Letters from friends 3

---

This section contains letters and comments sent to us by friends and supporters. If you want to contribute, please email your letters to us. We will review and post them as appropriate.

Letters from friends 2

---

This section contains letters and comments sent to us by friends and supporters. If you want to contribute, please email your letters to us. We will review and post them as appropriate.

Letters from friends 1

---

This section contains letters and comments written by the Friends of Duke University. If you want to contribute, please email your letters or comments to us. We will review and post them as appropriate.

Messages for players

---

This section is for posting messages for the Duke Lacrosse team members and/or coaches. Please do not use it for other purposes. You may also wish to visit the following personalized pages for Dave, Collin and Reade:

David Evans -- Collin Finnerty -- Reade Seligmann

Responses to media

Listed below are selected articles that appeared in the media and either contained false information or biased content on the Duke Lacrosse case. We urge you to respond to these articles and share your responses with us. To share your responses, post them in the comments section under this page. Be sure to identify, on the top, which article you are responding to. The articles are listed by date, in descending order.

24. In the aftermath of a social disaster January 5, Herald Sun by Cathy Davidson (Professor at Duke University).

Email: cathy.davidson@duke.edu
Email: president@duke.edu

23. Official, but not over December 11, The Duke Chronicle by Shadee Malaklou

Email: shadee.malaklou@duke.edu

22. Secret racism underlying lacrosse case October 29, Herald Sun by Grant Farred (Associate Professor of Literature at Duke University).

Email: grant.farred@duke.edu
Email: president@duke.edu

21. Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers August 25, New York Times by Duff Wilson

Email: public@nytimes.com
Email: Duff Wilson

20. Lacrosse is just not my game August 12, Newsobserver by Dennis Rogers

Write to: drogers@newsobserver.com

19. By staying on the sidelines, Cheek shows no bravado August 5, Newsobserver by John Schwade

Email (editor): drescher@newsobserver.com
Email (author): jschwade@newsobderver.com

18. Has the lacrosse case induced insanity? July 23, Herald Sun by Bob Ashley

Write to: bashley@heraldsun.com

17. Wolves in Blazers and Khakis July 13, 2006 Washington Post by Marc Fisher

Write to: Email Marc Fisher
Copy to: letters@washpost.com
Copy to: executive.editor@washingtonpost.com
Copy to: ombudsman@washpost.com

16. Another Team Rape July 12, 2006 Yahoo News by Susan Estrich

Write to: estrich.susan@gmail.com

15. D.C. Judge Convicts Duke Athlete In '05 Fight July 12, 2006 Washington Post by Henri E. Cauvin

Write to: Comments to Washington Post

14. Duke: Horror and Truth July 10, 2006 BlackNews.com by Jesse Jackson

Write to: comments@blacknews.com
Copy to : Jesse Jackson (please someone, send us Mr. Jackson's email address)

13. Let's talk sports July 2, 2006 Newsobserver by Orin Starn (Duke University Professor)

Write to: ostarn@duke.edu
Website: Biography of Orin Starn
Copy to: Letters to Newsoberver Editor

12. Sympathy for the Devils? June 28, 2006 Indy The Weekly Independent by Hal Crowther

Write to: backtalk@indyweek.com (Letters to the editor)
Copy to: rhart@indyweek.com (Richard Harts, editor)
Copy to: editors@indyweek.com (Hal Crowther)

11. The Media Rush to Duke's Defense June 27, 2006 Washington Post by Andrew Cohen

Write to: letters@washpost.com
Copy to: executive.editor@washingtonpost.com
Copy to: ombudsman@washpost.com

10. Despite K's comment, race relations need work June 27, 2006 Herald Sun, Letters, by Karla FC Holloway (Duke University Professor)

Write to: karla.holloway@duke.edu
Website: Biography of Karla FC Holloway

9. Brodhead can't handle it June 17, 2006 Herald Sun, Letters, by Joseph Dibona (Duke University Professor)

Write to: joseph.dibona@duke.edu
Website: Biography of Joseph Dibona

8. Media Put Accuser on Trial in Duke Rape Case June 15, 2006 National Organization for Women (NOW)

Write to: now@now.org
or visit: http://www.now.org/comments.html

7. Duke team shows lack on integrity June 14, 2006 USA Today, Susan Pons

Write to: editor@usatoday.com
Author: Susan Pons

6. What Does it Take to Get an Athletic Program Shut Down June 6, 2006 Pioneer Press, Tom Powers

Write to: tpowers@pioneerpress.com
Author: Tom Powers

5. Needed: Special Prosecutor for the Duke Case June 4, 2006 Fox News, Susan Estrich

Write to: estrich.susan@gmail.com
Author: Susan Estrich

4. Sex and Scandal at Duke June 1, 2006 Rolling Stone Magazine, Janet Reitman

Write to: letters@rollingstone.com
Author: jreitman@earthlink.net (Janet Reitman)

3. Min. Muhammmad Calls for community to stand with rape victim

Write to: wilmjourn@aol.com
Author: Cash Michaels

2. Duke free-falling from grace May 27, 2007 Philadephia Inquirer, Stephen Smith

Write to:
Editor: abennett@phillynews.com
Author: ssmith@phillynews.com

1. The Duke Case’s Cruel Truth May 24, 2006 Washington Post, Lynee Duke

Write to:
Editor: executive.editor@washingtonpost.com
Author: Lynee Duke

General topics - OPEN

For ongoing comments, go to FODU Discussion Board.

For earlier comments, use following links:
--01-- --02-- --03-- --04-- --05-- --06--
--07-- --08-- --09-- --10-- --11-- --12--
--13-- --14-- --15-- --16-- --17-- --18--
--19-- --20-- --21-- --22-- --23-- --24--

General topics 24 - Full

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

General topics 23 - Full

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

General topics 22 - Full

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

General topics 21 - Full

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

General topics 20 - Full

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

General topics 19 - Full

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

General topics 18 - Full

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

General topics 17 - Full

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

General topics 16 - Full

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

General topics 15 - Full

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

General topics 14 - Full

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

General topics 13 - Full

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

General topics 12 - Full

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

General topics 11 - Full

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

General topics 10 - Full

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

General topics 9 - Full

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

General topics 8 - Full

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

General topics 7 - Full

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

General topics 6 - Full

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

General topics 5 - Full

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

General topics 4 - Full

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

General topics 3 - Full

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

General topics 2 - Full

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

General topics 1 - Full

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

Contact information

Below is a list of names, email and regular mailing addresses of selected Duke University, Durham county, North Carolina and Federal government officials. This information is provided for easy reference, in case you need to contact any of these officials. The list is by no means complete, contributions are welcome.

a. Duke University Officials

Duke President
Richard Brodhead
Email: richard.brodhead@duke.edu

Duke Spokesperson
John F. Burness
Email: john.burness@duke.edu
(919) 681 3788

Duke Board of Trustees
Robert K. Steel, Chairman
Email: boardchair@duke.edu

Trustees of Duke University

b. Durham County Officials

District Attorney:
Email:
Address:
Durham County Judicial Building
201 East Main Street
Durham, NC 27701

City Manager Patrick Baker
Email: patrick.baker@durhamnc.gov

Police Chief Steve Chalmers
Email: steve.chalmers@durhamnc.gov

County Commissioner Lewis Cheek
Email: lcheek@durhamcountync.gov

c. North Carolina Officials

Governor Michael F. Easley
Email: governor@ncmail.net
Mailing address:
Office of the Governor
20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0301
Fax: (919)715-3175 or (919)733-2120

Attorney General Roy Cooper
Nort Carolina Department of Justice
Email: Email to AG Roy Cooper
Mailing address:
Office of Attorney General Roy Cooper
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001

Email addresses of other NC officials:
NC Representative: paulmi@ncleg.net
NC Senator: Elliek@ncleg.net
Speaker of the house: Jimb@ncleg.net
NC Bar executive: kvaughan@ncbar.com


d. Federal Government Officials

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone Number: (202) 514-4609
Fax Number: (202) 514-0293

Assistant Attorney General
Wan J. Kim
(202) 514-2151

e. Contacting local media

Herald-Sun

Letters policy
The Herald-Sun welcomes letters to the editor. Please limit your letter to 250 words or fewer, and include your name and address and daytime telephone number. Letters are limited to one every 30 days with a right of reply. Third-party letters will not be accepted. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters to the editor represent the opinion of their writers, not that of the Herald Sun or its employees.

