2008 Woodie Awards
The end of the affair
with all deliberate speed
By: Kristin Butler
Issue date: 1/15/08 Section: Columns
Last update: 1/15/08 at 7:34 AM EST
Last update: 1/15/08 at 7:34 AM EST
In particular, Ekstrand offers damning new allegations about the "Zero-Tolerance for Duke Students Policy" that was jointly operated by Duke officials and Durham police officers to cut down on partying, noise and alcohol violations in the neighborhoods surrounding East Campus during the 2005-2006 school year.
When I spoke with Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations John Burness last August about the constitutional implications of that policy-indeed, it is unlawful to selectively target one group of people with what Ekstrand calls "disproportionate enforcement of the criminal laws" in this country-Burness emphasized to me that police have "discretion" in making arrests, and that the zero-tolerance policy simply encouraged officers to use their discretion to target certain partying-related offenses.
Ekstrand, by contrast, contends that the zero-tolerance policy actually "suspend[ed] patrol officers' discretion to warn or otherwise not charge an offense involving Duke students." Ekstrand also reveals that Duke police participated in a series of unlawful and abusive raids staged by Alcohol Law Enforcement agents in Fall 2005, and that administrators were aware of increasing levels of physical violence being used against students by Durham police in the months leading up to March 2006.
That Duke's only public response to these dangerous trends was to "expand the jurisdictional scope of the University's disciplinary system to reach... petty offenses committed off-campus" and to allegedly allow Director of Judicial Affairs Stephen Bryan to appoint himself "investigator, prosecutor and judge in all... cases. In Judicial Board hearings, Bryan would remain in the room during the panel's deliberations on punishment," speaks to systematic and deeply troubling failures of policy and leadership that precipitated the lacrosse case.
Furthermore, Ekstrand's account of administrators' often-disgraceful responses to the events of March and April 2006 and the highly suspicious circumstances surrounding the suspension of all three plaintiffs makes it seem highly likely that the current push to "move on" will only provoke more legal action. Whether or not Ekstrand's clients deserve compensation for their ordeals beyond the limited reimbursement the University has already offered is debatable.
But for those of us who'd like the lacrosse case to actually be over someday, let's hope that this suit can force administrators to dramatically readjust their approach to the scandal's aftermath and embrace meaningful change. Because if they do not, there is a good chance that these legal battles will stretch for many years to come.
Indeed, I once hoped we'd be done talking about the controversy by the time I graduate this May. Now I just pray I won't have to hear about it at my five-year reunion.
Kristin Butler is a Trinity senior. Her column runs every Tuesday.
When I spoke with Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations John Burness last August about the constitutional implications of that policy-indeed, it is unlawful to selectively target one group of people with what Ekstrand calls "disproportionate enforcement of the criminal laws" in this country-Burness emphasized to me that police have "discretion" in making arrests, and that the zero-tolerance policy simply encouraged officers to use their discretion to target certain partying-related offenses.
Ekstrand, by contrast, contends that the zero-tolerance policy actually "suspend[ed] patrol officers' discretion to warn or otherwise not charge an offense involving Duke students." Ekstrand also reveals that Duke police participated in a series of unlawful and abusive raids staged by Alcohol Law Enforcement agents in Fall 2005, and that administrators were aware of increasing levels of physical violence being used against students by Durham police in the months leading up to March 2006.
That Duke's only public response to these dangerous trends was to "expand the jurisdictional scope of the University's disciplinary system to reach... petty offenses committed off-campus" and to allegedly allow Director of Judicial Affairs Stephen Bryan to appoint himself "investigator, prosecutor and judge in all... cases. In Judicial Board hearings, Bryan would remain in the room during the panel's deliberations on punishment," speaks to systematic and deeply troubling failures of policy and leadership that precipitated the lacrosse case.
Furthermore, Ekstrand's account of administrators' often-disgraceful responses to the events of March and April 2006 and the highly suspicious circumstances surrounding the suspension of all three plaintiffs makes it seem highly likely that the current push to "move on" will only provoke more legal action. Whether or not Ekstrand's clients deserve compensation for their ordeals beyond the limited reimbursement the University has already offered is debatable.
But for those of us who'd like the lacrosse case to actually be over someday, let's hope that this suit can force administrators to dramatically readjust their approach to the scandal's aftermath and embrace meaningful change. Because if they do not, there is a good chance that these legal battles will stretch for many years to come.
Indeed, I once hoped we'd be done talking about the controversy by the time I graduate this May. Now I just pray I won't have to hear about it at my five-year reunion.
Kristin Butler is a Trinity senior. Her column runs every Tuesday.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 53
learner
posted 1/15/08 @ 8:03 AM EST
I once discussed the Holocaust with an elderly Jewish neighbor. And her was compelling statement was "there can be no closure until we know."
Now don't jump all over me. (Continued…)
roper
posted 1/15/08 @ 8:59 AM EST
Ms. Bultler's column is an excellent and highly appropriate call to use the lessons of the lacrosse case to implement meaningful change at Duke.
It is a shame that Prof. (Continued…)
Larry
posted 1/15/08 @ 9:03 AM EST
What Duke has recently shown the people of the literate world is that universities are intolerant of anything that brings their name (Duke university led by. (Continued…)
Nancy
posted 1/15/08 @ 9:07 AM EST
Coleman, interestingly enough, was at one time the only sane voice during the worst of this rush to judgement.
One has to believe that he was 'addressed' by the university once the Atty General dismissed the charges as false in total. (Continued…)
Ben Matlock
posted 1/15/08 @ 9:38 AM EST
Kristin,
In your article, you state that although the allegations in the complaint filed by the three unindicted LAX players have not been proven in a court of law, the allegations are nevertheless highly credible? I do not understand how the allegations could be characterized as highly credible when the plaintiffs have produced no evidence to support the allegations and the defendants have been given no opportunity to cross examine witnesses or otherwise challenge the allegations. (Continued…)
Nancy
posted 1/15/08 @ 10:20 AM EST
Mr. Matlock - in case you missed much of the news during and following this hoax, it was well documented that the DPD did selective enforcement of Duke students, particularly Sargeant Gottlieb who is one named in these civil cases. (Continued…)
Nancy
posted 1/15/08 @ 11:02 AM EST
lynp - you keep repeated the same minor issues - what about the golf team with more arrests for drunk issues, noise issues than the lacrosse team, even though the golf team is a much smaller number?
What about the black frat party where a rape occured, off campus, you fail to mention it's relevance too. (Continued…)
roper
posted 1/15/08 @ 11:36 AM EST
to: lynp
you said: "The bloggers will not be content until anyone who does not totally support them and KC are burned at the stake. It is the Salem Witch Hunt. (Continued…)
Nancy
posted 1/15/08 @ 11:50 AM EST
You wrote a ten paragraph reply to Ben in this "minor issue". I replied to your reply and made no attempt to scatter the issue with buckshot by bringing in cases that have nothing to do with the Duke Lax Epic. (Continued…)
A Duke Parent
posted 1/15/08 @ 12:16 PM EST
I have to say that I am shocked that the author of this article would state that the allegations made by the three lacrosse players in their complaint against President Brodhead and the other defendants in this case are not just credible but highly credible when there has not even been a trial yet. (Continued…)
Post a Comment