President Tom C. Clark
Duke Alumni Association
Dear President Clark:
On Oct. 11 I sent you the electronic letter below with copies to all DAA officers, directors, and executive director Sterly Wilder.
I asked questions a growing number of alums are asking.
We question President Brodhead’s position that there’s nothing the University can or should do about Durham DA Nifong’s plan to put a recent Duke graduate and two undergraduates on trial for multiple felonies, including rape.
Law Professor James Coleman has said Nifong’s committed so many procedural irregularities he should step aside and allow a special prosecutor to take over and review the case. I linked to a letter in which Professor Coleman explains further why how that should be done.
An outstanding historian, Professor Robert KC Johnson, recently published two research documents that bear directly on Brodhead’s position.
Johnson concluded Brodhead’s position, which almost all Duke leaders have publicly endorsed, ignores civil and legal rights generations of Americans, including many on university campuses, fought for and thought secure until Brodhead rejected them.
My letter linked to Johnson’s documents.
With all of that, I thought the least I’d receive from you and Duke's Alumni Association would be thoughtful reply that addressed the fairness, legal process and individual and collective rights issues Coleman and Johnson raised on behalf of David Evans '06 and Collin Finnerty '08 and Reade Seligmann '08.
Three weeks after sending my electronic letter, I’ve heard nothing from you or anyone else at DAA.
Why is that?
Sincerely,
John
www.johnincarolina.com
___________________________________________________________
October 11 Letter to DAA President Clark with cc’s to officers, directors, and executive director Sterly Wilder.
President Tom C. Clark
Duke Alumni Association
Dear President Clark:
I'm a DAA member, hold two degrees from the university and blog at www.johnincarolina.com.
I was surprised and disappointed by "Lacrosse Responses: A Few Key Points," particularly by those talking points appearing to endorse President Brodhead's views that the students indicted by DA Nifong should be tried and there is nothing Duke can or should do about the matter.
Many alums reject Brodhead's views. Our reasons are explicated in two research documents historian Robert KC Johnson recently published: "Justify or Retract" and "In Denial."
Johnson considered Brodhead's views in light of important legal, political, social and higher ed precedents. He concluded Brodhead's views are counter to hard-won rights and standards Americans cherish.
Regarding DAA's talking points, Johnson notes " [they suggest] professors and academic leaders must remain silent amidst procedural irregularities by local prosecutors. Such 'talking points,' of course, would repudiate 80-plus years of the history of higher education, dating back to [then Professor] Felix Frankfurter's public protests against the Sacco and Vanzetti case, and would effectively condemn the thousands of brave professors and academic leaders who stood up against the actions of corrupt Deep South prosecutors in the late 1950s and early 1960s".
Acceptance of Brodhead's views means we will not advocate for what Duke Law Professor James A. Coleman believes is a proper response to the investigative and legal travesties that led to the students' indictments.
From Coleman's June 13 letter to the Raleigh N&O:
Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong should ask the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor for the rape case against three Duke lacrosse players and then remove himself and his office from further involvement. This is the only way to restore some degree of public confidence in the handling of the case. Up to now, virtually everything that Nifong has done has undermined public confidence in the case"Endorsement of Brodhead’s views means remaining silent even as we know the truth of what Coleman goes on to say:
According to the police account of the identification … the police not only failed to include people they knew were not suspects among the photographs shown the woman, they told the witness in effect that there would be no such "fillers" among the photographs she would see.Who doubts Coleman is describing a frame-up?
This strongly suggests that the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim an opportunity to pick three members of the lacrosse team who could be charged. Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice."
Months after the events, Nifong's principal investigator, Durham Police Sgt. Gottlieb, produced from two pages of handwritten notes thirty-two pages of typed, single space, detailed "evidence" he'd collected.
Gottleib's "notes" are the frame-up's "exclamation point."
Why would alums reject Coleman's solution and instead endorse Brodhead's views?
And why would DAA do likewise?
Professor Johnson is certain DAA's talking points are "repeats" of Brodhead’s views.
Did the talking points just "land" on DAA's site as a result of someone's "good intentions?"
Or are they there as a result of the considered judgment of DAA's officers, directors and executive director?
I appreciate the attention you and others who lead DAA will give this letter and my questions.
I'll post your response in full at www.johnincarolina.com. I'll also post responses, if any, I receive from others to whom this letter is copied.
I trust you'll keep my email address in confidence.
Sincerely,
John
www.johnincarolina.com
cc’s to DAA officers, directors, and executive director
5 comments:
Sorry to have to say I told you so.
It is time we talk honestly about what is happening. Brodhead & his administration are afraid of upsetting the AA Professors who are the Duke 88 Leaders, the AA community, and the Durham Progressive Alliance. So instead of just treating this as a civil rights abuse he had decided to sacrifice these students.
It is time we stop dancing around this issue. It is racism at its worst.
I always had a sense that Duke was fairly intimate and familial compared to some of the other powerhouse institutions-- as have other alumni I know. And now we see our own President and administration: they shrug, arms extended, palms up, and yet they order everyone to stand back, to give room to Nifong, the mentally disturbed thug, who struts the stage, screaming that our Duke boys are rapists, hooligans. Nifong works to incite the ignorant. He brandishes the hanging rope, pillories our own Duke students. Meanwhile, the Despicable 88 mingles with the mob, handing out flowers, explaining that folks needn't worry about the legitimacy of the proceedings-- that merely having white skin, coming from a successful family, and playing sports requiring the use of a helmet, are all quite enough for the crowd to justify lynching these boys. Broadhead is the worst president, is the worst president, in Duke's history. He presides over an unprecedented era of moral cowardice, willful ignorance and a clumsy approach to public spin, rather than lead through pursuit of truth. Eruditio et Religio, would that it were still true. Sic Semper Tyrannis
What will Brodhead do if there is a hung jury? if there is a conviction?
Why does he think that a trial will resolve anything?
The same people who clamor for a trial are the same people who will not be satisfied with the result...
What will Brodhead do if there is a hung jury? if there is a conviction?
He will celebrate! That much is clear, isn't that what he is hoping for? The asnwer is very clear in my mind, a big fat YES.
Post a Comment