Reader's Note: In the post below Tom Bevan says Duke's President Richard H. Brodhead expelled members of the Duke lacrosse team "from the University without giving them so much as a chance to defend themselves and prove their innocence is reprehensible and unforgivable."
That statement is wrong. No Duke lacrosse student was expelled as a result of the party.
I should have caught Bevan's error before including it in my post.
Bevan's an outstanding blogger who I'm confident would have corrected the error had I called it to his attention. I plan to do that as soon as I finish this note.
I plan to also email President Brodhead and apologize to him for publishing the false statement.
I'll also be letting readers know what happened in a separate post which will include a thank you to those readers who called the mistake to my attention.
Look for a post later this evening or tomorrow (Blogger is going "on and off" right now) with a title such as "My mistake - I apologize"
I apologize to any of you who were misled by my error.
Excepting the unintentionally false statement, I stand by everything else in Tom's post and mine.
John
Updated on 10/19 @ 10:40 am EDT: Tom Bevan has published a correction and apologized for what he calls a "significant" error. That said, he stands by the rest of his post.
_________________________________________
Blogger Tom Bevan posts: “What Duke's President Should Have Said”
In case you weren't aware, on Saturday the University of Miami football team got into a hellacious on-field brawl during the middle of its game against Florida International University (you can see it all here on YouTube).If you’re not sure what Tom Bevan means by “throwing these kids under the bus right from the start” read these two prepared public statements Brodhead released on March 25 and April 5.
Despite the nastiness of the episode, which resulted in the suspension of 13 Miami players (and another 18 from FIU), Donna Shalala, the former head of HHS who is now President of the University of Miami, appeared at a team press conference to defend her students:''I believe that the young men we have recruited for our football team are young men of great character, but they did a very bad thing,'' Shalala said. ". . .If only the President of Duke University, Richard Brodhead, had said something similar in the aftermath of the affair with the lacrosse team.
"It's time for me to say publicly that I believe in them, that I believe that they did something awful, but that I want them to continue at the University of Miami.
And it's time for me to say to the community and to those that have been sending me e-mails that this university will be firm and punish people that do bad things.
But we will not throw any student under the bus for instant restoration of our image or our reputation. I will not hang them in a public square. I will not eliminate their participation at the university. I will not take away their scholarships" . . .
Clearly, what happened in Miami is vastly different than a he said-she said rape allegation, but Broadhead's knee-jerk reaction to believe the word of a stripper over his students, to cancel the season and expel members of the team from the University without giving them so much as a chance to defend themselves and prove their innocence is reprehensible and unforgivable.
As we've seen from watching the course of the investigation, it's looking more and more like three boys have had their lives destroyed by a false allegation put into the hands of an irresponsible and abusive prosecutor.
Duke's President shares the blame - and the shame - for the way this case has gone by throwing these kids under the bus right from the start.
When you read Brodhead's statements keep in mind that at the time he made them Brodhead knew of the extraordinary cooperation the three lacrosse captains who rented the house where the party was held had provided police on March 16 when they came to the house with a search warrent.
That cooperation included voluntarily answering questions, providing signed statements, going to Duke Hospital and voluntarily submitting to rape-kit testing, offering to take polygraph tests and helping police identify and locate others who were at the party.
Also keep in mind that Brodhead knew when he issued his statements that all 46 of the lacrosse players ordered to submit to DNA testing had a right to appeal the order. But not a single player did, including those who weren’t even in Durham the night the hoaxer and those who’ve framed the players claim she was gang-raped.
Brodhead also knew the players, his students, were the victims of many false and malicious statements that had appeared in the Raleigh News & Observer, which “broke” the story on Mar. 24 ( Examples: In its Mar. 24 front-page story, the N&O seven times told readers the accuser was “the victim” or used the possessive “the victim’s” without any qualification such as “alleged.” The N&O’s now discredited Mar. 25 story spoke of the players silence and refusal to cooperate with police, something the public believed at the time but which Brodhead knew to be false.)
Try to find in either of Brodhead’s statements any mention of what I just told you.
Ask yourself why Brodhead refused on March 25 to meet with the lacrosse players' parents who were on campus that day for a home game.
Why hasn’t he met with the parents since?
Disclosures: Brodhead has repeatedly said his treatment of the players has been "very fair."
He doesn’t answer the questions I’ve raised here. Instead, he urges people to stop “dwelling in the past.” He wants everyone “to look to the future.”
The Duke trustees and the officers and directors of the Duke Alumni Association have been unanimous in their public support of Brodhead.
