Wednesday, May 31, 2006

General topics 22 - Full

This page is full. Please go to General Topics - OPEN to continue with your comments.

163 Comments:

At 8:14 AM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you want to remove Nifong from office, you need to cast a vote for Cheek. Do not vote for Monks because you are angry at Easley. If Nifong wins this election by 300 votes, it will be Monks fault, in my opinion. Monks is not qualified to be the DA, again, in my opinion.
Durham County is remarkably diverse. It is one of the many reasons I love living here. Governor Easley represents all of us. I believe it is Nifong's fault, and the mainstream mass media's preliminary support of this mess, that has lead many African American members of this community to believe the false accuser's story, just as passionately as I believe in their innocence. But, if this ever went to trial, I believe that every African American on the jury that listened to the evidence, would vote not guilty on every charge.

 
At 9:11 AM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just listened to the video clip available on WRAL. It contains a short interview with Ed Bradley on the 60 Minutes show. I am impressed with how well Ed Bradley is responding to the questions asked. He seems really familiar with all aspects of the case, and he is giving perfect answers to each question asked.

So far, I like what I see. I cannot wait until tonight to see the whole thing.

 
At 10:06 AM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So far, I like what I see. I cannot wait until tonight to see the whole thing."

The whole thing will be in at least two parts. Kee[ next Sunday night open too.

 
At 10:23 AM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it will all be tonight.
Generally 60 Minutes has 3 segments, tonight there will be only 2 with the Duke story taking up 2 spots.

 
At 12:23 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous joan collins said...

Thank you Greg Kidder for your onderful letter to The Chronicle
'Administrators should not discourage protest'.

The most sacred right of any American is the right to vote. To deprive a citizen of their right to register to vote and thus their right to vote is un-American. It is also illegal, unethical, and immoral.

 
At 2:00 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "60 Minutes" piece promises to be very interesting. Finally a member of the national media will ask the right questions. But most interesting will be Nifong's reaction next week...as we know how sensitive he is to criticism.

 
At 3:10 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Out Joe said...

The sign of a really good, honest man or woman is the one that admits when he or she is wrong and fixes the problem and then moves on. A great deal of respect can be generated from that kind of action.
But, we have Nifong. He is of the ilk that, when totally in error, will change the story and the law. What a loser. Let us not forget who appointed him! There should be no stepping stone to Senatorship for a Governor with such poor juedgement.

 
At 3:36 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Shaboom said...

Can the nut, Nifong, get a grand jury indictment against Ed Bradley and MSNBC for inter-state trafficing of fraud exposure? I jest, or do I? I bet he is thinking of a way to shut down tonight's transmission into Durham.

Back in the 1950's in South Philadelphia, we called this kind of guy a liar. Some titles never change.

 
At 5:50 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watching football today I have seen several promotional clips of the Duke 3 from 60 Minutes. Every time they show their faces it makes me want to cry. This could be my own son (a sophomore at Duke)- they are great kids. Evans says, "I could go to jail for 30 yrs for something I didn't do, based on a lie." It just makes me sick.

 
At 8:35 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

I just finished watching 60 minutes. I thought the piece was alright but it could have been a lot better. David, Collin and Reade did great, but Kim Roberts is still lying through her teeth. She was holding back on laughing out loud, and she could not keep eye contact, this is a tall tail sign of when someone is lying.

I almost started to cry as I listened to the duke three speak, I hope Nifong gets disbarred. Ed should have asked Kim about the remarks she made about "sorry if you didn't do this then your lawyers will get you off".

That would have shut her right up. I take back what I said on Friday morings post, the defense should stay far away from her. She might turn out to be like Debbie Row, Michael Jackson's ex- wife, she was suppose to be a witness for the D.A. and wound up testifing for Michael.

Kim could easely go back and recant what she said to 60 minutes, and do a lot more harm than good.

Well now we all know that CGM is still selling herself for money.

I think we should all say a prayer for her two minor childern, they are in the care of a very sick and twisted woman. She is putting there lives in danger everyday they are with her.

My last thought for tonight David, Collin and Reade stay strong and know we now all know for sure (100%) that you are being framed for political reasons.

 
At 8:44 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The clear winner of the night clearly was Professor Coleman. The loser was Brodhead, big time. His spinelessness and cowardice came through very clearly. You could see it in his eyes that he wants these kids convicted. What an idiot he turned out to be. He is not fit to be the president of Duke. He will not survive this, I can feel it coming. Fresh blood will be needed at the helm.

All three guys did very well. Dave was articulate and expressed himself very well. Of course, Dave is a few years older than Reade and Collin and that makes a big difference. All three guys proved to us there is nothing they are hiding. There was no rape. It is all wishful thinking on the part of Nifong. This will blow into his face soon enough.

Thank you CBS, thank you 60 minutes, thank you Ed Bradley for a job well done.

 
At 8:44 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everybody who was pleased with the show should email CBS and tell them!

Let them know we watched!

 
At 8:47 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The bombshell of the night was the revelation that the accuser kept on dancing/stripping every night after she made the accusations. Did I hear that correctly? Was she going to UNC hospital and complaining about pains during the day and stripping in the evenings? Can someone confirm that I heard this right?

 
At 8:55 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the CBS News transcript:


In the days and weeks after the attack the accuser went back to the hospital complaining of neck, back and knee pain she claimed was caused by the rape. 60 Minutes obtained a video of her dancing at a strip club two weeks after the alleged attack. The club manager told 60 Minutes that she had consistently performed her routine normally

 
At 9:16 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Coleman looked great. Brodhead looked pathetic.

 
At 9:18 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can we propose to the Board of Trustees that Coleman be appointed President of Duke? Makes perfect sense...

 
At 9:19 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Coleman for Duke President.

 
At 9:22 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Herald Sun:

60 Minutes" also showed a video it said was of the accuser performing at a strip club two weeks after the party. Late Sunday, defense attorney Joseph Cheshire said the tape was made a few days before the accuser went to a hospital and complained of lingering injuries from the alleged attack.

"It's enormous," said Cheshire, who represents Evans. "The relevance is she's saying she's so hurt and can't hardly move and can't remember what she's doing and some kind of victim of a rape and yet we'll have testimony and demonstrative evidence that days later she's in the strip club performing."

 
At 9:42 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought Coleman was terrific too- showed a lot of courage. Broadhead could go to Harvard, he might fit right in since they drove Larry Summers out. Think Coleman would take the Duke Prez job?
Texas Mom

 
At 9:50 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke University is an excellent school...Look how well 3 of its 20 year old students conducted themselves on national television!
...better than its President...

 
At 10:10 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The three Duke students were terrific! They proved themselves before millions of people. I cannot say the same thing about Brodhead, he was not even sympathetic let alone smart. He was beating on the same drum that Group of 88 has been beating. He knows darn well that every Duke student drinks underage and every Duke student goes to parties like this. These kids were not doing anything different that what is going in Duke all the time.

This may be discomforting to him, and he may not like it. But since when are we able to disregard facts just because we don’t like them? There were more than 20 stripper parties on Duke campus last year. What happened to the students who attended those? Are they going to jail for 25-30 years? Of course not, they are still well respectable members of the Duke community because their stripper did no falsely accuse them of rape. Wake up Mr. Brodhead and smell the coffee! It is time for you to pack your bags; you have nothing to offer Duke. You are nothing but a disgrace.

Coleman for Duke president!

 
At 10:29 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I, too, thought the Duke 3 were magnificent as was Prof Coleman. I thought Brodhead looked very weak but I also had the impression that CBS had heavily edited his remarks. That is very typical of 60 Minutes: they interview you for 2 hrs and use 15 sec of a disjointed statement that makes you sound like an idiot.

 
At 10:42 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those who missed 60 minutes, or who want to see it again, the video is being posted on the internet.

Here is the first part (3 more to go):

http://www.resisttheurge.com/60/60.html

 
At 11:01 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John in Carolina has a post up on 60 minutes. Here is the link:

60 Minutes' Hoax episode: A first take

 
At 11:08 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I don't think they would have to work very hard to make Brodhead sound like an idiot. LOL.

 
At 11:55 PM, October 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brodhead looked like a fool BECAUSE he said he believed the DA instead of his coach and students. What other qoute did Mr. Bradley need? Brodhead skewered himself!!

Coleman has been great from the very beginning. Let's hear it for supporting the rule of law.

 
At 2:36 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting the segment.

As someone watching it w/out much expectation, I think 60 minutes was incredibly helpful.

Remember that this will be the lasting video document of the case. And (the silent) Nifong comes across accurately as the villian that he is.

I would be surprised if Brodhead actually survives the year. His sweaty, deceitful performance was not so much Shakespeare as Martin Short as Nathan Thurm

Brodhead

 
At 8:42 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: I love it! Nathan Thurm even looks a little like Brodhead minus the cigarette (and also in Brodhead's younger days). This clip is superb.

Yes, that's what Duke has been putting up with.

 
At 8:59 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "60 Minutes" piece was great, and anyone who was disappointed that it wasn't a broader indictment of Nifong should keep in mind that, for most of the country, the information presented was all new! There is almost too much corruption to talk about--they did a good job of focusing in on the critical elements.