Send submissions to:
Letters to the editor,
The Herald Sun,
P.O. Box 2092
Durham, N.C., 27702

Our fax number for letters is: (919) 419 6840 (please select “fine” setting).
Our email address is: letters@heraldsun.com

Press releases

Below listed are the press releases issued by Friends of Duke University:

1. July 19, 2006
Publication of open letter in the Duke Chronicle

2. July 26, 2006
Our open letter to the President and Trustees of Duke receives a response

3. December 18, 2006
Congressman Jones’ Request

4. December 19, 2006
Yesterday’s press release and President Brodhead’s response

5. December 23, 2006
Our response to President Brodhead’s statement

6. February 8, 2007
Our response to the Open Letter posted by “Concerned Faculty” at Duke University

Press Release No. 1

Friends of Duke University
Date: July 19, 2006
Subject: Publication of open letter in the Duke Chronicle

Our Group

The Friends of Duke University consists of alumni, parents and friends of Duke who are deeply concerned about the University’s response to the lacrosse controversy. We want to ensure fair and equitable treatment for both the University and the lacrosse team in every public forum and feel that the University itself has not done enough to pursue it.

For the past few weeks, we have been speaking out on our own by challenging the numerous falsehoods encountered in the media and elsewhere and by disseminating accurate information about Duke and the lacrosse case. Our website: http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com has been a hub of such activity. Although we have been happy to take a leadership role in speaking out on behalf of Duke, we have done so with the recognition that our efforts have largely gone toward filling a vacuum left by Duke’s own leadership. We believe Duke University needs to stand up for itself and for its students.

Our Letter

Today, we are pleased to announce that we have published an open letter to the President and Board of Trustees of Duke in the University’s newspaper, The Chronicle. The open letter asks Duke to do four things: (i) speak up for its students; (ii) be fair to the lacrosse team and encourage others to do so as well; (iii) speak up for Duke; and (iv) accept the challenges presented by the lacrosse controversy.

Our Goals

Our purpose in publishing the open letter is not to confront or embarrass, or to turn our frustration inward. Instead, our purpose is to motivate, encourage and offer support. We appreciate the efforts of President Brodhead and the rest of the university administration so far. It is our hope that, by demonstrating our support, they will feel confident enough to respond more proactively and less reactively.

We are in no way apologists for the acknowledged inappropriate conduct of the lacrosse team. We want reform and we believe that everyone in the Duke community, including the team members themselves, do at this point as well. However, any reform has to recognize that many of the same problems identified with the team exist within the larger Duke community and are not confined to any one group. Precisely how Duke chooses to confront the problems brought to light by the lacrosse controversy will say more about the University’s values than its mere decision to condemn certain behavior.

Many critics on campus have used the lacrosse team’s troubles as an opportunity to call attention to issues of concern to them. We express no opinion as to those particular issues nor wish to pick fights with these critics. We simply ask that these issues be evaluated on their own merits and not be advanced through the exploitation of other’s misfortunes.

We believe that people outside of campus should not be the only ones speaking out about the gross injustice and corrupted process to which Colin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans have been subject. Duke leaders should squarely condemn the unethical, unprofessional and immoral abuse of legal process by District Attorney Mike Nifong and others associated with him. Specifically, this conduct includes: (i) prejudicial and false extrajudicial comments; (ii) denial of due process through a suggestive lineup procedure; (iii) improper contact with persons represented by counsel; and (iv) refusal to examine exculpatory evidence. Duke itself must do everything it can to ensure that its students are protected from unfair and unjust treatment during their time at the University. We understand that Duke does not and should not have any direct influence on matters pending before the criminal justice system. We understand if Duke is not able to express an opinion about the ultimate outcome of these matters either. However, Duke does have the power of moral suasion at its disposal and must use it.

Duke University inspires passionate loyalty not only to a school, but to a set of principles and values. Our group essentially coalesced from like minded people associated with Duke who heard each other speaking out and decided to do so together. We are not the only such group. There is a reason for this loyalty and we want everyone who does not know it to find out and for everyone who does know it to help us. We will continue to speak up for Duke and its students and hope that, with our encouragement and support, the administration will as well.

---

Open Letter to President Richard Brodhead and the Duke University Board of Trustees

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We address you as members of the Duke family, brokenhearted at the unfair treatment and portrayal of the Men’s Lacrosse Team—and by Duke University’s acquiescence in this treatment. We believe Duke cowered in the face of media pressure engineered by the unethical and possibly illegal conduct of the Durham County District Attorney’s Office. When these allegations first made national headlines, the lacrosse team captains told you and the Duke community that they were “totally and transparently false.” All publicly released case documents confirm this stance. And according to reports from reliable members of the media, including Dan Abrams ’88, all evidence in the prosecution’s discovery file supports the team’s unwavering position: no sexual assault occurred. Yet Duke has remained hesitant in its support. In the process, it has sacrificed its own students and values.

We believe that Duke needs to repair the damage caused by the actions described above. Accordingly, we respectfully ask that you consider the recommendations below as official acts of the University.

Speak up for your students

We are sure that everyone, at least at Duke, can agree that the accused Duke students deserve justice through a fair and regular process. Right now, they are not getting it. Not by a longshot.

We believe that the Duke administration has a positive obligation to ensure that Duke students are not singled out for unjust treatment by local authorities. Would a parent stand by while their child was abused? Not even say anything? We think not. Yet, that is precisely what Duke has done in this case.

We fear that the administration’s passive response to the district attorney’s behavior will lead future students to think twice before attending Duke. Therefore, we urge a public statement that Duke expects fair administration of criminal justice. All in Durham should be appalled by the following conduct by District Attorney Mike Nifong:

• Made Prejudicial and False Extrajudicial Comments. Rules 3.6 and 3.8(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit attorneys from making extrajudicial statements likely to prejudice a pending case. But Mr. Nifong: (1) materially misrepresented the facts by referring to evidence that did not exist; (2) called the accused “hooligans” and attested to their guilt; and (3) invited the inference of guilt from the exercise of the their civil right to representation by counsel. Each of these arguments, if made in court, would be sanctionable and grounds for mistrial.

• Denial of due process through a suggestive identification procedure. In order to generate names for his indictments, Mr. Nifong ordered an identification consisting of only photos of lacrosse players, violating guidelines set down by North Carolina’s Actual Innocence Commission. In further violation of these standards, the alleged victim was told that the photographs were of people who attended the party. As one noted criminal law scholar has pointed out, this procedure “strongly suggests that the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim an opportunity to pick three members of the lacrosse team who could be charged. Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice.”

• Improper contact with persons represented by counsel. Mr. Nifong has been quick to claim credit for conducting the police investigation. On April 14, police officers went into Duke dormitories to question Duke students who were known to be represented by counsel. This action violated Rule 4.2 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.

• Refusal to examine exculpatory evidence. Rule 3.8 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct forbids prosecutors from intentionally avoiding “pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor’s case or aid the accused.” On multiple occasions, defense attorneys offered to provide Mr. Nifong with exculpatory evidence strongly suggesting innocence. Mr. Nifong refused to accept or even look at this evidence.

Nicholas Kristof recently observed, “As more facts come out about the Duke lacrosse scandal, it should prompt some deep reflection.” The New York Times columnist compared Nifong’s behavior to the Scottsboro Boys prosecution, an event commonly held up as the standard of a prejudice-based miscarriage of justice.

While the university can express no opinion about the ultimate outcome of pending legal matters, we urge Duke to use all its influence and moral suasion to ensure that these three Duke students receive justice through a fair process. We also call upon Duke to formally demand that Mr. Nifong immediately correct, to the extent now possible, the grave errors that he has committed to date.

Be fair to the lacrosse team and encourage others to do so as well

At this point, no fair-minded person could any longer believe that a rape occurred. However, we are in no way apologists for the acknowledged conduct of the team. But necessary reforms must recognize that many of the team’s problems exist within the larger Duke community. Therefore, any specific measures taken against the lacrosse team must be consistent with Kantian ethics, including a commitment to proportionate justice and treating the team as the end, not as the means.

