Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Brodhead ducked this draft

At Liestoppers’ message board poster Quasimodo rang my bell by posting in full from a Chronicle message board the following letter Duke alum Ed Rickards drafted for Duke’s President Richard H. Brodhead.

Brodhead didn’t use Ricards’ draft but instead signed his name to something that was much more in keeping with his character. Sad!

You can read Brodhead’s letter here along with some of my comments (I’ll have more tomorrow). You also find there a link to KC Johnson’s comments.

Thank you Liestoppers and Chronicle for providing the sites.

Thank you Quasimodo for passing Rickards’ letter on.

And most of all, thank you Ed Rickards. Is there any chance when President Brodhead leaves you’d interview for a senior staff position with his successor?

John
________________________________________________

RICKARDS' DRAFT LETTER

Dear President Brodhead,

I have read your January 8, 2007 letter to the Duke Community and have written a better version for you to send out:

As we begin the Spring Semester, the lacrosse crisis has quickly moved in several new directions and I want to review them with you.

First, a recent graduate is suing a professor and the University, alleging he was flunked because he is a member of the lacrosse team. This is a most serious allegation, going to the heart of academic integrity. While the legal process is engaged, we are suspending the professor involved.

This incident is not alone. We are investigating another with the same professor, plus as some of you know the Dean of Arts and Sciences issued warnings to a number of professors soon after the crisis enveloped our campus about advocacy of their position in the classroom.

Members of the economics department faculty have written a letter to the Chronicle, which has been distributed even though the newspaper has not resumed publication after the holiday break. I regret the atmosphere is such that these professors felt impelled to assure all students that they are welcome in their classes and would receive fair treatment. I want to add my personal assurance -- that is the standard at Duke and we will tolerate no less.

Second, Duke University took a number of actions immediately in March and April that are not warranted:

A) We fired Coach Pressler, compounding our error by putting out a news release that he quit. I personally stated that his resignation was "highly appropriate. Coach Pressler did not walk away from his team, and as the special commission I appointed reported, the actions Duke took and the comment I made are not supported by the facts. We offer to Coach Pressler our apology. We made a colossal mistake. As inadequate as it is, we have asked him for an economic accounting of any financial loss, and will indemnify him. In doing so, we will not require a release from any legal action he might take.

B) We inflicted group punishment on the lacrosse team, cancelling its season. As Chairman Steel has stated, we did so for public relations reasons to cut off the flow of video. This was wrong. As our own investigation established, the team may have had rough edges, but it conducted itself even better than other teams that we field. I apologize to the team members, an apology even deeper because their destination might well have been a national championship.

C) We suspended lacrosse team member Ryan McFadyen. His parody on a movie that was being studied last semester in three different classes was inappropriate; but so was the punishment we enacted. He committed no crime, he violated no university policy. And the circumstances under which Duke secured from him a waiver of his federal right to privacy as a student were also inappropriate.

D) I have criticized in strongest terms the nature of the team party last March 13 -- even if a rape did not occur. I was in error in suggesting the party itself and the rape allegations were equal. In fact the party violated no law and was not against university policy, although we have since modified policy.

To many my criticism of the party smacked of blaming the victim, and I understand their point.

The Campus Culture Initiative is underway to study how we treat each other in all circumstances; while spurred to action by the lacrosse crisis, in no way do we believe that a crime that did not occur teaches us anything about ourselves.

E) Just before Christmas, I issued a call for the replacement of prosecutor Nifong. Many of you reached the same conclusion earlier; I may have been slow. We all stand together now.

F) Similarly we will welcome Reade and Collin back anytime they want to return -- as students and as athletes -- and will take special steps as appropriate to insure their experience at Duke is all they expected it to be. Many of you who saw the compelling evidence accumulate reached this conclusion earlier than I did. But we all stand together now: no rape, no sexual misconduct by any team member, no kidnapping, no dancer as victim.

These two important decisions -- calling for the replacement of Nifong, and welcoming back Reade and Collin because it is the right thing to do -- I hope you see in these two actions new leadership and new fortitude that you have not received before.

G) I want to make it clear that the legal process should embrace anyone who was untruthful -- anyone -- prosecutor, DNA lab director, and the accuser. Justice requires no less.

I recognize our campus is divided; I hope the coming months see a resolution of many of these issues, so we all shout together again, GO DUKE!!!

Drafted for Richard Brodhead
by Ed Rickards, Class of 63 and Duke Law 66.

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

I confess I read other blogs on the hoax more often than this one, but I came over today. I was quite surprised to see Mr. Rickards's piece featured. He did an attack piece on Duke in the Indy Weekly back in September, 2006, which included this passage near the top:

"Why did Duke need a presidential commission to realize its lacrosse players and other athletes live in a unique bubble, an "elitist, arrogant sub-culture ... both indulged and self-indulgent?" This culture is just a logical extension of how athletes get into Duke."

And this passage toward the end:

"You'd hope that today's faculty would never tolerate such outrage [undated incidents or racial insensitivity when athletic teams were first integrated at Duke], but many live in an enclave carved from Duke Forest where homes can never be sold to Negroes. Their deeds, signed by presidents through Douglas Knight, say so; moreover no Negro can even sleep on the property unless he or she is household help. These covenants cannot be enforced in court, but they nonetheless bind the parties, reveal their intent and last forever unless absolved."

For the full text see this link:

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A36318

I was moved by the piece to write a letter to the editor which was publlshed, and said in part:

"Ed Rickards' attempt (“Beyond Buchanan Boulevard” 9/6/06) to paint Duke as a racist institution was unfair and intellectually dishonest. Duke is not pure but the last major study of universities and racial diversity among major U.S. universities was published by The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education in 2002. Guess which university was rated the best? Yes, that’s right, Duke—five slots above UNC Chapel Hill and ten slots above Columbia University. (Rickards lives in Manhattan.)
. . .
There are many examples of unfair innuendo in the article, but space limits preclude addressing more than one. Rickards attacks Duke faculty for owning houses with racial restrictive covenants in their deed histories. Such racial restrictive covenants were fairly common throughout the south 60-70 years ago. The fact that racial covenants are not enforceable in the courts, as Rickards notes, means that they ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE AT ALL. Contrary to his assertion, they do NOT bind sellers in any way.[I gave references to U.S. Supreme Court cases outlawing racially restrictive covenants, of which Rickards as a lawyer should have been aware.]"

I certainly think Brodhead deserves criticism for omissions in his letter, although it was a positive step for him. I sent him a draft letter myself for release after the November 7th general election proposing that he apologize for precipitous acts he and other elements of the university (read Group of 88) committed in the Spring regarding the lacrosse team. However, Mr. Rickards' earlier piece makes me suspect his motivations.

While I signed my name to the letter and it was published with my name attached. I have used a handle for the blogs so as not to cause any stress or embarrassment to my son, who is still at Duke.