Obviously Broadhead's comments were excessively edited--in a walk across campus that ended in his office, he clearly spoke for more than the 15 seconds they showed. Those that would hang him for his description of the events at the time should keep in mind that, before last March, many (if not most) of us would have had some level of trust in a District Attorney's office. If the office said a violent crime definitely occurred, and they simply needed to hone in on the perpetrator (out of a finite set of suspects) we would believe them. Most of the country did. The university did see an obligation at the time to not interfere with the legal process--and this was for the protection of the accused as much as for any alleged victim. Since then, however, and especially since it has become apparent that civil rights may have been violated, it would seem it is incumbent upon the administration to speak out for justice on behalf of its students. I can't believe Ed didn't question Brodhead specifically about that--could that have been edited out?

 
At 9:20 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check out K. C. Johnson's analysis this morning. He states that Pressler, acting on instructions from Duke administration, told the lacrosse players not to tell their parents about the investigation. If this is how the Duke administration behaved from the beginning, they deserve to be villified for their role in throwing these students to the wolves.
Texas Mom

 
At 9:27 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many people have speculated that the bathroom was too small for the rape to have occured. Why haven't we heard anything about this from the defense? Why are there no photos of the bathroom? Would the photos show that the bathroom was big enough for the rape to have occured? Who is living in the house now?

I realize that there is no way that a rape took place, but I am curious about the size of the bathroom? Anyone know about these things?

 
At 9:33 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Whatever excuse Brodhead had for behaving the way he did at the beginning, that is long past and long gone. He should have started speaking up in support of these innocent kids and Duke a long time ago. Evidence has been mounting and he chose to ignore it all. He has done nothing this far, and it appears he has no plans to do anything going forward – except perhaps badmouth the lax players behind the scenes hoping for their demise.

I say, Brodhead has many more skeletons in his closet than what we are aware of. He is acting awfully like a man who has something to hide. Didn't he learn that skeletons have a way of making it out of the closet, at the most unexpected moments? I am waiting for that closet door to open, it should be fairly soon.

In my opinion, Brodhead is history. There is no way he can survive this. As soon as the case ends, so does his reign of Duke. That is why he is trying to prolong the pain as long as possible. But, I have some news for you President Brodhead. Before too long, you will become a pretty famous ex university president -- all for the wrong reasons. You will go down in history as the biggest coward of all time. Are you proud? Which Shakespeare quote are you going to use to describe your own demise?

 
At 9:35 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:27 the size of the bathroom is totally insignificant compared to all the other facts. Who cares about the size of the bathroom?

 
At 9:43 AM, October 16, 2006, Blogger TombZ said...

RE: Duke administration's treatment of the players and their parents.

I recall, but cannot locate, a narrative on this site of the dialogue (or lack thereof) between the administration and team parents. I think this post includes the fact that Brodhead was not willing to meet with the team parents.

Can anyone point me to that post? I want to detail the adminstration's early actions in selling out students and parents, to clearly document my own concerns as a Duke parent.

Thanks.

 
At 10:06 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember that post about Broadhead refusing to meet with parents too. Don't know where it is, though.
Texas Mom

 
At 10:23 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob Ashley moves from the snooze room to the Duke Chronicle.

In an
unsigned guest Editorial today at the Chronicle

this anonymous "Ashley-lite" writer trots out the old bull of having to wait for the trial and excusing Nifong's conduct as innocent mistakes.

I think he is itching for a response.

(also there's a poll)

 
At 10:24 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: That was in one of KC Johnson posts, where he published a letter from one of the lacrosse parents. It was at least two weeks ago, if not longer. I will search and find you a link for it.

 
At 10:37 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/60minutes/main2082140_page2.shtml



we should make comments on the cbs site --it appears that many of the alleged victims apologists are claiming 60 minutes intimidation that the 3 are still guilty ---unbelievable!

 
At 10:40 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brodhead came off looking very poorly on 60 minutes -- Even Ed Bradley seemd disgusted with him. It was an opprtunity for this schmuck to say he made a mistake and to offer support for the boys yet all he could do was try to defend himself - what a weak ineffectual human being

 
At 11:21 AM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brodhead looked like an weasel. Brodhead sounded like an weasel.
Compared to Coleman, Brodhead just looked pathetic.

 
At 12:54 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the Duke Chronicle poll, a whapping 91 percent think 60 Minutes "seemed well reported and accurate". This confirms what my junior told me about the sentiment on campus. Hardly anyone believes in this hoax any more. Th etruth is out, and everyone is squarely on the side of their fellow Duke 3! Yes, ignore the few lone activists like the head of the Black Students union etc. They are statistically too few to mention.

Shame on Brodhead, Steel, and the Group of 88 for being on the wrong side of the issue and against their own students!

It is ironic that because of their poor judgments, early on, they now find themselves against Duke and they are not willing to admit their mistakes. Yes, Brodhead/Steel/Group of 88 against Duke. My bets are on Duke, our Duke. It is time for the alumni to speak up alongside the undergraduates who have shown more courage and wisdom in this affair than any other group on campus. We are proud of the Duke undergraduates! They are worth fighting for and they deserve a better administration. An administration which will respect them, protect them against all forms of injustice, and treat them with the dignity they deserve.

 
At 12:57 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
You guys should really change your name from Friends of Duke University back to Friends of Duke Lacrosse. I've always believed the "Duke 3" are innocent, but the comments on this blog have moved beyond criticism of the case to criticism of Duke in general. A few points to keep in mind....
1) Of course Coleman is going to comment on legal matters - he's a law professor. His background makes him an expert. that he was involved with investigating the lacrosse team culture is icing on the cake. Would it make any sense at all for the dance professor to come out railing against nifong? would it make good television?
2) The argument that he should immediately be installed as president of Duke is myopic at best. Cut through the emotion of this issue and realize that Duke is bigger than just this case. A president needs to be judged on how he handles the entire university. Is this a component? yes, but it's not everything.
3) For those of you saying his spineless administration is bringing down the university, ask yourselves how many of the individuals in the upper admin have come in under brodhead during the last two years? If you're going to put the blame on brodhead for the decisions of some of those under him, then you have to put some of it on keohane for elevating those individuals to that position in the first place. oh no...we can't blame Nan, It's all this new guys fault! please...
4) Every faculty has their "looney left" and their retarded right. Society in the last 8 years has grown more conservative and now is more at odds with a more liberal faculty. If you're conservative and angry at this, then why don't you take an adjunct position teaching at a local college or university? or better yet, change careers and become a tenure track professor and play a role in higher ed. Oh wait, that's right, you'll have to give up your high salary on wall st and house in the hamptons. Maybe not then.... Historically conservatives haven't become college teachers because the job doesn't pay well enough. But in the end, the lacrosse issue isn't about liberal or conservative. By adding these political issues to your debates about the case, you wind up diluting the significance of your posts and this board.
4) and for the smattering of "40,000 a year should get my child better treatment," guess what? All upper-tier private schools cost about the same anyway. The amount you pay doesn't get your child "treated" differently at an institution. As someone who taught at Duke as a grad student, there were plenty of kids that were coasting through counting on the name of the duke degree to get them a job - and they were right! 40,000 a year at Duke is an investment in your child's future that gives them a leg up on a first job and a career track. But it doesn't give your child a pass through the college experience. This points to a deeper issue at the college level of whether a school should serve in loco parentis. You may like to think that they're looking out for your child, but when they create policies in the best interest of the child, they still wind up getting sued. You'll never see kegs at Duke because if the school even allows a limited number on campus on any night, and a student dies from alcohol poisoning, you KNOW there will be a lawsuit. The increasing litigiousness of society, combined with the abdication of parental responsibilities by many career couples these days, has put the typical college/university in a difficult position. No matter how innocent these three students are, the lacrosse team was still stupid enough to hire strippers (at best) to a private party, and some were stupid enough to shout racist slurs. The 3 students are innocent of rape - the lacrosse team though needs a swift kick in the butt - multiple times.
Maybe this comment is too long to get posted - maybe it'll get scrubbed out as not supportive. I'll just close with this. I've read this blog from the beginning, and while I agreed with it's premise starting out, it has devolved into a bitter, at times slanderous attack on a "great university" as one of the accused said. It's sad that the useful comments here are getting outweighed by useless condemnations. If you really want to be a friend to duke university (and higher ed in general) why don't you try elevating the discussion to some of the more meaningful issues? Or at least move the pointless slams on faculty and admin to a separate board so some of us interested in the real issue don't have to slog through it.