Many individual alums don’t support Brodhead’s actions in response to the hoax. We're appalled that he refuses even now to speak out against the investigative and legal travesties of Durham DA Mike Nifong and some Durham police.
As you surely know, I’m one of those alums. I hold two degrees from Duke.
Stay in touch. We need to develop a plan to change things at Duke.
If you want to continue to follow the Brodhead aspect of the Duke Hoax the two best places for that are: Durham-in-Wonderland and Friends of Duke University (not affiliated with Duke but working for what's best for Duke.)
Message to Miami University President Shalala: Thank you for reminding us of what a university president can and should be.
Message to Tom Bevan: Excellent post
Hat tip: Blog friend Mike.
35 comments:
Brodhead had one good idea, 'look to the future.' People need to look to the future and get rid of Brodhead.
Some people have courage and leadership abilities; others don't. Broadhead doesn't.
Where did Duke find him anyway? He didn't say anything meaningful on 60 Minutes and he did not look impressive at all. Maybe he needs a Dale Carnegie course. LOL Plus his jacket and pants didn't look like they matched.
Very ironic...Miami plays Duke Saturday. Maybe they can settle their separate views on the field.
Incompetent is right. A one game suspension for an all out brawl including one guy cracking someone from the other team over the head with his helmet is a joke. I wonder if her stirring defense of the football players had anything to do with the enormous amount of money that football contributes to the University of Miami.
When you consider that many pot banger-types *still* believe that the players did not cooperate early on, you see very plainly the harm that Broadhead caused...the man is a disgrace, plain and simple, and if there's justice in the world, he won't last much longer as Duke president.
John, your statement that Brodhead expelled the three LAX players from the university is false. The three players were SUSPENDED from the university pursuant to a long-standing policy which states that any student charged with a felony will automatically be suspended from the university. This policy was put in place before Brodhead even arrived on campus. Did you want him to create an exception to the policy for cases in which the person charged with a felony is an LAX player?
I found it amusing at the end of your article when you were thanking Donna Shalala for reminding us what a university president can and should be. Donna is so far out on the left wing that you would need the Hubble Space Telescope to find her out there. As I recall, when she was serving as president of the University of Wisconsin, she proposed an amendment to the student code of conduct which would have punished students for making certain types of statements that she regarded as politically incorrect. If she were a member of the faculty at Duke, she would undoubtedly be a member of the group of 88. She is just about the last person on earth that we should be holding up as an example of what a university president can and should be.
Only 2 players have been suspended. Dave Evans graduated prior to being indicted.
Shalala is a radical feminist who would have been banging pots in front of 610 North Buchanan. There is no way that she would ever stand up for the LAX players.
Brodhead has consistently demonstrated an alarming lack of leadership throughout this entire affair. In the name of "fairness", he not only stood by while a crooked politician railroaded his students with rigged procedures and phony evidence, but he took speech and action in his own right against his own students.
Shalala may not have made the best call on corrective action for her offending students, but she did demonstrate that she has far bigger b*lls than Brodsted ever had and knows far more about leadership than he could hope to learn at Duke or anywhere else.
John,
The Bevan article says that Brodhead believed the stripper rather than his own students. However, his statement of March 25 says that the facts are not yet established, there are very different versions of the central events, no charges have been filed, the LAX players are innocent until proven guilty, and we know that many members of the team did not even attend the party. How does that show that he believed the stripper rather than his own students?
11:39 PM, you must be kidding when you say that Shalala showed tremendous leadership in the way she handled the football episode. She basically just allowed the thugs on the football team to get away with murder because she wanted to keep the football revenues flowing. If she had been a leader, she would have yanked their scholarships and announced to the world that the University of Miami is not going to tolerate that kind of behavior from its athletes. Instead, she took the easy way out.
Brodhead hung his guys out to dry...judge, jury, executioner.
I am a Duke grad alum. With respect to donations, Brodhead is a bonehead. I won't give.
I suspect that the students involved could sue Duke for millions for slander etc etc.
Folks,
There's a correction and apology at the head of the post. Also, see a separate post "My mistake - I apologize."
Sundayjack has it right about the sentiment Shalala expressed. It was that I agreed with as well as the position she took: the players conduct was wrong and should be punished but the school was not turning its back on the players/students.
As for who and what Brodhead believed back then: Nowhere in the Mar. 25 or Apr. 5 statements do you find any indication that he believed what the captains told him about there cooperation. Brodhead never spoke contradicting statements the N&O made on Mar. 25 that he knew were false.
