Duke University President Walks the Line
[Guest post by DRJ]
Duke University President Richard Brodhead tries to walk the line between satisfying the lacrosse players and their backers, while not antagonizing the Gang of 88 and their supporters.
The AP reports that Duke University Richard Brodhead has apologized to the Duke lacrosse players:
“Duke University President Richard Brodhead apologized Saturday for not better supporting the men’s lacrosse players falsely accused in last year’s highly publicized rape scandal. Brodhead, speaking at the university’s law school, said he regretted Duke’s “failure to reach out” in a “time of extraordinary peril” after a woman accused three players of raping at a March 2006 party thrown by the team.
“Given the complexities of this case, getting the communication right would never have been easy,” Brodhead said. “But the fact is that we did not get it right, causing the families to feel abandoned when they were most in need of support. This was a mistake. I take responsibility for it and I apologize for it.”
Is it really that complex to remind people that everyone – even white male students – are innocent until proven guilty? Is it so hard to communicate that concept in a college community?
Apparently, if you’re the President of Duke University and you have professors like the Gang of 88, it is.
— DJR
They felt abandoned because they were.
They got tossed to the jackels. They should have sued your school to the point it became a comminity college teaching nothing but automotive repair and knitting…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 9/29/2007 @ 2:14 pmProblem is, President Brodhead had no choice but to suspend the students who were accused of rape, once charges were filed. Suspending the rest of the season for the lacrosse team and firing the coach were virtually mandatory.
Yeah, the Gang of 88 are scumbags, and everyone ought to say so (hey, that’s our freedom of speech, right?), but there were some actions the university simply had to take.
Dana (d671ab) — 9/29/2007 @ 2:17 pmPlease, ‘splain, Dana. I don’t see it like you do.
ManlyDad (d62cf6) — 9/29/2007 @ 2:26 pmDana: Suspending the (three) students who were charged seems appropriate, but why cancel the balance of the season and (worst of all) fire the coach? Yeah, please explain.
Old Coot (fbad38) — 9/29/2007 @ 2:44 pmColleges frequently suspend football, basketball, or baseball players that are arrested and charged with crimes, but they don’t suspend the entire team, cancel the season, or fire the coach. Duke over-reacted.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/29/2007 @ 3:36 pmWhy hasn’t the lying woman been sued?
paul from fl (7da085) — 9/29/2007 @ 3:37 pmWhy hasn’t she been charged with a hate crime?
Why hasn’t the school been charged with a hate crime against whites?
Why is Brodhead still President?
So many questions, so little justice.
Suspending the rest of the season for the lacrosse team and firing the coach were virtually mandatory.
Why?
This is roughly the equivalent of the NCAA’s “Death Penalty” and is indeed overreacting, as DRJ pointed out. Even the NCAA has only used it twice. The last occasion created so many unintended consequences that even they are reluctant to use it.
Duke’s actions towards the LAX team are usually reserved for programs involved with point shaving (1952 Kentucky) and committing a major violation while on probation for a earlier major violation (1987 Southern Methodist.) Not individual players.
Paul (e4a0a7) — 9/29/2007 @ 4:26 pmA question: would Brodhead would have wiped out the season if, say, Duke Men’s Basketball was the program involved?
In light of the fallout at Southern Methodist since 1987 (and the fact the fallout included the collapse of the entire Southwestern Conference in 1996), I think not.
Paul (e4a0a7) — 9/29/2007 @ 4:33 pmbrodhead is a totally weak sister. when he said duke cared about the accused and their families, he was lying through his teeth. he still hasn’t said boo to the gang of 88 or to the professor who failed a student merely because he was on the lacrosse team.
assistant devil's advocate (a40cae) — 9/29/2007 @ 5:58 pmThe accuser in the Duke case was a mentally and emotionally troubled woman. Her story was never plausible. But Nifong saw an opportunity to stick it to Duke athletes, whom he hated, and get elected to a full term, which he wanted for the pension. So he turned this head case into his tool.
She didn’t push the case, he did.
Rich Rostrom (7c21fc) — 9/29/2007 @ 7:28 pmThis mealy-mouthed apology ranks right up there with Lee Bollinger’s. My hope is that if someone like me can see the utter opportunism and corruption of these fellows, everyone can, and the end of their hegemony is nigh.
Otherwise, the 60s will be judged to have ruined the world.
Patricia (4117a9) — 9/29/2007 @ 8:04 pmPoetic justice would be Duke’s insurance carrier dropping them after they pay out a whole lot of $$, and have other carriers demand as part of future coverage that faculty members who falsely defame students be dismissed.
Time to abolish tenure.
Horatio (55069c) — 9/30/2007 @ 6:31 amBrodhead has the Larry Summers firing staring him in the face. One toenail out of line and he’ll be gone, no matter how many groveling apologies he makes. That reality will only get worse.
There’ve been references to straight-up lacrosse hatred playing a part, hatred of athletes just for playing lacrosse. This would explain the blanket derision for the both the black and white players on the men’s team as well as the female team. Nifong is one such sufferer.
A professor at a distant campus expressed the same feeling. A Duke professor indicated that the lacrosse players had superior hookup possibilities. Why was this vital, need-to-know information omitted from my mission brief?
Looking Glass (e62182) — 9/30/2007 @ 12:57 pmAs a public service, it would be appropriate to broadcast, wide and far, the names, photos, and resumes, of the Gang of 88.
Let everyone know of their infamy.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 9/30/2007 @ 3:35 pm