You can add Kristin Butler’s latest Chronicle column, “A House Divided,” to the long list of outstanding columns she’s produced.
Besides calling it to your attention, I want to offer a few comments in response.
Thirteen months ago, The Chronicle's editorial board had this to say about the Brodhead administration's performance during the lacrosse case: "People should not forget to recognize the adequacy of a 'good' performance in the turbulent and charged atmosphere of the last year. And in the end, history may very well judge the University's response as sensible and well executed given the constraints and competing interests at stake."I’d be interested to read The Chronicle editorial board’s current assessment of “the adequacy” of Duke’s response to the lies of Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong and all that’s followed.
It's hard to imagine anyone offering that assessment today.
Does The Chronicle ever ask itself why on March 25, 2006 President Brodhead didn’t let the public know the lacrosse players had been extremely cooperative with police?
What does The Chronicle think of Brodhead’s failure to say anything critical of those who rallied under the CASTRATE banner, and those who produced and distributed the Vigilante poster?
Why, instead, did Brodhead tell the public that whatever the lacrosse players did “was bad enough?”
How about his silence when a black hate-group threatened Reade Seligmann?
Does The Chronicle believe Brodhead would have been silent if an African American student had been so threatened by a white hate-group?
Why did The Chronicle recently say Brodhead "must" remain as Duke President?
More from Butler:
These 38 families have already turned down the University's offers to fully compensate them for their expenses-legal and otherwise-during the saga, lending credence to the assertion that their goals extend well beyond money.Wise words. My bet is the folks who brought this latest suit want truth more than money.
And, yes, I know it’s awfully hard for most of the media and others with pot-banger mentalities to believe such people exist.
But they do.
Regarding the plaintiffs wanting truth more than money, Butler says:
If that is indeed the case, then we should view this suit as the logical result of administrators' decision to shirk responsibility and stymie reform at every opportunity.Slow to learn from their mistakes?
From the newly disbanded Judicial Affairs Review Committee to the Campus Culture Initiative and beyond, Duke administrators have remained disconcertingly slow to learn from their mistakes, which were legion.
Kristin, you're too kind.
They haven’t learned from their mistakes. They’ve tried to cover them up to protect themselves at the expense of the University. In the process, they knowingly hurt innocent people and damaged Duke’s reputation. They need to go; the sooner the better.
Don't expect admins to acknowledge that is was their unique combination of ignorance, arrogance and denial that brought us to this point.Ah, now we’re back agreeing.
But the inconvenient and unavoidable truth now seems to be that in his haste to avoid the perception "that a well-connected institution was improperly attempting to influence the judicial process" back in March 2006, Brodhead created many more problems than he solved.Too bad, indeed.
Too bad the whole University will get stuck with the bill.
Buter's entire column is here.