On the other hand, after listening to the "first caller" tape he issued a full, written, unconditional apology to her and her friend even as he knew the facts of the matter were in dispute then as they are now.
I'm slow to call a large group of people thugs unless there's very strong evidence they are. Football players fighting on the field aren't necessarily thugs.
I've never been a Shalala fan but what someone does something I think is right, I usually praise the action.
So for example, if Brodhead today held a brief press conference and said something like, "I should have spoken up on May 18 and condemned the racist hate speech, including death threats, that Reade Seligmann was subjected to. Such racist hatred has no place in our community. I plan to meet with Reade and his parents to express my regret to them for my failure to speak out in May. I also plan to listen to their concerns and do what I can to help them in what we all know is a very trying time," I woould post on it and praise Brodhead.
Do any of you who are Brodhead supporters think he'll do anything like that anytime soon? Do you think he should do something like that?
Have a good day all of you.
John
The reason why Shalala spoke up on behalf of the football players is not because of some lofty idealism or because she is a leader. It is because she wants to protect the team at all costs due to the large amount of money the team generates for the university. For you to say that she did the right thing and hold her up as an example of what a university president can and should be does her way too much credit and to me does not provide a credible example of a university president providing strong leadership in a difficult situation.
The funny thing about holding Donna Shalala up as an example of what a university president should be is that the LAX players have undoubtedly received much better treatment from Brodhead than they ever would have received from Shalala. She would have been leading the demonstrations against them and would never have spoken up on their behalf, even to the extent of saying that the facts are in dispute and they are innocent until proven guilty.
Brodehead came across as Barney Fyfe of Mayberry, NC - not the President of Duke University.
His sheepish "60 Minutes" comment "But gee [Andy], local authorities said it was so" - made me want to puke.
I've not been a Brodehead basher until now.
The Admin's instructiions that players "not contact their parents", and that "voter registration was shutdown" disgusts me no end.
I support and understand that the current Lax players are stickng together to finish their college Lax career - and have great respect for that. But after hearing how the University Admin has gone way out of control -- I would encourage other recruits to take other offers - plenty of schools around tha will support you.
Duke won't.
Call me when Brodehead resigns.
Where did that story about not contacting your parents come from? I saw that on another board, but when the poster was asked to provide more information, he did not respond, so it sounds like it is really just a rumor that does not have any basis in fact. Why would Duke care whether the LAX players called their parents?
3:41 PM, are you a Duke alum? You sound like you may be trying to recruit LAX players for another university by planting a few negative comments about Duke.
Strabo, on what basis would the LAX players be able to sue Duke for millions, for saying they are innocent until proven guilty?
Anonymous took my statement last night that Shalala "knows far more about leadership than he (Brodhead) could hope to learn at Duke or anywhere else" and reinterpreted it as "Shalala showed tremendous leadership in the way she handled the football episode"
Not quite the same thing, Ace. First, nowing more about leadership than Brodhead, based on his actions in this fiasco, is not a lofty bar. Brodhead exhibited piss poor leadership, IMO. Shalala could have handled her situation better, as well. However, one of the things I absorbed a long time ago is that a leader stands by his people. That doesn't mean condoning their wrongful actions, but it means making certain they get a fair shake. Ask the 43 members of the Duke lacrosse team who were never charged with a thing if having their athletic careers terminated was a fair shake. Ask the three who were charged if being convicted in the press and subjected to vitriolic public abuse while Brodhead joined the chorus was fair. Ask the Duke students who don't know either a lacrosse player or a stripper, but are now branded as well, if it was fair that Brodhead acknowledged the guilt of his students and by extension his university, in the absence of proven facts or legal proceedings.
You don't have to completely agree with Shalala's actions to see that she did provide leadership and did effectively champion her students - right or wrong. And that counts for something in my book.
Semantic distiction? Did you fail English? Read the two statements and tell me they are the same. better yet, don't tell me - you did that once already. Then you have the nerve to call me a bozo while hiding behind a mask of anonymity. Nice.
But thanks for revealing your true sympathies. It was all the lacrosse players' fault, eh? They should apologize to the university? Took a lot of gall alright. But it was your gall, you self-righteous prig. Forget you. Go back and hide in the shadows.
"3:41 PM, are you a Duke alum? You sound like you may be trying to recruit LAX players for another university by planting a few negative comments about Duke."
Yes I am. I played 4 years of Duke Lax, attended the 2001 reunion for former player & coach Tony Cullen, and attended the 2004 NCAA Tournament in Phila.
