Brodhead Fisk # 1

Readers’ Note: This is the first post in an occasional series fisking comments concerning Duke’s President, Richard H. Brodhead.

In # 1 fisk you’ll see I don’t disagree with anything Craig Andrews, T ’65, says in his letter to The Chronicle. I just add affirming commentary.

My commentary is in italics.

John
_____________________________________

The following letter, "Brodhead's response inexcusable, damaging," from Duke alum Craig Andrews, T. 65, ran in the Jan. 30 Chronicle.

To the editor:

I was uneasy with President Richard Brodhead's initial actions to the lacrosse rape allegations. As an alumnus, I read the news and noted Dr. Brodhead's decisions. I cautioned myself to wait to see if there was sound basis for his judgments, telling myself that for me to rush to judgment would be doing precisely what raised my doubts over his actions.

(I did too.

Later we all learned Brodhead knew lacrosse players had cooperated with police investigators. But Brodhead decided to withhold that information from the public. Neither he nor Duke’s top PR guy, John Burness, have ever said why.

And, as far as I know, The Chronicle has never asked Brodhead about his silence on the news side or editorialized concerning it.)

My first instincts were that [Brodhead’s] early responses reflected a premature condemnation, which at the very minimum would enflame emotions against these young men and complicate their defense. It now seems my concern was well founded.

(Brodhead’s early responses did enflame emotions against the players. Recall his written, unconditional apology to “the first 911 caller?” It’s here.

How did Brodhead determine what she said was true? He’s never told us and The Chronicle has never asked.

What does Brodhead think now that he knows the caller was Kim Roberts, “the second dancer?” Did he know that at the time he made his statement?

Durham police knew it more that a week before. Did Brodhead? )

While the president has gingerly back-pedaled from his early posture, I have watched and waited for him to apologize to the Duke community. To my knowledge, he has not.

Indeed, though his recent actions betray a sense of regret over his earlier hastiness, he appears to stubbornly avoid admitting error.

(Instead, he’s attacked bloggers who helped expose the frame-up he and so many others at Duke enabled.

Who’s surprised?)

I believe President Brodhead failed miserably to rise to the challenges this situation presented. His actions (and those of many of his colleagues within the Duke community) have done immense damage to this great university.

(He did and they have.)

Instead of cautioning those rushing to condemn, instead of staunchly maintaining the great principles of justice and constitutional law that are among the most fundamental bases of our national ethos, he raced to posture to the crowd noise.

(Have you noticed no Duke trustee or member of Brodhead's “leadership team” has ever said he acted out of character.

What would Shakespeare do with that observation?)

Whatever the ultimate outcome of the case against the young men, the President's actions were unworthy of his office. Dr. Brodhead, posturing amid the political extremists around him, is himself the greater problem. His action was the one that was anti-intellectual and unprincipled. His action was the one that cannot be tolerated within the halls of a great university. His was the action of a coward not fit to lead a great institution of learning.

(You’re so right. Brodhead needs to move on.)

He should resign as president. He should do so today.

(And then Brodhead should assist with an orderly transition to a new president who must be someone of the caliber of such past presidents as John C. Kilgo, William Preston Few and Terry Sanford.)