Monday, March 26, 2007

Talking to Regulars & Readers – 3-26-07

(A post in the old web log tradition: notes for those familiar with the material. Don’t look for hyperlinks or background explanations in this post.)

Thank you for your affirming comments. I appreciate them and bring them to mind whenever I hear from trolls.

And thank you for comments that point out my errors and/or “add to the story.”

Many of you have done a great deal of “adding to the story.” It’s all on the threads.

There’ve been a number of stories at JinC recently. In this post, I’ll focus only on the “poster stories.” In a few days, I’ll respond to some of the other JinC stories.

One of you self-ID’ing as a Duke lax Mom who attended the March 25 lax parents’ meeting with Duke administrators ( President Brodhead did not attend that meeting and, to the best of my knowledge, has refused since to met with the lax parents) says she asked at the meeting that the players’ face photos be removed from the GoDukeGo site.

That was a very wise request given the hate speech that was already circulating among certain Duke University and Durham “activists,” and the fact that on the morning of the 25th the Raleigh N&O, for reasons its never explained, published what it knew was a false, racially inflammatory story about what it said was a night that ended in “sexual violence.”

Within a few days of Brodhead's refusal to meet with the parents and the N&O's racially inflammatory story, unstable and hateful individuals and groups at Duke and in Durham were circulating the notorious Vigilante” poster, which targeted the players, and which the N&O then published on a Sunday (Apr. 2), its largest circulation day.

I’m working up a post that asks when Duke began “pulling” its students photos from GoDukeGo.

Based on the information I have right now, the post won’t offer a definitive answer to the “when” question, but it will provide some important “connect the dots” information to which I’ll add commentary.

Meanwhile, if the lax Mom or someone else who was at the meeting reads this post, a few questions:

At what time of day was the meeting held? To which (one or more) administrator(s) was the “remove” request made?

Did the administrator(s) explicitly acknowledge the request?

If yes, how?

Was a statement made by any Duke administrator that the students photos would be removed by a certain time?

Did any administrator (my understanding is there were four there) say he or she would step aside for a few minutes and cell call Duke’s IT system person on duty and request the removal of the photos?

At what time did the meeting end?

I’ve already confirmed with Jon Jackson, Duke’s SID, what media reported last March 29: Duke pulled the photos out of concern for the players’ safety.

That’s why the “Vigilante” poster has only the photos of 43 of the 46 white Duke lacrosse players the “vigilantes” were targeting. Jackson told me Duke learned of the photo “pulling” in time to take down the photos before the “vigilantes” got all 46.

But when did Duke pull the photos? I didn’t ask Jackson that question when I first reported on the “Vigilante” poster almost a year ago.

I think the Duke Mom wants to know when Duke pulled the photos. So do I.

I'll be calling Jackson tomorrow and asking him when the photos were pulled.

If I’ve misunderstood the Mom’s question, I hope she sets me straight.

I’ll keep you posted. But if you read this thread, you may know before I know.

About DUPD Director Dean, and his response to my “Wanted” poster questions:

I’ll respond to Dean tomorrow.

In that post I’ll reference the “main point” comments on the thread. Then I’ll ask where citizens can view the minutes of Durham CS board meetings held during 2006 when he was chair.

I’ll also ask Dean if he’s still a CS board member as well as for contact information for Pat Ellis whom Dean said was the current Durham CS board chair, and to whom Dean said I could refer for a copy of the 2006 IRS form Durham CS is required to file and make easily available to the public.

I’ll follow those questions with some brief, initial questions concerning the “Vigilante” poster.

I’ll say more about all of that tomorrow.

I hope you’re back.

John

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

#1, It was aDuke dad not a mom who told dean Sue, J Alleva, L. Minneta to pull the goduke.com roster from the web site.
#2 the meeting started, in the film room at the Murray building at approx. 12:15-12:30 on 25 March just after Georgetown game was cancelled.
#3 the meeting was also attended by the coaches and most of the parents of the team members.
#4 no one said they would do anything, " that' a good idea" was all that was said.
#5 the poster was put together we think sometime on Monday morning 27 March 2006.

Anonymous said...

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. However, schools must tell parents and eligible students about directory information and allow parents and eligible students a reasonable amount of time to request that the school not disclose directory information about them. Schools must notify parents and eligible students annually of their rights under FERPA. The actual means of notification (special letter, inclusion in a PTA bulletin, student handbook, or newspaper article) is left to the discretion of each school.