 
At 12:57 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
You guys should really change your name from Friends of Duke University back to Friends of Duke Lacrosse. I've always believed the "Duke 3" are innocent, but the comments on this blog have moved beyond criticism of the case to criticism of Duke in general. A few points to keep in mind....
1) Of course Coleman is going to comment on legal matters - he's a law professor. His background makes him an expert. that he was involved with investigating the lacrosse team culture is icing on the cake. Would it make any sense at all for the dance professor to come out railing against nifong? would it make good television?
2) The argument that he should immediately be installed as president of Duke is myopic at best. Cut through the emotion of this issue and realize that Duke is bigger than just this case. A president needs to be judged on how he handles the entire university. Is this a component? yes, but it's not everything.
3) For those of you saying his spineless administration is bringing down the university, ask yourselves how many of the individuals in the upper admin have come in under brodhead during the last two years? If you're going to put the blame on brodhead for the decisions of some of those under him, then you have to put some of it on keohane for elevating those individuals to that position in the first place. oh no...we can't blame Nan, It's all this new guys fault! please...
4) Every faculty has their "looney left" and their retarded right. Society in the last 8 years has grown more conservative and now is more at odds with a more liberal faculty. If you're conservative and angry at this, then why don't you take an adjunct position teaching at a local college or university? or better yet, change careers and become a tenure track professor and play a role in higher ed. Oh wait, that's right, you'll have to give up your high salary on wall st and house in the hamptons. Maybe not then.... Historically conservatives haven't become college teachers because the job doesn't pay well enough. But in the end, the lacrosse issue isn't about liberal or conservative. By adding these political issues to your debates about the case, you wind up diluting the significance of your posts and this board.
4) and for the smattering of "40,000 a year should get my child better treatment," guess what? All upper-tier private schools cost about the same anyway. The amount you pay doesn't get your child "treated" differently at an institution. As someone who taught at Duke as a grad student, there were plenty of kids that were coasting through counting on the name of the duke degree to get them a job - and they were right! 40,000 a year at Duke is an investment in your child's future that gives them a leg up on a first job and a career track. But it doesn't give your child a pass through the college experience. This points to a deeper issue at the college level of whether a school should serve in loco parentis. You may like to think that they're looking out for your child, but when they create policies in the best interest of the child, they still wind up getting sued. You'll never see kegs at Duke because if the school even allows a limited number on campus on any night, and a student dies from alcohol poisoning, you KNOW there will be a lawsuit. The increasing litigiousness of society, combined with the abdication of parental responsibilities by many career couples these days, has put the typical college/university in a difficult position. No matter how innocent these three students are, the lacrosse team was still stupid enough to hire strippers (at best) to a private party, and some were stupid enough to shout racist slurs. The 3 students are innocent of rape - the lacrosse team though needs a swift kick in the butt - multiple times.
Maybe this comment is too long to get posted - maybe it'll get scrubbed out as not supportive. I'll just close with this. I've read this blog from the beginning, and while I agreed with it's premise starting out, it has devolved into a bitter, at times slanderous attack on a "great university" as one of the accused said. It's sad that the useful comments here are getting outweighed by useless condemnations. If you really want to be a friend to duke university (and higher ed in general) why don't you try elevating the discussion to some of the more meaningful issues? Or at least move the pointless slams on faculty and admin to a separate board so some of us interested in the real issue don't have to slog through it.

 
At 1:30 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hear, hear, 12:57 post!

I completely agree with you. I have felt for weeks (maybe months) that this site deviated well away from it's FODU name. Many seem to want to only launch vitriolic missiles at the administration when there are many more relevant topics for discussion that have to do with the case itself.

If this event had never happened, the president of Duke would still have a full-time job dealing with many issues that directly affect the university--to say Coleman should be the president because we like his stand on this case (which happens to be directly related to his field of experise) is absurd.

And to reiterate your point about tuition, $40,000+/year is the cost of almost all private schools, not just the top-tier schools. If anyone thinks those other schools aren't filled with left-wing activists who would react similarly if this had occurred at their school, they are dreaming.

I also agree that, while these three did not commit a crime and certainly do not deserve this treatment BY OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM, the lacrosse team as a whole certainly was not an innocent group of choir boys. Hopefully they've learned from this that there ARE rules and standards by which we all must hold ourselves accountable--wild parties with strippers and racial epithets are not acceptable. While they aren't the only group at Duke or elsewhere to have such a party, the fact that others have done it does not render them unaccountable.

Evenwith the "60 Minutes" expose, there are many in the country who feel that, on the basis of the AV's statement alone (and the fact that the DA believes her), this case should go to trial. Many think "60 Minutes" doesn't always tell the whole story. I believe they did a great job on this one, but I must confess I have in the past been skeptical of their coverage. So let's not assume that anyone who doesn't agree with us on this is evil, leftist or ignorant.

 
At 1:37 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: I respect the point you are making very much. But, on days like this when emotions are running high, it is a tricky business to interfere with comments on an open board. It is easier to let people air their thoughts and anger rather than trying to control the tone. In fact, it is practically impossible to control anything. I am sure some of the comments here are overboard because they reflect the frustration of the posters for an extended period of time. Hopefully, the tone will normalize in a day or two, after these sentiments cool down.

However, I do agree that some of the comments are way over the top. It is on days like this that one asks why anyone would ever want to moderate an open board. It is a real challenge.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

Moderator

 
At 1:42 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

Re 12:57

I agree with everything you said.

Brodhead didn't come off well in the editing of the 60 min. piece, but it was fair since he overreacted on April 6 (email release date?) with the suspension of McFadyn and forcing Pressler out, and has not publicly and expressly apologized for that day.

Even though Roberts' current version suppports the non-testimonial evidence (photos, phone records, etc.) I'm glad the defense doesn't have to rely on her. She could turn again. I was disturbed by her finding the verbal abuse exchange between her and one of the party-goers so funny. I wonder if the story would have had as much traction in the media from the beginning had the taboo N-word or the t-shirt quip not been used.

 
At 1:42 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I was responding to the 12:57 comment earlier in my 1:37 comment. I should have clarified it better. While I was typing my comment, a new comment appeared in between.

Moderator

 
At 2:12 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the moderator and others:
I'm the 12:57 poster (after mistakenly posting my rant on durham wonderland - oops!) I think the argument about venting cuts both ways. The 60 minutes bit and responses too it are what pushed me over the edge to post, but you can't deny the general behavior has been going on for much longer - and a respondant seems to feel the same way, indicating I'm not alone in my sentiments. What's going on isn't a response to the 60 minutes interviews.
I don't envy you (the mod's) task of maintaining civility on a internet message board. Anonymity fosters discussion but also allows people to spout off with inane comments of no real value.
To the 1:42 poster. As someone who has made videos and had to cut and paste bits of video from multiple interviews, it's safe to say 60 minutes didn't do President Brodhead any favors. BUT, the viewer needs to keep in mind that the raw footage was probably part of a much longer interview, and we don't know how Brodhead's response fits into the context of what had been discussed prior to the bit that was used in the final piece. For example, it would be easy to juxtapose a bit where Brodhead was referring to the university's actions right after the "rape" was made public, with comments from others, such as coleman, which had the advantage of hindsight.
And I agree completely about Kim Roberts. Her behavior in the interview was surreal - as if she didn't understand the severity of the whole situation. This would have been a story without the racial epithets, but it wouldn't have stained the lacrosse team as deeply. To this day, I'm not dissapointed in the fact that 3 Duke undergraduates are accused of rape. From what I've seen it's simply a false charge. I'm dissapointed in the underlying behavior that allowed such a situation to pass, and what it says about how we as parents raise our children, and how little a university can do in today's society to help in the development of young adults.

 
At 2:17 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Duke09Parent,
I disagree with you somewhat on your assessment of Kim Roberts. I felt she laughed because she was nervous and (somewhat) embarrassed to repeat what she'd said on national TV--how many of us have been through such an interview? But she was honest enough to acknowledge that her comment provoked the racist retort. (And although it was provoked, that does not excuse it in any way--whoever made it should feel very guilty because that comment DID contribute to the emotions at the time...and certainly helped to convince many people that something bad happened.)

Moderator, you're doing a great job, and one that must take a lot of time. But I agree with 12:57--and I don't think the emotional outbursts have been limited to these news-filled days. In my opinion, there is a fairly steady stream of counter-productive, off-topic, venomous anti-Duke comments which hurt the credibility (IMO) of the site.

 
At 2:29 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: This is why we have take away from this awful experience as much as we can and try to improve many aspects of our lives. How we raise our kids, what is tolerable and what is not tolerable, and a whole slue of things that the kids themselves will have to work on.

All this is given. But, the fact of the matter is that we cannot do this --perhaps much needed "home improvement"-- after we send three innocent kids to jail for a rape they did not commit for 25 to 30 years! Our first priority should be, and has always been, to get these kids out of the harms way. Once that's accomplished, the home improvement can begin. We should by all means start examining and improving ourselves and our communities, schools, etc., in every possible way. I am all for it.

But, let us first get Dave, Reade, and Collin back. Let us first give them their lives back. Is that too much to ask?

 
At 2:39 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from elsewhere:
----------------------

In today's N&O: Filling Those Holes on the Bench

http://www.newsobserver.com/570/story/498684.html
For all the Durham voters reading this blog -- here's some interesting reading about how important your vote is on the judges running for office.

 
At 2:51 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! 92 percent of the Duke campus approved the 60 Minutes story. That tells us a whole bunch. I hope we have the ears to hear/listen!

What do you think about the 60 Minutes story about the Duke lacrosse scandal?

This is very good. Duke campus was one of the first to jump to the wrong conclusions about the rape and hold protest base don unfounded allegations. It is only fitting that they are now leading the way asking for justice for the accused and correcting their initial mistake? This is remarkable; my hat is off to these 18-22 year olds. They are proving themselves to be worthy of the honorable title given to them: a Duke student.

They are not Dukies for nothing!

Go Blue Devils!

 
At 4:04 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A president needs to be judged on how he handles the entire university. Is this a component? yes, but it's not everything.

However, this case is the most important thing Brodhead has handled, because it involves direct jeopardy to the lives of three of his students.

A lot of frustration arises from the failure of the admin and faculty to respond NOW to the deprivation of civil rights of the players (however they responded at the start). There is no doubt that the legal process has been hijacked and been anything but fair; or that crucial witnesses have been intimidated and arrested; or that threats have been made against the lives of the defendants by racist hate groups.

