Being a Duke grad in sports media was quite uncomfortable during the days of the Duke lacrosse saga, in which a stripper wrongly accused three players of rape and the media tore Duke one way, then the other. (I’d say my employer was fairer than most.)
Early on, I had the sense that the accusations were flawed. Brendan Nyhan, the blogger behind the terrific rhetoric-busting blog Spinsanity and then a grad student at Duke, cataloged some of the problems, even as the talking-head media ranted itself silly about the culture at Duke. Didn’t matter that the talking-head media didn’t know a damn thing about Duke.
Of course, neither did KC Johnson, a then-unknown history professor, but he got a good head start delving deeper into the problems with the case. The Chronicle, my proud student paper, did a fine job with it. (Johnson, much to his credit, acknowledges their fairness.) Eventually, the accusations were doubted. Then dismissed. Not just “not guilty,” but “innocent.” Simply put: They did not do it. No one did.
The irony about Johnson’s blog was this: Johnson was exposing the dangers of groupthink, yet simultaneously demonstrating them. He showed that rape accusations that get a lot of play in the media can lead many to a rush to judgment. Absolutely. And then his commenters, a band with various grudges against Duke, urged him to take it further and turn the screws on Duke itself. They weren’t entirely wrong — a group of 88 faculty members, including a classmate and a former professor of mine but no one else I knew, took out an ad that didn’t explicitly say, “Yay, let’s go get the lacrosse players,” but it could’ve been more tactful. (I did show the ad once to a neutral party, who wondered what the fuss was all about.)
Johnson did his best to distance himself from the most extreme elements in his comments. A black accuser against a mostly white team can bring out the worst in a lot of anonymous people, and Johnson rightfully wanted no part of that. But after one howling mob departed Duke, exhausting its tired stereotypes of a rich white school in a poor black state, Johnson had another mob on his blog. (And the comments on any Chronicle story that had anything to do with lacrosse. Or sports. Or nearly anything.) The mob wanted to paint Duke as anti-jock, incompetent, arrogant and so on.
Duke was in an impossible situation. A rogue prosecutor, Mike Nifong, had indicted three lacrosse players on rape charges stemming from a party that made the whole team look awful. Keeping the whole team away from anyone who was about to rush to judgment was an impossible task. Imagine if the lacrosse season had gone forward and the team had been attacked at an away game.
Johnson and company had little sympathy. They kept the pressure on Duke. Even after the three accused players were exonerated and settled out of court with Duke before any accusations could be stated in court, even after everyone justifiably sued Nifong back to the Stone Age, the remaining players and parents sued Duke and Durham for anything and everything. Repeat: These are NOT the players who were accused of rape. (A separate lawsuit by those three against many people in Durham had several counts survive summary judgment this week.)
That led to the unusual sight last spring, when Duke won the NCAA lacrosse title led by a band of seniors who still had an active lawsuit against the school.
After nearly two years, the court has ruled on motions to dismiss. The headline: Motion denied; suits go forward. The details: Not so fast …
Read through the 150-plus pages of the ruling in Carrington v Duke, and you’ll see lot of the phrase “the motion to dismiss is granted.” As far as Duke officials are concerned, most of it is gone. The people you’d typically meet as an undergraduate have little left to face in court other than Count 11, a tricky legal argument over school administrators’ fiduciary responsibilities. It could be an interesting test case.
The rest of it has been tossed aside. And as if the message wasn’t clear, the court included this message:
Having undertaken this comprehensive review of the claims asserted in this case, the Court is compelled to note that while § 1983 cases are often complex and involve multiple Defendants, Plaintiffs in this case have exceeded all reasonable bounds with respect to the length of their Complaint and the breadth of claims and assertions contained therein.
So my alma mater can be somewhat relieved that much of this awful matter can be laid to rest. I’ve actually wondered if Duke could sue Nifong for putting the school in a position in which they were going to get taken to court and defamed in the media no matter what school administrators did, but I’m saying that as a philosopher/journalist/alumnus rather than as a lawyer (which I’m not).
And still, the school loses. If you want to think of Duke as a place that attracts people with entitlement mentalities, the judge’s comments support your case. So will golfer Andrew Giuliani’s since-dismissed lawsuit.
So when it comes to national championships worth celebrating, I’ll stick with the basketball team. And Becca Ward.
(HT: The excellent Sports Law Blog)
Duresport.com 
Actually, the problems for the Duke University Administration are just beginning, contrary to the thrust of your post. Several administrators – most notably former Board of Trustees Chairman Robert Steel and Duke President Richard Brodhead – will be deposed.
There – under oath – they will be asked that timeless question: “What did you know and when did you know it?”
And since you brought it up, why do you suppose your old college “newspaper,” The (Duke) Chronicle reported absolutely nothing about Thursday’s ruling? That’s surprising, since the attempted frame-up was the biggest Duke news story of the decade.
Maybe they were told to write nothing by the administration. That would be my theory.
Chronicle doesn’t publish on weekends. It’ll be good to have time to review – remember, no undergrads were at Duke when all this happened. They’ll have it Monday.
They’ll need to talk on fiduciary claim, which is interesting, but judge set high bar. The other nonsense is mercifully dead.
The only comment in the above article that was remotely informative was the “I’m not a lawyer” comment. I AM a lawyer, and it is quite clear from both Judge Beaty’s opinions and your interpretation of them that you are completely out of you league.
By the way, I’m very sorry that your life was made “uncomfortable” while three of your innocent classmates faced 30 years of jail time each. It must have been very difficult for you.
The allegations are that Duke (and everyone else in authority) knew that there had been no rape, but for PR reasons didn’t wish to appear before the community as backing their “privileged” students or using influence to get them out of a jam. Ergo, according to Robert K. Steel, it would be “best for Duke” if there was a trial, and even convictions. (According to Steel, it could all be sorted out on appeal in five years or so.) “Sometimes good people have to suffer for the good of the organization”, as he supposedly said to the Trustees.
So when it developed that there would be no suspects, because DNA testing had completely cleared everyone, three suspects had to be chosen and ‘sacrificed’. Research was done to insure that the three chosen had actually been at the party (and not, “in an airplane somewhere” at the time).
Brodhead thereafter consistently refused offers to examine evidence of the innocence of the accused, quite possibly because he would then–like Nifong and the prosecutor in the earlier Alan Gell case–be able to say afterward that he ‘hadn’t known’ all the facts.
As Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project says, “One of the most important reasons for civil lawsuits, for civil rights lawsuits, is not just to get compensation for somebody who’s been wrongly convicted, but to publicize the causes of that miscarriage of justice. That’s why people sue — to bring about change, to bring about reform. It’s not just about compensation.”
Tempted to make a joke about lawyers and reading comprehension, but I’ll pass.
I’m guessing someone linked to me?
Jason Trumpbour relays a conversation with Steel that just might be the most stunning moral indictment of the current Duke leadership to date. Now, stay with me here. Trumpbour tells us Steel felt it would be best FOR DUKE if Collin, Reade, and Dave…WENT TO TRIAL. Best for Duke. Say that again: “BEST FOR DUKE.” If convicted, he shrugged, “it would all be sorted out on appeal.”
Who thinks like that?
What kind of man thinks like that?
I can’t even type that without stopping to take a deep, outraged breath. Imagine you are the Finnertys, or the Evans. Or the Seligmanns. Your child, your boy, already scourged, and branded, and sullied by an outrageous LIE, would best serve the University’s interest by going TO TRIAL, perhaps being convicted of a felony and imprisoned in some hellhole. This is the measured, moral opinion of the chairman of the Board of Trustees at his school. It would be BEST for Duke for your INNOCENT child, your ravaged family to endure a TRIAL. And let’s remember the backdrop of this time: the Black Panthers, well represented , no doubt, in our prison system, shouting at Reade “You’re a dead man walking!!!” Sure, Chairman Steel, let it all be sorted out on appeal.
BEST FOR DUKE. He can pull these three young lives out of the equation, discard them, and focus on what’s BEST FOR DUKE.
Wow! That Chairman Steel!…he gives new definition to being a “company man.” And Brodhead, the subservient, self-serving lackey. Duke parents and alumni, you can’t say from here on, you don’t know the quality and moral compass of your leadership!
So what does that say about how Steel ( and his willing sidekick Brodhead) perceive the worth, the humanity, the reality of the lives of Collin, Reade, and Dave? Are they expendable for the PR purposes of Duke? Is it much more INSTITUTIONALLY important in the mind of Chairman Steel to prop up a life-destroying LIE so that Duke appears even-handed and sensitive to Durham’s homegrown strippers and lap-dancers? In lock-step with Durham’s cracker-jack, dump-burning governing entities? Supportive of the “castrate” sign- carrying, racist- diatribes of its activist professors? Why Chairman Steel should have just run a spot on local TV and made his message plain:
“ Hi, I’m Bob Steel, Chairman of the BOT of Duke University and I approve this message:
In the best interests of Duke University, to show our inclusiveness and reverence of even drug-addled, mentally ill prostitutes; our fear of our activist faculty; our guilt-fueled submissiveness to the local political intelligentsia; and our heavy duty P.C. credentials …. we will aid and assist D.A. Nifong in railroading three innocent students of ours and besmirching for life the reputations of their teammates. We and our employees will accomplish this by ignoring and/or suppressing or even ALTERING when we must any exculpatory evidence to the contrary. Like the local newspapers, we will also try to level the playing field, by ravaging the “histories” of these young men to try to bring them down to a level where the Lap-dancer /deranged former felon /and prostitute will appear their moral “equal.” To that end, we will empower commissions to uncover anything and everything negative that we might hand the media to envelop these boys in that stain. We will opine that “whatever they did was bad enough.” We will cancel their season and start a “Mea Culpa” progression around town, mournfully apologetic for having these young privileged men in our midst. We will turn our eyes away from any and all violations of OUR OWN conduct codes as long as the objects of these violations are these young men of the wrong race and income group. We will refuse to meet with their terrified parents or read the defense files that might force us to confront their ABSOLUTE INNOCENCE. We will look on mute while our faculty radicals ravage them in print from ad to op-ed over and over again. Proclaim them “farm animals” and let our silence speak approval.
We will do all this in the best interests of Duke University. To send to the world and our student body, through our actions, a moral imprint of what the leadership of Duke University considers the new expediency, the new righteousness. Here is our blueprint for what’s really important for those who aspire to assume the helm of any business. It’s not people, it’s not the lives of three young men or the reputation of forty-plus others. It’s PR and PC. Public relations and Political Correctness. It’s IMAGE. It’s that thin layer of false veneer we’ll protect NOT with OUR LIVES OR LIVELIHOODS, oh no! But those of OTHERS!
It’s protecting our bottom line and our top guys at the price of those we consider expendable. The Coach, the kids. In the business world we can kick the small investor and the retiree to the curb in the holy name of our corporate interest; at Duke, it’s three white students and their white coach. That’s our lesson for the leaders of tomorrow: it’s BETTER FOR US if these three nothing, nobody, non –protected species kids go to trial… so-o-o-o, let’s help it happen. If convicted….Gee Whiz, no Biggie…it will be settled out “on appeal.”
How does that sound to you, Alumni and parents? Do you like what you hear from the top? Am I wrong? Okay, you give me another way to interpret those words between Trumpbour and Steel. Look at your child before you do. Think of HIM as Chairman Steel and his Lapdog Brodhead’s sacrificial lamb. “If convicted, it can be sorted out on appeal.”
“YOU’RE A DEAD MAN WALKING” they shouted at Reade.
I’ve really tried to think of an alternative take on Chairman Steel’s words. Not to excuse or defend him but just because they astound me. I don’t know people who think like this. Maybe I don’t move in the proper exalted circles.
Thank God.
