Monday, January 08, 2007

Brodhead reveals himself

An Anon commenter sent me a copy of the following letter that went today to all Duke faculty.

My comments follow the letter.

I'll say more in a few days.

For now, thank you, Anon. I didn't post immediatly because I was working on my comments.

John
_____________________________________________

From: President Richard H. Brodhead [mailto:poffice@duke.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 11:52 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: A Letter to the Duke Community

January 8, 2007

Dear Members of the Duke Community:

I write to greet you at the start of a new year. I also want to address some important developments that have taken place while the University was on break, and to offer some thoughts as we go forward.

Last spring, this community became embroiled in a major controversy arising from a party held by members of the men's lacrosse team. It is universally acknowledged that the behavior at the party was inappropriate and unacceptable. Several factors came together to intensify the emotional response to this event. Though vehemently denied by team members, the accusations that resulted from the party raised deeply troubling questions about sexual violence and racial subjugation, issues of fundamental concern to any decent community. Passions were further intensified by a series of statements by the Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong that a rape had indeed taken place. Intense media coverage heightened these passions, promoting an air of instant certainty about rapidly changing "facts."

In the confusion of this situation, the University's response was guided by two principles: that if true, the conduct that had been alleged was grave and should be taken very seriously, and that our students had to be presumed innocent until proven guilty through the legal process.

As perceptions of the story changed, the University continued to maintain the need for broad deference to the legal process. If this case has taught us anything, it is our need for a legal process based in fairness, the rule of evidence, and withholding judgment until the truth is established.

In an interview with "60 Minutes" last fall, I noted that given the concerns that had been raised, when the case came before a judge and jury, Mr. Nifong's case would be on trial as much as the students would. But as that comment recognized, the road to a resolution necessarily involved going through legal process, not outside or around it.

In mid-December, there were important developments as the legal process entered the courtroom. These included the revelation, in sworn testimony, that the district attorney had not shared with the indicted students potentially exculpatory evidence from the DNA tests. Also, on December 22, the Friday afternoon before Christmas, the district attorney announced that he was dropping the rape charge because the accuser was no longer certain about her claim. After Christmas, the North Carolina State Bar announced that it had reviewed concerns about the district attorney's public statements and found grounds to file a formal complaint. Days later, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys also called on Mr. Nifong to recuse himself in this case.

On December 22, I issued a statement saying that, given the certainty with which the district attorney made his public statements regarding the rape allegation, his decision to drop that charge must call into question the validity of the remaining charges. I added that the district attorney should now put this case in the hands of an independent party, who can restore confidence in the fairness of the process. That last phrase is, for me, the heart of the matter. We entrust our conflicts to the law to provide a path to a fair resolution. But to earn this faith from the public,

those who work in the legal process must behave with elemental fairness and regard for the rights of those involved. We need and deserve for that faith to be restored.

In the wake of these new circumstances, I concluded upon the recommendation of Vice President Moneta that we should offer reinstatement to Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann so that they can return to Duke and resume their studies. (David Evans graduated last spring.) Interim suspension, the policy measure that had been invoked last April, is not a disciplinary measure or judgment of guilt. It is a temporary measure taken when a student is charged with a violent crime, and its use must balance a variety of factors, including the gravity of the charge, the presumption of innocence, the possibility of danger to the student or the community, and the need of students to continue with their education. Although the two students still face serious charges, in the changed circumstances, it seems only right to strike the balance at a different point. The fair
thing is to allow the students to continue with their studies.

We all pray that the legal matter will be resolved in a fair and speedy fashion. But as a university, we also need to look to the future and see how we can learn from this chapter of history. By facing the lessons of this painful episode, we can make Duke a better place. Let me outline a few specifics.

First, we still have work to do on this campus. One thing that has made this event so difficult is that particular charges against individuals have tended to be conflated with larger community issues of race, gender, privilege, and respect. During these hard months, some have seemed to imply that if you insist on the students' innocence, then you must not care about the underlying issues. Others have seemed to suggest that if you insist on the underlying issues, then you must not care about fair treatment for the students.

But it is essential that we separate the legal case from the larger cultural issues and give each its separate, appropriate response. The Campus Culture Initiative, begun last year and due to report this spring, is not a referendum on the party last March. It is an effort to visualize the best community we could make for students to grow and learn in, a community of mutual respect and vibrant mutual engagement. It will be all of our work to advance toward that goal. I see this as a chance to build on existing strengths in our educational experience and to press toward higher ambitions: the latest chapter in Duke's long history of self-
improvement.

Just as important, we must work together to restore the fabric of mutual respect. One of the things I have most regretted is the way students and faculty have felt themselves disparaged and their views caricatured in ongoing debates, often by individuals - sometimes anonymous - outside the Duke community. In the age of instantaneous worldwide media coverage, members of the lacrosse team were judged around the world on the basis of highly selective, highly prejudicial coverage last spring. A number of them were subjected to vile abuse. More recently, a group of Duke faculty members (including a number of African American faculty) have been widely attacked in blogs and emails - and in some cases personally attacked in highly repugnant and vicious terms - based on caricatured accounts of their statements on the lacrosse event.