So why are the faculty and admin silent? Why doesn't Brodhead call for civil rights protection and even prompt federal intervention?
( Am I to really believe that he and they would have remained just as quiet if it were the KKK involved instead of the NBBP?)
Where is the law school faculty?
Darryl Hunt spoke there--was everyone asleep?
Do you really believe that they will have the moral standing to say anything at all about this case, after it is over, when they have remained studiously silent for the past several months?

 
At 4:50 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems as if 12:57 aka brodhead is spamming the general Topics of this board - CUT IT OUT-you said enough last night on 60 minutes to try to protect yourself...

 
At 5:08 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 12:57 poster, I am the one who was appalled that anyone involved with a university administration would instruct students NOT to tell their parents what was going on in a CRIMINAL investigation of which they were a part, that they would instruct students NOT to obtain counsel before speaking to law enforcement, etc.

No matter what you think of the lacrosse team, the people who were in positions of power in the tiny world of Durham and Duke had no right to instruct any of these young men NOT to contact their parents or seek legal counsel. As a parent, I would be furious if my son were so ill-used by his university- and I don't care if it's Duke or HYPS.
Texas Mom

 
At 5:12 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More Duke alumni are beginning to speak up. That's a very good sign, but we need to hear from many more.

Below is the link to a good commentary by a Duke alumnus: Lily Malcolm Duke '98. Thank you Lily for speaking up, and saying it as it is. We are grateful...

More on the Duke Alumni Association website October 16, The Kitchen Cabinet

 
At 5:24 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree that this case is the most important thing that Brodhead has handled. There are so many things that he must deal with that affect many, many students, not the least of which is his financial aid incentive, which could provide grants to countless, academically gifted students. Certainly this case is the most important thing to the three indicted players, although I doubt that even they would think that Brodhead's role was THE critical part. Yes, I know many believe that Brodhead should have defended the right's of the students more--both in March and since then. But does anyone really believe that Nifong wouldn't have indicted if Brodhead had spoken up?

 
At 5:37 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Racial slurs are ugly, and the n-word is unacceptable. Was it used that night? Read "The Johnsville News"- Duke Hoax FAQ Part 1, question #10. Neither the neighbor witness nor Elmostafa the taxi driver heard it.

 
At 5:49 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it would be important for the moderator to address whether or not this blatant pro-Brodhead spamming is coming from Duke administrators.

It has the ring of propaganda.

 
At 6:01 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In that link above (the Kitchen Cabinet), there is one comment worth repeating about the behavior of Duke administrators

"Trying to cut students off from the advice of their parents when they needed it more than at any other time in their lives is the lowest and the most vile thing I could ever imagine a university doing to its students."

I agree wholeheartedly. FODU relentless defense of Brodhead is a disgrace.

 
At 6:31 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure that this case isn't, or wasn't the most important thing Brodhead has, or had, going. It may be too late now. For the trial will be a race card played, and much more. If Duke has a black eye now, after a trial it will have two black eyes and a broken nose. Durham will look worse. Which ever way the verdict goes, one side of the community will be outraged. The poison between Duke, Durham and the police will linger for a very long time. Duke students are likely to be less safe when out in the community and when they come in contact with the police. Had Brodhead and the faculty listened to the players, they might have counseled patience and things might be different today.

In a contest of words between drunk young athletes and a drunk stripper with a criminal record, its at least a push until the facts are all in. But Brodhead, the Gang of 88 and the DA all doubled down on the stripper. You see, none of them seem to know athletes. They don't understand their discipline, that they come from strong families that tirelessly took them to practices and games, that they have had good coaches as role models, and in some cases, parochial educations. For people who pretend to be smart, to assume that an entire team, in an instant, forgot all they had been taught, all their training and all that they, their families, their teams and schools are and committed heinous crimes and conspired to cover it up reveals astonishing ignorance or prejudice. I've posted this before:

"Brodhead sits alone tonight with a glass of scotch and regrets he never took time to get to know some lacrosse players, male and female. And he wonders where courage like that shown by Dave Evans and Kirstin Kimel and the women who founded Duke Students for an Ethical Durham, comes from. And wonders that his shadow is curiously disapprearing even as the world shines a bright light upon him.

 
At 6:40 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the 4:50 poster. wow! now I'm Brodhead! Awesome! I can't wait for the paycheck! Please, if you think the president of Duke has the time or willingness to expend his energy pissing in the breeze on this message board, you're dillusional.
to the 5:49 poster. I never worked for Duke. I got my doctorate there. but thanks for assuming I'm a puppet. the paranoia of this board is boardering on hysterical. Next I'll be accused of shutting down the server, even though the moderator mentioned it was a technical difficulty.
To texas mom. I was referring to comments about duke that have been present on this board since well before Dr. Johnson stated that students had been told to not contact their parents. That is one of the more disturbing allegations that's been made in this whole case (far far behind the false accusation of the Duke 3), but I want to know more than just KC editorializing and speculating on that. I want to know WHO told pressler to tell that to students, and I want to know if that person did so AFTER the president had been advised on the situation. None of that is known. If there's one thing that was clear with the University's immediate response (in the first 10 days) to this situation, it is that there was no chain of command structure and the President found out WAY after he should have. Who is at fault then? I think that falls on student affairs...an office that was in place long before Brodhead got to Duke, and has had a less than stellar reputation with the Duke student body
To the 5:37 poster. Just because elmostafa or the neighbor didn't hear it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and with the comment about thanking individuals for their cotton shirt heard, I'm betting someone let loose with the N-word too. it's more likely than not. That said, none of the accused uttered those words, and they shouldn't be condemned for the actions of their peers.
Look, I can appreciate the emotion that this situation has generated. I'm not protecting anybody or spewing propaganda for Duke. Frankly they don't need it, and wouldn't bother on a board so hellbent on criticizing them. Maybe this is just another aspect of a blog, that you have to put up with a whole lot of pointless criticisms to find worthwhile viewpoints/questions/ and concerns. What's sad about that is that those valid viewpoints and questions get undercut by the crap put out by other posters. You can call Brodhead a schmuck all you want, all it does is diminish your viewpoint and relevance.
This board is part of the polarization of this whole situation. One one end you have people hell-bent on believing the accuser. On the other you have this board. It's time for you all to realize that the media shift probably parallels a shift in the way most people think about this case. You're not fighting the extremist supporters anymore. You're dealing with a more rational population, and if you continue the snide comments and innane name-calling, all you do is risk alienating the very population's opinion you're trying to sway.
To the rational people on here, including the moderator, thanks for the opportunity to voice a concern. But hey, if you're in the other camp and are more comfortable thinking of me as some nameless Duke PR guy, then by all means, live it up in your dillusion.

-that pesky 12:57 poster

 
At 6:44 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear friends, this morning, CBS linked their 60 Minutes website to ours. As a result, we were experiencing heavy traffic. Of course, this is a good thing and we welcome it.

Please note however that, as a result of the increased traffic, there are a lot of new visitors commenting on our site today. These new visitors may not be familiar with our rules. I appreciate your bringing up a few unusual comments to my attention. For the next few days, I will urge all of you to be patient and flexible. We want to welcome all our new visitors. As you can imagine, expanded readership is good for our site and it is good for our cause.

On the other hand, if anyone gives us real trouble we will deal it promptly. I will post an updated set of rules by tomorrow and urge everyone to read them. I must admit that so far I have not seen anything terribly disturbing, considering we more than tripled our readership for the day.

There will be more on this topic soon.

Moderator

 
At 6:48 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree that this case is the most important thing that Brodhead has handled.

Preventing a judicial lynching is by far the most important thing he has been confronted with.

not the least of which is his financial aid incentive, which could provide grants to countless, academically gifted students.

And Pontius Pilate built an aqueduct.

But does anyone really believe that Nifong wouldn't have indicted if Brodhead had spoken up?

Elie Wiesel stated, “There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.”

 
At 6:53 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 6:40P

We know _you_ are not Brodhead since there ain't any ineffectual Shakespeare references, apropos of nothing.

Instead, based on your inability to express yourself briefly and without condescension, I would bet that you were a doctoral student of Prof Holloway's.

(I wouldn't go bragging on your Duke degree until you find yourself an editor. I might suggest William Chafe. Until then you can't hold a candle to Foster, Johnson, Johnsville, Gaynor or any of the other eloquent voices of this struggle who recognize Brodhead for the craven bumbler that he is)

 
At 7:06 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:57 Poster

Please keep it shorter! My computer is running out of memory just downloading your verbage. The the art of prose is getting your idea across in the least amount of text, not in beating the reader into submission with the shear weight of the print.

 
At 7:08 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 6:53P:
awwww...thank you! Actually, I'm a scientist, which means by nature I don't write particularly clearly. My "condescension" might be in response to the way you and some of your peers have talked about my alma mater's administration though...
I write on the fly, and I'm not going to waste time editing a blog comment as if it's for publication. If you're that unhappy with my viewpoint, which the moderator allowed, then by all means, ARGUE with me about it on the merits! Skip the snide comments - they don't get you anywhere and I'm not going to lose any sleep over nameless internet voice impugning the value of my degree.
The moderator JUST WROTE that you're seeing tons more traffic on the website. Why not put your best foot forward?

-yes, the 12:57 poster again.