How can the best interests of Duke trump three real young lives? How can the best interests of Duke require the suspension of all logic and common sense, the suppression of evidence, the submission to the mob? How can the best interests of Duke under the current leadership be only about artificial IMAGE…not about its students, not about the rule of law, and dear God, especially….” not about the truth?”
No parent or alumni can say “move on” until they can confront the awful reality of those unanswered questions. Until they absorb the consequences of the cold fact THAT THIS IS THE MINDSET of those who still remain in power at Duke.
I’m reminded of the last powerful scene in the first Godfather movie: the bereaved newly widowed sister, waving the newspaper describing the Mob hits , pointing at Michael Corleone, besseching her sister-in’law to face it all…”THAT’S your husband! THAT’S your husband!”
That’s your Chairman of the BOT.
That’s your President of the once esteemed Duke University.
“Sweetheart, you can’t leave” ….until all you “Move-On Minions” confront the enormity of what was done to these kids. ”
Let the depositions begin. There is MUCH…too be learned..for YOU to learn… about the rot at Duke. Wait and see…
None of which is remotely mentioned in the count that will be argued at trial.
So if you’re dropping by — welcome, and I hope you’ll take this post for what it is. (So far, no one has — a lot of projecting of what people think I said, think the court said or invented out of thin air.. To give but one example — nothing I’ve written addresses the three wrongfully accused men, for whom I have the utmost sympathy.))
I’d be very happy to hear from people who reasonablly disagree with the points I’ve made. But whether you comment or not, I appreciate the readers. I tried to make these points on KC’s blog back in the day and was shouted down. I’m gald the court agreed with me. (If you think the court didn’t agree with me, please re-read my post and consider what I did and did not say.)
We see it differently.
We are elated.
Depositions will lead to an unraveling and… exposure. We want their actions and their moral depravity…. exposed… from Duke Nurse Levicy…up to Brodhead and Steele.
“None of which is remotely mentioned in the count that will be argued at trial.”
Is this all you have to say? Your dismissal of all that these families endured, of the burden their reputations still carry… because of del;iberate Best-for-Duke PR/PC decisions made at Duke?
That’s it?
Is this what you would say to the Families involved…sitting across from them?
“So my alma mater can be somewhat relieved that much of this awful matter can be laid to rest. I’ve actually wondered if Duke could sue Nifong for putting the school in a position in which they were going to get taken to court and defamed in the media no matter what school administrators did, but I’m saying that as a philosopher/journalist/alumnus rather than as a lawyer (which I’m not).”
How is this “awful matter” laid to rest?
As long as there are individuals who smear these kids..that “something happened”..it will not be “laid to rest” for the families. Remember, the Lacrosse players were either brutal racially motivated rapists…or bystanders who enabled the rape.
Did Nifong put Duke “in a position” where they were forced to break the law?
At the time of most jeopardy to these kids, the Brodhead administration decided (according to the suits) to break the law in their zeal to help Nifong and then later deceive the court to cover-up their disregard for FERPA law.
Why? PR and PC mattered more than three real kids? How was THIS Nifong’s fault?
Why did it take days to decide the Black Panthers could not march (armed they announced) on campus during exam weeK? PR and PC? Some of these “privileged kids” slept in cars because the families, were terrified but could not afford anything safer for their sons.
Remember, the N&O had published the “Wanted poster” with all their names and photos..which, despite pleas, Duke REFUSED earlier to take down from their website and therefore helped “targeting” of these students be accomplished.
Why?
Why the need to be uber-cooperative to the point of breaking the Law and actually endangering these kids?
The 88 “thanked” CASTRATE-sign carrying protesters for “not waiting” and rushed to be signatories to an ad printed at the WORST POSSIBLE moment during the forming witch-hunt.
Why? To show solidarity with issues of minority students? THREE students had 40 years of their lives on the line? Could they not have shown caution, compassion for THEM?
Why not wait for facts? DNA? Anything more than hysteria and accusation? Would they have published if this were say..Katie Rouse..raped at a Black fraternity party. (no, they didn’t) Bias is ugly in any skin hue. These people have been elevated at Duke…where there world view has more influence.
So how is “this awful matter laid to rest?” The mind-set, the bias exists. Whose son might be their next target? Whose grades adjusted to fit their need to promote their world-view? Some of us remember how these faculty tyrants humiliated these innocent kids in class..on only an accusation and no evidence.
Did they do this to the young men whose fraternity hosted the party at which Katie Rouse was raped?
I recommend they not be absolved of lynch-mob mentality to ANYONE.
“CASTRATE THEM!” “Thank you for not waiting.”
What ignorance.
We want the ignorance and moral depravity once again on display. It will seep into the depositions. It will stink up the room as we learn more. The stench of what we learn will hopefully envelop Brodhead, Levicy, et al till it precedes them into every room like a cheap cologne for the rest of their lives.
The counts that remain will do nicely, thank you.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan
There is not “[a single] count that will be argued at trial.” [We are nowhere near the stage in the civil process where we even know whether there will be a trial or trials.] There are three cases proceeding to discovery against Durham, the Durham Police Department, DNA Security and multiple individual Durham, State and private defendants (including Mike Nifong) involving multiple counts of civil rights violations. But then your concern appears to be only Duke, so….
There are two cases proceeding to discovery against Duke, Duke Medical Center and multiple individual Duke defendants (including Richard Brodhead, Victor Dzau and Tara Levincy), involving multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy & obstruction of justice, and negligent supervision.
I’m not interested in disagreeing with the points that you made. I am interested in informing the casual reader of sportsmyriad that you, apparently, are in the habit of writing about things that you know very little about and that you are disdainful of basic research. Therefore, your opinion may or may not be correct, but if it is correct, it is merely by accident.
Had the “sports media” that covered this mess in 2006 actually bothered to understand (through sound background research) the original SBI lab DNA findings, there would never have been indictments in theses cases and there would have been no need for lawsuits. But again, the “sports media” is, as you have nicely demonstrated in your silly, snarky comments, disdainful of lawyers as well.
Before you post another word on this matter, you really do need to read the McFayden and Evans decisions. You also need to define for your readers what you mean by “the people you’d typically meet as an undergraduate.” Most of the significant liability for Duke is at a very senior administrative level, or at a very low operational level. If you simply are “defining away the problem” by artificially narrowing the group of folks you’re referring to, your readers should be clear on that.
Former Duke lacrosse players …lose many
,,,Being a Duke grad in sports media was quite uncomfortable
…the media tore Duke one way, then the other
…as the talking-head media ranted itself silly about the culture at Duke
…The Chronicle, my proud student paper, did a fine job with it
…various grudges against Duke, urged him to take it further and turn the screws on Duke itself
…88 faculty members …ad that …could’ve been more tactful (accusation as fact more tactful?)
…The mob wanted to paint Duke as anti-jock, incompetent, arrogant and so on.
…Duke was in an impossible situation
…They kept the pressure on Duke
…the remaining players and parents sued Duke and Durham for anything and everything
…my alma mater can be somewhat relieved
…if Duke could sue Nifong for putting the school in a position
…And still, the school loses
Poor Duke, d@mn the truth!
From reading this I sense everybody but Duke is to blame, that Beau Dure’s “alma mater” was a victim, and therefore he was also.
I actually believe Duke and Beau are victims for a different reason; both are (not were) victims of the Duke administration.
It’s rather ironic to read “settled out of court with Duke” absent any excuse accompanying it. I’m not sure if this acknowledges Duke and its administration were liable for damages they are responsible for or if it somehow eliminates damages due any other plaintiffs by way of DUKE paying MILLIONS being simply a kind gesture.
Now consider safety!
“Keeping the whole team away from anyone who was about to rush to judgment was an impossible task. Imagine if the lacrosse season had gone forward and the team had been attacked at an away game.”
Had the message from the Duke administration been about the truth to begin with, this absurd, hypothetical danger wouldn’t even have been available to toss at the wall.
Just an opinion from another who has difficuties with “reading comprehension”.
We have all seen the caricatures of the pot-bellied racist Sheriffs of the Old South who would lynch a Black man on the merit of the… skin color of the White accuser… alone. The fact that the time in which they lived tolerated even encouraged such outrages…allows us to offer them no “cover” today.
Yet there are at Duke today…88 PLUS individuals who rushed to insert themselves in this Hoax…by merit of the accuser’s skin color ALONE…to the very real danger and detriment of the young men accused. Brodhead and Steel did likewise….even, the suit claims, breaking laws and denying simple requests (the photos on the website) to show their PC solidarity with the prevailing racial “favorites” in academia.
This was an historical outrage “back in the day”…and is just as much an outrage at Duke today. There is nothing admirable and everything abhorrent about the PC culture that infests Duke from the top down.
100 years from now, when we finally achieve a post-racial society…Brodhead will be seen as no better than the fat racist redneck stereotypes of the Old South that preceded him.
Mangum’s skin color was no guarantee of her veracity.
Neither Brodhead nor Steel, nor the “Listeners: saw these kids as human. They saw Crystal’s color…GUILTY! They could not even do simple decedent basic things…like wait. Wait for the evidence.
Instead they wrote op-eds, went on (dear God!) Nancy Grace (Baker)…had to ponder for days if the armed Panthers could march on campus. OOOH…so hard to decide….(As if the KKK would be allowed to confront black basketball players if that had been the case.)
And none of the “Listeners” had a word of concernabout those issues. “Cmon IN, Panthers! Let’s give the N&O some photos to make it easy!”
.They see only SKIN color…feel only through their biases.
Many of these people have since been elevated at Duke…just as in the old South, good racists were elevated in that society.
Duke is no “victim.” Duke embraced this Hoax. Just because, today…politically correct culture gives this kind of race-hate a pass…as was the case in the Old South…does not mean there is one whit of moral difference.
Let’s suppose tomorrow, you are in a big elevator…with 2 women and 44 others. As the door opens, one of the women screams you raped her. At first, you feel secure..everyone else calls it “a crock”…including the Accuser’s friend. But then… the DA offers the 2nd and insinuates that the 44 others on the Elevator are in a conspiracy of silence with you.
Now, in your workplace, you believe you have many friends aqnd people who know the kind of person you are. But before any “evidence” is revealed (and there is none) people start protesting, calling for your castration…and then, guess what? 88 of your co-workers publish an ad THANKING those protesters for not waiting for evidence.
How to take that..other than people that KNOW you…think you are definitely Rape-Madman-Racist material.
They begin to harrass you at work…though work rules forbid it…but your Boss is too busy appearing around town…apologizing for this Rape that did not happen..saying publicly that whatever you did, was bad enough.
In a week when you MUST be at work…or lose everything…the Boss dithers over whether he will allow an armed Hate Group into the Building “to interview” you. Your coworkers…make sure to keep your photo on their website…so the newspaper can be sure the Hate Group can identify you.
After months of seeing your coworkers scourge you on television and in op-eds without one TIME being told to cease by the Boss…after a year of Hell..finally, you are declared innocent.
Then, you read on a website, some Blogger who wants to say how FABULOUS your Boss and workplace are…and how THEY suffered.
Are you “getting it” yet?
Hey Preston Kendrick “Beau” Dure.
Bachelor of Arts, Duke University. May 1991. Majors: Philosophy, Music.
Master of Arts in Liberal Studies, Duke University.
Managing Editor: The Chronicle
Copy Editor/Page Designer, Morning Star (Wilmington, NC)
Copy Editor/Page Designer, News & Record
Online Sports Editor/Coordinating Producer, News & Record
(Greensboro, NC)
Assistant News Editor, Knight Ridder Tribune (Washington, DC)
Interactive Content Developer, USATODAY.com
Assistant Sports Editor, USATODAY.com
WOW! Your resume reads like an indictment.
While you have all the requirements of a main-stream (sports ) hack: bias; anti white “jock”, anti middle class, lack of critical analytical skills….., you don’t pass muster with the informed blogosphere.
