To The Chronicle: Letter 3

Readers’ Note: On Oct. 27, Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, published an editorial, “Bloggers get point, miss complexity.”

The editorial and its comment thread are here.

Please read them if you haven’t already done so. See also The Chronicle's explanation of how it "writes" editorials.

The Chronicle editorial leveled a number of extremely serious charges at bloggers.

I’m responding to The Chronicle with a series of electronic letters which I’m posting at JinC. Each letter is headed "To The Chronicle" and enumerated. Here are links to Letter 1 and Letter 2.

Letter 3 follows.

John
_________________________________________________

Editorial Board
The Chronicle
Duke University

Dear Editorial Board members:

My first two letters (here and here) were, as you know, direct responses to your Oct. 27 editorial, “Bloggers get point, miss complexity.”

I’d planned for this third letter to be an explanation of why you should exculpate me and bloggers like me from your charge that we vilified Durham DA Mike Nifong.

But I want to put that aside for now and instead comment on your November 6 Election Eve editorial, “Cheek for District Attorney,” and your November 8 editorial, “Facing the Reality of Nifong.”

While your Nov. 6 endorsement of Lewis Cheek was no small matter, the editorial has an importance beyond the election.

You took into account and stated clearly issues embedded in the lacrosse case but also vital to Duke and Durham’s futures. For example:

Nifong's handling of the case to date raises a number of questions about his prosecutorial conduct, but also about the general manner in which he carries out his duties as district attorney. […]

Nifong's actions seem to sidestep the legal system, but it also seems that he has taken advantage of the community.

Through his approach to the case and his statements to the press, Nifong utilized an already existing and powerful divide in the Durham community.

This district attorney race is not just about the Duke lacrosse case and it certainly should not be. Durham had the highest homicide rate in North Carolina in 2005 and continues to face a grave gang violence problem.

Your November 8 post-election editorial provided a crisp, informed analysis of the factors at play in the race. It also quite correctly pointed out the many responsibilities a Durham DA faces.

To all of that I found myself agreeing. But I “hit the breaks” when I came to:

Whether or not he chooses to bring lacrosse to trial, we ask Nifong to make his decision out of justice and respect for his own office, not out of political ambition or media pressures.

What you ask of Nifong all reasonable people wish he would do.

But that an intelligent, reasonable group such as yourselves feels compelled to ask a District Attorney to be just and respect his office is really a powerful argument for what Professor James Coleman recommended back on June 12 :

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.

We’ve since learned more about the fraudulent ID procedures that led Coleman to say, “Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice.”

We’ve also heard Nifong recently say in court that he’s never discussed the case with the accuser.

And we’ve watched Sgt. Gottlieb do something none of us could do: from two pages of handwritten notes produce months later a typed, detailed, single space, thirty-two page “report” of his investigation.

I end this letter with admiration for your Nov. 6 and 8 editorials, but also wondering why, having affirmed in those editorials so much that is right for the accused, for Duke and for Durham, The Chronicle has not joined with Professor Coleman and many others who believe justice can best be served by the appointment of a special prosecutor.

In a day or two I’ll write a letter responding to your concerns about my treatment of media, and a few days after that I’ll write another addressing your concerns regarding how I’ve treated Duke faculty.

Thank you for you attention to what I’ve written.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com