 
At 7:16 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the 12:57 poster--I agree with you. And I definitely think the nasty comments that some people have to post over and over again every time anyone says anything that isn't harshly critical of Brodhead weaken the credibility of the site. As far as lenght, I've read some tomes whose only purpose was to castigate the Duke Administration. At least 12:57 was making intelligent points.

And would someone stop with the Pontius Pilate analogies--they are getting old and offensive.

If there are many new people coming to this site, let's not push them away with arrogant extremism.

 
At 7:23 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:40P

If Chin were here, he would tell you:

New face require new head

Brodhead must move on before the recovery can begin in earnest.

RB failed big-time in the university's most important moment.

And still he doesn't even have the cojones to own up to his mistakes.

One look at Ed Bradley's expression as he was interviewing Prez should tell you it's over for Brodhead.

Personally I wouldn't punish Coleman by suggesting he be the new Prez but I would give Kim some serious consideration.

She's moves with the waves better than Kelly Slater.

Plus she's familar with your average Dukies rude and boyish ways.

Although her fundraising methods are a bit unorthodox.

 
At 7:38 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:48:
Do you REALLY believe that Brodhead could have prevented this judicial lynching? If so you are very naive, and you have selectively overlooked all the comments (and evidence) about Nifong's stubbornness. I know you are angry with Brodhead, but pleeeeease...the bad guy here is Nifong, who is entrusted by the citizens to ensure justice is served. HE had access (should he have chosen to view it) to the facts. HE should have interviewed the defendants. HE should have analyzed all the evidence before jumping to conclusions. HE has taken the oath of office.

And your habit of rewriting every comment you disagree with in italics so you can provide a nasty rebuttal is irritating.

 
At 8:02 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous CHIN said...

Saying is:

When friends fight - enemy wins.

 
At 8:02 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brodhead looked like a deer in the headlights last night. Ed Bradley asked him a very simple question: Do you have any concerns about a rush to judgment from students and faculty? Brodhead simply regurgitated the tired "whatever they did was bad enough" line. For all we know, that means that as far as he is concerned, they should get 30 years in prison for having the party. He could not even bring himself to utter a banal platitude such as "of course we are concerned about rushes to judgment and demand fundamental fairness and due process." The attitude that "What else could Brodhead do?" is a cop out. He is the President and is paid to lead and to manage, especially in times of crisis. His answer about how emotional the students and faculty were did sound like a 10 year old whining. This is what happens when you put PR over students. How's that working out?

Remeber, Brodhead has made other very serious errors in judgment, such as allowing terrorists to recruit on campus when other schools denied them access. Even here, he turned West campus into a media circus in the middle of a semester and during finals. In contrast, the President of BC kicked the lot of them off so that his students could concentrate on studies. That's the kind of tough decision a President makes when students and learning are the highest priority.

Brodhead is unfit to serve. He may make a fine Dean of Academics but has no business running a major University.

 
At 8:11 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Dr. Coleman were president instead of Brodhead, would any of you expect him to give the same answer Brodhead gave to Bradley? Whatever they did was bad enough? I don’t think so. No one deserves to be falsely prosecuted for giving a party. Professor Coleman seems to be one of the few in the whole university with guts. Dr. Coleman wasn’t afraid to tell it as it is-Nifong is committing prosecutorial misconduct. What exactly prevented Brodhead from saying the same? Maybe because Brodhead is a coward at heart?

 
At 8:25 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, if you take Brodhead at his word, the reason he does not demand justice for his students is that he is frightened of radical faculty and students. He just as much said so last night. Call it cowardice but it is a calculated gamble that (1) the support of radical faculty will keep him in office and (2) the boys are found guilty. Either way, the earlier poster was right -- he is not fit to serve as President.

As to the poster who ridiculed the notion that Brodhead could have stopped indicments -- that is a red herring. Brodhead could have helped shape the discussion at the time by cautioning all parties to listen to evidence before reaching conclusions. Instead, he helped create a firestorm by his ill-considered and inflammatory remarks. Had he demanded caution at the time, perhaps this would not have become a media circus. At the time, Brodhead's decision to fire Pressler and cancel the season confirmed in the eyes of the public that the players were guilty. Not even their own school would support them.

Even now, he refuses to acknowledge a single mistake while lecturing others about theirs. What a hypocrite, and in a job way over his head.

 
At 8:37 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did you go to school for the job as an investigator? I can't believe the line up you showed to Crystal, to finally get to the three defendants in the Duke case. I also find your memory absolutely amazing and your timely submission of reports without credibility. I thought you were in charge of the investigation, not a subordinate of the DA. As a retired police officer, I find it amazing that you have no "chain of command" within you police department. Where were you on the "60 Minutes" expose, last night? I know the lawyers are all gagged in the case, but not the witnesses. Have you been out to the go-go bar where CGM is now dancing, to see how much pain she is in? She has been there since April. As an honorably retiree from the Marine Corps reserve also, I find your actions intolerable and in no way honorable. You sir, give all police officers and especially those in the DPD, a bad name. I can't believe that you did not even interview the defendants in this case, even if they had a lawyer, you may have had a better feel for the case. I mean at least one offered to take a polygraph test and you, nor anyone else accepted his offer.

Speaking Cop to Cop, I wanted to add, I spent 4 years on active duty 26 in the reserves and 25 years in a police dept. I have been to my share of time in go-go bars and met, many a dancer. The dancers I meant were strong willed and would not take garbage from anyone. I watched Kim Roberts and she reminds me of those dancers who were strong willed and of tough character. I think the same of CGM, since she recovered within two weeks of the event and was dancing in a bar again. Entertaining men seems to be her full time job. Working for an escort service is not something that a frail female would do. Have you ever checked out the escort services that Crystal worked for? Check out www.eros.com there age females there that tout they work Raleigh or Raleigh, Durham area. What do you think they do in a hotel room for 200 to 300 dollars an hour, dance? You should have been attending the same dance parlor that "60 Minutes" found Crystal and watched her, just as part of your investigation, you failed to do that. I would have thought a police officer of your caliber, would of had more street smarts then what your actual performance indicates. When I was stationed in North Carolina, Jacksonville and Havelock, both had lots of, what we called, go-go bars, with lots of dancers. I for one was counting on you to LEAD the investigation, not to turn it over to Mike Nifong, in New Jersey, he would not be in my chain of command. Someone should have secured that house that night, so a proper search could be conducted, early that morning. If you are really a good cop and a real man you would come out with the facts and tell us about Mike Nifong and how he politically twisted this case to get indictments.

 
At 8:40 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The above was a letter sent ot N&O, as an open letter to Sgt. Gottlieb, the lead investigator.

 
At 9:51 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

I have a modest proposal for posters. Pick a name so those of us who would like to respond to you can do so by name rather than refer to a posting time. If we are getting heavier traffic it will help keep comments straight. Some "Anonymous" posters have consistent allegations, such as Brodhead really wants convictions which the poster could tell by looking in his eyes on the t.v. screen, but alias names would help.

I was half expecting someone here would blame Brodhead for the recent chemical fire outside Raleigh in Apex ten days ago.

I first started posting here to give Brodhead a qualified statement of support but I haven't limited my comments to that issue only.

I am not a Duke administrator or even a Duke graduate. I am a parent of a current Duke undergrad and I admire a lot about the university.

 
At 10:12 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous akb said...

I second the suggestion made above by Duke09Parent. It will make our communications a lot easier if everyone started signing their posts with a consistent name. An alias will do nicely (even Mickey Mouse is fine) as long as we all use the same name consistently in our posts. Let us try to do this.

 
At 10:20 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok to summarize today's discussion. I think the range of opinion in the poll question would be:

Which option best describes your assessment of soon-to-be-ex President Dick Brodhead?

a. Ineffectual as the Duke football team
b. Malicious as Nifong
c. Incompetent as Rumsfeld
d. Uninspiring as John Kerry
e. Frightened as Bambi
f. All of the above

 
At 11:02 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was a great letter to Gottlieb!. Unfortunately I think you are assuming good intentions with Gottlieb. I do not possess any inside information, but the way this investigation has been conducted speaks of a intentional attempt by Nifong & Gottlieb to frame three innocent young men. My question is why did Judhe Stephens sit back and let this happen? Don't let Judge Stephens off the hook!

JMO

 
At 11:06 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I pick Bambi. Brodhead looked like deer in the headlights on 60 Minutes.

 
At 11:41 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A likely sign that this case may be closer to over than not:

Earl Ofari Hutchinson, a black leftist, calls the case a likely hoax on the Huffington Post

 
At 11:49 PM, October 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And yet again..black sports columnist Jason Whitlock calls for the charges to be dismissed immediately

It's time for justice: drop the charges vs. Duke lacrosse players

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/

Meanwhile, the Liefong incredibly claims he hasn't seen the 60 minutes piece

This from a man who frequented every blog and website on the case for the last 6 monts.

 
At 5:39 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Notice that the Jason Whitlock article is carried in a McClatchy newspaper in San Jose, CA.
Texas Mom

 
At 8:09 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

the poster 11:02 10/16 I also saw that letter. The person who wrote it is challenging him to explain his actions.

That person does post here often under an alais. If Gottielb " sorry about the spelling" does reply that poster is going to rip in to him.

The poster is calling in to question his honor as a member of the law enforcement family.

I also agree with a lot of the posters from last night we should not post under Annonymous.