Your analysis of the judgement is shallow, self-indulgent and lacking in substance. It might charitable be called wilfully misleading! For someone who had been on the Chronicle at Duke, you should have been all over the case (or frame) when it began. You could have made you name as a journalist. Strange, I don’t recall reading any seminal articles by you while the case was underway. Instead, you chose then, as you do now, to wallow in your victimhood and cravenly followed the Duke party line. Is that what was taught to you in the Angry Studies Department at Duke where you spent so many years? Wahneema Lubiano and Karla Holloway must be so proud of you.
Indulging in a little pot banging, instead of investigating the case, were you?
Remember Brodhead’s (in)famous outburst: “Even if they didn’t do it, whatever they did was bad enough”. Your post above is little better than that.
With the discovery process no going forward, are you going to show a little more professionalism in the analysis of the suits, or are you merely going to airbrush the facts as the are exposed.
Are you sure your surname isn’t really Ordure?
So here’s the irony – and my point:
This case is all about a rush to judgment. The Group of 88, which I criticized above, rushed to judgment. Plenty of people at Duke — and elsewhere (the wretched Nancy Grace springs to mind) — rushed to judgment. (UPDATE: I’m not going to change what I’ve said throughout this thread, but I’m taking back my criticism of the Group of 88 below.)
So after I offer an alternate take that riles people invested in this case, they tell me I’m anti-jock, I hate lawyers (to be fair, I teased them), I speak for the entire sports media (yet I feel like a peon), I majored in Angry Studies (Socrates and Bach really weren’t that mad), I haven’t done any research, and in the most amusing assumption, I’m a “classmate” of the accused. Just read my first 10 words, and you’ll see the problem with that one.
That, folks, is a rush to judgment.
Fortunately, I’m just a blogger with five or six readers, not a falsely accused man. The stakes were a bit higher for the folks you vilify.
Some of them deserve criticism. But not the vitriol and sprawling legal action filed against them. The court, thankfully, agreed.
But what I’m still hoping is that we all learn the dangers of rushing to judgment. Any chance of that?
Beau Dure,
You may be unaware of it; but then you appear to have been completely unaware during the entire Duke lacrosse frame, that the “victim” Crystal Gail Mangum has just been arrested.
This is the second time post frame. This time she is charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit robbery and inflicting serious injuries!
In February 2010, police charged Mangum with attempted murder, arson, and child abuse after a domestic dispute with her boyfriend.
The story has gone overseas. Here is a link to the UK Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373074/Former-stripper-lied-raped-Duke-University-lacrosse-players-charged-stabbing-boyfriend.html
Note the lack of bias, the blunt facts, and the attention to detail. If your blog, specifically your post above, was of the same impartial high standard, then maybe it would be worth reading.
Poor pitiful Duke. And poor pitiful Beau Dure. “Shouted Down” on a blog. What a horrible experience.
If the allegation is true that Duke nurse Tara Levicy falsified a medical report to support a fabricated case against innocent Duke students, and that Duke president Richard Brodhead knew about this fabrication, but did not reveal the truth, and engaged in obstruction of justice to conceal Duke’s culpability, then that is the story you should be demanding is made know in a court of law, Mr. Journalist, Beau Dure.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Beau,
You WROTE what I READ. A READER has no idea what message one wishes to convey if it is not clear in what another WROTE.
Beau’s Comment:
“This case is all about a rush to judgment”
READER:
Being familiar with the case, I know it is about efforts to frame innocent young men AND stand in the way of allowing the TRUTH to be uncovered …a result intentionally contributed to by some employed at Duke. The “rush to judgment” present in the hoax merely provided the approval that might have helped influence such actions, while it certainly provided the cover used by the Duke employees whose conduct will be judged in the lawsuits.
Beau’s Comment:
“The Group of 88, which I criticized above, rushed to judgment”
Beau’s Post:
“…a group of 88 faculty members, … took out an ad that didn’t explicitly say, “Yay, let’s go get the lacrosse players,” but it could’ve been more tactful.
READER:
We both know what the ‘88’ did NOT say, no mention of what they DID say, and “more tactful” is about as weak of a criticism as I have ever seen.
Beau’s Comment:
“Just read my first 10 words, and you’ll see the problem with that one.” (I skipped the judgments made of what the comments meant)
Beau’s Post:
“Being a Duke grad in sports media was quite uncomfortable”
READER:
Following the post title, which certainly plants the impression one is about to read how the players “win [just a] couple, LOSE many”, the first 10 words opens up with ‘me, me, me’ as being a victim, along with Duke. It opened the door to what would follow.
Beau’s Comment:
“That, folks, is a rush to judgment.”
READER:
My judgment of where the message in the post was meant to take us is based upon the entirety of the text within the post, with the listing of what excerpts support that judgment included in my previous comment. If it is ambiguous or difficult to comprehend, as evidently the variance between what the comments and clarification indicates, it is a shift in responsibility for the one who WROTE the post to blame a READER.
Beau’s Comment:
“The stakes were a bit higher for the folks you vilify. Some of them deserve criticism. But not the vitriol and sprawling legal action filed against them. The court, thankfully, agreed”
READER:
If “[b]eing a Duke [Lacrosse player] was quite uncomfortable,” in a way that imposed damages on them due to the actions of others, I am thankful of the court for recognizing that and welcome the opportunity for the any that might have suffered damage to seek the TRUTH.
(In a note that can be classified as a ‘rush to judgment’, just the mention of the word “vitriol” leaves me judging the writer as being of a liberal mindset. It is evidently the ‘word of the year’ for liberals, since the shooting in Arizona. Was my ‘rush to judgment’ inaccurate here?)
Good articles today at The Chronicle and Sports Law Blog.
I had no idea that only “liberals” used the word “vitriol.” I’ll have to tell my right-leaning friends that they’re actually lefties. They’ll be shocked.
If Brodhead is implicated in covering up something Levicy did wrong, then I’ll anxiously await the new presidential search committee. In the meantime, congratulations to everyone who once stood accused and now does not. Particularly the three young men who deserve our sympathy and support the most.
Ha! As one “Duke apologist” to another, welcome to the club! Where would all this pent-up self-righteousness go without people like us to berate? Lately we’ve been few and far between, too, so you’re really doing a service here.
I will say, in defense of the “mob” and in particular of my friend Joan Foster, that there is real and legitimate frustration behind some of the reactions here. The surviving part of the unindicted players case hones in on some astonishing and indefensible behavior by the administration. And to say that the “listening statement” is merely tactless is understating the problem and missing the point. I think it’s fair to expect much more reflection and debate from college faculty, and an effort to connect their idea of social justice with broader ideas of justice. Instead, they circled their wagons and dug in their heels.
But the frustration quickly turns into an excuse to vent and vilify. Or, for KC Johnson, the pretense for an endless vindictive polemic. You’re right that the pieces in the Chronicle and Sports Law Blog are good. You should put up links — among other things, they show the difference between actual journalism or analysis and Johnson’s product, which has its moments but tends to veer from cheerleading to petty rhetorical vandalism.
“I had no idea that only “liberals” used the word “vitriol.””
Hmmm?
That is qualified observation, leading up to a question.
“…reading comprehension”
OK, let me explain the reading comprehension joke:
From Mike Jarman’s post: ” three of your innocent classmates.”
From my original post: “Being a Duke grad in sports media was quite uncomfortable during the days of the Duke lacrosse saga.”
Emphasis — “Duke grad … “during the days of the Duke lacrosse saga.”
The accused could not possibly have been my classmates. As people who’ve dug up an old resume of mine must realize, I graduated from Duke in 1991.
Robert — I appreciate your comment, and I appreciate that you can look at this case without simply labeling people one way or the other.
Beau, so which one of your employers was “fairer than most”?
That part of my resume wasn’t posted? I was at USA TODAY.
I had nothing at all to do with the coverage — I helped give a couple of reporters directions, and that was it.
And so I’ll have to warn people early — if anyone wants to discuss USA TODAY’s coverage, I’m sorry, but I simply can’t. I still freelance for them, and the people who led the coverage can answer for themselves.
The N&O and Herald-Sun, as I recall, had a few problems. But as always, cable news was the worst. If someone put me in charge of CNN tomorrow, the first person I’d fire would be Nancy Grace. First, not last.
Assessing the coverage of this case in the early days at the N&O …and throughout the case…at the Herald-Sun..as a “few problems”…is the journalistic equivalent of saying that, today, Japan has a “few problems.”
The N&O scored the only media interview with the woman they repeatedly called “the victim.” In that interview, they deliberately omitted Mangum’s accusation of robbery made that day TO THEM… against the other dancer, Kim Roberts. They omitted that Mangum asserted that Roberts had also been raped.
THEY SHAPED THE STORY. They omitted what did not work for the metanarrative.
Roberts , remember, had first labeled Mangum’s accusation “a crock.”
Would Roberts’ have flipped her story from her first description of Crystal’s tale being…”a crock”…when Nifong subsequently offered her that sweet deal… if she knew Mangum was accusing her of participating in a crime? If she knew..her “rape” was now part of the tale?
If Mangum was asserting Roberts was raped…why was this not only news…but an element of the case to be investigated? Why wasn’t the N&O interested in why their DA was “covering up” the second rape?
And if Roberts robbed Mangum…that crime was to be ignored.
The N&O buried Crystal’s words as deep as they could.
Would the whole racial outrage , so necessary for Nifong’s reelection campaign against a woman he fired and a highly thought-of Black candidate…been nearly as potent if the racial aspect of the case were diluted by Roberts being accused by Mangum as well? Would the outrage and lynch-mob anger toward these kids have been the same…if the story was not so racially “pure”…two Black women “commandeered by white men?” (Brodhead’s phrase)
One of our posters wrote:
“The decision by LE, supported by the N&O, to eliminate the charge that Kim robbed the AV is one of the earliest and most egregious decisions made in this case. Imagine how different the second half of March and the first half of April would have unfolded if the discussion had included the AV’s charge that Kim robbed her and assisted in the rape.It’s like a giant wrench in all the stereotypes that drove that period.”
I addressed that biased , outrageous interview, line by line… here:
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/10/walk-down-memory-lane.html
The N&O followed up with a headline story “The Swagger Started Long Ago”…front page…that essentially dug up every bit of dirt they could on the Players (which amounted top underage drinking and public urination over several years) ..but when they FINALLY chose to reveal Mangum’s criminal record..it was a back-page story, hard to find.
Such “journalism.”
Editor Sill had to “apologize” after the fact…that the N&O weekend Editor (whom many of believe was Williams) conveniently authorized running “The Vigilante Poster.”..with photos and names of all the Players in the midst of the craziness. How helpful when the Black Panthers came to town and announced they intended to march, armed, on campus..to “interview” the Lacrosse team. Of course, the Brodhead administration had to ponder the request to remove the photos from their website…but even as they did…in that volatile atmosphere..the N&O published them.
Blogger John in Carolina:
“The N&O’s poster photo and caption, which months after you published it you told readers was “small” is, as you know, two columns wide and 7.25 inches long.
N&O editors placed it on the most prominent part of the page: At the top of the page and in the 4th and 5th columns of a 6 column wide page.
The photo is nested between two stories relating to DL, neither of which makes any mention of the “vigilante” poster or explains what purpose or effect the poster served in connection with either story.”
Blogger John in Carolina again:
“Dear Editor Williams:
Just three years ago, in response to the Wilmington Race Riots Commission report, the N&O made what it said was a sincere apology for its long history of race-baiting.
But soon thereafter, the N&O launched its often false and racially-inflammatory Duke lacrosse coverage.
By withholding relevant news and promoting the lie that white lacrosse players had not cooperated with police, the N&O helped inflame community sentiment and bring about the indictments of three innocent white men.
But you knew the white men had cooperated with police.
The N&O wouldn’t have promoted a falsehood about the players not cooperating with police if they’d been black men.
We both know that.
