Closure is in the air for the lacrosse case. Just this week, Reade Seligmann told MSNBC that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's disbarment "provided our family with a lot of closure" and "we're all moving on here." Joe Cheshire, attorney for David Evans, told The Associated Press: "It was a very poignant and sad day.... I think for the Evanses, they'll now be able to move on."
Even President Richard Brodhead released a statement affirming that it is time for the University to "move forward." So does our "minister of injustice's" disbarment mark the end of the lacrosse fiasco? Not by a long shot.
There remain untold numbers of fact-finding commissions, sanctions hearings and civil lawsuits to follow, not to mention the book and movie deals that trail such cases. Lacrosse will continue to make headlines in the months and years to come.
But Nifong's weeklong disciplinary hearing did represent a day of reckoning for the major figures in the case. The guilty-Nifong and DNA Securities Director Brian Meehan (nicknamed "Mr. Obfuscation" by the disciplinary hearing chair)-were called to account for their misconduct. And innocents like Reade Seligmann, Mary Ellen Finnerty and David C. Evans (father of indicted player David F. Evans) each had an opportunity to describe what Nifong's "tragic rush to accuse" meant for their families.
It made for powerful, emotional testimony at a trial whose "appropriate conclusion" Kevin Finnerty said ensured that "justice has finally been done." And in a case where some Durham activists had insisted that only a trial could bring resolution, it seemed fitting that it was a proceeding with Mike Nifong (and not the wrongly indicted players) as defendant that closed out this major chapter.
This spirit of reconciliation carried over into Duke's announcement that it had reached a financial settlement with the three families. By preempting civil litigation against the University, President Brodhead and the Board of Trustees have spared us all the prospect of a protracted legal battle. And by embracing faculty members in that settlement, senior administrators have made it possible for our community to "move forward" unimpeded.
The question is now: For all its timeliness, does this settlement sweep important questions under the rug? It would be a real disappointment to see some administrators (Brodhead included) get a free pass in the spirit of "closure," as there remains much to answer for.
Among other things, mystery still surrounds Brodhead's decision to appoint Chauncey Nartey, Trinity '07, to the Campus Culture Initiative and take him on tour for the "A Duke Conversation" series. As we now know, Nartey sent former head lacrosse coach Mike Pressler an e-mail message asking "What if Janet Lynn were next" during the early days of the scandal, which Pressler (appropriately) interpreted as a threat against his daughter.
Yet when asked about the inexplicable decision to reward Nartey's behavior with student leadership positions, Brodhead offered no explanation.
Similarly, the same senior administrators who termed Pressler's "resignation" (the coach was forced to quit) "highly appropriate" last spring now laud Pressler's "excellent" coaching skills and thank him for doing "a great job building the Duke men's lacrosse program." No attempt has been made to reconcile these statements, nor to apologize for the coach's forced departure.
Consider also that because it is Duke's normal policy to keep the terms of financial settlements "private," we cannot know how much it cost the University to protect faculty members and administrators against legal action. We don't know where that money is coming from or even whether the settlement itself is fair to Duke or its former students.
Moreover, it's hard to see how this administrative secrecy is compatible with Duke's mission as an educational community; such policies make it impossible for students, faculty and alumni to comment intelligently on University affairs. If other world-class institutions routinely make this information public without injury (on the same day the Duke settlements were announced The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that the University of Wisconsin at Madison paid $135,000 to settle a claim with a former administrator), Duke can surely do the same. Administrators have yet to provide a compelling reason why they choose not to, or how their choices benefit anyone outside of the Allen Building.
Most intriguing of all are the questions embedded in the similarities between recent University and lacrosse family press releases. In announcing their settlement, the Finnertys, Seligmanns and Evanses noted "we look forward to working with the University to develop and implement initiatives that will prevent similar injustices and ensure that the lessons of the last year are never forgotten." Duke responded that, "We resolve to bring the Duke family together again, and to work to protect others from similar injustices in the criminal justice system in the future."
Will Duke put this commitment to combat "similar injustices" into action and work actively to stop the Durham Police Department's systematic violation of students' rights? Or will it continue to invite more scandals?
I hope for Duke's sake that the answers to these questions are as timely and well advised as the University's financial settlements. Otherwise, our day of reckoning (and eventually it will come) will be no less painful than Mike Nifong's was.
Kristin Butler is a Trinity senior. Her column runs every other Thursday during the summer.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.