We want to see an end to these destructive assaults. We cannot change the nature of modern communications, but we can make an effort on this campus to promote more constructive dialogue and a more charitable atmosphere for exchange. This does not mean that troublesome issues should now be avoided.

It's the mark of maturity in a university when hard issues can be freely and vigorously engaged, and this past year has shown us many areas in need of discussion and debate. But it does mean that we need to be less quick to take offense at the words of others, and work harder to understand what others are actually trying to say - even if we then disagree with it.

In its very difficulty, this moment gives us a chance to strengthen the climate of respectful engagement in this community, and it is crucial that we come together to seize the chance. Turning conflict among divergent points of view into the basis for mutual education is at the core of the university's work.

Last, in the heat of recent debates, there's been a danger that we will lose sight of something fundamental, and I want to say it on all of our behalf. This is a great university, one of the greatest in the world.

The vigor, intelligence, and devotion of each member of this community - faculty, students, and staff - are what make Duke great. This place needs all of us. And all of us are incalculably lucky to be part of this place, and to have the others who surround us for partners and colleagues.

Duke can and will become better yet, and it's our business to make it so.
This is the season of the New Year - a time for new starts and fresh beginnings. Let's work together to make our university as great as it can be.

Richard H. Brodhead
President
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
Brodhead’s letter is mostly more of the "same old, some old" we’ve been getting since last March, with now some "It's Nifong's fault" added to conform to Brodhead's recent decision to abandon his longstanding support for Nifong's plan to bring David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann to trial.

Brodhead invokes the familiar themes of race, gender, and privilege that he and others have used to justify their savaging the Duke students and their enablement of Nifong and certain Durham Police officers’ frame-up of David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

People who understand Brodhead’s character will not be surprised to learn he doesn’t explain why he's never criticized the racists who shouted threats, including death threats, at Reade Seligmann on May 18 or invited his friends who lead North Carolina’s NAACP to join him in criticizing those racists. Perhaps he thinks the faculty doesn’t care.

Brodhead doesn’t give a hint as to whether he thinks the faculty should have shown at least some pro forma support for Seligmann on May 18 or since. His silence is likely to win “huzzahs” from Duke’s Arts & Sciences faculty, renowned for guarding its independence as fiercily as it protects its entitlement to preferred parking spaces.

Brodhead’s unquestionably firm and clear about one thing: no looking back. It’s a New Year, he informs Duke’s “community of scholars,” and we must all look to the future.

The letter should play well with all those on campus who rushed to judgment last Spring and still wake at night, aroused by dreams of Mike Nifong waving a smoking gun on the steps of Duke Chapel.

But the letter will, I’m sure, only further lower the already low esteem in which a large majority of undergraduates hold Brodhead.

Brodhead says:

One of the things I have most regretted is the way students and faculty have felt themselves disparaged and their views caricatured in ongoing debates, often by individuals - sometimes anonymous - outside the Duke community.
It's just "the rush to judgment crowd" that feels disparaged.

Most undergrads last Spring adopted either a "wait and see" attitude or refused to fall for the Hoax and believed their classmates innocent.

They now feel vindicated; not disparaged. And they have little sympathy for those who do feel “disparaged:” faculty like the Group of 88 and students like those who put up the Vigilante posters and demanded: “Who will protect us from the lacrosse rapists?"

Those undergrads, a growing number of whom are now blog readers, will quickly spot the pandering in “One of the things I have most regretted is the way students and faculty etc, etc.”

Brodhead tosses a bone to those sympathetic to the lacrosse players. He allows as how the players were subjected to “vile abuse” by media. But, as even Brodhead’s supporters would expect, he has nothing to say about the vile abuse the players and their families were subjected to by many Duke trustees, administrators and faculty.

For those of you who are wondering where’s “the gutter” in Brodhead’s letter, it’s here:
More recently, a group of Duke faculty members (including a number of African American faculty) have been widely attacked in blogs and emails - and in some cases personally attacked in highly repugnant and vicious terms - based on caricatured accounts of their statements on the lacrosse event.


No intelligent person - and Brodhead’s very intelligent – who’s followed events at Duke these past months can deny that many Duke faculty have said and written things that were foolish, ignorant and mendacious. In some cases - Professors Holloway, Lubiano, Starn and Wood come immediately to mind - faulty have done so repeatedly. For specific examples, see here, here, here, here and here.

Rather than offering caricature accounts of the statements and writings of such faculty, the critics I've read - KC Johnson, Liestoppers, Johnsville News, La Shawn Barber, Betsy Newmark (a Duke parent, by the way), William Anderson, Thomas Sowell, Jon Ham, Mary Catherine Ham and others – have used specific actions and statements of those faculty to expose their folly and mean-spiritedness.

Recently a number of bloggers expressed their upset that the full text of the "88's" "listening statement" was removed from the African and African American Studies Department's website. The bloggers wanted to link to it.

