on Buchanan.
I do think it's easy to look back now and second guess every action. I think Brodhead could have been a little more public in his support (even now) and he could have taken stronger steps to ensure lax players were not being mis-treated in class. Other than that, I think he did a pretty good job, all things considered.
Duke Lacrosse parent E-mail from Durham in wonderland
"No charges had been filed, and the Duke police had told university officials the allegations were not credible. A university lawyer had told team parents there was nothing to the allegations and they would go away. Top university officials, including the number two man EVP Tallman Trask, Alleva, and Wasiolek, had met with the four team captains the previous afternoon, learned exactly what had and had not happened, including the extent of their cooperation with the police, and had told them they believed they were innocent. In fact, Trask told the four captains as they left the meeting to "Beat Georgetown." Yet less than 24 hours later, Duke was forfeiting the games and putting out statements that moved this story from the local papers to the front page of the New York Times.
During the meeting, we pleaded with Alleva to amend his statement to say that Duke officials had met with the team captains, knew they were cooperating with the authorities, and believed they were innocent. When Alleva refused to do that, we asked to meet with President Brodhead. After a short break, Alleva returned with Trask and Moneta, who told us flatly that Brodhead would not meet with us. When we asked them to put out a statement from Brodhead saying that Duke was confident that its students were innocent, they refused, and informed us that no further statements would be released by anyone at Duke. They also told us that no further action would be taken by Duke against the team until the legal investigation was concluded, and that steps would be taken to ensure that the team members would be treated fairly by their professors.
As it turned out, none of these assurances from the Duke officials were true. Less than an hour after the meeting broke up, Brodhead issued a statement praising Alleva's action and stating that "physical coercion and sexual assault are unacceptable in any setting and have no place at Duke. The criminal allegations against three members of our men's lacrosse team, if verified, will warrant very serious penalties." Brodhead also urged everyone on the team to cooperate with the authorities. With this statement, Brodhead turned his back on his students, and threw them to the wolves, and helped create the media firestorm that erupted.
We were shocked and dismayed. How could Duke take such a radical turn…moving from "we believe you are innocent" to issuing a statement that all but declared the team was guilty? We now know that Brodhead caved to a small but very vocal group of professors who wanted to drive athletic teams off the campus. At a faculty meeting that Friday afternoon and another meeting with faculty that Saturday morning, Brodhead was severely criticized for not forcing the team to cooperate with the investigation and for not disbanding the team. Instead of explaining to these officials the constitutional rights of their own students, Brodhead caved to their pressure and took the side of the mob. He has been there ever since."
==========================
Does anyone really believe that Brodhead WANTS to see the LAX players put on trial for rape? Why would he? How does it benefit him? I would think he would want to see the case dismissed as quickly as possible so that he could get back to the the job of just being president of the university and not having to clean up the LAX mess.
If representatives of a multimillion dollar corporation embarrassed the corporation, its CEO would squeeze them out as far and as fast as a watermelon seed between your fingers. The top guy's first concern is the corporation.
And if a CEO runs the "stock price" down with his rudderless leadership, The Board shows him the door too.
The CEO reports to the board of directors, who are looking out for the interests of the shareholders.
The Pres. of a University reports to the Board of Trustees and they are supposed to be making decisions in the best interests of the students.
I'd like to see a mission statement/job description for the Board of Trustees (or the pres. for that matter.) My guess is they are responsible for the progress of the university and/or the student body as a whole, but not necessarily individual students...
The idea that Brodhead wants to see the LAX players put on trial for gang rape just seems like complete nonsense to me. I get the impression that some of the more fanatical LAX team supporters are mad at Brodhead for not leaping forth to make more public statements on behalf of the players. They seem to think that he is supposed to function like another member of the legal defense team without consideration for any other factor, such as the fact that many of the leaders of Durham with whom Brodhead has to work on behalf of the university are black and have expressed support for the accuser. Since Brodhead has not lead the charge for the defense, they seem to want to exact revenge, and in their fanaticism, they seem to be willing to say anything to tear him down, including things like this which make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
11:49 you are absolutely right.
Anon 9:10 PM
I read the message you posted from the Duke Lacrosse Team Parent. Paragraph 3 of the message quotes from a statement by President Brodhead and then says that with this statement, Brodhead turned his back on his students, threw them to the wolves, and all but declared the team to be guilty of rape.
I decided to track down the statement so that I could decide for myself whether the characterization of the statement by the Lacrosse Team Parent was accurate. When I read the entire statement, I discovered that the Lacrosse Team Parent had quoted only one part of the statement and had left out another very important part. In the part of the statement not quoted by the Lacrosse Team Parent, Brodhead stated that the facts of the case are not yet established; no charges have been filed, and in our system of law, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty; and we also know that many members of the team, including some who were asked to provide DNA samples, did not attend the party.