So far, the university’s treatment of the team has been reactive rather than proactive. Only after the season was cancelled and Coach Mike Pressler fired did the university appoint a committee to investigate the team’s conduct. This committee, chaired by Professor of Law James Coleman, reported on “a cohesive, hard working, disciplined, and respectful athletic team” whose members exhibited no evidence of racism or sexism. While detailing the team’s faults, all related to excessive drinking, the committee found much to be proud of as well. It concluded, “Between 2001 and 2005, 146 members of the lacrosse team made the Academic Honor Roll, twice as many as the next ACC lacrosse team. The lacrosse team's academic performance generally is one of the best among all Duke athletic teams.” The Coleman Report was the most thorough, critical, and unsentimental accounting of the team and its conduct. In announcing its decision to reinstate the team, the university has done little, if anything, to call attention to the larger, more positive, context the committee found. A resolution to look at oneself, warts and all, should not omit the “all.” As a result, Duke has missed an opportunity to show its true values. If we are not fair to ourselves, no one else will be.

Psychologists tell us that dysfunctional families often single out one member whose problems, real or supposed, become a source of unity for the rest, leaving the underlying sources of dysfunction unaddressed. Many critics on campus have used the lacrosse team’s troubles as an opportunity to call attention to matters of concern to them. We do not wish to pick fights with these critics. We simply ask that their concerns be evaluated on their own merits, rather than by exploiting others’ misfortunes. Since the lacrosse team’s shortcomings are not confined to any one group on campus, we should confront them without stigmatizing any one group. Only then can our family realize the growth that all of us seek.

As for those who were quick to prejudge the accused, particularly the group of 88 professors who signed an earlier call to action, we look upon them not with malice. Instead, we ask that they now count themselves among those victimized by this spring’s false accusations. We hope that all will realize now that our enemies are not each other, but those who would profit from the unfair denigration of our university and its members.

Speak up for Duke

Duke University is an exceptional school with an exceptional record. Recent events provide an appropriate occasion to consider the things we need to do better. However, this soul searching should be designed to make a great university even greater, rather than an attempt to scapegoat certain of our members.

The campus has suffered through hack journalism that crams events into preexisting templates and exploits preexisting prejudices to create artificial controversies. The result has been portrayals of both Duke and Durham that are filled with inaccuracies. We feel that the university has quietly acquiesced in these false characterizations, rather than actively asserting the truth.

Duke students conform to none of the media stereotypes of racial or economic exclusivity. They are 40% minorities, including 12% African American. Forty percent receive financial aid, with the average annual grant totaling $20,000. Duke students are elite only in the quality of their character and achievements.

Far from aloof, Duke is a responsible, generous, and engaged citizen of Durham. Here are just a few of the many ways Duke contributes to the Durham community:

• The Duke-Durham Neighborhood Partnership has raised $10 million over the last ten years to improve neighborhoods in Durham.

• In fiscal year 2005, Duke University Health Systems spent $28.8 million on charity medical care for low income patients and provided $6.5 million in in-kind service contributions to local health organizations.

• Duke pledged $925,000 to provide scholarships for Durham public school teachers to attend Duke's master of arts in teaching degree program.

• Duke spent $3.7 million to convert off-campus houses rented by students into single-family homes in order to improve relations with local residents.

• The Duke Community Service Center facilitates all manner of good works in Durham by over 30 student run organizations.

Accept the challenges presented by this crisis

Adopting the statements and positions outlined above will help restore Duke’s deserved reputation for greatness tempered by fairness. In that some will react angrily to these statements, their making will require your courage. However, no institution or person can long be considered great if lacking in courage.

One of our university’s finest moments occurred 100 years ago during the Bassett Affair. When a member of the university community unfairly came under public attack, the President and Board of Trustees refused to cave into momentary expediency. Instead, Duke’s leaders spoke out for what was right. In the end, rather than suffer for it, Duke’s reputation was greatly enhanced by the courage of the President and Board. Can we now say the same about the Lacrosse Affair?

We appreciate your efforts in managing this difficult and unusual crisis. We ultimately write not to criticize, but to offer our support. We are not afraid to speak out, and will continue to do so. We encourage you to do the same. We want you to know that you have friends behind you, united in our common desire to ensure that all Duke students receive fair treatment, from both the University and local authorities.

Friends of Duke University
Website: http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com
E-mail: friendsofdukeuniversity@yahoo.com

Press Release No. 2

Friends of Duke University
Date: July 26, 2006
Subject: Our open letter to the President and Trustees of Duke receives a response

Our Group and Its Mission

The Friends of Duke University consists of alumni, parents and friends of Duke who are deeply concerned about the University’s response to the lacrosse controversy. We want to ensure fair and equitable treatment for both the University and the lacrosse team in every public forum and feel that the University itself has not done enough to pursue it. On July 19, we published an open letter to the President and Board of Trustees of Duke in the University’s newspaper, The Chronicle. The open letter asked Duke to do four things: (i) speak up for its students; (ii) be fair to the lacrosse team and encourage others to do so as well; (iii) speak up for Duke; and (iv) accept the challenges presented by the lacrosse controversy.

Our Letter Receives a Response

We are pleased to announce that Duke University President Richard Brodhead responded to the open letter from Friends of Duke University. A copy of that letter is attached to this release. Whatever our disagreements, we believe it speaks highly of the university that the President would respond in this form and we are grateful for his willingness to work with us to move forward to “a just and speedy resolution of the court case, to a proud new future for the men's lacrosse team, and to an era of increased responsibility and respect among Duke students in general.” We agree with President Brodhead that Duke should “require the legal system to proceed in a fair-minded, even-handed, and speedy fashion.” We also share the sentiment that “we are eager for our students to be proved innocent.” We will issue a further response regarding steps we feel the University should take to advance the goals President Brodhead espouses. As stated in our open letter, we do not feel that the accused lacrosse players have thus far been treated by the judicial system "in a fair-minded, even-handed, and speedy fashion," and we believe that the University has a positive obligation to ensure that local authorities follow lawful, just and regular procedures when dealing with Duke students. We are willing to work with President Brodhead and the rest of Duke University to help achieve these goals.

On the Web:
Friends of Duke University

---

President Richard H. Brodhead's Response to our Open Letter

July 25, 2006
Friends of Duke University

Dear Friends:

I thank you for sending me a copy of the open letter that you published in the Duke Chronicle. You say that you write not to criticize, but to offer support. I take you at your word for that, and I thank you. I well understand that in raising questions of such seriousness, you are demonstrating your concern for the University and the desire to make it better.

In a situation as complex as the one we've been grappling with, where powerful passions have coexisted with rapidly changing "facts" and where action has been required in the face of deep uncertainty, it was virtually inevitable that the University response would be open to question. It won't surprise you to learn that I have received critical comments from a great variety of points of view, including diametrically opposite ones. I accept that, and would only say that those of us in positions of responsibility have acted as best we could to make two points: that what the players were accused of was, if true, a heinous act; and that it would be equally unjust to prejudge their guilt in the absence of proof and certainty. This dual message has been at the heart of virtually every public statement I have made on the case.

I won't respond point by point to your message but do want to speak to two issues that you raise. You say that "at this point, no fair-minded person could any longer believe that a rape occurred" and, accordingly, you chide the University for not supporting the players more aggressively. But as you yourself recognize, "the university can express no opinion about the ultimate outcome of pending legal matters.” I am well aware that, after many weeks of media stories that made it seem almost self-evidently true that a rape had occurred, recent stories have offered extensive evidence exonerating the indicted students and questioning the legitimacy of the case. But the University does not have direct access to the full truth of the case now any more than we did earlier, and we can't speak with certainty of matters that only the criminal justice system can resolve.

We are eager for our students to be proved innocent. We share the wish for a speedy resolution of all the matters that are now in doubt. In my June 5 community statement I spoke of the ordeal our team members have lived through – a painful, costly experience for themselves, their families, and the community as a whole. I also reiterated that if the indicted students are the objects of a false accusation, they are the objects of an injustice as grave as the one they have been accused of. But as you recognize, the University can't go the further step and proclaim our certainty of their innocence. That requires resolution through the legal system – which is all the more reason why we require the legal system to proceed in a fair-minded, even-handed, and speedy fashion.