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

IMO, failure to remove the lax roster/photos upon request is a violation of federal law.

Anonymous said...

MacD said...
Knowing who was picked by CGM and looking at the poster, does it look like she was playing Bingo?
RS is bottom left, MW is bottom right, DE, CF, and Dan are in a row in the middle. Did CGM study this poster before taking her "quiz"?

Is it confirmed that the poster is missing three photos because they were removed from the website? It could have been just a formatting decision.

Anonymous said...

Thanks John,

On the CS matter, the minutes of the BOD meetings would be helpful, in addition to knowing how to contact all on the BOD. Judging from what has been uncovered so far, that "Poster" seems to keep leading back to the liar hiding behind the curtain, Durham Police Major Lee Russ.

I do not know what NC has in the way of Freedom of Information laws, but if applicable, I wonder what a request for information regarding the "Poster" would produce from Russ and the DPD?

Anonymous said...

John:

The wisdom of pulling the lacrosse team information off the GoDuke.com is debatable. Just like the wisdom of having the lacrosse players cover their faces when they went for DNA testing. It creates a PR problem.

At the Johnsville News we had a piece and a small informal poll on whether it was a good idea.

see Crisis Management & the Internet

Like all internet information - people had other copies.

As we have seen "airbrushing" internet info always raises eyebrows and makes people wonder what are the airbrushers trying to cover-up or conceal.

Granted safety was an issue, but that could have been addressed in other ways.

This is certainly a good topic for experts in "crisis management."

Anonymous said...

John:

One more thought. When "safety" was cited as the reason for Duke pulling the lacrosse team info off their website that seemed very odd at the time from an outside observer perspective.

Back in March '06 outsider observers (like TJN) were dumb to the pot banging frenzy and the vigilante atmosphere that had engulfed the Duke campus.

When "safety" was cited as the reason for removing the player info that didn't seem straightforward given what main stream perceptions were of Duke Univ.

Again from an outside Duke/Durham perspective it seemed strange because we wrongly visualized Duke as a 'warm and fuzzy cocoon of safety.' Certainly we were wrong. We now know that the reality was that Brodhead had decided to release the dogs (G88) and the mobs.

So this depends on your frame of reference.

Anonymous said...

May I respectfully disagree with johnsville in some aspects?

I remember at the Media Conference in October, Susannah Meadows of Newsweek said it looked "good" for the three house residents to talk to the cops without lawyers. Before she could finish, Duke Law Prof James Coleman cut in and said that was the absolute worst thing for them to do and that you should never submit to questioning by the police without legal counsel.

It's like Nifong's comment "And one would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not doing anything wrong."

I think it would have been the wise thing to do for Duke to fulfill the obligation to protect the photos/roster regardless of what impression it might have given elsewhere. IMO, legal implications trump PR implications every time.

AMac said...

J-in-C seems to be about the only one who is sufficiently struck by the strangeness of the answers people have been getting about what Durham CrimeStoppers was up to a year ago.

Consider one piece. Cpl. Addison wrote up an email describing the
"horrific crime" and asking those with information to call the Durham CS tip line.

Thus, by that point, Durham CS or its designated proxy had selected the Lacrosse Rape Case as one of "its" crimes.

Who was the Durham CS agent (or employee or proxy) who made that decision?

Also, by that point, Durham CS had decided that some piece of its Reward pot could be devoted to solving the Lacrosse Rape case.

Who made that decision?

It seems safe to assume that Durham CS Board meetings aren't constantly filled with black-comedy dialog--

"We promised the key tipster in that just-solved murder case a reward of $2000!"

"But I thought that information was only worth $20!"

"And our bank account only holds $200!"

Somebody must make these decisions!

Who usually makes them? Who made them in the Lacrosse Rape case?

It seems clear at this point that there are actors who are hoping that continued unresponsiveness will make these questions go away.

"Nifong did it and it's all Nifong's fault!" is a delicious explanation that can be stretched to cover a multitude of "something happened" activities. At Duke, within the Durham PD and City Government... and at CrimeStoppers.

Anonymous said...

Good questions there Amac. I hope we get answers to them someday soon.