Who’s Maggief? And what’s her connection to the suit Duke alum Kyle Dowd and his parents have brought against Duke Professor and faculty Group of 88 member Kim Curtis and the University?
Maggief, as far as I know, has no direct connection to the Dowd suit but when the news first broke that the Dowd’s are alleging Curtis unfairly gave Dowd, a member of Duke’s lacrosse team, a failing grade Maggief reminded readers at Free Republic that a commenter here at JinC had some weeks back said her son had been a victim of grade retaliation by Curtis in 2004, and that Duke had mishandled the matter.
A JinC Regular alerted me to Maggief’s Free Republic comment. I then found the comment the parent made here and included it in this post: "Duke’s first lax suit."
I acknowledged the Regular’s help but failed to mention Maggief’s comment had started the chain that led to the parent’s comment’s inclusion in my post.
I’m sorry for that, Maggief. Thank you for your help.
And thanks also to every one of you out there who continually do things that make JinC a better blog.
Moving on –
KC Johnson has a “don’t miss” post: “Dowd and Duke.”
In “Duke’s first lax suit” I noted that the Dowd’s attorney, Joseph E. Zeszotarski, is a very well regarded, experienced litigator who, as a result of his peers’ assessments, has earned listing since 2003 in The Best Lawyers in America. I also noted Zeszotarski’s law firm, Poyner & Spruill, is large (over 100 attorneys) and one of the most respected in the Southeast. (links for Zeszotarski, P&S and BLinA are in "Duke's first lax suit")
Attorneys in Zeszotarski's position and law firms like P&S are careful about the cases and clients they take on. They also knew before filing that the suit would be a very “high visibility” one that will be closely watched by other attorneys and potential S&P clients. So it’s a safe bet they believe they have a very strong case and confidence they’ll be successful.
That leads to something KC said in his post: “It’s unclear to me why Duke allowed this case to progress to a stage where a lawsuit would be filed.”
Why, indeed?
It’s standard practice for claimants’ attorneys to try to resolve claims before resorting to the courts, especially when the defendant is one such as Duke, with all its access to first-class legal talent and the resources to pay for it.
I don’t doubt that Zeszotarski made a strong effort to settle matters before bringing suit. And I don’t doubt Duke made some kind of response. But, of course, I don’t know the particulars of what went back and forth.
I sure wish I did.
I’ll be interested to hear what you think.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Maggief and Dowd suit comments
Posted by JWM at 4:39 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
This case could be very significant. I am sure that Dowd's attorney is keenly interested in obtaining discovery from the defendants. Given the outrageous and irresponsible things that members of the Gang of 88 were willing to say publicly, their e-mails and other private communications could be very embarrasing. There is no way that Duke lets this one go to trial.
Twelve Angry Men just aired; I haven't seen it in years. It's instructive on two fronts:
1. Unlike the 11, the 88 appear unable to change their viewpoint.
2. The feminist/leftist movement have reached true equality as they mirror the old angry, intolerable white men, as best represented by E.J. Cobb in the movie. Again, he was acting and changed his mind.
"Movements born in hatred very quickly take on the characteristics of the thing they oppose." - J.S. Habgood
They've exceeded those characteristics.
John - It is I who screwed up in the first place by failing to point out in my earlier comment that it was maggief who had found/remembered the old comment from Judith. The fault is mine alone.
In the Duke system it is, on purpose, very hard for anyone (faculty or administration) to change a grade once it has been submitted as a final grade. That's been done specifically to protect against pressure to change grades once the semester is over. The only acceptable rationale is "calculation error". We see that term used here, even though it more likely was administrative pressure to make a partial accomodation.
As I’m sure you’re aware, news of the lawsuit filing broke immediately. The papers also had convenient photos of the Dowd.
