Readers' Note: I hope after reading this post many of you will write your own emails to Mr. Burness.
john.burness@duke.edu
Also, for reason(s) I don't understand my hyperlink to Duke's lacrosse incident page keeps getting blocked. I've put the correct address in four times.
However, if you paste the following address in yourself, it will take you to the page.
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/
I'll be in touch with Duke to see about that probllem as well as the ones I describe below.
John
_________________________________________
John Burness, Senior Vice President
Public Affairs and Government Relations
Duke University
Dear Mr. Burness:
I’m a Duke alum and blog at www.johnincarolina.com
Duke’s News and Communication’s lacrosse incident page has been a valuable aid to many people, including me. I thank you and the university for that.
However, much about the page today is questionable; and some of it is very troubling.
I call to your attention four matters I hope you'll agree deserve your response which, like this letter, I'll share with my readers.
1) Featured prominently on the incident main page is a photo of President Brodhead with a text introduction and link to 60 Minutes’ outtake of Ed Bradley’s interview with Brodhead.
However, nowhere on the page could I find Bradley’s interview outtakes with our three wrongly indicted students - David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.
Brodhead’s outtake contains nothing that hasn’t already rightfully appeared on the incident main page many times, typically as parts of his press releases, letters, statements to alums, students, etc.
In contrast, Finnerty and Seligmann’s outtakes are parts of their first public interviews since being framed and wrongfully indicted.
Evans’ outtake is part of his first public interview since he spoke so eloquently on the courthouse steps following his framing and indictment arranged DA Mike Nifong with enablement by many others.
What is the rationale for presenting only Brodhead’s outtake on Duke’s lacrosse incident page?
2) The Sample of Latest Media Coverage and Opinion & Related Material page sections contain a combined total of more than 100 articles.
But not one is by the person who’s arguably reported and commented most on the Hoax and its enablers’ monumental hypocrisies and injustices: blogger, historian and Brooklyn College Professor Robert KC Johnson.
Certainly, quantity doesn’t imply quality, so please consider this: In a recent New York magazine article, “Rape, Justice and the Times,” Johnson was described as “the most impressive of the ‘bloggers who have closely followed the case’ [and] the Platonic ideal of the species—passionate but committed to rigor and facts and fairness.”
What’s more Johnson was the first and, I believe, is still the only news person to interview Law Professor Edwin Chemerinsky about the case and get him on the record regarding Nifong’s handling of the case.
I could cite other examples of his work, many of them articles that have advanced the story.
Why is there not one Johnson article included among the more than 100 articles to which you link?
Does it have anything to do with Johnson’s frequently pointing out what many of us believe have been President Brodhead’s and the Arts & Sciences Faculty’s failures to fulfill their duties to the lacrosse players, their fellow students and the university?
If not, why aren't there links to some of Johnson’s many excellent articles that combine “rigor and facts and fairness?”
3) Why is there on the lacrosse incident main page the “tag,” The Herald- Sun, Oct. 17, 2006, followed by a link taking people to a H-S editorial, “Little new in ’60 Minutes’ report?”
The H-S editorial is filled with factual errors that slime Duke students. Example :
”The players maintained an aura of sweet innocence with reporter Ed Bradley either downplaying or ignoring conflicting evidence. Collin Finnerty, for example, was portrayed as an outstanding lacrosse prospect, but no mention was made of his recent assault conviction, with strong homophobic overtones, against a gay man on a Washington, D.C. street”Is there anyone who doesn’t know that statement is false?
Jeffrey Bloxsom, the man H-S Editor Bob Ashley (Duke ’70) tells readers is “a gay man” has spent considerable time and money to let people know he’s not gay.
Bloxsom and his attorneys say they’ve done that not because Bloxsom would be ashamed to be gay, but because they want people to know the truth about him and not exploit the incident.
All of that was said and reported widely five months ago.
I hadn’t seen another “Collin beat a gay” falsehood until I read Ashley’s (Duke ’70) editorial.
“Yuck,” I thought, and moved on.
Then I found the falsehood again at Duke News and Communication’s lacrosse incident main page.
Ashley’s entitled to his opinions but he’s not entitled to distort the truth.
And Duke shouldn’t publicize Ashley when he distorts the truth, no matter how much and how many Allen Building administrators “appreciate all Bob does for us.”
Liestoppers.com provides many more examples of Ashley’s falsehoods and sliming of our students in his editorial.
4) This is most shocking.
Why, just two days before voting for Durham’s District Attorney began, did Duke highlight and link to Ashley’s editorial effectively endorsing Nifong?:
“We're puzzled that so many people think Nifong should ignore the indictments, ignore the accuser, and walk away. Does Durham really want a prosecutor who won't stand up for an alleged victim, even if she ranks near the bottom of society? Do we really want a prosecutor who is cowed by pressure -- and this is enormous pressure -- into dropping charges he believes should be pursued?”Ashley has every right to endorse Nifong.
Anyone at Duke as an individual has every right to endorse and in other ways support Nifong.
But if Duke as an institution is not endorsing Nifong, then what is Ashley’s editorial doing on the Duke’s lacrosse incident main page?
