To the post "Duke lacrosse: Brodhead exposed" I've just added at its head the following:
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
___________________________
I've sent an email to Tom Bevan noting the error. I'll let you know his response.
I've sent an email to President Brodhead with a cc to John Burness, Duke Senior VP for Public Affairs and Government Relations. I offered Brodhead my apology for an unintentional error and asked him if there's anything he or Burness thinks I should do to correct my error beyond what I've done.
Fulsome thanks to the two reader/commenters who called the error to my attention. They helped me. They also demonstrated the corrective power of the blogoshpere.
To any of you I misled, I'm very sorry. I'll work to be more alert in the future.
John
____________________________________
Update on 10/19 at 10;35 am EDT: Tom Bevan has published a correction for the error which he says was "significant." He's apologized. That said, Tom stands by the rest of his post.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
My mistake - I apologize (Updated)
Posted by JWM at 12:33 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Students were, however, suspended. Was it under the same circumstances as described?
People are human and make mistakes. Grown-ups admit their mistakes. You did so. Why can't Nifong?
Is one of the posters correct that (because of what he has done) if he doesn't go forward now, then he could lose his license to practice law??? Please advise.
Well, what about Ryan McFadyen?
Wasn't he expelled for writing an e-mail? He was not charged with any felonies, or indicted for anything.
Seligman and Finnerty are currently suspended and aren't allowed to set foot on the campus until this is over. As I understand it, it's Duke's policy to suspend students charged with a felony.
As Seligman as pointed out in the CBS outakes published on the web, it's unlikely he'll return. They might as well have been expelled.
John,
Thank you for all you do. I believe you were the first blog I found on this case. I know it was through you I found liestoppers and KC. You are a constant reminder me of why I love this country. For one little homeschooling mom in California you are an inspiration.
With gratitude,
Coreen Costello
1:36 PM, if Seligmann decides not to return to Duke, that is his choice. It has nothing to do with the university expelling him.
LB,
Nice to see you commenting again.
I've been wondering where you were.
gc,
On the nice words, thank you. I appreciate them very much.
On your question: I don't know much about that matter but KC Johnson thinks the licence aspect is part of why Nifong wants to keep the case on a track for court
Anon @12:42,
You questions was answered by the next commenter.
Michael,
You're right.
LB,
A thoughtful comment.
Dear Coreen,
Thank you for those words.
I'll think of them the next time someone flames me.
I'm glad you've discovered Liestoppers and KC Johnson.
They're terrific.
Do you know Betsy Newmark? She blogs at http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/
She's a mom, a Am. History teacher in a charter school and an outstanding blogger.
Anon @ 3:42,
"if Seligmann decides not to return to Duke, that is his choice."
In making his "choice" no doubt Seligmann will weigh the fact that when racists shouted threats at him, including death threats, the President of Duke, its trustees, it's faculty and its alumni organization said not one word critical of the racists or in support of him.
Do you have any advice for Seligmann concerning his "choice?"
Good wishes to you all,
John
Expelled, suspended. Suspended, expelled. Is there a real difference?
The accused can not continue with their education either in Duke or anywhere else while this goes on.
In this case expelled vs. suspended is a distinction without a difference.
Dear Straightarrow,
Your last two JinC comments show you at your best and add to this blog.
I hope you continue to comment in that vein.
I also hope you'll let me know you saw this message.
Best,
John
I don't think that any of us would want a University to take it into its hands to overturn a grand jury indictment.
There are no linkages between what Duke choses to do and what the legal systems does. Duke can't "overturn" anything havng to do with the legal system. Your remark is a total non sequitur.
Duke, however, can have the backbone to make a stand, especially now that so much information is available, to express its own opinion that the charges are almost certainly false, that the students civil rights are being violated by a corrupt DA who has charged the students to further his own career, and that Duke's continuing academic punishment of the students is unjustified.
Unfortunately, Duke, as embodied by Dick "Pontius Pilate" Brodhead, has washed its hands of the matter and is operating on the premise of guilty until proven innocent. He doesn't have the courage to stand up for the rights of his students when it means taking on his politicized faculty who are operating on a ideological agenda that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
As a counter example, consider Ben Chavis (now Rev. Dr. Benjamin Chavis Muhammed) who was an actual convict for conspiracy and arson when Duke decided to make a statement about his innocence and endorse him with admission to Divinity school. Wonder what could be the difference between that case and this case? Hmmmm....
p.s. John - thanks for your kind words. I've been around and reading daily but you've said it so well I've rarely felt compelled to comment.
p.p.s. "students civil rights are being violated"
before someone starts quibbling:
1) The medical report from the hospital does not support the description of the crime in any way.
2) The ID process was rigged and is fatally flawed on many levels. Duke's own law expert who literally helped write the book on the matter says so.
3) I could continue but 1 and 2 are plenty. The indictment was unsupported by the evidence in hand at the time or in hand now.
At the time Duke admitted Ben Chavis his conviction was still on appeal and had not been set aside. The fact that he had served his sentence or the fact that it was 25 years ago is not relevant. He was a convicted felon.
I was attending at the time and there was a great deal of debate over whether the university wanted a convicted felon with serious prison time walking the campus. The Divinity school admitted him specifically to help affirm his innocence and influence the appeal process by giving him a seal of approval.
Given that, why won't Duke stand up for the legal rights (not even the innocence like Chavis mind you, but the simple legal right to due process) of students who are already on campus when it has become clear that their legal rights have been violated with an indictment that was dishonestly obtained.
And why would Brodhead, before suspending them, refuse to hear their side of the story? What would it hurt? I guess he's not a believer in due process inside the university either.
I would further remark that an academic death sentence executed by slow starvation (suspension) is perhaps a more cruel punishment than an academic death sentence executed by firing squad (expulsion). In the end the result is the same and the method of execution matters not.
11:19 AM, in your post, you ask why would Brodhead, before suspending the LAX players, refuse to hear their side of the story. This is one more classic example of the kind of misinformation that goes around on these websites. Everyone knows that Brodhead did meet with the captains of the LAX team shortly after the story broke in the media and that he did listen to their side of the story. However, Duke also has a long-standing policy which states that if a student is formally charged with a felony, the student will be automatically suspended from the university until the charges are resolved. This policy was adopted before Brodhead even arrived on campus. When the three LAX players were indicted, they were automatically suspended pursuant to this policy of the university. Accordingly, the implication contained in your question, that Brodhead made a personal decision to suspend the LAX players while refusing to listen to their side of the story, is false.
Post a Comment