Readers Note: You’ll best understand the post following this note if you’re familiar with the contents of these posts – Duke BOT Steel Questions ,
Responding to "Call home immediately" comments ,
Duke's Simple Questions Problems – and their comment threads
This is a 1, 2, 3 post.
1) The full text of Red Mountain’s comment in response to Duke's Simple Questions Problems.
2) My response to RM’s comment
3) A few thoughts and an invitation to you to comment.
Let’s begin ----
1 – Full text of RM’s comment on the thread of Duke’s Simple Questions Problems:
You are arguing a point I didn't make. I agree with your post and I agree that the answers are No as well. Once I accept the fact that Duke did many things wrong in it's handling of this situation, the next question becomes; Why? The lawsuit implies an evil and malicious intent on the part of the Duke administration to railroad the Lacrosse players. That is the answer to my question the lawsuit gives, and it seems that you agree with that.
I believe the intent was to resolve the case as quickly as possible because Duke believed that the accusations were false and they felt the sooner the investigation was completed the sooner it would be resolved in the favor of the players. That in no way justifies the actions that Duke took that were potentially harmful to the players. Duke made some major mistakes and I even pointed out a few other mistakes I believe are going to be hard for Duke to justify. If this lawsuit goes that far and a jury is at the point that it feels Duke is liable for these errors, the amount of the award could hinge on the jury answer to this question.
2 – My response to RM - - -
Dear Red Mountain:
I continue to appreciate your civility and avoidance of ad hominems.
I was glad to see you acknowledge the only correct answer to each of the four questions I posed was “No.”
That each of them can only be answered in the negative is a major problem for Duke and those claiming it acted last March with concern for the students’ legal rights, safety and emotional well-being.
In the threatening circumstances the lacrosse players faced, what sort of university administrators would fail to urge students to “call home immediately?”
And for what reason(s) would they fail to do that?
A reasonable person needn’t accept Ekstrand’s major contention in order to reject your major contention:
“I believe [Duke’s] intent was to resolve the case as quickly as possible because Duke believed that the accusations were false and they felt the sooner the investigation was completed the sooner it would be resolved in the favor of the players.When President Brodhead and the rest of Duke’s Crisis Management Team read and discussed the Raleigh News & Observer’s Mar. 25 front page story about a night of “sexual violence,” they knew it contained many falsehoods, including the claim that the players had formed a “wall of solidarity” and were refusing to cooperate with police.
Yet when Brodhead issued a statement later that day he said nothing about the players’ cooperation and instead urged everyone to cooperate with police.
Where’s the “intent was to resolve the case as quickly as possible” in that?
Why didn’t Brodhead say something like: “I urge everyone to cooperate in this investigation as have the lacrosse players?”
Duke “believed that the accusations were false.”
On Mar. 28 DPD began circulating the libelous Durham CrimeStoppers Wanted poster about “this horrific crime.”
Why didn’t Duke University Police Director Robert Dean, who then chaired the Durham CrimeStoppers board of directors, demand the retraction or at least a correction of the poster?
Why wasn’t Dean joined in that request by his fellow CrimeStoppers board member, Duke’s Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek?
There’s a lot more I could cite that argues Duke did many things and failed to do other things it should have done.
Together Duke’s actions and failures to act had the collective effect of not simply enabling the initial investigative travesties but of advancing and sustaining the attempted frame-up of three of its students.
You say, “Duke believed that the accusations were false.”
As regards Steel, Brodhead, most of its trustees and “Dick’s senior team,” I strongly suspect you're right.
Given they very likely knew the accusations were false, and given what Duke did and didn’t do, can’t you see that your claims Duke worked on the students’ behalf are absurd?
If we ever learn something close to the full truth of what happened, everything in Ekstrand’s filing will likely not stand.
But based on what we already know that’s indisputable, nobody should doubt a great deal of what Ekstrand’s asserted will prove true.
3 - Folks, how did Duke ever go from being a place led by President Terry Sanford to a place led by BOT Chair Bob Steel and President Dick Brodhead?
I want to say more but I’ve a meeting coming up and I want to get this posted.
Anyway, it’s your turn to comment.