You also voice the perception that the University has been complicit in scapegoating members of the lacrosse team. I recognize the gravity of the charge, but I do not agree with it. It was the party that the men’s lacrosse team held on the night of March 13 that precipitated the subsequent avalanche of publicity and notoriety. In our statements, the University has been consistently critical of the team's conduct on that night (while taking scrupulous pains to distinguish between the acknowledged conduct and the felony charges, which have not been established). But we have not confined our censure to this one team. The Campus Culture Initiative outlined in my April 5 statement recognizes that the underlying issues are pervasive in undergraduate culture, and not just at Duke. In coming weeks we'll be working to promote responsible conduct among all students: on the men’s lacrosse team to be sure, but also throughout the Duke student body. Meanwhile, it was a report the administration commissioned, the Coleman Report, that gave testimony to the positive dimensions of the lacrosse team's history.

I recognize the anguish in your letter. I am not surprised by it: we are living through an unusually painful and challenging situation. But in my view, the way to heal this anguish is not to go back and endlessly debate things people should have done in the past. It's to move forward – to a just and speedy resolution of the court case, to a proud new future for the men’s lacrosse team, and to an era of increased responsibility and respect among Duke students in general. I look forward to working with you and all other friends of Duke to achieve these goals.

Best wishes,

Richard H. Brodhead
President

cc: Board of Trustees
Editor of Chronicle

Press Release No. 3

Friends of Duke University
Date: December 18, 2006
Subject: Request by Congressman Walter Jones to the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate civil rights violations by Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong

Contact Information:
Jason Trumpbour, Spokesperson
Tel: (443) 834-3666
E-mail: jtrumpbour.fodu@yahoo.com

Congressman Jones’ Request

The Friends of Duke University enthusiastically endorses Congressman Walter Jones’ call for the Justice Department to open an inquiry into the misconduct of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.

Congressman Jones highlights two of the myriad improper actions by Mr. Nifong. After two lineups left the accuser unable to identify any of her alleged attackers, Mr. Nifong—who has a duty to serve as the county’s “minister of justice”—instructed the Durham Police to conduct a third lineup. This time, however, he told the police to violate their own procedures and confine the array to members of the Duke lacrosse team, all of whom the district attorney had identified as suspects. As Congressman Jones suggests, a prosecutor ordering the police to override procedures designed to safeguard the rights of suspects almost certainly violated the players’ civil rights.

Secondly, Congressman Jones points to the many public statements by the district attorney—statements that misled the public by suggesting that the players had refused to cooperate with police, that condoms might have been used, and even that the DNA tests would clear the innocent. “After all,” the congressman correctly concludes, “if the American people cannot trust those who they've empowered to pursue justice fairly, then hope for this democracy is lost.”

Revelations from Friday’s court session increase the urgency of Jones’ request. Under oath, Dr. Brian Meehan, head of DNA Security lab, admitted that he and Mr. Nifong entered into an agreement to “intentionally” exclude test results favorable to the defense from Dr. Meehan’s report. This decision violated not only the right of the defendants to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)), but also North Carolina’s Open Discovery law, which requires all case-related material—exculpatory or not—to be handed over to the defense.

The administration’s silence about Mr. Nifong’s continued assault on the civil liberties of Duke students appears to be having an unfortunate, if inevitable, effect. Figures released last week indicated that early admissions applications for the Class of 2011 plunged by nearly 20 percent from last year’s total, to the lowest amount in nearly a decade. Surely any prospective parent would have to think twice about sending a son or daughter to an institution whose leadership has stood aside as a local prosecutor targets students through procedurally improper actions.

Events of last week indicate that now, more than ever, Duke’s leadership needs to take a public stand in favor of its students’ right to due process. We urge Richard Brodhead, president of Duke University; Robert Steel, chairman of the Duke University Board of Trustees; and all other members of the Board of Trustees to publicly endorse Congressman Jones’ request.

After all, a sitting congressman has now gone on record urging a federal investigation into whether local authorities have violated the civil rights and civil liberties of Duke students. Endorsing the request by Congressman Jones would not require President Brodhead, Chairman Steel, or any member of the Board of Trustees to take a position with respect to the guilt or innocence of the accused, as they have refused to do to date. Such an endorsement would only require support for the undeniable proposition that public information suggests there is a sufficient likelihood of civil rights violations to merit a federal investigation.

As the January 2 deadline for admissions applications approaches, it would be highly unfortunate for the administration, through its silence, to suggest to prospective Duke parents that a congressman has more concern with Duke students receiving due process than does their own institution.

Our Group and Its Mission

The Friends of Duke University consists of alumni, parents, faculty and friends of Duke who are deeply concerned about the University’s response to the lacrosse case. We want to ensure fair and equitable treatment for Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans and feel that the University itself has not done enough to pursue such treatment.

Although we have been happy to take a leadership role in speaking out on behalf of these falsely accused students, we have done so with the recognition that our efforts have largely gone toward filling a vacuum left by Duke’s own leadership. We believe Duke University needs to stand up for its students and for itself.

On the Web:
Friends of Duke University

Press Release No. 4

Date: December 19, 2006
Subject: Duke University President Richard Brodhead responds to our previous press release

Contact:
Jason Trumpbour, Spokesperson
Tel: (443) 834-3666
Email: jtrumpbour.fodu@yahoo.com

Yesterday’s press release and President Brodhead’s response

Yesterday, the Friends of Duke University enthusiastically endorsed Congressman Walter Jones’ call for the Justice Department to open an inquiry into the misconduct of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. We also urged Richard Brodhead, President of Duke University; Robert Steel, chairman of the Duke University Board of Trustees; and all other members of the Board of Trustees to publicly endorse Congressman Jones’ request.

In response to our press release, President Brodhead issued a statement that stopped well short of directly criticizing Nifong and made no mention of Congressman Jones’ call for an inquiry. Instead, it merely reminded everyone that “our students must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.”

The full text of yesterday’s press release by the Friends of Duke University can be found here: Press Release No. 3.

President Brodhead’s statement can be found here: Statement by Duke President Brodhead Following Last Friday's Court Hearing in Lacrosse Case.

Our reply to President Brodhead

While we are pleased to see that our Monday morning press release apparently generated a public response from Richard Brodhead, Friends of Duke University is distressed by the president’s meager statement and apparent refusal to endorse the request by Congressman Jones that the Department of Justice investigate the conduct of District Attorney Mike Nifong..

Despite revelations that the district attorney and the director of a private DNA lab entered into an agreement to withhold exculpatory evidence, President Brodhead offered nothing more than the same banal truisms that we have been hearing for months.

He said, “It is of the essence that everyone involved in the legal system act fairly in pursuing the truth and protecting the rights of the individuals involved.” Does he mean to imply that Nifong has acted “fairly”? He said, “The DA’s case will be on trial just as much as our students will be.” This statement would apply to virtually every criminal trial in the country, the vast majority of which are not characterized by prosecutorial misconduct. Such oblique language minimizes the scope of Nifong’s violations of ethical and legal canons by suggesting that obtaining a guilty verdict would justify such misconduct. In fact, the desire to obtain a guilty verdict despite overwhelming evidence of innocence is precisely what appears to have caused the misconduct at issue. Given all that has been revealed, President Brodhead’s unwillingness to comment further on the treatment of Duke students by the district attorney and Durham authorities is unacceptable.

In his statement, the president even appeared to provide a subtle endorsement for Nifong’s case, when he spoke of the time “when [the case] goes before a judge and jury.” Did the president intend to dismiss defense motions that would terminate the case before it “goes” to a “jury”? Did he intend to suggest that the evidence merits a trial and not a dismissal? If not, we urge President Brodhead to issue a statement clarifying his meaning.

President Brodhead should recognize that it is the job of a university president to provide a moral compass for his campus. That job includes going beyond empty rhetoric to take concrete actions, or at least support the concrete actions of others, when a local prosecutor consistently denies due process rights to Duke undergraduates.

