Readers’ Note: The Chronicle’s Editorial Board is very upset with what it calls a “small group of alumni” who it charges are “hurting everyone at Duke.” ("Alums: Don't stop donating to Duke,” Jan. 29)
Excerpt from the Jan. 29 editorial:
[T]his small group of alumni has demonized some members of the Duke community.I’m sending Chronicle Editor-in-Chief Ryan McCartney the following electronic letter and a link to this post. McCartney is one of 13 Editorial Board members (Their bio information is here.)
Many have also expressed-vehemently-their intent to never donate to Duke and to discourage others from donating as well. In doing so, these alums are overlooking the student body and the well-being of the University as a whole; by threatening to halt, and potentially withhold, their financial support, they are hurting everyone at Duke.
McCartney's email is: daniel.mccartney@duke.edu
I hope many of you will share your thoughts with him.
John
_________________________________________
Ryan McCartney, Editor-in-Chief
The Chronicle
Duke University
Dear Editor McCartney:
In its Jan. 29 editorial The Chronicle charges a “small group of alumni” are, among other things, “hurting everyone at Duke” by withholding financial giving.
This alum doesn’t agree with that charge nor many others The Chronicle made. In a few days I'll say more about why I disagree.
Today I’ll just cite five matters which are of great concern to what you call a “small group of alumni” and many others who care about Duke.
1) President Brodhead’s refusal on Mar. 25 to meet with the lacrosse players’ parents; his refusal to meet with them since; and his refusal to ever explain why he didn't and hasn't.
2) President Brodhead knew by Mar. 25 of the extensive cooperation the lacrosse players – not just the Captains – had provided police investigators. Yet in his Mar. 25 and Apr. 5 statements he said nothing about their cooperation, even as the “Wall of Silence” falsehood spread and endangered the players.
3) “Vigilante” posters were circulated on campus and physical threats made against the players at the Mar. 29 Take Back The Night rally. One of the rally organizers subsequently wrote a letter to the Raleigh N&O that said in part:
As one of the organizers of the March 29 Take Back the Night (TBTN) march and speak-out at Duke University, I want to clarify that we did not plan, nor do we endorse, the distribution of names and pictures of members of the Duke men's lacrosse team.Brodhead has never made a statement about those events that took place literally right outside his office.
The distribution of the pictures, the targeting of the lacrosse team, and the violence implicit in the defacement of the pictures are nothing less than violations of the space that TBTN exists to create.
The event is neither a protest of the kind we've witnessed recently, a forum for accusation nor a place to target and defame. That some attendees tried to make it so is saddening and not at all in the spirit of the event.
4) On Mar. 30 the North Carolina State Bar’s Ethics Committee opened a file on DA Mike Nifong and his treatment of the lacrosse players. During April and May the public became aware of numerous investigative and legal travesties Nifong and certain Durham police officers were committing. On June 13 Duke Law professor Coleman published his “no wrong choices” letter and called for Nifong to remove himself from the case.
During all that time and until late December, Brodhead supported Nifong’s scheme to bring the three framed young men to trial
5) On May 18 racists shouted physical threats at Reade Seligmann as he walked to the Durham County Courthouse and again within the courtroom, this time adding death threats (“Dead man walking!”). Neither Brodhead nor any member of his administration nor any trustee has ever publicly expressed any criticism of the racists or support and comfort to Seligmann and his family.
I suggest, Editor McCartney, that before The Chronicle again attacks the “small group of alumni” it do at least two things:
1) Publish a series of news reports dealing with the concerns I’ve raised here and others that many in the Duke family have expressed to you concerning Brodhead and his administration's handling of the Hoax case. For example, did dean of students Sue Wasiolek advise lacrosse players not to tell their parents what was going on?
2) Publish an editorial explaining why The Chronicle has never reported or editorialized concerning the racists' attacks on Seligmann.
Thank you for you consideration of this letter, which I ask that you share with you fellow editors.
Sincerely,
John in Carolina
9 comments:
Item # 2 - Dick's silence when he KNEW of the players' UNPRECEDENTED cooperation is what set me off - when those facts became known.
Let's face it - the dividing line within the "Duke Community" is those who "hoped" the allegations were false/mistaken, vs those who "hoped" they were true as the story broke.
We (those who hoped they were false)were entitled to know that the players cooperated fully with the DPD, thereby demonstrating the confidence of their innocense - It is is especially significant now that Dick states that his 'guiding principle' has always been to follow the truth of the facts - then why did he keep these facts to himself ?
In fact, the Administration mades no bones in demonizing the Team, and the very firing of Coach Pressler sent the message of guilt -
Posted: Apr. 18, 2006/WRAL
"Alleva then met with lacrosse coach Mike Pressler, telling Pressler that "his team was under the microscope, and he had to do everything he could to get them in line and to not have any more behavior problems," Alleva said.
Alleva's comments came the same day that a defense attorney said a grand jury issued sealed indictments against two lacrosse team members in connection with allegations that a stripper was raped last month at a team party."
and -
"Sue Wasiolek, Duke's dean of students and assistant vice president for student affairs, said the review of team members' violations -- which her office compiled -- showed the lacrosse team had a "disproportionate" number of violations of the campus judicial code. None was particularly serious, but administrators were concerned about the cumulative record and the fact that some players had several violations, she said."
Count me in those who won't give a dime to Duke - until Brodhead/Trask/Alleva make a complete contrition and/or leave town.
TW
Carolyn says:
So, the Chronicle insists donations to Duke are at the 'expected level'.
Excuse me, would that be the same level as the expectation of honesty from the Group of 88?
Just asking.
Don't forget the Gang of 88! When this collection of intellectually light racists, bigots and ideologues stepped into the light, many Duke alums were horrified. Why would they donate money to a school in which a significant portion of the faculty is so full of irrational hatred? The money pressure is directed at the President to be sure, but the nut cases on the faculty are the proximate cause.
It sounds like the editorial board is using human shields for Duke. "Hurt Duke and you'll hurt the innocent bystanders." This is a common enough technique in certain circles.
On the other hand, if this editorial tells me anything, it's that the donation boycott is beginning to have a significant effect.
To your excellent list please add "Who fired Coach Pressler, and why?" No one has ever given us an explanation of what happened, by whom, or any reasons.
Ahh, but don't you recognize the false piety of the "greater good for the greater number" argument.
I believe I remarked on this earlier. Back up against the wall boys. They're trying to get in your ...... ahem wallet?
Every greater number is made up the smallest minority. If that cannot be honored and protected, how does one go about respecting an agglomeration of them. The Chronicle can kiss my mass (of people).
Credit where credit is due. The Chronicle does publish Miller's amazing essays. If it were the NYT, he would have been publicly rebuked by the editorial staff.
The Chronical published an in-depth interview with Brodhead. It should, in fairness, do an in-depth interview with some of the alumni who are causing all this ruckus and lay out for its audience what their concerns are. THEN it should editorialize about it if it still sees fit to do so.
According to the group of 88, I am partially responsible (as a caucasian male) for the environment of oppression that reigns supreme at Duke. Given the oppression which hangs over the campus like a miasmic cloud, clearly I would be better donating elsewhere.
-Fuqua Grad.
Post a Comment