The N&O withheld for over a year the exculpatory news that Mangum told you on March 24, 2006 that Kim Roberts had also been raped at the party, but didn’t report it for fear of losing her job.
The N&O also withheld the news that Mangum said Roberts would do anything for money.
The N&O wouldn’t have withheld such critically important news if Mangum had been a white woman and David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann had been black men indicted by a white DA like Mike Nifong using grand jury testimony by two white cops, would it?
After their parents and Duke expressed concerns that publishing the “Vigilante” poster with face photos of 43 white Duke students on it would add to the danger the students were already facing, the N&O published the poster anyway. The N&O didn’t even tell its readers those concerns had been expressed.
Two years ago today the N&O published a two-column wide, seven-plus inches long photo of the Vigilante poster. Your photo was large enough so that it could be enlarged and thereby provide a good face recognition source for hate-filled and unstable people seeking to target the players.
If NC Central University and the parents of 43 of its students had expressed concerns that publishing an anonymous “Vigilante” poster with face photos of 43 of black students the DA and cops were saying were involved in the brutal beating and gang rape of a young white mother would endanger the students, would you have gone ahead and published the poster photo anyway?
Of course not.
The N&O would never do something like that to a group of black males.
But lets just suppose you had.
And suppose people like Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Community Activist Victoria Peterson, Professors Houston Baker, William Chafe, Karla Holloway, Irving Joyner and Tim Tyson, Mayor Bill Bell, Journalist Cash Michaels and NC NAACP President Rev. William Barber reacted to what you did.
Imagine they issued a statement denouncing the N&O for doing something which “reeked of racism every bit as ugly and dangerous as the racism often found in Southern newspapers in the last century.”
What would you have said in response?
What if those people – all of whom often proclaim their commitment to civil rights – demanded the N&O apologize to the players, their families and the community and fire the people responsible for publishing the “Vigilante” photo?
Would the N&O have ignored them as it’s ignored the people who’ve asked for an apology to the students, their families and the community for the publication of the Vigilante poster photo?
Editor Williams, I and most N&O readers don’t care about the color of your skin or that of anyone else who works at the N&O.
We simply want the N&O to stop engaging in racially inflammatory and race-based double standard coverage as we’ve seen so often during your Duke Hoax coverage.
Thank you for your attention to my comment. I look forward to your response which I’ll publish in full at my blog.
Sincerely,
John in Carolina
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/07/duke-lacrosse-what-about-mcclatchys.html
Then there were the “We Know You Know” genre screeds that emanated from that Queen of the Witch-hunt, Ruth Sheehan.
On only an allegation and no evidence…she trashed these kids with absolute certainty week after week.
I could go on. I might even try to walk you through the “few problems” at the Herald Sun…where Editor Ashley opined once that he only wanted these innocent kids to roll the dice on a Durham trial so they could “prove their innocence.”
But not today. I haven’t the time and you might not have the Bandwidth.
But, I do want to end this with a fond hello to Professor Zimmerman. Good to see your post, my friend.
Let’s not forget, that Mangum’s credibility…the fact that she had told multiple stories was crucial to the Team’s defense in that early part of the case. It was so crucial that Baker, the City Manager felt moved to lie publicly that she had only told one consistent story.
Now, the N&O, in the midst of this public controversy about multiple stories…finds themselves the recipient of still ANOTHER version. A previously unheard version, different significantly from what Nifong says is her ONLY story.
So they clean up the interview. Omit anything inconsistent. And therefore prop up the lie that Mangum had only ever told one story.
So, Beau… “The N&O and Herald-Sun… had a few problems”. Only a rank apologist for poor journalism (or one who turned a blind eye to the “few problems” at the time) would describe the N&O and Herald-Sun as such.
The N&O’s initial explosive piece on the story, “Dancer Gives Details…” which did much to enflame public opinioin against the Duke lacrosse players, omitted several major facts from the interviews behind the story, including particularly that Crystal Mangum claimed that Kim Roberts (the 2nd stripper) had also been sexually assaulted that night. Any effort to follow up with Kim Roberts would have received her to-the-point response, which was that such a claim was a “crock”.
Then, the N&O distributed to its entire readership copies of the “Wanted Poster” with photos of all the lacrosse players. This, at a time that the NBBP and others were arriving in Durham, some carrying weapons, intent on “interviewing” members of the Duke lacrosse team.
It is true, as K. C. Johnson has pointed out, that the N&O eventually turned Joe Neff loose to begin exposing the inconsistencies and inanities in Nifong’s looney case.
The Herald-Sun, if anything, was worse than the N&O. It never ran any article than did anything other than cheerlead the attempted railroading of the innocent Duke students into a racial show-trial in Durham.
To say that the N&O and Herald-Sun had a “few problems” is very akin to your description of the G88 statement as lacking in “tact”.
You should be ashamed to call yourself a journalist. What a bozo.
Note to self — no more humorous understatement!
Yes, the N&O and Herald-Sun blew it. And I hate to say that — I have several friends and colleagues who have worked there. But their coverage was horrible. I recall wanting to send an anonymous comment on Melanie Sill’s blog, but I can’t remember if I actually did.
A lot of the national media — again, especially cable and most especially Nancy Grace — were even worse. I hated seeing Duke painted as some antebellum country club full of racial tension. Just as I hated seeing Duke painted a lot of other things after the accused were found innocent (and yes, I recognize and applaud the distinction drawn between “not guilty” and “innocent”).
Quick aside to Joan — one of your posts this morning got caught in my “pending” folder for some reason. I don’t know why. It’s approved now. Apologies for the delay.
Thanks Roper — I’d forgotten about Joe Neff. One reason I went with vague understatement is that I had a hazy recollection that one of the papers had turned around and done some quality work, but I couldn’t remember which one.
@Beau: “That part of my resume wasn’t posted? I was at USA TODAY.”
That was one your resume, Beau, but w/o any dates. I would agree that USA Today was ‘fairer than most’, a bar that is set quite low.
The N&O had a very bad start, but gained some redemption with Neff’s work, The HS run by Bob Ashley was egregiously bad from start to finish. As was the NYT w/ Duff Wilson.
I would call Ashley & Duff ‘unidicted co-conspirators’, actually.
Ashley!! Oh geez — I had blocked that guy out of my head. Ran that paper into the ground.
The funny thing about Duff was that I knew his name from elsewhere. In the early days of the Web, he compiled a list of links for investigative reporters — nothing controversial, just links to public records and so forth — that was quite useful for a while. But no, I won’t defend his reporting on this case, either.
The dates were on the resume that comes up when you search for my name, though that resume hasn’t been updated in quite some time. I don’t even use that ISP any more, and I have no idea why it comes up so high in searches for my name. When I searched just now, my book at Amazon was only #6. Bummer.
@Beau:
Yeah, the thought of Ashley kinda makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit, too.
” In the early days of the Web, [Duff Wilson] compiled a list of links for investigative reporters”
Interesting, esp considering that he moved to sports & left all investigating behind. never could see what his position was in re: DukeLAX; not sports, not investigating. Mainly Nifong’s butt-boy.
As a journalist, have you ever spoken to any of the families of the un-indicted players whose experiences during this Hoax you seem to dispose of with disdain? Perhaps before you might sit with them, and watch them relive just a few experiences….before you judge.
I did this.
It’s convenient to forget that Dean Sue, an attorney, advised these kids not to tell their parents…so suddenly, one day, these families fall off a
cliff into a full blown media maelstrom and crisis.
Fear was REAL and warranted. For a very long time, Nifong was threatening to indict others as conspirators. Hate groups were announcing an armed march through campus, looking for their sons.
Their sons were being reviled, not only in protests and marches with “CASTRATE!” signs held high…but in every form of media available. Please think of someone you love and the helplessness and fear YOU would feel before you dismiss what they endured as insignificant.
One mother (and this was months after exoneration) struggled to tell of media trucks parked on their lawn, their other younger children frightened to death…all of them feeling like prisoners, like pariahs. How many days, day after day after day…do you absorb this kind of tension and fear…without it taking a toll on health? Where do you turn when the world has made up its mind…on only an allegation and no evidence.
Can you fathom the frustration?
Brodhead refused to meet with them. He said in his public letter:
“The university is guided by the principles of openness, inclusiveness, mutual toleration, and mutual respect. Everything that furthers these causes advances our ability to work together toward the truth no individual or group can reach alone. Everything that hinders these causes retards the search for wisdom and knowledge. The university is also founded on the principle that we have an obligation to seek the truth, and that truth is established through evidence and disciplined inquiry. ”
Yet, Brodhead refused to read the entire case file when offered by the Defense. Where was his “obligation to seek the truth?”
He is correct that the truth is something no individual or group can reach alone. But this is exactly what his Administration and radical faculty CHOSE to do. Indeed they were seemingly “determined” to reach certainty without evidence or process.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE. But Brodhead adamantly refused to allow himself to KNOW that. Brodhead determined it was “best for Duke” for him to remain uneducated and uninformed while a rogue prosecutor and his racist faculty savaged his own students.
These unindicted families suffered from his determined ignorance for over a year.
You should speak with them, hear their stories, before you repeat Brodhead’s willful ignorance.
@joan: “It’s convenient to forget that Dean Sue, an attorney, advised these kids not to tell their parents…”
One of the reasons that Dean Sue remains a defendant in the civil suits.
Said Judge Beaty in re: Count 11 – Fraud:
“While an administrator is not ordinarily in a fiduciary or confidential relationship with the students, an administrator who is a lawyer [Dean Sue], who discusses pending criminal charges with her students, who affirmatively cuts them off from other advice by telling them not to seek legal advice and not to tell their parents, and who then directs them to the institution’s attorney in an effort to protect the institution at the students’ expense, could plausibly be liable for constructive fraud under state law.”
Would that Covington hadn’t shuffled off this mortal coil, so he could be facing the same.
No, Joan, I don’t know any of the families. Frankly, I know very few of the people involved. I can’t think of anyone involved who would recognize me if he or she saw me face-to-face. Possibly the classmate and dormmate who was in the Group of 88, but I barely knew her. I knew one professor in the Group, plus one (that I didn’t like) in the Clarifying group. One professor I DID like was on the Coleman committee that recommended continuing Duke’s lacrosse program.
I barely knew Dean Sue as well. She seems to be a decent person, but I’ll leave it to the court to decide whether she made an error in judgment and how severe it was. To my knowledge, she never actually practiced law — she got her degree while already in Duke’s administration — and I don’t know whether that will be an ameliorating factor.
I haven’t met Brodhead, Trask or any of the other key players. But I’m guessing you haven’t either, and yet you have little trouble deeming them capable of all sorts of evil. I’m willing to keep an open mind about them heading into the rest of the legal proceedings. Are you?
If I were in the parents’ shoes, I don’t know what I’d do. Maybe I’d sue the reporters who camped out in front of my house. Maybe I’d sue my younger kids’ high schools for failing to protect THEM from harassment. I’m a parent, too, and I’m just as prone to lashing out as anyone.
But I would hope that someone — a lawyer, a friend, a family member — would talk me out of filing the case that they filed. Then I wouldn’t wait two years for a judge to tell me I shouldn’t have bothered.
Someone has to provide the cold light of reason. In this case, it was a judge. And I’m sorry the parents had to wait so long to hear it. They were failed — not just by the school, but by those who were advising them to proceed the way they did. They have my sympathy.
@Beau: “Then I wouldn’t wait two years for a judge to tell me I shouldn’t have bothered.”
Well, you did say that you are not an attorney. Carrington proceeds to discovery.
Res: P. 174 of the Carrington ruling reads as follows: “Plaintiffs have also failed to state any claim by the Plaintiff Parents, and all of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff Parents are dismissed.”
@Beau: “Res: P. 174 of the Carrington ruling reads as follows: “Plaintiffs have also failed to state any claim by the Plaintiff Parents, and all of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff Parents are dismissed.”