The president’s remarks yesterday conveyed the unfortunate impression that Congressman Jones is willing to do more to uphold Duke students’ due process rights than is the president of Duke University. When the rape allegations were first made, the president’s statement included the following remarks:

Whatever that inquiry may show, it is already clear that many students acted in a manner inappropriate to a Duke team member in participating in the March 13 party. I applaud Athletics Director Joe Alleva for responding to the conduct that is not in question even as we wait for the investigation to determine the truth about disputed parts of the events

If this statement contains any substance at all as the proper way to proceed in such cases, why is it not now appropriate to respond to the unquestionably unethical and unlawful conduct of Nifong and applaud Congressman Jones for asking the Justice Department to respond to that conduct accordingly? The longer President Brodhead remains silent and evasive about the conduct of the district attorney, the greater the impression becomes that other concerns are trumping the appropriate concern for students.

Our Group and Its Mission

The Friends of Duke University consists of alumni, parents, faculty and friends of Duke who are deeply concerned about the University’s response to the lacrosse case. We want to ensure fair and equitable treatment for Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans and feel that the University itself has not done enough to pursue such treatment.

Although we have been happy to take a leadership role in speaking out on behalf of these falsely accused students, we have done so with the recognition that our efforts have largely gone toward filling a vacuum left by Duke’s own leadership. We believe Duke University needs to stand up for its students and for itself.

On the Web:
Friends of Duke University

Press Release No. 5

Date: December 23, 2006
Subject: Duke University President Richard Brodhead criticizes Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong

Contact:
Jason Trumpbour, Spokesperson
Tel: (443) 834-3666
Email: jtrumpbour.fodu@yahoo.com

President Brodhead’s statement

Yesterday, Duke University President Richard Brodhead issued a brief statement in response to the news that Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong had moved to dismiss rape charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans in the lacrosse case. Nifong’s action left in place equally serious charges of sexual offense. The full text of President Brodhead’s statement is as follows:

I am greatly relieved for the students and their families that the most serious of the charges has been dropped. Given the certainty with which the district attorney made his many public statements regarding the rape allegation, his decision today to drop that charge must call into question the validity of the remaining charges.

The district attorney should now put this case in the hands of an independent party, who can restore confidence in the fairness of the process. Further, Mr. Nifong has an obligation to explain to all of us his conduct in this matter.

Source: Statement from Duke President Brodhead Regarding Dropping of Rape Charges

Our response to President Brodhead’s statement

Friends of Duke University enthusiastically welcomes President Brodhead’s statement. This brief statement, brief enough to be reproduced in its entirety above, says a great deal. President Brodhead:

directly and unequivocally criticizes Nifong’s handling of the case for the first time

questions the validity of the charges

joins the chorus of many others calling for an independent prosecutor to handle the case

expresses compassion for Reade, Collin, David and their families.

While we have been critical of President Brodhead and the Duke administration, it was never because we doubted President Brodhead’s ability to rise to the occasion even in the face of the unique challenges presented by the lacrosse case. We are glad to see our faith in President Brodhead has not been misplaced.

The Friends of Duke University has repeatedly emphasized that we in the Duke community are not each other’s enemies and that our real enemy is Nifong. Now that we seem to agree on the way forward, we can all work together to achieve the thing that we all want: justice for three innocent members of the Duke family.

President Brodhead’s words are a beginning and not an end point. His bold words must be matched by equally bold deeds in the coming weeks. He must also continue to speak out and do so forcefully. Nevertheless, President Brodhead’s statement gives us every optimism to believe that he will do both.

On the Web:
Friends of Duke University

Press Release No. 6

Date: February 8, 2007
Subject: Our response to the Open Letter posted by “Concerned Faculty” at Duke University

Contact:
Jason Trumpbour, Spokesperson
Tel: (443) 834-3666
Email: jtrumpbour.fodu@yahoo.com

Background

On April 6, 2006, a group of 88 Duke University professors published an advertisement in the University newspaper The Chronicle. This ad, entitled “We are listening to our students,” contained several references to the Duke lacrosse case. It made reference to “what happened to this young woman” and stated, “To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.” It contained quotes from students such as “If something like this happens to me . . . What would be used against me--my clothing”? And “no one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation.”

These professors who became known as the “Group of 88” were widely criticized for prejudging the guilt of members of the men’s lacrosse team and for attempting to advance whatever agenda they had at the expense of these students and their reputations. Their ad was also cited by defense attorneys in their motion for a change in venue as evidence of extremely prejudicial pretrial publicity.

Nine months later, on January 16, 2007, a group containing most of the same members and now calling itself the “Concerned Faculty” posted an open letter on their website defending their original ad. Claiming that the original ad had been “broadly, and often intentionally, misread . . . as rendering a judgment in the case,” the group rejected calls to retract or apologize for it. The complete text of the Concerned Faculty statement as well as a link to their original ad can be found here.

Our Response

One of the group’s members, Ronen Plesser stated, “My personal hope is that this will be the basis for a conversation on campus . . . a conversation that will eventually lead to some understanding.” However, the January 16 open letter begs more questions than it answers about the purposes of the “Listening” ad and the sort of conversation being sought given the peculiar language used to express its points and communicate its premises. The Friends of Duke University thought it appropriate to request further clarification. To that end we have today published an ad in the Chronicle asking a series of questions gathered from comments posted on our website and that of Professor K.C. Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland site.

Friends of Duke University has repeatedly reached out to these faculty members. Our first open letter published on July 19 stated,

As for those who were quick to prejudge the accused, particularly the group of 88 professors who signed an earlier call to action, we look upon them not with malice. Instead, we ask that they now count themselves among those victimized by this spring’s false accusations. We hope that all will realize now that our enemies are not each other, but those who would profit from the unfair denigration of our university and its members.

A few days before the Concerned Faculty posted their letter, we attempted to find common ground with them by asking if they would join the University in calling for due process for Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, an issue on which we hoped everyone could agree. All of our overtures have been ignored or rebuffed.

We remain sincere in our efforts to reach out to them. We are dismayed that, not only would they chose to ignore our efforts, but that they would instead respond with a defiant refusal to admit mistake either in judgment or expression and that they would insult the motives and/or intelligence of their critics. We do not begrudge members of the Group of 88/Concerned Faculty their right to call attention to social issues of concern to them. We instead condemn the unfair public vilification of members of the lacrosse team done in the course of expressing their concerns. We conclude our latest ad with an earnest question: “Would you be willing to sign a statement, such as that of the Economics Professors, saying that all students, including lacrosse players and other student-athletes, are welcome in your classes?” A copy of that statement, originally published as a letter to the Chronicle, may be found here.

Friends of Duke University supports academic freedom for both faculty and students. We have no political agenda and have a diverse following representing all sorts of political views and walks of life. What all of us have in common is a deep commitment to ensuring justice for Reade, Collin and David and fair and equitable treatment for the rest of the team and Duke students generally both on campus and off. We hope that Duke University can once again be a place of civility and mutual respect among all of its members.

On the Web:
Our site
Professor KC Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland site

Below is the full text of our ad which was published today in The Chronicle.

Some Things to Consider from the Friends of Duke University

In a recent Duke Chronicle article, Group of 88 member Ronen Plesser maintained that the new statement of a group calling itself “Concerned Duke Faculty” would form a “basis for a conversation on campus . . . a conversation that will eventually lead to some understanding.”

Friends of Duke University endorses this conversation. But we also believe that the basis for one aspect of this conversation—the meaning of the Group of 88’s April 6 ad—needs more clarification. In that light, we would like to offer some questions for the “Concerned Duke Faculty.”

Principles of Due Process

The April 6 ad explicitly thanked “students speaking individually” and “protestors making collective noise” for not waiting. The fundamental question is what was not worthy of being awaited. Time for reason to assist emotion? Time for evidence to be gathered and assessed? Time for a defense to be made? If you were so attuned to due process, why did you fail to mention it in your April 6 ad?

In your recent statement, you stated “We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time. We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence.” Do you or do you not endorse the “potbanging” protest that was widely covered in the media? Could you explain to the University community what criteria you used in the April 6 ad to determine which protests were worthy of your endorsement and which protests merited your disapproval?

In your recent statement, you claim to “stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence.” What, then, should readers of the April 6 ad have inferred from your reference to “what happened to this young woman”? Given that she had accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape, isn’t that the obvious inference, carrying with it implied guilt of some members of the lacrosse team?

Do you believe that Mike Nifong acted properly when he went to the grand jury on April 17 to seek indictments against Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty?

Statements of Your Fellow Signatories

Do you agree with the March 31 Chronicle op-ed of your colleague and fellow signatory, Bill Chafe, who suggested that the whites who lynched Emmett Till provided an appropriate historical context through which to interpret the actions of the lacrosse players?