The reason that happened is because the law firm notified the press, sent them a brief summation of the suit, a copy of the photo, and possibly a copy of the suit. Very often this is now done over the web as opposed to the old printed media kit containing all the papersand the photo. That makes it easer for reporters to copy and paste interesting snippets rather then retyping everything. The idea is to make it as easy as possible for the press to publish the information. The same goes for all public relations.
This is always how the medial finds out about suits – from the plaintiff’s attorney. The press does not have people stationed at courthouses looking for suits, nor due the courts call them and say that they’ve just received an interesting suit.
The reason this is done is to immediately put public relations heat on the defendant, something that Duke can ill afford. In this case the plaintiff is telling the whole world that teachers at Duke will screw kids, who are paying $40K a year, if they don’t fit the leftist teacher’s idea of “politically correct”.
The damages, about $60K, are certainly not high so I assume there is some other motive. I could well be that these parents, Dowd as well as others, are really angry about the matter since no crime even occurred. They’re out to very publicly embarrass Duke, bring very negative information about the radicals at duke to light, and create an atmosphere where alumni and the board call for immediate and extensive change. My guess is that removal of the president and reassignment/firing of the vice provost would be among their intended aims.
That is something that’s easier to do with an unending stream of bad PR than in a courtroom, so the suit could be a screen for the PR.
Check out Liestoppers for momtothree's post on Cpl. Addison of the Durham Police Department. Wonder what happened to this very public face of the early Nifonging in the lacrosse frame? Does anyone know? And what else do you know about Addison? It would appear he'll end up in court.
I think the $60,000 figure is the absolute minimum amount:
"Duke is being sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Curtis and Duke are being sued for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and punitive damages. For all but one of those claims the lawsuit states that the plaintiffs were damaged in excess of $10,000."
--http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4905060
7:28 PM
IOW, the goal is to have the Board and alumni administer the same justice to Brodhead and the 88 as did Brodhead and the 88 to the lax team. Let's not worry about due process or what's right or what's fair. They've become an embarassment. Let's get right of them.
Just a side note, having read every blog at one time or another about the Hoax; Maggief is the most amazing researcher I've ever seen. She ALWAYS runs down information that bloggers ask about. Way to go, Maggief.
Texas Mom
Bringing suit results in discovery, a hunting license to gather data. Lawyers may go virtually anywhere in search of information that supports their client's case.
Discovery is also additive. Dowd's suit most likely is the first of many to be filed on behalf of team members.
IMO: all that discovery - added to discovery stemming from the Selgimann, Finnerty and Evans coup-de-grace suits, which does seem inevitable - will result in a PR sh*tstorm for Duke and Durham.
Sunlight disinfects.
Judith (mother of the former Duke student who did not sue Curtis) gave details about what happened to his son on several blogs including KC Johnson. Here is a detailed account from her:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/FODU_Open_Board/index.php?showtopic=4&st=0&#entry8355999
The discovery process is where the whole thing could become quite ugly. Curtis has proven to be a loose cannon, and Duke will be sorry that she was on the faculty, if my sense is right about what will come out in discovery.
All suits of this sort involve strategy, and it will be interesting to see what Duke does. Yes, given that the case is filed in Durham County, all Duke has to do in a trial is float the "cotton shirt" comment and no jury will vote in favor of Dowd (even though he did not make the comment).
However, universities like Duke depend heavily upon PR, and the information that would likely come out would cost Duke much more than $60 grand. Thus, Duke is left with the option of settling or being embarrassed. Neither is good for the university, but the former might be the best of the two.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO BRING THIS OUT OF THE COMMENTS ONTO THE MAIN PART OF THE BLOG. THIS WAS SENT TO ALL FACULTY AT DUKE.
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
We only need to ask a question to put the lie to Brodhead's pretended concern for fairness.
Where was this attitude when it would have done some good, before your real response encouraged Nifong?
I just saw this on the FODU discussion board. They are starting a new petition drive for the Duke Alumni:
Concerned Duke Alumni
Time to sign up.
Post a Comment