True, but there are 39 other Plaintiffs in Carrington, and very serious issues remain.
Depos and discovery will start in due course. Not fun for the defendants.
Yes, but Joan and I were talking specifically about the parents. And the counts that directly and indirectly concerned them are gone.
No…we were not, as far as I knew. I was discussing your disdainful attitude against
“the remaining players and parents(who) sued Duke and Durham for anything and everything. Repeat: These are NOT the players who were accused of rape.”
We live in a litigious society. These suits are not about money…but if they were, surely they are as worthy as those who received great compensation for burning their tongue on a sip of coffee, or the insult of seeing a “Christmas” tree in the town square, or the burden of putting up with the unwanted attentions of a co-worker.
Whether you wish to admit it or not…these families went through hell. Who knew when their child went out the door, that someone wouldn’t decide to defend Mangum’s “honor” with vengeance? They were reviled world-wide…these sons of middle class families…as being racist, rape-enabling sons of privilege.
But you choose to think that had it been your son, you would have blown it off. Fine.
Nevertheless, we are told that these types of lawsuits (stated above) have merit…because they are meant to educate the general public, change societal attitudes, and warn the unknowing.
This is what we hope discovery will do. Discovery will educate the general public to the rot that exists in the mindset of the radical Left at Duke; it might change the attitudes of cowards like Brodhead who feel they must cower before it to save their jobs; and it will warn the unknowing of the egregious lynch-mob mentality that puts certain kids at risk…if they are not under the umbrella of protection of “special-victim” status.
The willful perpetrators of rush-to-judgment, of the intensity of the hate directed at these innocent kids and of the perpetuation of the Hoax after no evidence was found…because it was “best for Duke”…deserve to be “discovered”…and the rancid immorality of those who participated exposed.
Plenty remains to fulfill those objectives.
Joan, you had me for a while, and then you lost me. You want to see everything in terms of infallible good vs. extreme evil, and that’s preventing you from trying to understand what I’m saying. I’m far more sympathetic to the people you’re defending than you’re allowing me to be. I’m just a little more willing to look at the whole picture than you are.
Five years in…what part of the “whole picture” am I missing?
I do not see “infallible good”…I just see real kids…and the pompous de-humanizing of these kids (“farm animals” the esteemed Professor Baker called them to Tricia Dowd)… by the same people who today excuse/elevate Mangum to the point of endangering others.
Where is your “sympathy” when you write cheering for an institution, protective of its name, its reputation…when discovery is the only tool left to remedy the incalculable harm done to the names and reputations of real families, real young men.
Harm done in no small part because of actions, statements, op-eds, Nancy Grace appearances, “apologies”, “listening”, record-changing and refusal to read the case file…because “it was best for Duke.”
Is your position that they just live forever with the onus of “something happened”…because you are a Best-for-Duke guy yourself?
I’d like to understand your view.
You would? Then read my comments and try to explore some of these gray areas. Then quit making me try to defend things that may or may not have happened. Then try to understand why many people still love and respect Duke. And they still would even if something surprising comes up in this trial and Brodhead has to be summarily dismissed.
I’ve seen no evidence in your post that you’re actually trying to understand me. Your comments read like you’re just finding random words of mine and then tying me to the most extreme actors in this whole mess.
@Beau: “And the counts that directly and indirectly concerned them are gone.”
Given that the 39 remaining Plaintiffs are their sons, I’d bet that the parents, essentially removed as plaintiffs via operation of law, feel that all counts concerned them. I’d also surmise that the parents feel very much ‘In’, but I do understand your need to get your snark on.
Note that implicit in Beaty’s rulings is that § 1983 applies to white males, too.
Beau, Beaty’s rulings are bad for the defendants, good for the plaintiffs. Duke’s PR guy said that they were ‘more than they’d hope for’. He lied, they were praying to avoid discovery with their MTD.
The parents who were named to the lawsuit were included because they believed they had suffered emotional distress. Many had had to seek medical attention for real ailments or psychological problems diagnosed as stress-related resulting from the false persecution and potential incarceration of their children. Most of these were mothers.
I am sure that these parents are disappointed that Judge Beaty decided that claims of emotional distress would not be considered. But I doubt that any are in agony over the decision. I am certain that none felt “let down by their attorneys”. All understand that the important matter is that enough of the lawsuit was allowed to go forward to provide for deposition and discovery against Durham and Duke. Most importantly, they appreciate that Judge Beaty has rejected the basic Duke position of “no harm, no foul”, meaning that for those students not indicted, there are no damages.
I expect that most of the parents, including those named in the lawsuit, are primarily interested in seeing justice for their sons. This means, that those found to have engaged in fabrication and falsification of evidence, constructive fraud, and obstruction of justice… will have their day of reckoning.
Touchy, Beau? I take that to mean you are uncomfortable answering direct questions. You are having difficulty explaining why you value Duke’s reputation more than the reputations of innocent kids. You want Duke protected over THEM.
We should all go away.
You care about an institution…your school.
I care about the families.
30-40 years of your life is a lot to give up for school spirit. Living with “something happened” for the rest of your life…is a bit much to ask because it is “best for Duke.”
I’m all for school spirit…but their love for their sons touches me more than your love for …your school.
@Res: “Note that implicit in Beaty’s rulings is that § 1983 applies to white males, too.”
Ummm … OK. Great, but I’m not sure why you mention that in this context. My two hypotheses are:
A. You think I’m hung up on race, even though I’ve said nothing about it.
B. You’re telling me that, as a white male, I can sue someone. Thanks, but I really don’t sue anyone I’d need to sue at this point.
@Res (also applies to @Roper): “Beaty’s rulings are bad for the defendants, good for the plaintiffs.”
And they’re good for those of us who want to see this move from the “vengeance” stage to the “punish those who deserve it, learn from mistakes” stage.
I have to say, though, that the sheer scope of the lawsuit has made it difficult to reach this final, vital stage. The judge needed two years to get through it, and as he said in the ruling, the scope was too much.
Again from the ruling: “Plaintiffs have seen fit to file not 29 pages and 114 numbered paragraphs, but 225 pages and 751 numbered paragraphs, most of which are not relevant to the actual legally-recognized claims that may be available. As in the other “related cases,” Plaintiffs’ potentially valid claims risk being lost in the sheer volume of the
Amended Complaint, and Plaintiffs’ attempt at “spin” is wholly unnecessary and unpersuasive in legal pleadings. Plaintiffs’ approach has required the Court to undertake the time-consuming process of wading through a mass of legally unsupportable claims and extraneous factual allegations in an attempt to “ferret out the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.”
In short: You’ve tied up the whole process that you’re seeking by adding a whole bunch of spurious claims. I’m not sure how anyone can be happy about that. And if these claims weren’t important, as you’re implying by saying this ruling was “good for the plaintiffs,” why were they part of the case at all? They just slowed things down, which will make it MORE difficult to get to the truth in discovery!
I’m not sure how many different ways to rephrase that.
As for Joan — yes, I have difficulty explaining what I don’t actually feel. You aren’t trying in the least to understand what I’m saying. You’ve come here because you’re frustrated by this case (understandably so), and you want to feel morally superior to someone. So you make me out to be something I’m not and accuse me of things I haven’t said. If it makes you feel better, go ahead. I’ll just occasionally respond so that I can point out to anyone joining this discussion late that I’m not quite the monster you’re creating in these posts. I sincerely hope you’re able to find some sort of peace.
Perhaps your frustration at your “victimization” by me in a few posts on a obscure Blog… coupled with my “morally superior” approach to that ummm defamation…might… if you can imagine it magnified and intensified many times over and lasting for months and months…and only PART of a chorus of Furies and Condemnations…make you a bit more sensitive to what ALL these kids and their families endured. Night after night…newspapers, editorials, op-eds, marches, classroom hectoring, threats from thugs.
All of them.
Because you don’t seem to be.
In your original post, you minimized the effects of the Listening Statement, coming at the most dangerous time that it did, blaring into a Lynch-mob mentality building on campus and across the media…this way:
“a group of 88 faculty members, including a classmate and a former professor of mine but no one else I knew, took out an ad that didn’t explicitly say, “Yay, let’s go get the lacrosse players,” but it could’ve been more tactful. (I did show the ad once to a neutral party, who wondered what the fuss was all about.)
“It could have been more tactful” “What the fuss is all about”
You followed with this comment that in context implies that only the three indicted kids should have had any moral or legal issue with Duke and everyone else should have just taken their memories and slinked away.
“the remaining players and parents sued Duke and Durham for anything and everything. Repeat: These are NOT the players who were accused of rape. ”
In other words…those OTHERS..the unentitled…how dare they? You say later “friends” should have advised them not to try. Just shut up, take their horrific family scrapbook of that year…and start recruiting for Duke again.
And here you trivialize Duke’s role in the debacle down to this:
“Duke was in an impossible situation. A rogue prosecutor, Mike Nifong, had indicted three lacrosse players on rape charges stemming from a party that made the whole team look awful. Keeping the whole team away from anyone who was about to rush to judgment was an impossible task. Imagine if the lacrosse season had gone forward and the team had been attacked at an away game.”
Is it your point that Brodhead fired Pressler to protect the team? Refused to meet with the terrified families..to protect the team? That he began his Apologia Outreach using terms like “the commandeering of Black Women” and being publicly quoted “Whatever they did was bad enough” to ensure their safety? This is, of course, why Brodhead violated FERPA law to give everything Duke could scurry up to Nifong, why he never asked his radical faculty to stay off Nancy Grace and the op-ed pages of the H-S, why he never demanded the humilation in the classrooms cease or the Vigilante posters being takien down.
If I misunderstand you…it’s because you don’t explain further.
Brodhead, I’m told, is a man of eloquence. Was it impossible for him to craft a few measured statements that brought some fairness and sanity to a situation that was spiraling into a lynch mob? I could…couldn’t you? Instead , he pranced in front of the Mob..the PC Drum Major…leading the way.
I’m sure there are, in West Va, today…people who worked in the front offices of coal mine companies, who had wonderful co-workers and felt it was a FABULOUS place to work. But when faced with the shortcuts and dangerous practices undertaken by the current management…that put others lives in jeopardy because it was “BEST FOR” the company..there is something ..off-putting about hearing those people seem to cheer …because those hurt… lost a legal battle with their fabulous LOVED “company.”
Or treating with disdain…that those hurt…even tried.
That would not make them…or you…”a monster.” These are simply your positions. I asked you to make them clearer…but… ahhhh…that didn’t go well.
You write how you love your school. Many of these folks with names on these legal papers loved Duke too. Till the present leadership decided to kick them to the curb to show off its PC muscles to its radical sweethearts….and do everything in its power, including locking them out…and refusing to read the case file when offered, so that it could maintain solidarity with a rogue prosecutor.
As for me finding peace…I have a pretty great life. But I made a promise 5 years ago and I’m seeing it through. Simple as that.
This might actually help, Joan. Let me list the incorrect assumptions here:
– “Because you don’t seem to be (sympathetic).”
I am, and I think I’ve made that clear in my comments. Where you and I differ is this: I put most of the blame on Nifong and Mangum (and a couple of investigators). Duke didn’t put the national media on the families’ lawns. Duke couldn’t wave a wand and make it so no one harassed them. These were malicious allegations.
You think Duke exacerbated the situation. I can understand that. But I think they would’ve gone through hell either way. And I sympathize. I even said I might have done the same thing in their shoes, but I hope someone would’ve talked me out of it.
– “everyone else should have just taken their memories and slinked away.”
I don’t think so. I don’t object to the parts of Carrington that concern Durham. I’ve even said that the remaining counts concerning Duke are worth exploring. But the suit, as they filed it, was counterproductive. It tied up the case in court for so long that it’s actually more difficult to get the answers they seek.
