A story in today’s Chronicle begins:
At the half-way mark in the 2009 fiscal year, private donations to the University were down about 20 percent from the same point the year before, said Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations.
The rest of TC’s story’s here.
Duke netted a record-breaking $351.6 million in contributions last fiscal year, including pledges, according to Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Financial Reports. Private donations-which were made by more than 100,000 individuals-accounted for about 18 percent of Duke's $1.93-billion operating budget for the year, Schoenfeld said. . . .
Are you one of those who appreciate The Chronicle’s news and editorial support of the Brodhead administration?
If you are, you’ll like today’s story.
V-p Schoenfeld, executive director of alumni and development communications Peter Vaughn, Duke’s Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Financial Reports and TC itself are the only sources TC used to explain Duke’s giving drop.
If TC sought comments from people who’ve been critical of Brodhead’s leadership, their comments didn’t make it into TC’s story.
There's no mention of the many alums and others who’ve publicly stated they won’t give to Duke, at least while Brodhead's president and "Dick's senior team" is in place; or who say they’ve cut the amount of their annual giving in response to what they see as the Brodhead administration’s many failures.
Those failures include Duke’s disgraceful enablement of the lies and frame-up attempt which a Chronicle editorial recently referred to as “the Duke lacrosse rape scandal.” ( Does even the disbarred Mike Nifong still refer to the frame-up attempt that way? Who were the editors opining for?)
If you go to the story’s comment thread, you’ll find some comments that are crude, even senseless.
But you’ll also find comments that offer information and raise questions that should have been in TC’s story.
Most people who read here can easily tell the difference between the crude, senseless comments and the other ones.