More than two weeks of voting remain.
I think the matter of Ashley’s endorsement is so important I plan to call you this morning.
I’m going to encourage others who read this to email you.
Sincerely,
John
www.johnincarolina.com
8 comments:
Error in link. Try this
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/
John,
It is quite obvious that Duke administration is doing all it can to send these kids to prison. They have become Nifong’s best friend in this terrible, terrible saga. If I was not quite certain of this, I would not say it.
It is for this reason that “they will saw what they are planting right now.” History teaches us that no zealous attack on anyone without just cause can be covered up for long. In this case, Brodhead and Steel are counting on too many people to keep their mouths shut for too long. This is wishful thinking, but it will not happen. People will start talking and their miserable failure in handling this case and their vicious activities behind the scenes will surface. They may appear to be the winners right now, but they will be the biggest losers in the end. I am quite sure of this. No crime so severe can go unpunished. They will get their punishment too, at the most unexpected moment and in the most unexpected fashion. It is only a matter of time.
Do not give a single dime to Duke until Brodhead is removed. This is the only language Duke is speaking right now. Let us talk to them in the language they understand.
The total lack of support Duke has given it's students and the fact that they would link to articles that slime students with outright falsehoods is depressing.
The attitude of Duke's administration throughout this has left me shaking my head. It seems like many of them never bothered to consider the possibility that the players might be innocent. I hope they are held accountable for that.
I don't think the Duke Lacrosse site is evidence of any bias on the Duke administration's part. With respect to the lack of links to KC Johnson's blogs--there don't appear to be ANY blogs among the list of related articles on the lacrosse site. It appears they have limited their list to the traditional media--one could debate whether that is appropriate, and certainly arguments could be made on both sides. As far as their links in general, this list includes articles and newspapers on both sides of the issue. Yes, they link to the Herald-Sun, which is, by the way, the local paper, even if we don't like the coverage. But they also link to "Slate", the "New York magazine", and Stuart Taylor's articles, so I certainly can't see how anyone could claim they have biased selection of articles.
Why they don't have the three lacrosse players out-takes I don't know. Perhaps they link to Brodhead's as he is the spokesperson for the university. They didn't link to Kim Robert's interview either.
I think asking the university to include specific articles and or videos is a reasonable request--but I don't think it is at all reasonable to claim the current site is evidence that the university wants Nifong elected, or that they are trying to send the kids to prison.
re above -- It does not matter which you road you take my friend. All roads in this case are leading to Rome. And, we know where that is. To disagree with this simple truth means you are refusing to see it. Sometimes the truth can be painful and it can be ugly -- as it is in this case. But, closing our eyes doesn't make it go away. It is time to wake up, it is time smell the roses, and it is time to recognize what has been going on for the past 7 months. It is our duty to do it. It is time to ask some tough questions to the administration and demand some real answers.
It seems the Duke administration, local newspapers, the DA, and some important Durhamites, are linked to each other. Perhaps, there really was some kind of a conspiracy between them to indict lacrosse players. They may have information on each other and are afraid of lawsuits or worse if the full truth came out; therefore they must, for the most part, stay in lock step with each other. I can't think of any other explanation of why the facts in this case do not seem to matter to them.
Mr. Ashley seems to be hung up on Collin's dust up in D.C. Perhaps Durham is a gay enclave that the home town newspaper needs to service by punishing Collin over and over. Duke may be a gay enclave as well. There is a full page ad from the Duke University Press entitled "Queer Reading from Duke" in the September 12, 2006 Advocate, the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine. One of the books advertized on this page is called Black Queer Studies by E. Patrick Johnson & Mae G. Henderson, Editors.
A previous post talks about all roads leading to Rome. That comment needs elaboration as it is significant, in my opinion. Rome reminds me of the Catholic Church and the persecution of the early Christians. If Durham and Duke are gay enclaves, then Collin's parents' contribution to the Falcone-Arena House just off campus, a traditionalist Catholic student center, probably did not meet with some gay activists' approval. Maybe an orthodox Catholic center vs. a group of territorial homosexuals and lesbians is a factor in this case along with the race, gender, and class issues?
What better way to punish Collin's parents for their contribution to conservative Catholicism on campus than to perpetrate or contribute to this hoax?
Brodhead and the Duke 88 and Duke University, itself, have betrayed more than the Lacrosse players and the three indicted.
They have betrayed their community, the law, American Jurisprudence, and America. It is our DUTY to ensure fair play in our legal system. It is our DUTY to demand the truth from our public servants. It is our DUTY to adhere to our constitution and not degenerate into prejudicial hysteria because it makes us feel superior or because it buys us favor in the arena of political correctness.
Brodhead and the university have failed in all these duties. Hell, my cat can't violate all those duties and he doesn't even care about them. Of course, he isn't actively trying to be a betrayer. That could be the difference.
Attacking someone you suspect is gay (or lesbian) becuase you can not tolerate how they walk, talk, dress, etc. is homophobic and considered gay bashing - regardless of the victim's actual sexual orientation.
Post a Comment