– “Is it your point that Brodhead …”
No. Though I’ve said Duke was in an impossible situation, I don’t think Duke’s actions were perfect. Many of the accusations against Duke didn’t stick, and that’s the point I was emphasizing in my original post. Some are still worth exploring. And even if Brodhead comes out of the legal action without a scratch, I think his actions deserve examination in the hopes that others may learn what to do if anything like this should arise anywhere else.
– “West Virginia coal mine analogy …”
There’s a difference here. A lot of people keep working in the local coal mine because there are no other options. Most of the lacrosse team, on the other hand, actually stayed at Duke.
They’re apparently able to separate what they liked about Duke from what they didn’t. Not sure why they can do that and you can’t.
– ” I made a promise 5 years ago and I’m seeing it through.”
To do what?
Beau Dure,
I wish to take issue with two aspects of your analysis. You wrote, “Duke was in an impossible situation.” Difficult, yes, but not impossible. Duke did not cancel two games then the whole season because of fears of an attack at an away game (which is what you implied). Duke was punishing the team. Instead, Duke should have stuck with the principle of innocent unless proven guilty. It’s a good principle to which to adhere, even if the accused had been guilty. I have no idea why you believe that Duke was “going to get taken to court and defamed in the media no matter what school administrators did.” But if one stands up for what is right and still gets taken to court, then that is the cost of one’s integrity.
You wrote that the listening statement signed by 88 faculty and staff members. “it could’ve been more tactful.” Your friend who wondered what all the fuss was about should consult the essay, “Tortmaster, hero of the hoax,” at the CrystalMess blog (http://crystalmess.blogspot.com/2007/10/tortmaster-hero-of-hoax.html). Your attempt to minimize the listening statement might not be knavery, but to me it is foolishness. MOO.
Chris
Wilmington! My former home (1991-94, to save everyone another trip to my outdated resume page).
I really don’t have much to say in response, mostly because I think you’re reading my work fairly, and I’d just have to agree to disagree. Perhaps the one point I’d make would be on my assessment that Duke was “going to get taken to court and defamed in the media no matter what.” Duke was already defamed in the media — Brodhead was being roasted for failing to act more swiftly to toss this team under the bus, and that surely would’ve continued. “Taken to court,” I’ll admit, is more difficult to prove. I think with so many “interested parties” in this case, someone would’ve gone that route no matter what.
But you’re right that Duke should’ve done the right thing no matter what. I’d simply argue that it was difficult in the circumstances (but, as you say, not impossible) to see the right thing to do.
And I appreciate a distinction I read on your blog that there’s a difference between “person X did a bad thing and person X is a bad person.” I wish more of KC’s commenters would make such a distinction.
I’ve been debating whether to do a follow-up post on the Group of 88. I obviously have other things to do (Book #2 is progressing), and I’m not sure I really have anything to add. I might wait until we get more information on them, as odd as that sounds. I know of a couple of efforts to get comments from Group members now that the ruling has more or less, as KC noted, given them a reason to be relieved. (ONLY IN A LEGAL SENSE! I’ll toss that out by way of disclaimer, and again, KC himself said exactly that.) Maybe if someone from the Group comments, I’ll revisit the discussion.
I have to say, Joan, that it seems pretty crazy to me to berate someone for not feeling or expressing enough sympathy. Not only crazy but counterproductive, if your priority is sympathy for the families — I don’t think you’re generating much sympathy for the families here. If anything, you’re using it up. And I know that you do feel a lot of sympathy and that you’ve been a tireless advocate. But reading through your posts here, they sure don’t look like they’re driven by sympathy. The overwhelming note is disgust and anger at “the rot” and the “PC culture that infests Duke from the top down.”
You can hang on to that as tight as you want — I’m not gonna try to talk you out of it — but as a way to generate sympathy, understanding, discussion, or debate, it’s a dead end. Here’s the big problem, as I see it. Duke is, first of all, not radically or fundamentally different from countless other institutions, educational or otherwise. More to the point, it’s a place that’s full of well-off young white men who are thriving. It was like that before the lacrosse case, and it’s like that now. If Duke is like a coal mine and those young men are the minors (and I guess I’m on the clerical staff, chatting and eating donuts in the break room) it’s an amazing operation — mostly the minors go off to Wall Street, but then one year they get stuck underground breathing coal dust and three of them are almost buried alive, and the next year it’s back to Wall Street (disclaimer: this is hyperbole).
Well, fine, you might say, but what about this and this and this, listing the atrocities that you’ve been throwing on the table here. And that’s fine — you can always ask, and in the past I’ve taken a shot at trying to reconcile some of these things. But ultimately, it’s up to you to put your catalog of shame in perspective (or not).
The indiscriminate, promiscuous pile of detail is part of the problem, too. Everything is inexcusable, so the combination is truly unbearable. But, for instance:
“I just see real kids… and the pompous de-humanizing of these kids (‘farm animals’ the esteemed Professor Baker called them to Tricia Dowd)… by the same people who today excuse/elevate Mangum to the point of endangering others.”
Well, “farm animals” comes from an email Baker sent, I believe, after he left Duke, not unsolicited but in response to a request from Dowd. What he wrote is revolting and stupid, and I hope it follows him around like a black cloud for the rest of his life. But some things that Houston Baker does are Houston Baker’s responsibility, not “the Group’s” or Duke’s or anyone else’s, and I think this falls firmly into that category. And the next part, about Mangum, is completely irrelevant and, frankly, insulting. Who here is excusing or elevating her?
I think all of this sheds some light on the connections between the lawsuits and the online lacrosse-case commentariat. For one thing, there’s a common problem with bloat, and I thought the judge’s complaint that Beau quoted made that point very nicely. But in his post Beau implies (unintentionally, I think) a broader crossover.
“Johnson and company had little sympathy. They kept the pressure on Duke. Even after the three accused players were exonerated and settled out of court with Duke before any accusations could be stated in court, even after everyone justifiably sued Nifong back to the Stone Age, the remaining players and parents sued Duke and Durham for anything and everything.”
This seems unfair, because why should the claims of players and parents be effected by the third-party commentary of “Johnson and company”? But the lawsuits inevitably echo DIW and liestoppers in countless ways, in the effective parts as well as the “mass of legally unsupportable claims and extraneous factual allegations.” So, much of this material has been loaded up with ideological and personal animosity, not to mention opportunism and ignorance (this is not to say that every person contributing, or even most, are ill-willed or ignorant). And in that form it’s used to criticize and vilify the whole cast in Wonderland and to debate and castigate “apologists” like Beau and me. And of course there are plenty of reminders where the moral authority for all this comes from: the suffering of the players and the families.
Should that reflect back on the families? I honestly don’t know, which is one reason why I reserve judgment on the lawsuits. The good news, as far as I’m concerned, is that the Beatty’s decision seems to have been thoughtful and coherent and reasonable. One thing I will have no trouble shrugging off, though, are third-party claims about the suffering of the families. That well has been sucked dry.
Thanks for the fine article. It is good to see that the judge has trimmed this monster down to a more manageable level and I expect more dismissals will be coming in the future. Many of these people granted dismissals had nothing to do with a frame or a conspiracy. They now have a burden lifted.
While I’m on my roll here, I’ll put in my two cents about the “couple of efforts to get comments from Group members.” I hope they have a clear idea why they’re doing it and who or what they represent and that they’ve put some thought into it and how it’s worked out in the past.
If I was one of the professors targeted, I think there would be two things that would torpedo the conversation right away. One would be if I was described or addressed as “a member of the Group of 88.” I won’t get into my whole song and dance about how the “Group” is a polemical invention, I’ll just raise one basic problem: the term has been used habitually to turn individual statements into “Group” statements. And given the connotations of the label, it’s a little like trying to open a diplomatic channel to Iran by asking why they joined the axis of evil.
The other conversation killer would be the suggestion from a stranger that I owed them an explanation or even an apology because they’re pissed off, or because they’ve been following the case, or because they’re writing a blog, or because they’re an alum, etc. The claim from someone — a lacrosse player or family member, most obviously — who felt I’d done personal harm to them or their child would be a different matter (I’m not going to make any facile claims about how I’d handle it). Demands on behalf of those people from self-appointed advocates, though, would probably get zapped. You mentioned entitlement in your post — it seems to me that another manifestation has been the sense that if you can write an email or post a comment you’re entitled to an explanation.
I have the impression that, with FODU, Jason Trumpbour was pretty conscientious when he urged people to contact “Group” professors, that he made a big deal about being respectful. And yet, I remember reading one of those exchanges. The writer told the professor, in so many words, that he had his head up his ass. He didn’t say it that way, of course — he did it respectfully. And as I remember, the response was caustic and arrogant and has had a nice little spot in the “Group of 88” dossier ever since. And don’t get me wrong, the professor probably earned his spot.
Having said all that, I also think that those faculty do, at some level, owe the community and themselves some public reflection. Whether or how anyone besides them can make that happen, I don’t know. But if the point is to learn from the ordeal and maybe generate some understanding and reconciliation, I think a documentary project would do more good — an evenhanded effort driven by curiosity to document what happened around campus and perhaps around Durham after the rape allegations went public. Of course that’s a much bigger thing, and probably unrealistic. But I bet it would be far more fruitful than yet another wary round with the usual suspects.
As always, I am speaking only for myself. I have no inside information about what “the Group” or any of its “members” wants.
“Duke didn’t put the national media on the families’ lawns. Duke couldn’t wave a wand and make it so no one harassed them. These were malicious allegations. ”
Let’s talk, not about what those at Duke “could not do” without that wand…but what they did.
Beau, let’s put this in simple terms: have you ever found yourself on the periphery of a controversy…friends falling out or going through a contentious divorce? Workplace feuds? It is reflexive human nature to know…that IF you choose to insert your commentary into a volatile situation … you MUST so-o-o carefully choose your words; you must exercise extreme caution.
This is not the stuff of intuitive genius.
Did the Listeners have any doubt about the 30-40 years of legal jeopardy in the lives of the accused Lacrosse players when they composed and signed that ad?
I’m sure you’ve seen Lubiano’s cover email:
“African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle about the lacrosse team incident. We’re trying for Thursday (04/05) if we can do it; if not, then next Monday (04/10). I’ve attached a draft of the ad to this email. The attachment is just a draft of the text; we’re still working on design elements. The ad is built around student articulations.
AAAS is sending the ad draft to Cultural Anthropology, Literature, and History, but we don’t have an email list of all department and programs chairs, and I don’t have time to put one together, so if you are willing to spam this to other individual faculty or to your chairs to see if they’re interested in supporting the ad and so that as many faculty as possible have a chance to see it and sign on, we would appreciate it.”
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/09/lubianos-cover-e-mail.html
Why was it necessary in that dangerous atmosphere… that as many Duke profs as possible sign and publish an ad ABOUT THE LACROSSE TEAM INCIDENT before the facts were known?
Would the AA department have wanted the rights of Black student-athletes treated this same way?
Why inflame the outrage?
Is it your position that if your child were accused of a crime…you would have no problem with the neighbors banding together to place an ad…thanking the raging protesters outside your home for their mob response…certain of your boy’s guilt…on an allegation and no evidence?
The Brodhead administration and its radical faculty clique understood the jeopardy these kids faced. They absolutely understood that everything Duke faculty and administration said about these kids would be a Big Story. They were “insiders”…they had juice to add , one way or the other. These are highly intelligent folks…people whose livelihoods center around their facility with “words.”
Again…let’s address what they DID.
They were RECKLESS WITH THE LIVES OF OTHER PEOPLE”S CHILDREN.
Their own students.
In fact, rather than “ensure that no one harassed” these kids, Brodhead et al. joined the harassers. Their words and actions threw grease on the fire. They took to the local papers with op-eds, to Nancy Grace, and night-time talk shows. Brodhead went on Apologia tours around Durham. They smeared these kids with every stereotype of “white children of privilege”…”helmeted athletes”…endless tripe. They ramped up the racial angle…ramping up anger to the extent that an NCCU leader said “even if innocent, they should stand trial for whaty went before.”