 
At 8:38 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is only my opinion, but I think if we want people to choose a name and post under it consistently (instead of "anonymous"), we need to have a little more tolerance of opposing views. While a pseudonym is still anonymous, sometimes there is so much animosity directed at a post that people might be reluctant to post again under the same name. Tolerance of other views also will encourage more new people to post comments and get emotionally involved--which can only benefit our cause.

 
At 8:47 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Agreed, what you suggest makes sense. Consistent names and more tolerance, they go together. This applies to all commentators however.

 
At 9:15 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I recommend a commentary by Jason Whitlock in Kansas City. A black journalist, he urges the charges be dropped and black leaders support the players.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/15776067.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_sports

Also, I think it is more important right not to focus on getting Nifong defeated at the polls in 3 weeks than spending time criticizing Brodhead. Contact Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek to see how you can help.

sceptical

PS-- I agree it's better that posters use a tagline.

 
At 9:16 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I meant "right now" in the above post.

 
At 9:29 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

absolutely--the ABN campaign should be absolute priority for everyone. A new DA would, at the very least, have to review the facts (or lack thereof) in the case. Highly improbable that Nifong would ever drop case, and if he did there would always be some cloud of suspicion. a new DA that reviewed the case and said it didn't happen would clear the boys' names.

 
At 9:32 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few people asked how to get to the link placed in the CBS/60 Minutes site pointing to our site. Here is what you need to do:

1. Go to the main CBS 60/Minutes site .
2. You will see only a short introduction to the Duke story. Click on "More…” at the end of that introduction. On the next page (full coverage), look at the left side of your screen. Under the subheading “Duke Rape Case” scroll down until you get to "Links". That’s where the link is. Right below the links section you will either see "Photo Essay” or “Related Stories” depending on how you got there.

Moderator

 
At 9:43 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just followed the instructions above and got to the link. Above the links, under the heading "Student outtakes," there are is some interesting footage that was not shown Sunday night. Most notable is when Ed asks Reade how he feels about Duke and whether he will go back or not. I had not seen this clip before. If you too haven’t t seen it, it is worth watching.

 
At 10:28 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just watched the student outtakes from 60 minutes. I wish this footage had been on the show. Colin speaks about being arrested, the idea of a trial, etc. Reade speaks about the Duke administration, professors, and whether he would return to Duke. David talks about graduation day and knowing he would be indicted Monday. It is a shame the general public won't see this part of their interviews.

 
At 10:52 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: This is why we are commenting about it here, so that as many people can look at it as possible. I hope CBS keeps this footage on their website forever.

AKB

 
At 11:00 AM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that "60 Minutes" has aired the story, would there be any reason that other outlets in the national media would not be interested in doing a follow-up.

 
At 12:04 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought the outtakes were extremely powerful. I had tears in my eyes when Dave talked about his mom, graduation being on Mother's Day and having to have his dad walk up to get his diploma because he did not want the media to use the moment for a photo op. I kept thinking about Joan's essay about "The Moms." Reade's indignation was just as powerful and more than justified. Collin was as open as I've seen a young man.

Months ago, I posted on this site that I have a son who I consider to be one of the finest young men I have ever known. His sisters and I survived the loss of their father when he was only nine, and we lived by two main precepts. First, that while we might fight amongst ourselves, when any of us needed help, we were all to respond in the spirit of that old carney term, "Hey, Rube." We always have each others backs. Secondly, that each of them should always act with honor, loyalty and courage. None of us has shown perfect adherence to these principles, but we have all done our best and they have made me proud.

I am as proud of these three boys as I would be of my own son. And, I thank their parents for sharing them with all of us and for risking public scrutiny, at this dreadful period in their lives. What a good job you all have done. They are fine men!
Texas Mom

 
At 12:05 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If anyone has any doubts on how Brodhead affected this case please go to the 60 minutes link to hear the players outtakes - please listen to Reade speak eloquently on Brodhead and the administration. It is disgusting that this man is still president of this school.

 
At 12:41 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those videos won't play for me. What did Reade say?

 
At 12:57 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I recently stumbled across an interesting quote attributed to Dr. Brodhead in an online article dated April 6, 2006 in the News & Observer entitled "Lacrosse Coach, Season Out". The quote: "It's just time to take action on what's there before our eyes". Yes, Dr. Brodhead it certainly is.

 
At 1:08 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:41 – Do not to worry. I will prepare a transcript of what all there guys are saying and post it a little later. You need good internet connection to get those videos playing properly.

 
At 1:19 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you in advance. I can spend hours on my computer watching a five minutes video because it keeps stopping.

 
At 1:28 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The focus needs to be on recalling Mike Nifong by urging those in Durham to vote for Lewis Cheek in the election 3 weeks from now. No one is safe in Durham while Mike Nifong remains DA. If 3 well-off students could be railroaded, what about poor people?

 
At 2:34 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone local to Durham Remember. You can start voting this Thursday:

http://www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/elec/2006_Election/2006_One_Stop_No_Exc.html

 
At 3:02 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i appeal for anyone that has anything to give,money,time support etc.give to the cause of justice for duke students rather than benefiting the current misguided efforts to benefit those that do not stand with us.either you are with us or you are against us...sounds familiar

 
At 3:13 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MR Brodhead failed his students in his position as a guardian edlitum.he was not and still is not vigilant enough to discipline behavioral infractions that lead to bigger problems and then he failed to advocate for his students before they were proven guilty,pandering to the envoirenmentaround him
A leader would support and be constuctive even if the students were PROVEN guilty.Is he getting paid to be judge and jury.Why do we keep sutch poeple on the faculty,and that includes others who promulgate their personal agenda while WE pay their salaries

 
At 4:10 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 3:13..."A leader would support and be constructive even if the students were proven guilty." Oh really???? If you really mean that, I think you've gone too far. I certainly wouldn't want the president of the university continuing to support someone who was proven guilty of rape! I wouldn't want my children at a university where rapists and other criminals were supported! Let parents support their children if they are convicted of a felony.

 
At 4:10 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Listen to the soundbite from Donna Shalallah and think about the speeches Broadhead has made. Quite a difference.
Texas Mom

 
At 4:16 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To those who could not watch the CBS Video titled "Outtakes from Students" for technical reasons, I posted a transcript of the video on the Open Board. Below is the link.

Outtakes from Students - Transcript

I am not a professional, so I am sure it is not perfect. I was especially stunned by what Reade Seligmann had to say. Stunned and saddened all at the same time.

 
At 4:23 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Texas Mom: Who is Donna Shalallah, and how/where can we listen to her sound bites?

 
At 4:29 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

support does not mean justify,it means to be constructive,caring ,appropriately diciplining.not abandoning...yes even if guilty. but i would settle for him waiting and being an advocate till the due process takes its course

 
At 4:53 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

re: 4:29 post:
I don't know how many students are indicted or convicted of crimes in a typical year at a school the size of Duke. But quite honestly, while I'd like to see the Duke administration being more supportive than they have been of the three indicted players, I certainly don't think the president of the university has the time or the responsibility to be "supportive" of students who are convicted of crimes! Do you expect the president of the university to also be "supportive" of students who are disciplined for other reasons? It sounds like you want the president to be the mother--I want him to run the school.

 
At 5:28 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the 4:53 post: Students who receive disciplinary action for various infractions of school rules and policies cannot be compared to three students indicted for a felony by a grand jury that was not priviledged to have had all of the evidence. There is much about this case that the Administration can address without appearing to "mother" its students. To paraphrase Reade, the administration was afraid to take a chance on the truth.

 
At 6:15 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 5:28...I most certainly understand that and am not making any comparison between the three wrongly indicted and students facing other disciplinary actions. I am responding only to the ridiculous comment that the university president should be supportive of students even if they are found guilty of a crime like rape. It is an absurd leap from supporting those who have been wrongly accused to supporting those who HAVE committed a crime (and again I am not referring to the Duke 3 here!)

 
At 6:23 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the president should support is a due process. Duke got a law school, does it have understanding of constitutional rights and due process?

 
At 6:38 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

I teared up at Reade's outtake comments too. What a terrific young man. He wasn't complaining about what HE lost, he complained that his mom had her mother's day and his parents' prideful day of graduation ruined.

I certainly understand his current desire not to come back to Duke with his perspective on his treatment by faculty and administration. If he comes back and takes the field at a home game, though, he'll get the largest cheer for him he's ever heard. I'd drive the 5 hours it would take to see that.

 
At 6:45 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reade is a smart one to not come back.

 
At 7:07 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

duke09parent..Yes Reade's outtake was heartfelt--but he did not talk about his mother and her Mother's Day being ruined--that was dave. He was the only one who graduated on mother's day.

 
At 7:12 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous K.P. said...

In today's issue of the Durham in woderland: Seligmann Speaks Out

snip- Seligmann's spring grades will earn him a spot on the ACC's Academic Honor Roll.

this snip is on the last paragraph.

 
At 7:25 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

Apologies for mixing up Dave and Reade. I was making dinner after signing off and realized I goofed. Anyway, I am impressed by both of them.

 
At 7:50 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Link to Durham in Wonderland article about Reade Seligmann:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/10/seligmann-speaks-out.html

 
At 8:00 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All three young men were powerful in the outtakes. Reade and Dave seem angry - and should be. For some reason, my heart really goes out to Colin. He seems sad, frightened, and the most vulnerable. Having a son near their ages, it is heartbreaking to watch them speak.

