2008 Woodie Awards
The lacrosse affair: call for an independent review
guest column
By: Lee Hamel
Issue date: 10/16/07 Section: Columns
Last update: 10/16/07 at 7:21 AM EST
Last update: 10/16/07 at 7:21 AM EST
- Page 1 of 2 next >
The "Lacrosse Affair" reminds us that a responsible entity should have policies, especially with respect to matters that can have a substantial impact on the entity.
Intelligent, experienced people in the Duke administration and Board of Trustees made a number of mistakes in the lacrosse case. To this they admitted. President Richard Brodhead has publicly apologized to the lacrosse players and their families and outlined some of his mistakes. Robert Steel, chair of the Board, has made it clear that the Trustees consulted with Brodhead and agreed with his actions throughout the period of Brodhead's mistakes.
How does this great University deal with similar problems that may occur in the future? President Brodhead has proposed hosting a national conference of educators, lawyers and student affairs leaders "to discuss best practices in this field." This endeavor may be helpful to develop "best practices" for universities in general, but it will not get to the heart of the matter-Duke needs a clear factual assessment and recommendation to guide the administration and Trustees in the future. While policy must ultimately come from the Trustees, such policy should not be based on an introspective study by those who participated in the affair or a "best practices" national symposium. If the Trustees seek an unbiased filter through which to examine the events to which they were a party, they should appoint an independent commission to study the case.
The root cause of the evil resulting in the lacrosse athletes' indictments was a lying alleged victim and a corrupt district attorney-for which Duke's leadership cannot be blamed. But the administration's reaction to the allegations denied the lacrosse athletes their right to fair treatment by the University, whose power exercised over them and over the lacrosse team's coach and season appeared judgmental-words of presumed innocence notwithstanding. Exacerbating this conduct was the administration's admitted failure to distance the University from the ad signed by 88 faculty members, which, most charitably put, prejudged the athletes' guilt.
Intelligent, experienced people in the Duke administration and Board of Trustees made a number of mistakes in the lacrosse case. To this they admitted. President Richard Brodhead has publicly apologized to the lacrosse players and their families and outlined some of his mistakes. Robert Steel, chair of the Board, has made it clear that the Trustees consulted with Brodhead and agreed with his actions throughout the period of Brodhead's mistakes.
How does this great University deal with similar problems that may occur in the future? President Brodhead has proposed hosting a national conference of educators, lawyers and student affairs leaders "to discuss best practices in this field." This endeavor may be helpful to develop "best practices" for universities in general, but it will not get to the heart of the matter-Duke needs a clear factual assessment and recommendation to guide the administration and Trustees in the future. While policy must ultimately come from the Trustees, such policy should not be based on an introspective study by those who participated in the affair or a "best practices" national symposium. If the Trustees seek an unbiased filter through which to examine the events to which they were a party, they should appoint an independent commission to study the case.
The root cause of the evil resulting in the lacrosse athletes' indictments was a lying alleged victim and a corrupt district attorney-for which Duke's leadership cannot be blamed. But the administration's reaction to the allegations denied the lacrosse athletes their right to fair treatment by the University, whose power exercised over them and over the lacrosse team's coach and season appeared judgmental-words of presumed innocence notwithstanding. Exacerbating this conduct was the administration's admitted failure to distance the University from the ad signed by 88 faculty members, which, most charitably put, prejudged the athletes' guilt.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 28
roper
posted 10/16/07 @ 8:51 AM EST
This is a highly commendable proposal. The Duke Board of Trustees should take note.
Unfortunately, major elements of the Duke faculty, including particularly those comprising the G88, will be violently opposed to an independent investigation. (Continued…)
Duke alum
posted 10/16/07 @ 9:09 AM EST
I agree with your call 100 percent. Also I want to encourage Duke alumni to participate in voicing their concerns throught the Blue Committee:
Evaluate President Bordhead by Oct 29
Wes Price
posted 10/16/07 @ 9:12 AM EST
Creating a better way to deal with similar events in the future is laudable. But the blood is still on the ground people...this mess needs to be cleaned up before we "move ahead". (Continued…)
lrbinfrisco
posted 10/16/07 @ 10:58 AM EST
An independent audit of the facts is an excellent idea. What Duke needs is transparency into what did happen and into the solution to be but in place to insure it does not happen again. (Continued…)
dude
posted 10/16/07 @ 10:58 AM EST
Wes, It seems your statements can't stand alone but need to be evaluated as an insider or outsider to determine if they are worthwhile. .... must be the administration asking. (Continued…)
Duke/Princeton Parent
posted 10/16/07 @ 11:07 AM EST
"Wes, what is your connection to Duke?"
Burness, given the fact that, due to your irresponsible actions, Duke has lost millions of dollars and will likely lose more millions, any stranger can argue (s)he has Duke's best interests at heart more than you do. (Continued…)
another review needed
posted 10/16/07 @ 11:39 AM EST
An intentional revelation from this case is that a number of Duke faculty members have no ethics, and have committed serious transgressions, including rank abuse and intimidation of students (the malicious Kim Curtis and the racist demagogue Tim Tyson come to mind)
Brodhead, Peter Lange and Talman Trask have shown no willingness or ability to impose standards on their own faculty to protect students against such vile behavior by the professors. (Continued…)
Duke alum '67
posted 10/16/07 @ 12:35 PM EST
I agree wholeheartedly that there is a need for an outside independent review--of the role of the administration, of the Board of Trustees, and of faculty. (Continued…)
Trinity '87
posted 10/16/07 @ 2:28 PM EST
This is an excellent suggestion and one that the administration and Board of Trustees should take seriously. I am one of many alumni who have lost confidence in Duke's current leadership. (Continued…)
John Steed
posted 10/16/07 @ 3:01 PM EST
No sensible person could be opposed to an independent investigation. Let the sun shine in.
Some questions that should be addressed:
Who paid for the listening ad?
Did all those departments and programs really endorse it and if so how?
Who organized and paid for the printing and distribution of the vigilante poster?
How was Ryan McFadyen's private e-mail released to the public?
Why has Duke never condemned the potbangers' rally? The 'Castrate' and 'Confess' signs, the threatening chants, drumbeating, posters and other intimidatory behavior? Is that kind of behavior against Duke students OK by the administration? Should it be?
Why has Duke never condemned the 88 who congratulated and urged on the mob? Is that kind of faculty behavior OK by the administration?
Does the right of tenured faculty to free speech extend to public attacks on groups of Duke students and their parents? Should Duke allow its tenured faculty to do whatever they please in terms of vilifying
Post a Comment