Do you agree with the claim of your colleague and fellow signatory, Karla Holloway, that innocence and guilt have been “assessed through a metric of race and gender. White innocence means black guilt”? If so, which pieces of evidence cited by defenders of the players relate to race and gender?

Your colleague and fellow signatory, Alex Rosenberg, told the New York Sun on October 27 that he signed the ad because he was bothered by “affluent kids violating the law to get exploited women to take their clothes off when they could get as much hookup as they wanted from rich and attractive Duke coeds.” Was raising this issue one of the ad’s purposes?

The University and Its Students

Will you document the methodology used to obtain a representative cross section of campus opinion for the “listening” statement?

The April 6 ad contains the following anonymous quote from an alleged Duke student: “Being a big, black man, it’s hard to walk anywhere at night, and not have a campus police car slowly drive by me.” Have any of you approached the Duke police force to ask if it has a policy of slowing down when officers see a Black man on campus? Have any of you experienced or observed this phenomenon?

In your recent statement, you criticized those who read the April 6 ad “as rendering a judgment in the case.” That ad quoted an anonymous student, who allegedly said, “no one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation” another anonymous student allegedly said, “If something like this happens to me . . . what would be used against me—my clothing?” Would you agree that these anonymous students appeared to have rendered a judgment in the case?

Looking Ahead

Given that in your new statement you criticized an atmosphere that allowed “sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus,” would you recommend that female students accepted to the Class of 2011 attend Duke? If so, how could you support their entering an environment that you have publicly described as so dangerous?

Would you be willing to sign a statement, such as that of the Economics Professors, saying that all students, including lacrosse players and other student-athletes, are welcome in your classes?

These questions were gathered from comments made on our website, and on Professor KC Johnson’s website. Friends of Duke University does not endorse anonymous e-mails and does not endorse efforts to threaten or harass members of the lacrosse team, or any other Duke University students. Nor do we endorse efforts to threaten or harass signatories to the original Group of 88 Ad or the “Concerned Faculty” statement. We do, however, believe the public statements by faculty members in both instances raise important questions and we support a dialogue about the questions presented in this ad and elsewhere.

Scapegoating

August 4, 2006
by Robert KC Johnson
(originally published on HNN: Scapegoating)

Richard Brodhead’s recent denial of “scapegoating” the lacrosse team seems unsustainable. In the Duke president’s public response to Friends of Duke University, the sole evidence that he cited to substantiate his claim that he hasn't scapegoated the team was the existence of the Coleman Committee report. But he had described this document to the University community as favorable to the lacrosse team only in that it did not “confirm the worst allegations against this team”—which, of course, were that three players committed gang rape and dozens of others covered it up. Many people would consider Brodhead’s failure to mention that the report detailed the players’ positive academic performance, excellent relations with Duke staff, and extensive record of community service confirmation of the charge of his scapegoating the team.

More important, the Coleman Committee report conclusively showed how Brodhead already had scapegoated the team when he forced the resignation of lacrosse coach Mike Pressler. As William Gerrish, whose son captained the 2005 Duke lacrosse team, recently noted, Pressler “is perhaps the only one who did nothing wrong during this incident, and yet he ended up paying for it.”

Pressler coached lacrosse at Duke for 16 years; in 2005, he led the team to the NCAA finals, and was named national coach of the year. That former Hofstra (and current Duke) lacrosse coach John Danowski sent his son to play for Pressler testified to his peers’ high regard for him. Parents of his former players have lavished him with praise. Nina Zash, whose son co-captained the 2006 team, affirmed that “my son went to college a boy and came out a man, and I am not naive enough to think it's all because of his parents. Coach Pressler, from the first day he stepped foot into my house, let us and my son know that he would be tough but fair, and would never demand more than he gave. He 'walked the walk' every single day my son was under his watch. He was the guardian you want your child to have when you can't be there, [and] it was an honor and a privilege to watch him work his magic with my son these past four years.”

Pressler developed a reputation as a tough but fair disciplinarian, as Duke’s own investigation subsequently confirmed. To illustrate Pressler’s approach, a lacrosse player who graduated in 2006 recalled:

During my sophomore year I was involved in an off the field incident stemming from underage drinking. Coach Pressler’s policy from the day I arrived on campus was no matter what kind of troubling situation came up he wanted to know about it before it was brought to his attention by others. I failed to follow this rule and hoped that he would not find out. When he did find out his punishment was decisive and fair. We were scheduled to travel to West Point that weekend to play the Army. I had made the travel team and was excited about the trip. My family was also coming and my father was especially looking forward to seeing West Point. Upon learning of my incident Coach Pressler pulled me aside after practice and told me to come to his office after I showered. There, he informed me that I was suspended for the Army game and that I would not be making the trip with the team. He asked me to call my dad and tell him to cancel his trip. Coach Pressler was disappointed that I had violated his trust and for weeks I could not look him in the eye without feeling ashamed of what I had done. He was upset about the incident but made more of an issue regarding my violation of his trust. I learned a valuable lesson from him.

This discipline paid dividends, on and off the field. During Pressler’s 16 years at Duke, his players had a 100% graduation rate; between 2001 and 2005, more than half of Duke’s lacrosse players made the ACC academic honor roll—more than double the percentage of any other team in the league. The 2006 squad included a former walk-on, Edward Douglas, who graduated with distinction from the Duke Pratt School of Engineering in Biomedical Engineering. Douglas’ father believes that “Edward could not have excelled in such a rigorous major without the support and understanding that, as Mike Pressler says, ‘you are students first’,” since he “knows how to work with academically gifted students and players.”

If college coaches are to be held accountable for their players’ holding spring break parties at which lots of alcohol is consumed, there would be few, if any, college coaches left (outside of Liberty and BYU). Regardless, in the early days of D.A. Mike Nifong’s pre-primary publicity barrage, Pressler and his family were subjected to death threats. Protesters taped signs to his house with such messages as “DO YOUR DUTY. TURN THEM IN.” Several days later, when the Group of 88 issued their “listening” statement, the professors offered a message for such protesters: “Thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.”

Pressler’s de facto dismissal occurred immediately after the Ryan McFadyen e-mail was publicly released, on April 5. (The emergence of this e-mail remains a mystery; it seems increasingly likely that the e-mail was not turned over by an anonymous lacrosse player, as initially alleged, but simply released by local authorities. The team captains had voluntarily given authorities access to their e-mail accounts even as Nifong misleadingly charged that the players had “ not been fully cooperative.”) Brodhead announced Pressler’s forced departure and the cancellation of the team’s season in a public statement to the University community. The remarks strongly implied—without stating so directly—that a rape occurred, although, he added, all players were innocent until proven guilty.

In an interview with the Duke Chronicle about his decision, Brodhead deemed the coach’s departure “highly appropriate." (He did not say why.) That same story contained the following puzzling paragraph from the president:

Brodhead condemned the actions of the team, if they turn out to be true. "It seems to me there might be some part of Duke education that is not yet fully successful," he said. "It's not in the statistics, it's not in the writing, but it's in a life skill."

Generally, administrators act once they’ve discovered the facts, not on the supposition that “actions” might “turn out to be true.” In Pressler’s case, Brodhead’s move came at a time when no players had been indicted, and just before the release of DNA tests, which Nifong had promised would identify the guilty, instead showed no matches to any of the players. (Nifong had also affirmed to the court that negative tests would exonerate the innocent.) Brodhead’s move sent an unmistakable message to people off campus: the players’ actions (true or not, apparently) were beyond the pale, and Pressler was either in some way directly responsible or had bailed out on his team anticipating that the guilty would soon be brought to justice. Unconfirmed reports circulated on the internet and on cable TV shows that the administration had repeatedly told Pressler to rein in his team’s behavior, but he had refused to do so.

As one current lacrosse parent recognized, however, “The real reason Brodhead did what he did was because he was afraid to stand up to Professor Houston Baker and the other rabble rousing protesting professors on Duke's campus. [Baker’s letter demanding the “immediate dismissals” of “the team and its players” had been released the previous week; the Group of 88 was just about to publish its so-called “listening” statement.] Brodhead’s actions sent a clear message to every student, parent, and prospective parent that he cares more about protesting, politically-correct professors than he does about his own students.”