 
At 8:33 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, Folks. I've been out.
Donna Shalala is the President of the University of Miami (involved in the huge brawl on the football field this past weekend). She was the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration, and had been Chancellor of Univ. Wisconsin-Madison.

She was on several news programs today about the fight at the football game, and what she said was along the lines of- I'm in the business of education, not in the business of public relations spin. I'm not good at paraphrasing, so I'll try to find the quote later.
Texas Mom

 
At 8:42 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Texas Mom: That sounds quite interesting. Please get us a link or quote on that, if you can. It will be good to make the contrast you were suggesting earlier.

AKB

 
At 10:04 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All three young men were powerful in the outtakes. Reade and Dave seem angry - and should be. For some reason, my heart really goes out to Colin. He seems sad, frightened, and the most vulnerable. Having a son near their ages, it is heartbreaking to watch them speak."

Each of them helped himself and his co-defendants.

David was angry AND contrite, with reason to be each.

Reade was still shocked that the sky fell on him, and that showed him as innocent.

Collin was NOT angry, and obviously innocent. That was best of all.

 
At 10:12 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is the Donna Shalala quote :

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/NCAA/2006/10/17/2051478-ap.html

"This university will be firm and punish people who do bad things," Shalala said. "But we will not throw any student under the bus for instant restoration of our image or our reputation. I will not hang them in a public square. I will not eliminate their participation at the university. I will not take away their scholarships."

and :

"It's time for the feeding frenzy to stop," Shalala said. "These young men made a stupid, terrible, horrible mistake and they are being punished."

 
At 10:36 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But we will not throw any student under the bus for instant restoration of our image or our reputation. I will not hang them in a public square. I will not eliminate their participation at the university. I will not take away their scholarships."
We should frame that and send it to Brodhead. Have him repeat it every morning. Maybe in a couple of years he could get his courage up to say it.

 
At 10:36 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:00pm - I thought Collin seemed very vulnerable too. He seems sweet and still shocked by the whole situation. Reade was very confident and well-spoken. Dave was exactly the way he was when he made his first statement - completely open and honest. It was good to hear from them but it caused a bit of a heartbreak for me too. Especially Collin. He really got to me.

 
At 11:15 PM, October 17, 2006, Blogger Quasimodo said...

I thought Collin seemed very vulnerable too. He seems sweet and still shocked by the whole situation.

Collin's already been convicted in one trial where he believed (and many think the evidence showed) he was innocent and yet the judge cut off his prime defense witness in mid-sentence and then imposed a harsh sentence (apparently more to suit the political needs of the prosecutor than those of justice)--see the discussion about this on the open discussion boards here--

http://z10.invisionfree.com/FODU_Open_Board/index.php?showtopic=6

With that experience, plus what has happened in Durham, what sort of confidence can he be expected to show in the judicial system?

 
At 11:23 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Donna Shalala has to say that or the trustees at Miami will throw her out for abandoning the most important part of U of Miami - the football team. There should be full season suspensions for all of the players involved in that fight and more for the players that swung crutches, helmets, etc. The ACC's one game suspension isn't even close to appropriate, and all Shalala said was basically that we agree with the ACC, oh, and we'll be watching. A complete and utter joke from a football factory school.

 
At 11:38 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above 11:23 -- What I get out of your comment is that it is not the presidents of the universities that matter when it comes to these types of huge fiascos/scandals, whatever you want to call them; it is the boards of the trustees and especially the chairmen of those boards who call the shots. Well, perhaps, many people on this board have been criticizing Brodhead too much and the trustees too little.

Maybe we need to pay more attention to those guys. Hey, we are quick learners around here. Reactions please!

 
At 11:40 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That implies that the president is just a puppet (of trustees). Still not a pretty picture, is it?

 
At 12:44 AM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous parent08 said...

I read that the school has now decided to limit media access to the campus, which is after all private property. A little late for them to grow some gonads. Obviously they didn't care about ANY of their students last spring and how disruptive the media invasion was. However, it is just indicative of the complete and utter spinelessness of this administration in any dealings regarding this case. Should I go on to the infamous 88?

If my child would have been a freshman this fall, he/she would have come to Durham over my dead body. Not only is Durham a lawless, bigoted city, but the university is no better.

 
At 10:05 AM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This article gives a good summary of the Duke administration's (and by extension Brodhead's) serious misconduct and breach of trust to its own students in the lacrosse case..

www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson144.html

"Without informing President Richard Brodhead, administrators demanded from the captains a candid account of the evening’s events, allegedly citing a non-existent "student-faculty" privilege to encourage the captains to disclose any criminal activity. Multiple sources confirm that Coach Mike Pressler, apparently acting on orders from above, instructed the other players not to tell their parents about the police inquiry. Meanwhile, Dean Sue Wasiolek arranged for a local lawyer, Wes Covington, to act as a "facilitator" in arranging for a group meeting with police.

The night before the meeting, one player broke down and told his father, who happened to be in Durham. Other parents then were informed, and – recognizing the need to obtain competent counsel – postponed the meeting."

As author William Anderson points out..

"First, it is clear that Brodhead's associates actively were involved in deceptive actions by citing the "student-faculty privilege" nonsense that was aimed at tricking them into speaking with police without representation. Thus, we ask the pertinent question: What did Brodhead know, and when did he know it? If the accusation against the administrators is true – and those to whom I have spoken tell me it is – and Brodhead either approved of the actions or did not try to stop them when he did know (or cover up these actions), then Brodhead could have been involved in a conspiracy to deprive these students of their rights to an attorney of their own choosing. Second, conspiracy to deprive someone of his or her civil rights is a federal crime, and while I have been very critical over the years of federal criminal law, nonetheless I point out this alleged transgression because the feds have prosecuted people for actions much more benign than what I have just described.

"When the accused students obtained counsel, Brodhead announced that he was "disappointed" with their decision."

Brodhead needs to go.

 
At 11:37 AM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read today’s Anderson article. Frankly, it is quite disturbing to read how the Duke administration has been behaving. What is it they want, what is their agenda, what are they really trying to hide? What is the strategy here, if there is one? I would dearly like to know.

I fail to see how these strange behaviors, bordering on criminality, are helping anyone, let alone Duke. Perhaps, they should seek a more competent administrator there, someone who will not make the university a laughing stock for the rest of the country. Duke is fast becoming a text-book case for "how not to run a university." And yet, they keep giving us statistics of over 98 percent approval from alumni. How is that possible? I have not spoken to anyone who is even mildly approving what is going down there. Everyone is outraged and up in arms. Where on earth does this 98 percent approval come from? What was their sample, Nifong and wife Cy?

I also wonder what their high-priced PR firm from New York is recommending to do. To go out there and destroy whatever little reputation is left of the university?

I am confused!

 
At 1:04 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous sceptical said...

Two new articles:

What Duke's President Should Have Said

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20061018/cm_rcp/what_dukes_president_should

To Kill The Duke Lacrosse Mockingbirds

http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPages/departmental/news/Stories.aspx?section=sports&tableId=113709&pubDate=10/18/2006

 
At 1:40 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous duke09parent said...

I'd like to see better attribution on the story that Pressler, on orders, told the players not to tell their parents about the investigation.

Prof. Johnson on 9/15 posted a letter from a lacrosse parent describing the administration's conduct toward the parents and team at and around the March 25 meeting when the G'town game was cancelled. That letter was eloquent and angry but did not refer to any advice given to the players not to tell their parents.

Did it happen at all? Was there a question asked by a player, "Do we have to tell our parents?" and a reply was no there's nothing to it and it will blow over, which was believed at the time?

If the story is true, it was badly wrong advice and the origin of it should be exposed. But I am skeptical. Even if the incident had blown over (as it should have) some parents would have found out eventually and would have been pissed off at any such advice coming from a coach or administrator.

 
At 1:44 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't miss Joan Collins's latest letter:

Profile in Courage - James Coleman

 
At 1:53 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous another Duke 09 mom said...

Donna Shalala is as pc as they come. She is defending the football players b/c they are black. We have heard it time and time again here: the double standard. One huge difference is that we can all watch the video of the bench clearing brawl ad nauseum on TV. Their guilt is rather obvious. Plus, they are missing ONE game( except for one player). What a joke! AND the game they are missing is against...(drum roll...) DUKE!

 
At 2:40 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need to get some perspective on the "Duke has a terrible faculty" line that now seems to go hand-in-hand with the anti-Brodhead rhetoric. The Group of 88 was terribly wrong to condemn the lacrosse players as they did. And any bias any of them may have shown toward lacrosse players in the classroom is unacceptable. But let's not stoop to their level and condemn the entire faculty. My two sons at Duke have only had one class with one of those professors--and the one who had it actually liked the professor, and felt she was very fair. And the classes specifically mentioned (I think on KC Johnson's blog) are well-known to be "rocks-for-jocks" classes. My point is that I don't think that the classes taught by these professors represent the core Duke education, and I don't think these professors represent most Duke professors or departments. Duke is a FINE academic institution. There are liberal faculty at every college and university, and there are weak teachers at every college and university. I'm guessing that a high percentage of the "best" and most dedicated teachers (and probably those least driven by personal agenda) teach the more challenging courses......