Rage was palpable. But here comes the march of more Duke faculty.
Baker on Nancy Grace.
Brodhead never tried to stop any of it. Would he have allowed faculty to savage the rights of accused minority students this way?
So skin hue worked AGAINST these kids at dear ole Duke.
Please deny that reality if you can.
Brodhead the Eloquent could find no words to ameliorate the situation, no phrase to insert some sanity…he just pranced along side the Mob…, refusing to meet with the families or read the case file…because if he did…he might have to ask his Bigoted Radicals to be…fair.
And please, Beau, address this all in the context of the OTHER duke rape..Katie Rouse, raped at a Black fraternity party.
http://araceagainsttime.blogspot.com/2009/04/ten-most-outrageous-moments-in-duke_11.html
“On February 11, 2007, another woman alleged she was raped in the bathroom at an off-campus party at Duke. Despite the many similarities between this rape allegation and the one made against the Duke lacrosse team a year earlier, the reactions by the media and by Duke University were very different.
Initially, the cable news networks showed a great deal of interest in this second rape allegation. However, this interest waned when it was revealed the party had been hosted by Phi Beta Sigma, a black fraternity. By the time it was confirmed that the rapist was black and the victim was white, the story had been relegated to conservative and legal blogs. Only the Duke campus newspaper reported the victim’s race. While the suspect was still on the loose, the local daily newspaper, which had shamelessly highlighted the racial angle of the Duke lacrosse rape case, refused to mention the suspect was black. None of this is surprising. As Lawrence Auster has noted, no explicit reference is ever made to the racial aspect of black on white rapes in the media.
The response by Duke University was also very different this time around. There were no prayers, marches, or candlelight vigils for Katie Rouse. Vice President of Student Affairs Larry Moneta even seemed to blame the white victim, when he dismissed her rape as “part of the reality of collegiate life and of experimentation and some of the consequences of students not always being in the right place at the right time.”
In March 2009, Michael Jermaine Burch was sentenced to 48-67 months in prison for the rape. Actually, the sentence was for two rapes – the one at Duke and a second one committed after the defendant was set free on bail. If Burch’s bail had been set at $400,00, as it had been for the Duke 3, this second rape (race of victim unknown) could have been prevented.”
So..what thinks Beau of this contrast..Moneta’s statement, for example?
This is moral rot. Ideological buffoonery at its most dangerous.This is not Duke…but the current leadership of Duke.
If you “love” Duke…you should be outraged.
Robert – Good points. Thanks for chiming in again.
Joan – I see that you commented again, and I’m sorry that it got stuck in WordPress limbo. I can’t get it to it right now — I’m on a handheld with limited Web capability — but I’ll publish it sometime tomorrow.
That said, I was disappointed that you respoded to my attempts to answer your questions with more follow-ups along the lines of “When did you stop beating your wife?” You assume a lot of unproven things to be true, and you insist that I’m failing to recognize the “rot.”
I’ve had the opportuinity to talk with some people and do a bit more research. And frankly, I’m through being conciliatory. Believe what you will of a lot of good people and Duke as an institution. I don’t care. I just want some good people to know they have my support. You don’t know them, nor have you tried to understand them or my comments — even the most conciliatory comments I can offer. I think that puts us at a dead-end.
Because one of Joan’s comments got hung up in my “pending” folder, you might have missed it if you checked in the last 24 hours. Scroll back past my last comment to see what she wrote.
I’ve gone back through this thread to see if I feel any differently about anything I posted. What I think is that, in regard to the Group of 88, it’s time to let it go. If anyone else is ever in a similar situation trying to make a similar point, by all means, look back over the history of this case and see if it could be done a little differently. But for any of them to speak publicly now would likely re-open old wounds without solving anything.
KC’s criticisms stem partly from the fact that a lot of people tried to interject their “agenda” into the case. There’s some truth to that. In some cases, that’s not a bad thing. If your “agenda,” for example, is to be wary of overzealous prosecutors, that’s a good one. But this case wound up with many “agendas.” Including KC’s. Including Joan’s, which I now know is actually a little different than KC’s.
Some people have extracted their pound of flesh from this case. Some still want another pound or so, and I think they’re going to be disappointed unless discovery turns up some Brodhead-Black Panther-Al Qaeda-Branch Davidian conspiracy.
Over the weekend, I saw a book devoted to the 2010 Duke lacrosse national championship. It started with a gracious foreword by Mike Krzyzewski, talking about how he and lacrosse coach John Danowski share coaching strategies.
Seems like they’re getting on with things. Maybe we should, too.
I want to reinforce Joan’s points about Katie Rouse, and then I’ll object. It’s an episode that I think any proud Duke alum should have to wrestle with, and it truly is a sad and shameful story. I was incredulous when Joan claimed that Moneta’s dismissive comment was Duke’s public position on the assault (this was a long time ago, in a thread on my blog). But she was right — the comment was part of an interview on TV news, and there was apparently no effort to explain or amend it. So there it stands, ready to show that any position the institution takes against rape is conditional, because it seems that sometimes “the reality of college life” is that a young woman may not be “in the right place at the right time.”
The really sad thing about the story (to me, anyway) is that Katie wanted to come back to Duke once her assailant was off the streets. I’ve spoken with her father, and he said that in spite of Moneta’s remark the administration at Duke was, on the whole, supportive of Katie after the assault — “Dean Sue,” in particular, was a big help. It was Moneta’s brush-off when Mr. Rouse called to try to get Katie back to Duke that really embittered him, and that interaction was poisoned in advance by Moneta’s comment to the reporter. I’ve linked this comment to my post about all this — click on my name to follow it. I had hoped to shed more light on the situation and I’m sorry to say that I haven’t been able to do that.
The glaring problem with Joan’s analysis is the obsessive focus on race (not to single her out — other liestoppers and KC Johnson do no better). There is one overwhelming reason that it’s worth comparing to the lacrosse case — it’s a black-on-white assault. That is obviously the explanation for very different reactions of the media and Duke.
This is the great thing about being a critic without any ties to the thing you’re criticizing or any constructive interest in it — you can coast blissfully along on the metanarrative. There’s no need to bother with the tough questions you might have to answer if, god forbid, you were one of the losers responsible for the place. Should Duke react the same when a student is the victim of a crime as it does if a group of students are accused of that crime? Should there be “prayers, marches, or candlelight vigils” every time a rape is alleged on or near campus? I looked through the Chronicle’s coverage for other high-profile rape cases and it seems that the lacrosse case is the only time those things were done. So maybe they should be reserved for interracial rapes, because really, how could race possibly be overemphasized in a situation like this?
Beau Dure,
Thank you for your kind words. There were Duke students who had no relation to the team who were also affected by the Listening Statement. Graduate student Angela Perez commented to the Duke Chronicle:
QUOTE
These doctors at Duke are masters of rhetoric. No one better understands the power of what rhetoric can do and for them to now claim, “Oh my – we had no idea that our published document would be taken the wrong way.” is absolutely preposterous. These are professors who have devoted their lives to the written word – who know that once the spoken or written word has been released in the universe that it takes a life of its own, never to be controlled by its author(s) again. And because they have this knowledge, they have an incredible responsibility and accountability for what this document created when they released it on the world during this chaotic and insane time. They cobbled these quotes together with no thought about the consequences other than to promote their own agenda. It’s they they got together in the Ivory Tower and said, “Ah, dear doctors, let us type up and sprinkle down Word documents on the masses and incite their deepest fears and dredge up their deepest pain – and let’s do it quickly while we have some lacrosse players to focus it on.”
ENDQUOTE
Ms. Perez keen disappointment in these professors, and especially Ariel Dorfman, is clear from her letter. Dorfman has been an eloquent opponent of torture. Yet in Perez’s view, he put ideology ahead of human pain in signing the listening statement.
The Recitation of Sins in this case is no longer simply about “sympathy” for those abused in this case. That was my intent at the first. In the early days, in my naivete, I did believe that “walk a mile in my shoes” was the path to sanity and reconciliation for both well-intentioned Potbangers and Liestoppers. I saw almost everyone…as “good people” with basically good intentions.
But I’ve had to let go of that fantasy.
There came a point after which no one could believe any longer in good intentions. Like with the NCNAACP.
Some of you will never understand the personal affront and betrayal to those of us who lived and breathed for civil rights in our youth that the despicable part the NCNAACP played in this Hoax had on our souls. Like finding your beloved Grandma, tarted up and spread-eagle in a whore-house.
Likewise, you cannot understand the “education” that Ms. Levicy and Lubiano and the 88 tenured Radicals provided to some of us…that years ago…believed AA studies and Gender studies were designed to increase sensitivity with a goal to bring us TOGETHER. I confess to that naivete.
Instead the goals appear to be to indoctrinate and to segregate…and to perpetuate anger. There seems to be an aura of Victim-based smugness that means never having to “say you are sorry.” And some of the moral by-products appear to be… to so intensify racial identity that insensitivity to the legal jeopardy of white students was reflexive; and to so intensify gender-identity to the point that one devotee would assist a rogue DA in framing three young men because of the Credo…“womyn never lie about rape.”
These revelations at Duke are not exclusive to Duke…but Duke will do as a Exposure vehicle for the uniformed. Many of whom foot the bills to subject their children to these “ideas.”
I do not want to fund the opportunity for the Woman Studies Dept. to evolve my “White” daughter into another Nurse Levicy. Nor my “Black”goddaughter’s empathy be warped by the AA Studies Dept. into the race-selective sort we saw in Lubiano’s “Listening Statement.”
I’m sure there are many “good people” in the administration and on the faculty of Duke. Even among the 88 signatories. Years ago, many of us had to endure years of painful confrontations with “good people” among our friends and families…because these otherwise “good people” had offensive attitudes based on the ridiculousness of skin hue. The Duke Hoax exposed “good people” at Duke who knew, with only an allegation and no evidence…that Mangum’s skin color made her the the truth-teller…Sister Survivor.
And they never stepped back. And, as months passed and so much was uncovered, they let there silence speak into the void of who the REAL VICTIMS were.
Then came Katie Rouse.
Selective empathy.
Protect only ‘your own.”
It’s not any prettier this time around.
It is an historical outrage that this attitude was ignored in the past; it should not be ignored or tolerated as it exists now…at Duke or elsewhere.
These “Good People” should not be entrenched and tenured in our schools and colleges in order to proselytize and perpetuate these skewed and ugly attitudes.
Attitudes exposed throughout the Duke Frame.
The Recitation of Sins is about Education now. These “angry studies” are toxic. Many of us did not know this until we ourselves were educated throughout 2006-7. Once again Duke proved to be an amazing place of “higher education.”
Is it in the political, professional and financial interest of some to keep us angry and separated? Was the possible incarceration of three innocent kids for 30-40 years…seen as a “cash-cow” to some? Is this the underside of “Best for Duke?”
We still have a lot of stuff to fix as a society …and it takes mutual empathy to have the impetus to do so. Lubiano and her radical friends are a real threat to that empathy. On one hand, they rightfully ask we stand with them not to pre-judge their children by skin color…then they push into the LAX frame to prejudge ours.
The Duke Frame is about Prosecutorial abuse, Academic racism, Feminist zealots and the Hucksters that profit from all of that. And it needs to be told and retold till we drive these charlatans of chaos out of our colleges, emergency rooms, etc.
The post racial era most of us claim to want…will never be ushered in by those to whom divisiveness is a career path.
I believe to the core that Discovery will juice up the story even more.