The total lack of support for the Lax Players by the Duke Admin, advising them to not notify their parents of the rape allegations, and more recently to desist voter registration at the Duke v UVA football game changed everything for me.
My loyalty is now first to the game of Lacrosse, and not to Duke.
If Brodehead has the guts to unleash his penchant for committees onto the teachers and admin for their wreckless reaction, libel (not free speach), and malice on these matters - I might then feel differently.
Unlike Coach K who says we're in the "kid business", the Duke Admin is in some other business.
Knowing the greatness of the game of Lacrosse, I would advise any player to consider a more supportive University.
R Seligman, as I interpret his 60 Minutes interview, would appear to agree with me.
Duke Lax '78
John, did you delete some messages that were critical of the LAX players or is dave in w-s talking to himself?
6:12 PM, I think your post is really weird. To begin with, the idea that you would put loyalty to lacrosse ahead of loyalty to Duke is strange. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of college athletes would put loyalty to their school ahead of loyalty to their sport. Also, the reasons you give for doing this are bogus. The story about Duke advising the lacrosse players not to discuss the situation with their parents is almost certainly false. Why would Duke care whether the lacrosse players discussed the situation with their parents? I saw this same story posted on another website for the first time about two weeks ago. The fact that the story surfaced for the first time six months after the fact tells you right away that the story is probably false. In addition when a member of the audience of the other website asked the person who posted the story to provide more information, he never responded, which also suggests that the story is false. The point about the voter registration drive is complete nonsense. DSED was allowed to conduct voter registration activities on the Duke campus for several weeks, and held a big BBQ / voter registration event on West Campus about ten days ago. The leader of DSED was even quoted in The Chronicle as saying how pleased she was with the results of their voter registration efforts. To me, the fact that you would buy into this stuff and then publicly urge other lacrosse players not to go to Duke is just very, very strange. By the way, were you on scholarship the entire time you were at Duke? If so, that would mean that Duke gave you a free education worth $160,000 or so and you are responding by showing them no loyalty at all and in fact urging other students to boycott the university. If this is the kind of gratitude that Duke is going to get from its athletes, maybe Duke should go Ivy League and just not give out athletic scholarships.
OK – I’ll bite.
“the idea that you would put loyalty to lacrosse ahead of loyalty to Duke is strange. “
I agree. It has been strange for me since I have always supported Duke, including canceling the season, and have only suddenly changed my position
“I suspect that the overwhelming majority of college athletes would put loyalty to their school ahead of loyalty to their sport. “
I did, again, until recently.
“Also, the reasons you give for doing this are bogus……advising the lacrosse players not to discuss the situation with their parents is almost certainly false.”
I honestly hope you are right, because this is the one act that completely changed my perspective. I see you have your own doubts about it.
“Why would Duke care whether the lacrosse players discussed the situation with their parents?”
Regardless of the Admin’s reasons, it is clear that their actions were not in the best interest of the individual players. That said, it was presumably for damage control. It would be In the Administration’s interest to to flesh out the situation before the parents predictably would have hired attorneys in the face of criminal charges against their children with 30 year prison terms.
“The fact that the story surfaced for the first time six months after the fact tells you right away that the story is probably false…….In addition when a member of the audience of the other website asked the person who posted the story to provide more information, he never responded, which also suggests that the story is false.”
There are several sources verifying the Admin’s actions. Additionally, Brodeheads’ own committee report on the “Investigation of the Duke Administration Response” documents the surrounding circumstances that would support the “muzzling” of the players. It states that a) parents were upset that the admin did not notify them for days afterwards, and b) that the Admin understated the seriousness of the situation. It seems implausible that not 1 player would not have advised his parents of the situation unless told not to. It would appear that the surrounding circumstances support the notion that the Admin was deceitful on this matter.
“The leader of DSED was even quoted in The Chronicle as saying how pleased she was with the results of their voter registration efforts.”
Has no bearing on the fact that the DSED table was shut down at the Duke/UVA game. Just the same, this is a more minor indiscretion by the Admin. in the scheme of things and more symptomatic of their loss of perspective.
“urge other lacrosse players not to go to Duke is just very, very strange.”
Outside of my posted comments, I have no intention of taking an active role in urging players to go elsewhere, though I see how you could see that in my comments. But, there are many great University Lax programs where a player should expect better support – I would advise any friend or relative to take any other comparable offer.
I did state that my position would change if Brodehead established committees to look into the Administration’s muzzling of the players, and the libel (not free speech) of the “88” Professors, in-class intimidation of players, etc. Without a clean bill on these matters, Duke is not a safe place for student-athletes.