Despite Brodhead’s move, Pressler stood by the team, at a time when few were doing so. He addressed a private meeting of the lacrosse parents shortly after his dismissal, encouraging them, as one parent recalled, “to hold our heads high. ‘Hang in there,’ he said. ‘Be strong for your sons. The truth will prevail in the end.’” One of the team’s 2006 graduates recently admitted, “Throughout the ongoing Duke Lacrosse ordeal I cried only once. That was when I had to say goodbye to Coach Pressler after learning our season was over and having to face the reality that I would never suit up to play for him again.”

In the groupthink atmosphere that pervades Duke’s faculty and administration, only one voice publicly challenged Brodhead’s decision. In an April 17 letter to the campus newspaper in which he admitted fears of “arousing the wrath of the righteous,” Chemistry professor Steven Baldwin lamented that Pressler “was hung out to dry by an athletics administration that neither understood the issues nor appreciated Mike Pressler the man. Long before we learn the truth about what happened that night, and long before we learn the conclusions and recommendations of the several committees formed by President Brodhead to address the situation, the athletic department convulsed and threw the baby out with the bath water.” Baldwin described the coach as “humble, reserved, thoughtful and honest to a fault,” a man with “great integrity” who “wanted to win the right way, with players who were students first and athletes second-players who would be a credit to Duke University.” At the very least, Baldwin noted, Pressler deserved basic principles of due process, to have his tenure considered once the administration had access to all relevant facts.

Brodhead should have heeded Baldwin’s advice. The Coleman Committee, in considerable detail, established that (a) in the sentiments of one administrator, there was a “documented history that lacrosse players liked to hang out as a group and drink beer. When they were caught three or four times a year, they were disciplined, but . . . the sanctions imposed were not sufficiently severe to act as a deterrent”; (b) the Duke administration never communicated to Pressler, either orally or in writing, that it considered his players’ behavior a serious problem (a student affairs administrator, for instance, described the lacrosse players’ hangout at the Tailgate event as “one of the most 'energetic' and . . . quite entertaining”); (c) when members of the administration asked Pressler to try to modify his players’ alcohol-related behavior, he unfailingly did so, and unfailingly got results.

Even more important, the committee discovered that far from being overly loose with his team, Pressler was one of two Duke officials who did the most regarding the team’s alcohol-related offenses. According to the report, besides the “Dean for Judicial Affairs and Coach Pressler, after he was made aware of specific incidents of misconduct, no other administrator appears to have treated the lacrosse team's disciplinary record as a matter of serious concern.” This approach shouldn’t come as much surprise: in the days before Duke’s current neo-prohibitionist revival, it hardly seemed scandalous when students on campus decided “to hang out as a group and drink beer.”

(The full text of the Coleman Committee report can be found on the “Duke and Men’s Lacrosse” homepage, for those willing to look hard enough and wade past the promotions for the Robert Bliwire, speak-only-to-lacrosse-critics, alumni magazine article. Or, I have excerpted all parts of the report relating to Pressler’s performance here.)

The Coleman Committee’s findings showed that no justification existed for Brodhead’s decision to scapegoat Pressler. Despite the committee’s recommendation to restore the team, however, the president did nothing for several weeks—almost as if he hoped a reason would emerge to override the committee’s judgment. He finally acted on June 5, in the remarks mentioned above, which did not mention the committee’s positive findings about the players. But Brodhead imposed one condition on his decision: Pressler would not return as coach. The president’s only comment regarding the Coleman Committee’s exoneration of Pressler was cryptic: “I would be happy for the world to take note of that fact.” (He, of course, has done nothing to further that goal.) At Alumni Weekend, when a group of Duke graduates complained about his rush to judgment. Brodhead cited public relations as his motive. According to the Durham Herald-Sun, he said, "Pressler's presence would have been a big story." It’s not entirely clear why Pressler’s presence would have been any bigger story than the continued presence of the faculty members who taught the lacrosse players (only to publicly denounce them); or of the admissions staff who recommended their admission to Duke; or of the athletic director who supervised Duke college sports; or, indeed, of Brodhead himself.

As has frequently occurred in this controversy, Duke women’s lacrosse coach Kerstin Kimel showed courage where Brodhead did not. Kimel invited Pressler to attend her team’s quarterfinal victory over James Madison, and then asked him to address her squad before they left campus to play in this year’s Women’s Final Four.

Brodhead’s scapegoating has had its effect. One professor at Johns Hopkins, which edged Duke by a goal in the 2005 championship, recently wrote that he had “chatted to a number of people here about Pressler and his opportunities for securing another coaching job at the top level. I continue to be dismayed at the belief that he was somehow at fault. One well informed and extremely well connected individual said that he ran ‘too loose a ship’ to be considered for serious coaching positions.”

Pressler’s players, however, have stood by him. Several have penned letters of support as he goes back on the job market. As one current player wrote:

The past four months have been some of the most trying times not only for me and my teammates, but also for Coach P. I can only imagine how hard it must be to walk away from a program that you have personally built to greatness and from a group of young men that undyingly respect you. I have never seen anyone in my life deal with the kind of adversity that Coach P has dealt with, with the courage and resilience that he has displayed.

Further, his loyalty towards every member of our team throughout this entire process has left an impression on me, something I will not soon forget. In a time of adversity, when many would have retreated in order to protect themselves and their family, he stood fast in support of our team. I have thought a lot about these events and how Coach P has handled them and only have one explanation to offer: Coach Mike Pressler is a man of character. He stood up for us not only because he knew the allegations were totally false, but also because he was and will always be our family, and we were and will always be family to him.

Whether it be the friendly chatter in the locker room before practice, or at a team bowling trip, Coach P promotes a team friendliness and bond that I have never been a part of on any other team. I credit Coach Pressler with instilling this cohesive and familial bond that has allowed our team to stick together through this incredible time of adversity.

With his professional attitude, Coach P holds each one of his players at an incredibly high standard on and off the field. I can distinctly remember a time when I received a poor grade in a class. That afternoon Coach Pressler knew and confronted me about it. He did not single me out, yet instead simply told me that I needed to pick it up. This simple interaction made me work twice as hard to get my grade up, because Coach P treats all his players like professionals and this therefore makes all the players want to return this respect and conduct themselves as professionals on and off the field.

As an unrecruited walk-on my freshman year I came to Duke not only for the academics, but also with hopes of playing Division 1 lacrosse. Coach P, during preliminary meetings, informed me that tryouts would be on a day to day basis until he had made his final decision. Therefore, each day I came to tryout, I treated it as if it were my last (because it could have been). I can remember the excitement I felt when I came for a meeting in his office a couple weeks into my tryout. When he informed me that he was offering me a spot on the team, I can distinctly remember the feeling that came over me. It was a feeling of pure excitement, obviously, but more importantly a feeling that I was now part of something bigger than myself, something more important. I had an almost surreal feeling that I was now part of a lacrosse program with not only some of the best athletes in the country, but also the best coaches in the country. I felt I had been given an opportunity to join in the ranks of a very special group of men. Never since then have I regretted joining this team.

Simply put, Mike Pressler is a winner. It is a quality that is part of his character and nature. He is a man who can't stand and will not except defeat in anything he does in life. More importantly he is a man of honor, integrity, and loyalty. This has been proven in the way he has conducted himself in the past four months.

Chemistry’s Steven Baldwin concluded his April 17 letter by commenting, “Mike Pressler deserves better; so does Duke.” At the very least, Brodhead should stand down from his claim that neither he nor his actions have been complicit in “scapegoating” the team or its representatives.

Duke Lacrosse Defense Fund

Dear Friends,

We are pleased to inform you that a “defense fund” to help with the legal expenses of the three falsely accused Duke lacrosse players was recently setup and is ready to accept your contributions. Please note that the legal costs of defending these young men are projected to be in the millions and it was out of great necessity that such a fund was created. The formal name of the fund is “Association for Truth and Fairness.” We like to thank everyone who contacted us inquiring how to financially contribute. Your concerns and future donations are much appreciated.

We are not the only group contributing to this cause. There are others who are concerned about the enormous financial burden thas has been placed on these families. Along with everyone else, we ask that you make your contributions directly to the Association for Truth and Fairness. Below you will find the “Statement of Purpose” for the association and all the necessary details for making your contributions.

