Paul Boyer’s article in this week’s New Yorker opens with the story of the summer 2003 search committee assembled to select Duke’s new president.You can read the entire post here. When you come to the end of it, I think you’ll agree that at least as regards the Duke Hoax, President Brodhead has served Duke neither wisely nor well.
After reading the piece, it’s hard to believe the search committee made the right choice. Richard Brodhead, a former professor of English literature, comes across as divorced from reality, searching for the appropriate Shakespeare phrase to describe his impotence as his faculty and a local prosecutor went out of control last spring.
That said, I want to let you know I’ve just kicked up a little fuss with KC as you’ll see from this comment I left on the thread of his “Fact and Fiction in the New Yorker” post:
Dear KC,Folks, Any of you who've read many of KC’s posts I’m sure will realize what a time-saver a generic KC comment option will be for all of us.
I don't mean to sound like a whiner but I've said this before and you've ignored me.
You need to provide readers with a "Generic Comment" option s we can just click on it and we'll leave a message something like :" Hi KC, You’ve done it again. Another terrific post.KC, Now that I’ve sketched out what almost all of us want to say after reading your posts, you have no excuse for not setting up a "Generic Comment" option.
You produce the facts and make your points with such careful reasoning that when I came to the end of your post, all I could say was, ‘Another great one, KC.'"
Thank you for: 1) being part of the fight to undue the Duke Hoax injustices: 2) helping expose the media biases that fueled the witch hunt; and 3) pointing Duke in the direction it needs to go in the Hoax case.
Thanks for thinking about my suggestion.