Wednesday, July 19, 2006

An exemplary service to Duke and the community

That’s what the Friends of Duke University provided today with a full-page ad in The Chronicle, Duke’s student newspaper. Historian and blogger KC Johnson tells us :

Today's Duke Chronicle features an open letter to President Richard Brodhead and Duke's Board of Trustees. Sponsored by Friends of Duke University, a grassroots organization, the letter urges the Brodhead administration to do more to speak up for Duke students, in part by "formally demand[ing] that Mr. Nifong immediately correct, to the extent now possible, the grave errors that he has committed to date."

The letter also notes that beyond acknowledging bad conduct by the lacrosse team, as he has repeatedly done, Brodhead needs to "call attention to the larger, more positive, context the [Coleman] committee found” about the team.

In general, the letter advocates a more robust response by Duke to the crisis, asking the institution to use its formal, but especially informal, powers on behalf of both itself and its students.
KC says a lot more in an excellent post that's a must read. Those of you who disdain faculty foolishness and exploitation clothed as concern for students will love KC's Swiftian evisceration of Duke's faculty's Group of 88.

The Friends make clear they don’t condone the partying that occurred the night of Mar. 13/14. They want necessary reforms which recognize that “many of the team’s problems exist within the larger Duke community.” [And on most other campuses. – JinC]

People who love Duke and others who just value fairness will cheer the Friends’ vigorous, fact-based refutation of the “elitist Duke,” “walled off from the community,” “indifferent to Durham’s poor” slimes that have been hurled by the worst of media reporters and “talking heads,” and even by some Duke faculty. [Yes, the Group of 88 and the academic departments and programs that endorsed the 88’s exploitive “listening statement.” Others, too. - JinC ]

Whatever the letter’s ultimate impact, it’s already accomplished two very important things:

1) It provides Duke students with a much needed statement of the facts and issues of fairness, judgment, justice and community life the Duke lacrosse case has raised.

2) By confronting President Brodhead with facts, injustices and the sliming of the university; and by asking that he speak out and in other ways act, the letter places Brodhead in a position where he must take a stand or lose a very great deal of credibility.

Back on Mar. 29, within a few hours of listening to the tape of a 911 call, Brodhead issued a written, unqualified, public apology to the caller without knowing whether all, some or none of what the caller said was true.

Brodhead’s decision to apologize to the caller, who we later learned was the “second dancer,” is very much on the minds of Dukies and everyone else who’s watched the unraveling of what's really the Duke lacrosse hoax.

People will be thinking about how and why Brodhead decided to make an apology as they now assess his response to the Friends’ letter.

Advice to President Brodhead: Press releases and committee formations won’t be enough. You’re going to be judged against the standard you set for yourself and the university on Mar. 29.

Something for JinC readers: The Chronicle issue in which today’s letter appears is called the “mailer issue.” That’s because it’s a special edition that’s mailed to about 18, 000 addresses, including those of the students and their families. The issue is meant to be a “Welcome to the start of the new school year.”

Message to Friends of Duke University: Well done! A lot of us have been looking for something like what you put out there today.

Full disclosure: KC Johnson noted that he’s a strong supporter of Friends of Duke University; also that they’ve often linked to his posts. The same is true with me.

Also, because some people now expect such disclosure: I’m a Duke alum, and feel I'm fortunate to be one.

That said, I’m no different than millions of Americans outraged by the injustices of “Justice in Durham;” by biased and inflammatory media reporting, especially that of the Raleigh News & Observer; and by a university response which, with a handful of admirable exceptions, has been troubling to say the least.

I’m very glad so many people who’ve never set foot on Duke’s campus or visited Durham care about the case.

It’s great to be “shoulder to shoulder” with such people. I think every Dukie feels that way except the 88 and others like them.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Greetings Jim,

I have no connection to Duke but I have been closely following this case since it "broke." My son will be a freshman at a Western U.S. college and was recruited by 20 eastern schools to come play lacrosse.

The case was a classic there but for the grace of God go I. Initially, my wife and I used this as a teaching tool, a what not to do or be involved in come this August.

As it became more apparent that there was no there there, that is, no case, we reminded our son that the coach had already lost his job and that three students were indicted and 43 others lost their potential championship season for a bad party.

I can't tell you how much your blogs and the Johnsville News have meant to me as a parent and fan of the game of lacrosse. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if N&O editor Sill has ever apologized for the March 24 and March 25 stories?
Neff and a few other reporters have done excellent work, but what happened to the reporters who wrote the 24 and 25 stories? Does someone know who edited those stories? Did the N&O publish any kind of explanation or correction of those stories? Do John in Carolina readers know if the CEO of McClatchy, Mr. Pruitt, is aware of the questionable nature of those stories? If you look at the timelines, does anyone believe those stories incited some of what followed? Has the N&O apologized for libeling the unindicted lacrosse players by printing the so-called vigilante poster? And who provided the poster to the N&O?

Anonymous said...

Twain, on the N&O Editor's Blog, Editor Sill has consistently maintained that she is "proud" of their coverage. Complaining to the McClathcy crowd is an exercize in futility. With the whiff of potential civil suits in the air, I doubt they will go on record with any critique of the Editor or their coverage.They have deferred my questions back to the local Editor.

Ms. Sill opines that it was the "gang-testing" (my word) of the team that set off the media furor.

When asked about the "swagger story", the pink fluffy interview with the "soft-voiced" accuser "new to dancing", Sill repeats she is proud of their "original reporting." Go to the various Duke threads on The Editor's Blog (especially the older ones) and you can read it all.

Your questions are excellent. You'll find others posing compelling questions at the Blog, even pleading for answers.

Neff's reporting has been very good...as far as it goes.But he has been E-mailed many of those same questions.He doesn't seem to be churning out many answers.

Can you remember..that old song..."Sounds of silence."

"Fools that lie and do not know
Silence like a cancer grows"

One great mystery John and others have pointed out: the real content of the accuser's interview. There are indications it was edited to fit only details in the indictment. Knowing the accuser has told several widely varying stories already, does the N&O have in its possession still ANOTHER version? Are there aspects of that story that might further erode the accuser's credibility? Does the N&O possess a potential "smoking gun even today?"

And if so, will the N&O give up their notes and/or tape at trial when three young men face long years in prison?

Or will there be more"sounds of silence?"

Anonymous said...

Good day John,

Excellent article on the Friends' open letter! I agree with you that the letter has already full-filled its mission by stating what was not stated thus far, in the most clear and straight forward manner. But, I hope it will do more than that, if Brodhead cares to respond.

Joan Foster, thanks for a very illuminating comment above. It is most helpful. I am glad you guys and gulls are keeping such close top on the media. You should all be commanded for the great service you are providing with your coverage and commentary.

A grateful JohnC reader

Anonymous said...

I am in Eastern Europe, in a country where few of the people, though very well educated, speak English.

Three people have asked me about the Duke case. (They also wanted to know what LAX was!)

Makes you want to sic Ann Coulter on the N&O and Nifong.

-AC