Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Brodhead Opposes Proposed Boycott

A few hours ago I posted concerning American college and university heads’ opposition to a proposed boycott by Britain’s University and College Union of Israeli universities and scholars.

The post contained an excerpt from an NRO post stating Duke University President Richard Brodhead had refused to join in the opposition to the boycott.

That report is wrong. I apologize to President Brodhead and to you for posting the report.

When I finish this post, I’ll place an error alert, correction and apology at the head of the other post.

I want to thank the reader who called the error to my attention

I plan to let NRO know what I’ve learned. I also plan to send Brodhead an email commending him for his statement.

Here, from Duke News and dated July 27, 2007 is Brodhead’s statement :

I view the proposed academic boycott of Israeli universities by Great Britain’s University and College Union as a threat to all institutions of higher education, and I condemn it as such.

All ideas are not equal, but it is a foundational principle of American life that all ideas should have an equal opportunity to be expressed. The protection of free speech is the protection of the notion that people can teach each other and learn from each other through the free airing of differences and the mutual engagement of opposing points of view.

To disbelieve that is in some fundamental way to disbelieve in education itself. Duke University has a proud tradition of upholding the free exchange of ideas, including discussions that involve the bitter, unresolved conflicts in the Middle East.

The idea of forbidding partnerships and exchanges with Israeli universities and scholars contradicts the high value we place in the pursuit of knowledge on our own campus and in the importance of robust intellectual integrity more broadly. I oppose efforts to suppress the free exchange of ideas at Duke and in university communities around the world.


Mike said...

My bad. I should have checked this out before passing the link along to John. Thanks doubly to John's reader who caught the error.

Anonymous said...

Why cannot the Group of 88 have the same moral courage as John and simply say, "We made an error. We apologize and we want to correct our mistake".

Anonymous said...

No surprise to see John make use of the "layers of editors and fact-checkers" in the 'sphere to reveal himself to be more responsive, and more accurate -- and more honest -- than the typical MSM outlet.

-- No, not that Glenn.

...Speaking of which, somebody else needs to post a correction.

Anonymous said...

That is a nice statement, especially the last sentence. So I wonder Brodhead accepted without comment the faculty-led heckling of David Horowitz when he spoke at Duke. That was contrary not only to his statement but to the Duke Faculty Handbook:

"It is the policy of the university to protect the right of voluntary assembly, to make its facilities available for peaceful assembly, to welcome guest speakers, and to protect the exercise of these rights from disruption or interference."

Anonymous said...

I do not care about the 88, Duke, or an apology. They have all shot themselves in the foot - Nifong shot himself in the head and that is enough for me. Most of the folk whose names we know will be getting off scottfree.
I though Broadhead totally capable of signing the statement. I was wrong and apologize.

Anonymous said...

same here, 4:42. how refreshing and healing it would be to have the 88 be as honest as the "hooligan bloggers".

Anonymous said...

The "Gotcha" game is merely another form of a metanarrative and is no substitute for analysis.

Brant Jones

Anonymous said...

John - No need to write a term paper for this rather simple mistake. I do not think this is a "What did he know and when did he know it/" moment. Appreciate your handeling of this issue,

Enoch said...

Hope 11:48 uses this same set of standards for all the news he/she gets. The NO and HS and the NYT would never publish anything again...they would all be way too busy correcting.
A mistake was made, identified and fixed. Public and private apologies were made. We have full disclosure.
By 11:48's standards, Ms. Sill and Mr. Ashley need to devote an issue or two to cleaning up their Duke Hoax mess. Heck they need to devote a full issue by the standards, John used on his mistake!
Now for the 88 Prof's at Duke who are utterly unrepentant...

AMac said...

Anon 11:48pm wrote --

"John, I really hate to do this but..."

C'mon anon! One minute gives me the answer to half your questions.

* JinC's original post at 11:35am on 8/14/07

* DukeEgr93 writes comment with link at 1:14pm

* This post timestamped 1:41pm

Just come out and say it. "Two hours isn't fast enough for your demanding, though credulous, paying readership."

Your beef should be with the National Review--at this writing, the linked post condemning Brodhead's silence is unfixed (I don't know if that site has a correction elsewhere). I'll trust them less, henceforth.

JWM said...

Readers Note:

Two troll posts on this thread have been deleted.

I apologize for leaving the first one up so long it encouraged the second one.

Part of the reason I left the first one up was that I thought it was funny.


I promise I'll be quicker with the "delete" in the future.


Anonymous said...

Nice going, John.

But I agree you should have hit delete earlier.