My question to you and to the Lacrosse Team Parent is how does this constitute turning your back on your students, throwing them to the wolves, and all but declaring them to be guilty of rape? This just seems like a flat out lie. After reading the entire statement, the impression I get is that the Lacrosse Team Parent wanted to stick it to Brodhead, and he decided that the best way to do that was to misrepresent what Brodhead said by selectively quoting from his statement. A question I have for you is did you know about this when you posted the message from the Lacrosse Team Parent on this website?
I'd like to add to the 12:48 post. The statements by Brodhead during the first weeks that I have read all also said that the captains denied the allegations. Some statemtns also included a phrase about there being very different accounts of what happened that night.
Re: the parent's description of the meeting with Duke officials: according to the lacrosse parent, the meeting took place right after the events occurred--and during the time when everyone (Duke police, university officials, etc.) believed that there would be no formal charges against anyone on the team, and that the whole thing would go away. Given that scenario, Brodhead's refusal to meet with the parents is a little easier to understand--the university would have been looking at the situation as a disciplinary issue, not as a legal issue, and certainly not as the media bombshell it became.
Joan,
I have read your posts, and I think you are overly hung up on the fact that Brodhead would not meet with the LAX team parents. Brodhead is president of one of the most elite universities in the country, a complex institution with 12,000 students and thousands of employees. As president of the university, his primary responsibility is not to hold hands with the LAX team parents but to manage and protect the university and to look out for the safety and welfare of all of its students and employees. When the LAX crisis exploded in the media, the university was plunged into chaos and turmoil. As a result, Brodhead was forced to spend an enormous amount of time dealing with the crisis while continuing to manage the normal operations of a world class university. The demands on his time must have been truly extraordinary. Under these circumstances, he apparently decided as all good executives do to focus on those tasks which could only be handled by him and to delegate everything else to others, including the meeting with the LAX team parents. You seem to interpret this as some sort of totally unacceptable and horrific insult to the LAX team parents, as if they had an absolute right to meet with him no matter what. I disagree. I think that when someone becomes president of a major university, he is entitled to manage his time in the manner that he thinks will best serve the interests of the university. I think your attempt to portray him as some sort of monster is just one more example of the overheated rhetoric that seems to permeate this website.
Anon at 11:49
You're comment is very heavy on opionion/accusations and very light on facts. I came close to deleting it.
Anon at 12:06
Note my comment above
Anon at 12:48
I think saying "that just seems like a flat out lie" is overboard.
With that excepted, I think your comment is straightforward, fact-based and reasonable, even as I don't come to the same conclusion regarding Brodhead's actions on Mar. 25 as you seem to have.
I especially respect you're finding Brodhead's Mar. 25 statement and quoting from it.
I plan later today to post the full text of Brodhead's Mar. 25 comment with a H/T to you for "getting" it; note the context in which it was made and note some very important information he left out.
Thank you for your comment.
Anon at 1:24
You’re right as far as you go. An important issue for many people, me
included, is why Brodhead decided to leave out of his statement any information about the extensive cooperation the lacrosse players provided the police.
Thanks for your comment.
See also my comment to Anon 12:48 above.
John
It's hard to differenciate between all the "anon" posters here, but I will make my last comment. Obviously this debate is a waste of your time and mine. We will not convince each other of the alternative position.
I have held numerous leadership positions in my life..none as important as Mr. Brodhead's but not insignifant. I have watched my husband run an international business.I believe you give bad news in person. I believe you make time to see individuals at the heart of the most significant crisis of your tenure and their lives. I believe if you send a message that no further statements will be given...it is outrageous to have one ready to give the press anhour later. You did notice that discrepancy?
I have problems with this most articulate man, not finding a more robust way to indicate that these boys were cooperating...to offer firmer, fleshed out DEMANDS for fairness and justice. I can write; I am sure this man has much, much more skill than I. It would take me fifteen minutes to compose something , anything more compelling than the tepid drivel he put out. It was not a lack of talent, so I judge it a lack of will.
He allowed the "listening statement" to stand unchallenged. It became the identifiable Duke piece of the moment. He produced nothing to counter it.
The students were harrassed in some instances in the classroom. Though he promised fairness, he did not follow through to make sure his "policy" was implemented. If you can link to a memo to faculty rebuking this behavior...I will stand corrected.
The American Pyscho e-mail debacle was allowed to stand, unchallenged by Brodhead and/or his English department.It is still taught at Duke. But, hey, why should WE tell the press...let the lawyers tell them. (I think that was one of the anon. positions) I don't mind saying I'm wrong when I am...especially if others are paying the price.
I have no idea if he wants a trial or not. I do NOT believe he has any agenda against the boys. But he was, in my opinion, weak in the face of strident agendas of others. He was in such a position to throw salt on a fire. Instead he was a minimal figure, at best.
He is fortunate to have such staunch defenders as those of you who have been posting here. I commend you for your loyalty. Truly, this case has seen little enough of it.
Peace to all. Our time, yours and mine, is better spent.
Post a Comment