Beau…
“I’ve had the opportuinity to talk with some people and do a bit more research. And frankly, I’m through being conciliatory. Believe what you will of a lot of good people and Duke as an institution. I don’t care. I just want some good people to know they have my support. You don’t know them, nor have you tried to understand them or my comments — even the most conciliatory comments I can offer. I think that puts us at a dead-end.”
Change a few words…and that is exactly how I felt about the families and kids on the Lacrosse team…re their treatment by many at Duke.
“You don’t know them, nor have you tried to understand them or my comments — even the most conciliatory comments I can offer. I think that puts us at a dead-end.”
But if you and I have become frustrated, I absolutely believe you can understand the gut-wrenching reaction of parents watching their “good kid” trashed on TV or in an op-ed by administrators or faculty…over and over.
Did you (maybe you did), as an alumni, ever express similar public frustration with those people you support now… for the malignant comments they flushed into the Media maelstrom…..that you express to ME…for criticizing them here on your quiet little Blog today.
Did you ask them to give other people’s sons similar respect that you wish me to give to them?
Joan,
I read your posts and I am not really understanding what your issue is with the article. Maybe it is the title itself, that the DL players “lose many”. Frankly, I think it is a positive for both sides here. I have been checking in at LS off and on for awhile now and the biggest complaint that I saw was the delay in getting a ruling on discovery and the other motions presented in the civil suits. We now know that the delay was due to the shotgun strategy taken by the lawyers for the players.
Trimming this down to a more manageable level and to the point where the list of defendants and claims against them are at least somewhat plausible will help speed the process along.
As to your statement that the Duke “Frame” is about “Prosecutorial abuse, Academic racism, Feminist zealots and the Hucksters that profit from all of that”, I think you have been drinking at the Koolaid fountain of KC for far too long. The prosecutorial abuse I can see as well as general incompetence and stupidity on the part of LE. The rest of it is just a comment on people’s opinions of the case and has nothing to do with any “Frame” on the part of Duke University. Duke made a decision not to take sides in this case to avoid the appearance of seeming like they were discounting the accusations of CGM. That was a poor decision in retrospect and the fact is that Duke may have been overly helpful to Durham LE but there was no attempt to “Frame” any of the players, in my opinion.
The lawsuit’s claim of conspiracy on the part of Duke does not hold water and bringing the agenda of KC Johnson to the table just clouds the facts of the civil case.
Mark,
Duke made a series of poor decisions. Here is a portion of the Community of One statement, “We are proud of the response of students at North Carolina Central University and Duke University who are organizing events to educate each other about sexual violence, racism, and why our system of law presumes innocence until guilt is established. We are grateful for the work of clergy and other leaders who are using this time to urge healing, peace, and truth.”
I have at least three problems with this paragraph. I question why racism should be brought into the discussion unless the alleged crime was racially motivated. The clergy who spoke out generally presumed guilt (Reverend Wells and Father Vetter), and Reverend William Barber took a very active role via the state’s NAACP chapter. To his credit, Reverend Wells spoke with some empathy toward the falsely accused players a year later. Which member of the Duke faculty organized a teach-in explaining that one is innocent unless proven guilty? If such an event ever happened, I am unaware of it.
Duke could have taken the path that Steve Baldwin suggested and acted in loco parentis. Duke should have stood up to Michael Nifong and the press over the issue of due process. It should have noted when DA Nifong clearly violated the standards of his profession. It should have said that the third lineup was performed contrary to established standards. It should have condemned the Wanted posters. It should not have advised the students to avoid seeking out lawyers. President Broadhead should never have said, “If they didn’t do it, whatever they did is bad enough.”
But President Broadhead’s letter of April 5th, 2006 may be the nadir of Duke’s response. “and we will continue to cooperate with that investigation to the fullest. Many have urged me to have Duke conduct its own inquiry into these charges. Frustrating though it is, Duke must defer its own investigation until the police inquiry is completed… I assure you, however, that the Duke disciplinary system will be brought to bear as soon as this can appropriately be done. Until that time, I urge us to be patient and remind ourselves that allegations have been made, the team has denied them, and we must wait until the authorities act before reaching any judgment in the criminal case.” The brief nod to the team’s denial of the allegations is overshadowed by the rest of the letter, especially the passage about the Duke disciplinary system. How does President Broadhead know that the students violated any of Duke’s rules? His letter then outlines five actions, few if any of which make sense if the team is innocent of wrongdoing. The only possible exception is number 3, which is the examination of the student judicial process and practices. Unfortunately for its students, Duke moved even further away from treating its students fairly in the aftermath of this incident.
There are schools where this scandal would never have unfolded in the way that it did, even if that college or university were located in Durham. Duke let itself and its supporters down, and it is long past time for some soul searching.
Good points, Chris. However, I would have to say that the Community of One ad is a pretty neutral statement. At this point in time, Duke could not have known if the players were innocent or not, and if not what their motivation for an assault could have been. Should the University have cooperated with police at least at this point? I think the answer to this question is yes. Did some officials say some pretty stupid things? That answer is yes as well, in my opinion.
Beau Dure
Notwithstanding your craven defense of all things Duke Durham and Gang of 88, you should know that Crystal Mangum’s latest alleged victim has died of the stab wounds received. I would be interested to see how a “sports journalist” of your caliber spins this one. Perhaps Wahneema Lubiano will be called in to write the response. Will it be titled “WE WERE NOT LISTENING”?
Enough – I can’t answer that because I liked OJ Simpson in the Naked Gun films. Obviously, I should’ve known what was to come.
I defended Durham? Wow. Must’ve missed that.
Beau Dure,
Your response is a non answer.How are you going to spin this latest development?
Why would I do that? There’s no defense for Mangum knowing what we know now. I’ve talked with one G88 member about her, and what that person said was definitely not flattering.
Why KC and company keep painting the G88 as if they’ve been some sort of Mangum advocacy group for the past four years is beyond me. If anyone in the G88 is still defending her, well, that’s pretty stupid.
On the whole, it’s more proof to me that the blame for what the team went through lies mostly with her and Nifong (and perhaps several investigators). They were falsely accused by a criminal. And yet the focus is on Duke? What?
Congratulations, Joan, you’re the first person ever to have a comment removed from SportsMyriad.
If you’re so full of hate that you’ll spin some web of conspiracy so that anyone who thinks this lawsuit had holes in it is complicit in the death of Mangum’s boyfriend, I simply can’t have a rational discussion with you. I’m sure the judge who tossed out much of the lawsuit would find your theory quite interesting.
How about mourning this guy instead of using him as a pawn in your own confused agenda?
You’re not banned yet. But one more accusation like that, and you will be.
Mr. Dure, I’m am sure that Joan Foster’s post on your blog can be accurately described many ways. Having a “confused agenda” with respect to RCD and how the case was handled by Duke, Durham, NCNAACP, the press and most others, is not one of them.
Beau, between us, I’ve been put out of better places.
(inside joke)
I’m dismayed at the level of your reading comprehension. But it pales in comparison to your selective empathy….and outrage…and refusal to engage in specifics and on point.
I’ve enjoyed my visit. It was not unproductive.
Thanks Joan, and I’m glad you feel it wasn’t unproductive. As for the rest — I think we’ve established where we disagree, and I see no need to pile on. Take care.
Mark,
Cooperating with the police is fine, up to but not past the point it infringes on the rights of the students. Others who are better informed than I am on this topic should provide specifics, but one thing I have always wondered about is how the McFayden email got into the hands of DPD. Whether or not Duke helped, DPD had no business releasing it. It had no bearing on the truth of the allegations and it only served to inflame public opinion.
“@Res: “Note that implicit in Beaty’s rulings is that § 1983 applies to white males, too.”
Ummm … OK. Great, but I’m not sure why you mention that in this context. My two hypotheses are:
A. You think I’m hung up on race, even though I’ve said nothing about it.
B. You’re telling me that, as a white male, I can sue someone. Thanks, but I really don’t sue anyone I’d need to sue at this point.”
And you would be wrong on both counts, Beau. I mentioned it because it is the single-most significant aspect of Beaty’s rulings. Your alma mater argued vehemently against allowing these Duke students to bring an action under § 1983.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“B. You’re telling me that, as a white male, I can sue someone.”
You miss the point entirely – that Beaty is telling us that white males can sue under our nation’s civil rights legislation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
” The judge needed two years to get through it, and as he said in the ruling, the scope was too much.”
The suit was under mediation for quite some time, so your first statement is a stretch at best. Beaty is known for slow rulings, mostly because it’s romored that he really doesn’t like his job.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“They just slowed things down, which will make it MORE difficult to get to the truth in discovery!”
Beau, you misunderstand the process. Completely.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Beaty) – “Plaintiffs’ attempt at “spin” is wholly unnecessary and unpersuasive in legal pleadings”
As an aside, this is funny stuff coming from an FDJ who allowed his magistrate to make a ruling filled with references to the movie ‘Caddyshack’.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, Duke filed their answer yesterday. All ***732*** pages of it.
OK, Res, then help me understand:
A. On the “white males” point — are you saying that was part or all of Duke’s argument for summary judgment? Your initial comment on the subject made it sound like I had raised the point. If it’s part of Duke’s argument, then I understand why you raised it, though I’m sure Duke must have raised other arguments to get several counts of the suit thrown out.
Personally, of course, I have no problem with civil rights law applying to guys like me.
B. On the lawsuit — can you tell me why it was a *good* thing for the plaintiffs to add so many counts and so many supplemental piles of evidence that failed to sway the judge?
And will anyone understand that those counts were pretty much what I was objecting to in the first place? Anyone?
Beau,
I hope you take the time to read KC Johnson’s latest offering at Durham-in-Wonderland. The Duke response is equal parts pathetic and disgusting. I am rooting for the discovery process to uncover at least a few of Duke’s lies.
Thanks, but I’m done. I made my points, and KC’s group does no real harm at this point.
The only person I vaguely know who’s still part of the suit is Dean Sue, and I hope she comes out OK. Everyone I know through the decades has had positive interactions with her. It might be a stretch to call her an attorney — she got her law degree while she was already a dean — but there might be something instructive that comes out of the count that mentions her.
Some of what’s left seems fanciful to me, and the judge certainly seemed skeptical, but it might do everyone some good to let an unbiased eye (e.g., not KC and the Liestoppers gang) take a look.
Why KC thinks he knows more about Duke than anyone who’s ever been there is beyond me, but if people want to spend the next year or two speculating on discovery, well, knock yourselves out. I’ve got other things to do. Peace out.
If I understand Duke’s position correctly, it is that Dean Sue did not tell the students not to get lawyers. KC wrote, “To my knowledge, no tape recordings exist of any of the discussions that Duke denies above. But the problem with these denials is obvious: contemporaneous witnesses with whom the lacrosse players spoke verify the players’ version of events.” It sounds to me as if Duke is saying that the players are stating falsehoods, perhaps lying. Duke should be ashamed of itself. I am not sure who “KC’s group” is. I am done with conspiracy theories.
While the obvious differences between the lax hoax and its campus enablers and the Rouse real rape and the campus’ lack of interest demonstrate that it’s not rape, it’s race and gender and class that interested these folks, we have a worse example.
The Frank Lombard case. It has so many conflicting narratives that nobody will talk about it. Just to say you hope the kid heals means something bad happened and that opens up embarrassing questions.
As Tammy Bruce said, feminism is about radical politics first and women’s issues last.
All the horrors of rape that had the Crowd rending their lapels in sympathy for Mangum really did happen to Rouse. Crickets.
Anybody got an explanation?
I have to appreciate this superb read!! I certainly enjoyed every amount of it. I’ve bookmarked your internet site to look into the latest stuff you post.
Kristi is being herself. If she wants to lighten her hair that’s up to her. Besides MANY Japanese women lighten their hair. That is THEIR cultural standard and has nothing to do with WESTERN ideals of beauty. Redish tones that come from the BROWN hair that many of them have naturally. I also don’t see contacts. It’s up to her how she wants to look.