If this is the kind of gratitude that Duke is going to get from its athletes,
It’s a 2-way street (no scholarship)
“maybe Duke should go Ivy League and just not give out athletic scholarships.”
I never bought into the “Harvard of the South” Ivy-envy, but to each his own.
7:27 PM, thank you for your response to my post. I found your comments about why Duke might have suggested that the players not contact their parents very interesting. On the issue of the voter registration table at the football game, I really think it is just a case of some low level guy screwing up rather than a decision by the Duke Administration to try to suppress voter registration efforts.
John, I left a message above asking if you had deleted some posts that were critical of the LAX players because Dave in W-S seems to be talking to someone but the messages from the person he is talking to have been deleted. What is going on? Why were the other messages deleted?
Late rejoining the conversation, but the commenter above seems to be correct that posts I responded to were deleted. I clicked out of the discussion after my last comment and now, several days later, have just checked back. I have learned that my hypertension does not do well when I allow myself to be baited into arguments with individuals who combine illogic with misrepresentation, insult and name calling. My personal opinion is that you are not missing much by not experiencing the complete exchange. I'm just glad I didn't yield to my first, second or third impulses in writing a response. I have never been banned from a site and don't plan on starting a new trend.
This board is usually a pretty civilized place and I have been following the Duke lacrosse story via John's posts, the many links and the ensuing discussions. I usually don't have much to add but now and then something just calls out for a response.
Please keep up the good work in shining a glaring light squarely on the shenanigans in Durham. Make the scoundrels scurry for the shadows.
Dave, it looks like you also engaged in some name calling. Your 8:46 PM post refers to the other guy as Ace, which is obviously a put down. Also, in your 10:40 PM post, you call the guy a prig, which is a disguised reference to a part of the male anatomy, and you use the phrase "forget you" which is a substitute for the F word. Did the other guy use language a lot worse than this? You also say that he baited you, but you of course did nothing to bait him.
As a Duke alum and the parent of two Duke students, I am livid at President Brodhead and members of the Duke faculty who were so willing to judge these young men prior to due process.
Especially President Brodhead, who had to have some knowledge of the flimsy, if not non-existent evidence in this case, as well as the complete cooperation among the team members.
Rather than stand strong in his support of Duke Community members his statements and actions only added to the perception that these young men were guilty.
I have met President Brodhead on several occasions, and in fact will see him this Friday night at a Parents Weekend reception. He has impressed me as a thoughtful and caring man. (My husband and I have been reasonably generous donors, and recently endowed a scholarship fund for future Duke students).
But his performance in this crisis is tremendous cause for concern, and I will be expressing them in a letter to Board of Trustees Chairman Robert Steel.
My last response on the subject, in the interest of clearing up semantic issues.
"...Ace, which is obviously a put down."
From The Free Dictionary:
Ace
n.
5. An expert in a given field. (The 1st four definitions deal with card games, badminton, military pilots, etc. Perhaps my usage was a bit obscure - and yes, definitely sarcastic.)
"...prig, which is a disguised reference to a part of the male anatomy"
Excuse me? I believe I used it as defined.
prig
n.
1. A person who demonstrates an exaggerated conformity or propriety, especially in an irritatingly arrogant or smug manner.
"...the phrase "forget you" which is a substitute for the F word"
Not intended, and per The Urban Dictionary, the number 2 meaning comes from cable TV censorship practices, so you are partially correct; however, the number one meaning (and the one I intended) is:
1. An expression similar to saying "forget it" to someone except more negative.
In the case of the discussion under question, what I meant to convey was that I intended to try and wipe the entire argument, as well as his insufferable attitude, from my memory. Thank you for bringing it back.
By the way, I do not routinely use obscene references to bludgeon an opponent in an argument.
As I said above, this was my last word on the subject. I won't be checking for a response. There are many more important things on which to spend our time.
Dave, so you are trying to tell us that when you referred to the other guy as Ace, you were just sincerely complimenting him for being an expert in his field? And when you called him a prig, you were merely trying to suggest that he was excessively proper? And of course you had no idea that the phrase "forget you" is routinely used in movies as a substitute for the F word, right?
John, you have obviously deleted some posts that were critical of the LAX players without offering your readers any explanation as to why you deleted those posts, and you have left up posts from Dave in which he calls another poster names and attacks him using thinly disguised swear words. What standard do you apply when you take down certain posts and leave others up? Is it all based on who is supporting the LAX players and who is criticizing them? If not, then what is the standard?
Post a Comment