 
At 3:10 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course there are great professors at Duke. But what is staggering is that none, save Prof. Coleman, even those protected by tenure, have spoken out about the rush to judgement and about the trampling of civil and due process rights. I was graduated by the law school at Duke many years ago and thought I was taught by giants. Unfortunately, high IQ does not compel courage, maybe the opposite becasue smart people can see the down side more clearly. Indeed, history teached that determined men of ill will eat the smart for lunch everyday.

 
At 3:15 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

quite honestly, I think a lot of professors live in their own world--and many may not even be completely aware of all the facts. Certainly many Duke professors probably are of the "let's have the facts come out at trial" mentality. While I don't agree in this case--there are still MANY people, even those who believe the boys are innocent, who think there could be more information than we know, or that there should be a trial simply because the DA indicted.

 
At 3:49 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From a poster above:
"My point is that I don't think that the classes taught by these professors represent the core Duke education, and I don't think these professors represent most Duke professors or departments."

THEORETICALLY, this is true. But when virtually ALL of the remaining faculty remains silent, then these 88+ DO represent the entire Duke faculty and they DO speak for Duke. They used the Duke website, didn't they?

 
At 4:05 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to 3:49..I understand why you feel the silence of the majority is in effect endorsement of the views of the vocal 88--but I doubt they see it that way. And in fact, making assumptions about what they feel is the same type of judgmental position we are angry about with respect to this case. My sense is that, whether or not we agree, many at Duke (students and faculty) are dealing with their own daily issues, and simply don't have theinclination to make this their constant priority. I refuse to judge them for that.

 
At 4:08 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do they now? If Nifong picks one of them as his next target, it is going to be too late.

 
At 4:10 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh please...let's stop judging everyone who isn't as vocal about a cause as we are.

 
At 4:15 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Had the 88, been doing their primaty job I could agree, but they weren't. The group of 88, went out to protest and bang pots. They could have said nothing and paid attention to what they are being paid to do "TEACH"

 
At 4:17 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not as vocal? Give me a break.
Duke University has a law school. Except for Dr. Coleman, I don't hear any of the professors complaining. What are they teaching their students about proper procedure and due process?

 
At 4:18 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh please-right back at you.
Give me a break.
Duke University has a law school. Except for Dr. Coleman, I don't hear any of the professors complaining. What are they teaching their students about proper procedure and due process?

 
At 5:09 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please, let us watch our tone. Can someone suggest a fresh new topic. This current one seems to be "beaten to death" already. Thanks.

Moderator

 
At 5:14 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree the group of 88 was wrong--I think I was pretty clear about that. And you are very right to criticize them. But I'm saying let's not judge THE REST of the faculty just because YOU don't hear them saying what YOU want to hear. Most of them don't teach Civics--so they're not failing in their teaching responsibilities. But you seem to want the science, english, and engineering teachers to take up the cause. First, that's not their job, and second--do you REALLY know everything they are saying and thinking? No one is obligated in any position to speak up just because they see something they don't like. (Have you spoken up for EVERY social injustice you have seen?) And certainly we know the press doesn't cover everything that IS said. And the other professors DO have other things to teach. If my sons' teachers were dedicating their time to protesting the protestors (that is what you want, right???) I would not be happy. While we all can try to help (IF we choose) everone's life must go on. Students need to learn the things they've come to learn--they still have to pass thier exams, interview for jobs, take LSATs, Medcats, etc....There is still research to be done to cure cancer, etc. There are many important things the Duke professors are doing, and there are many excellent teachers, whose excellence is not compromised by their apparent silence on the lacrosse affair. Branding an entire faculty and an entire school because you disagree, however righteously, with the actions of a few is just the kind of attitude that resulted in this mess to begin with. And by the way, I have no idea what the law school faculty is TEACHING--do you?

 
At 5:15 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry Moderator--I will try to refrain. Posted earlier before I saw your message. But I am really tired of the total lack of tolerance....

 
At 5:18 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To mod: perhaps you could open up a new page and things would change.

 
At 6:42 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And in fact, making assumptions about what they feel is the same type of judgmental position we are angry about with respect to this case."

At least none of these faculty will have to spend 30 years in jail because we have "judged" them though...

 
At 6:46 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My sense is that, whether or not we agree, many at Duke (students and faculty) are dealing with their own daily issues, and simply don't have theinclination to make this their constant priority."

I don't think that anyone here is finding fault with the students....They are not the ones in a position of authority or leadership. They did a great job with the voter registration.

 
At 7:20 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gosh--I've heard a lot of people criticize the students--and the rest of the lacrosse team. it seems anytime someone isn't out front, preaching the things we might believe, then they are spineless, cowardly, etc. Every student, every teacher is an individual. Some have taken on activist roles (and it is a small minority,as is the case with any issue) and some support silently. Some probably don't support them, and that is their right. This is true with the teachers, too, and everyone is entitled to their beliefs. The teachers may be in a leadership position, but I don't believe ANY of them have an obligation to publicly support the lacrosse players. It would be nice if those that have had positive experiences with them (and especially with the three accused) would speak out, but I don't think they HAVE to. And quite frankly, it may actually be that some of the teachers (and students) HAVE had bad experiences with students they knew to be lacrosse players (as they could have with members of any other identifiable organization) and their perception has been framed accordingly.

I'd just like to see a little tolerance--and I think it makes us all more credible.

 
At 7:28 PM, October 18, 2006, Blogger Quasimodo said...

But you seem to want the science, english, and engineering teachers to take up the cause. First, that's not their job,

Yes, it is their job, as human beings. I won't let them avert their eyes and claim no responsibility. This isn't happening on the other side of the country or the world, but to their own students. If they keep silent when so many others have spoken out on the other side, then what else shall I conclude except that their silence gives assent to what the others have said?

Is it really so much for them to simply sign a circular letter, calling for federal protection for the civil rights of the accused? That would not even require them to take sides on the issue of guilt or innocence.

Branding an entire faculty and an entire school because you disagree, however righteously, with the actions of a few

It's the inaction of the many which concerns me, not the actions of the 88.

 
At 8:02 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'd just like to see a little tolerance--and I think it makes us all more credible."

That's the problem right there. The rest of the faculty and the Duke admin "tolerated" the Group of 88.

That does NOT make Duke as an institution more credible...

"It's the inaction of the many which concerns me, not the actions of the 88."

Quasimodo, you nailed it.

 
At 8:03 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous st295x98 said...

Does anyone have the final tally of How many Duke Students got registered so they may vote in this up coming election?

the N&O 2000 voter seem to be a little low if you ask me.

 
At 8:30 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Professor Plum said...

Greetings, Plum Here.

I am looking for a statistical range of probability (in percentages) of the case being dropped before December 31, 2006 if Nifong is victorious in the election. That is scenario-1. In the second scenario, I am looking for the same answer should he be defeated, as we all hope.

I don't mean to get boring on you but I would like to do a regression analysis and see if I can make a prediction on these two questions before election day. In this way, if the array indicates that the case will be dropped if Nifong is defeated, perhaps potential voters who think their vote does not count or think their vote will not matter regardless who wins, will get out and vote if they read this site and vote Nifong out.

Example: If you think absolutely the case will be dropped, that would be 100% but it would be necessary to identify the scenarios as S-1 or S-2 or both.

Moderator, if you think the responses would take up too much space on this forum, perhaps you would want to move it to another location and instruct me how to access it. But, please remember, as an old man, my abilities to navigate these new machines is similar to the surprise the American Indian had when the U.S. Cavalry started using the Gatlin Gun.

Thanks, all.

Plum

 
At 9:08 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The agenda driven crowd always wants tolerance. Reade, Collin and Dave have been tolerant for 7 months and they are still under indictment and no one has heard a whisper from Duke with the exception of the Women's Lacrosse coach and Dr. Coleman. Let's stop fooling outselves with all the scenarios of our imagination and look at the real facts here.

 
At 9:11 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Professor Plum said...

Greetings, again, Plum here with sincere apologies for almost back-to-back messages. I will post this last memo and be gone.

I would like to withdraw my suggestion regarding tabulating the percentages I noted in my previous memo. I thought of the idea during a meeting this night regarding the percentages of potential success in several churches in my Conference merging.

I would like to apologize to you, Moderator, and the families of our three guys. The more I think of my attempt to sway voters through statistices, the more I think that some might think I am playing a game with numbers.

My assurances are that I am not playing a game with numbers no more than I thought the doctors, in 1974, while telling me my little girl had a 35% chance of surviving heart surgery were playing a game. She did not survive but at least I knew. I did not consider that a game. Many professionals use percentage projections in major decisions.

My apologies for my lack of sensitiity and, if anyone felt that I was attempting to play a game, or lottery with my sugggestion, please accept my heartfelt apologies.

Do not respond to my previous post as I will not be tabulating.

Best to all of you.

Plum, out!

 
At 9:30 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Plum, your heart is always in the right place and you owe no one an apology. Your suggestion was a good one indeed and well thought out. We always benefit from your insight. Your blogger friend with great respect.

 
At 9:58 PM, October 18, 2006, Anonymous Professor Plum said...

Greetings: Especially (9:30)

Thanks for your note. I have done many things in my life that have been embarrassing to me. BUT, in my last post, I did not spell sensitivity correctly. The abscense of the "V" takes on a different concept.

Also, I intentionally inserted three g's in sugggestion because it was a long suggestion. Right!

I need to go away while I am ahead.

Plum!

 

<< Home