I wish Brodhead had explained what he found in the “listening statement” that lead him to conclude that critics who wanted to link to it are “repugnant and vicious.”

The most self-revealing and disgusting part of Brodhead’s letter involves his claim that “critics,” none of whom he bothers to name, attacked “a number of African American faculty." Not only does Brodhead fail to name any critics, he fails to cite a single example of what he calls the critics’ attacks in “repugnant and vicious terms.”

Did you ever think you’d see the day a President of Duke University would so shamelessly play the race card?

Did you ever think you’d see the day a President of Duke University would play the race card in a letter to the faculty?

What’s your estimate of the percentage of faculty which has any idea what Brodhead’s letter is telling them about what he really thinks of them?

What’s your estimate of the percentage of trustees who realize major changes are needed at Duke, starting with a new President?

What’s your estimate of the percentage of trustees who’ll either speak up and begin the change process or resign in the hope someone willing to speak up will take their places?

Those of us who want to make Duke better have a lot of work to do.

Let’s stay at it.
_____________________
KC Johnson offers his take on Brodhead’s letter here.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

This years admissions deadline has been extended to January 12, 2007. (See www.admissions.duke.com). Duke is doing this because " We know that students applying in late December are concerned about our receiving all parts of the application on time. We are therefore extending our Regular Decision deadline for receipt of the application to Friday, January 12. "

Anonymous said...

Above all else, Duke needed leadership in this crisis and instead Brodhead issues worthless bromides. We are a double alum household, and even we would hesitate sending our sons to Duke under the current leadership. This statement, which you correctly labeled same old, same old, continues his pattern of name calling the students without ever saying just what they did that warrants such vicious personal attacks. This was transparently a bone to the radical faculty to let them know that Duke is squarely behind the Gang of 88. Adult supervision at Duke is in order.

It is painfully obvious that despite eveything that has happened the so-called leadership of Duke continues to hold the lacrosse team fully and solely responsible for every bad thing that has happened, from the pot bangers to the dip in applications to some members of the faculty being exposed as arrogant prima donnas. They will not let go of the now discredited narrative; it simply fits the schoolboy agenda too well to let go and accept that they were snookered and made to look foolish.

Brodhead needs to leave the echo chamber and really listen to what is happening. The fact that he badmouths people "outside the Duke community" is a Nifongian mentality that only those inside the walls count and shows a profound ignorance of the pickle Duke is in and how to get out of it. And I have some news for him: it is inside the Duke community where the criticism is strongest.

Finally, it is worth noting that James Van De Veld, another person Brodhead threw under the bus while he was at Yale, stated that he knew that Brodhead knew he was wrong because Brodhead gets verbose when he is panicky and unsure of himself. THis is at least the third letter we received that rambles on with no apparent point; a couple of years ago, after Brodhead let terrorists recruit on campus we received a several thousand word letter that said nothing. Interesting.

What's the old saw? Ah yes, 'tis better to close the mouth and be thought the fool than open it and remove all doubt.

Anonymous said...

I just saw this on the FODU discussion board. They are starting a new petition drive for the Duke Alumni:

Concerned Duke Alumni

Please take the time to sign this petition. It is for a very good cause.

Anonymous said...

John, you know as well as I do that no trustees will call for Brodhead's ouster. The trustees will ask a question or two, be assured by the chairman that all is well, and ignore any misgivings they might have. The chairman cannot afford to question the wisdom of Brodhead's hiring, since Brodhead was his choice. No one in Duke's administration seems to have the ability to admit a mistake and accept responsibility for it. Only after all of the lawsuits are settled (with the attendant confidentiality agreements) will Brodhead/Steel decide that each of them must step down because of (choose one) health matters, pursuing other interests, necessity of devoting more attention to other matters, etc.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead proves once again that he still doesn't get it.

Brodhead must go. The sooner the better.

Anonymous said...

10:44pm,

If I understand the context of your post, the Duke admissions department expects a surge in applications because of what- the reinstatement of Collin and Reade?

locomotive breath said...

Can anyone tell me why the leading articles on the Duke athletics web site for lacrosse continue to feature the non rape?

http://www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&KEY=&SPID=2027&SPSID=25937

For the longest time the first thing that came up was Brodhead on 60 minutes.

Can anyone tell me why Duke has still not posted a 2007 schedule?

http://www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&KEY=&SPID=2027&SPSID=25942

Carolina has theirs up

http://tarheelblue.cstv.com/sports/m-lacros/sched/unc-m-lacros-sched.html

Maryland has theirs up

http://umterps.cstv.com/sports/m-lacros/sched/md-m-lacros-sched.html

Virginia has theirs up

http://virginiasports.cstv.com/sports/m-lacros/sched/va-m-lacros-sched.html

It's almost like Duke doesn't want people to attend. Could that possibly be (he asked rhetorically)?

DukeEgr93 said...

John - I'm just glad you didn't use "exposes" in the title of this post...