For those who did not have the time to follow the case closely and want to catch up with the latest developments, an extensive list of articles may be found here: Links to media.

---

To make your contributions through Association for Truth and Fairness website (highly recommended) click here. Otherwise, follow the directions below:

a. Check and mailing instructions:
If sending a check, please make your check payable to the “Association for Truth and Fairness” and mail to:

Association for Truth and Fairness
Attn: Private Banking
United Bank
1667 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1605

b. Wiring instructions:
United Bank
Fairfax, VA
ABA Routing Number: 056-004-445
Credit To Account No: 007033-3828
Account Name: Association for Truth and Fairness

Please notify J. Catherine Hirsch by telephone (202) 828-6781 or by fax (202) 293-6966 of your wire.

c. Purchasing Duke lacrosse merchandise:
For those who wish to purchase Duke lacrosse related merchandise, as a form of assistance to the "defense fund," please use the links below:

Duke Lacrosse Wristbands
Wristbands via Credit Card

Association for Truth and Fairness
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
May 3, 2006

The Association for Truth and Fairness, a Delaware non-profit corporation, has been recently formed. Its purpose is to advance social welfare by defending human and civil rights secured by law, including due process and equal protection under the law. Although the idea for its creation was spawned by the criminal investigation of the Duke men’s lacrosse team, the Association is intended not only to assist those who are facing similar injustices, but also to strive to prevent such injustices from ever occurring again.

The words “truth” and “fairness” are used in the name of the Association because it is these two basic principles that have been absent in the Duke investigation and resultant indictments. The mission of the Association is to ensure that truth and fairness are no longer anachronistic principles.

The members of the initial Board of Directors are friends of boys on the Duke Lacrosse team. At the initial meeting of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLVED that in furtherance of the Association’s purposes, the Association will help defray past and future costs and expenses incurred in defending members of the Duke men’s lacrosse team against false allegations about the team and individual team members and in communicating truthful information to the general public.

The Association has established a bank account at the United Bank in Washington, DC to receive donations. The bank account will be administered by the Private Banking Department of the United Bank as directed by the Association’s Board of Directors.

Note that contributions to the Association are not tax-deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes. However, they may be tax-deductible under other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. You may wish to consult with your tax professional regarding the deductibility of your contributions.

The Association will not accept any earmarked gifts. In addition, although a limited number of parents of boys on the Duke Lacrosse team may join the Association’s board, a firm conflict of interest policy is being adopted so that no director will participate in any decision that might involve a personal financial benefit.

List of supportive Duke Faculty

---

Below listed are Duke Faculty members who endorsed a letter featured in our Concerned Duke Alumni, Faculty and Friends petition. That letter was written by 19 Duke Economics professors and published in The Chronicle on January 10, 2007.

Signatories of the January 10 letter:

1. E. Roy Weintraub, Professor of Economics,
2. Atila Abdulkadiroglu, Associate Professor of Economics,
3. Charles Becker, Research Professor of Economics,
4. Tim Bollerslev, Kreps Professor of Economics,
5. Vincent Conitzer, Assistant Professor of Computer Science and Economics,
6. Neil DeMarchi, Professor of Economics,
7. Bjorn Eraker, Assistant Professor of Economics,
8. Henry Grabowski, Professor of Economics,
9. Daniel Graham, Professor of Economics and Law,
10. Kevin Hoover, Professor of Economics and Philosophy,
11. Shakeeb Khan, Associate Professor of Economics,
12. Bahar Leventoglu, Assistant Professor of Economics and Political Science,
13. Thomas Nechyba, Fuchsberg-Levine Family professor of Economics and Public Policy,
14. Pietro Peretto, Associate Professor of Economics,
15. Curtis Taylor, Professor of Economics,
16. Edward Tower, Professor of Economics,
17. Huseyin Yildirim, Assistant Professor of Economics
18. Arie Beresteanu, Assistant Professor of Economics
19. T. Dudley Wallace, James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of Economics
    

Duke Faculty members who endorsed the January 10 letter:

1. Alexander J. Hartemink, Assistant Professor of Computer Science
2. Peter R. Wilson, Associate Professor of the Practice of Business
3. Ehsan Samei, Associate Professor of Radiology and Physics
4. Gershon Kedem, Associate Professor of Computer Science
5. Michael Gustafson, Assistant Professor of the Practice of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
6. Nell Beatty Cant, Associate Professor of Neurobiology
7. George Augustine, Professor of Neurobiology
8. Michael Moses, Associate Professor of English
9. Lawrence Liao, Assistant Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine
10. Christopher J. Conover, Assistant Research Professor of Public Policy Studies and Director, Health Policy Certificate Program
11. Donald Taylor, Assistant Professor of Public Policy
12. Donald W. Loveland, Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
13. Charles H. Lochmuller, Professor of Chemistry Emeritus
14. Richard L Wells, Professor of Chemistry Emeritus
15. Kathleen K. Smith, Professor of Biology
16. Donald J. Fluke, Professor Emeritus of Biology
17. Dennis Keith Stanley, Professor Emeritus of Classics
18. Robert G. Brown, Professor of Physics
19. Nancy M. Major, Associate Professor of Radiology and Orthopedics
20. William L. Hylander, Professor Emeritus of Biological Anthropology & Anatomy
21. David P. Kraines, Associate Professor of Mathematics
22. William K Allard, Professor of Math and Director of Undergraduate Studies
23. Lawrence Evans, Professor Emeritus of Physics
24. Garnett H. Kelsoe, Professor of Immunology
25. Jacob J. Blum, James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of Cell Biology
26. Chris Kennedy, Associate Director of Athletics and Adjunct Assistant Professor of English
27. Kerstin M. Kimel, Women's Lacrosse, Head Coach
28. David Enterline, Associate Professor of Radiology and Director of Emergency Radiology
29. Dan Laughhunn, Professor of Business Administration at the Fuqua School of Business
30. Stephen Weinberg, University Writing Program
31. Alex Roland, Profesor of History
32. Victor Strandberg, Professor of English
33. Robin P. Wharton, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology
34. Gavan Fitzsimons, Associate Professor of Marketing and Psychology
35. Thomas A. Sporn, Assistant Professor of Pathology
36. Roger E. McLendon, Professor of Pathology
37. David Hardman, Professor of Anesthesiology
38. Peter Dwane, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology
39. Tso-Pang Yao, Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology; Professor of Radiation Oncology
40. Miriam Wahl, Assistant Professor of Pathology
41. Lewis Hodgins, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology
42. Eugene W. Moretti, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology
43. Jonathan Mark, Professor of Anesthesiology; Chief, Anesthesiology Service
44. Linda K. George, Professor of Sociology and Psychology
45. Frank Kern, Professor of Anesthesiology and Pediatrics; Vice Chair Department Of Anesthesiology, Chief Pediatric Anesthesia
46. David T. Robinson, Assistant Professor of Finance
47. John F. Madden, Assistant Professor of Pathology
48. Gary Hull, Director of Values and Ethics in the Marketplace
49. Richard Staelin, Professor of Business Administration
50. E. Ralph Heinz, Professor of Radiology
51. David E Attarian, Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery
52. George Aitken, Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery
53. Andrew J. Lodge, Assistant Professor of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery
54. Ramon M. Esclamado, Professor of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery
55. Richard McCann, Professor of General Surgery
56. Randy E. Reed, Lecturer in Music
57. Robert Parkins, Professor of the Practice of Music
58. Coleen Cunningham, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Chief of Infectious Diseases
59. Susan Eastman, Assistant Professor of the Practice of Bible and Christian Formation
60. Laura Byrne, Lecturer in Music
61. David DeLong, Assistant Research Professor of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics
62. Elizabeth DeLong, Professor of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics
63. Dan Richter, Professor of Soils and Forest Ecology
64. Josseph Bonaventura, Professor of Cell Biology
65. Alfred G. Adams, Jr., Senior Lecturing Fellow in Law
66. William Reppy Jr., Professor Emeritus of Law
67. Peter Kussin, Associate Professor of Community and Family Medicine
68. James Salzman, Professor of Law
69. Paul Andrews, Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
70. Charles Livengood, Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
71. Christopher Lascola, Associate Professor of Radiology