For those of us who have followed the lacrosse case closely, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper's affirmation of our classmates' innocence brings with it strange new questions. What will life be like without midnight blog posts to read and message boards to scour? Much more importantly, when the last report has been written and Mike Nifong's bar card has long since been revoked, how large of a scar will this ordeal leave on our community?
Of course, it's impossible to know for sure. But many recent developments can encourage us to hope for the best. Last September, a highly positive survey indicated Duke's image had largely returned to "pre-scandal" levels among alumni and Durham residents. That good news was compounded by word that applications for the Class of 2011 were not significantly affected by negative lacrosse publicity. Finally, officials announced in February that the University received a record $342 million in charitable contributions for the 2005-2006 academic year-a sum that should be topped in 2006-2007.
So between financial success, community support and applicant interest, things are looking up for our alma mater, right? In a sense, yes. But the fact that alumni and others haven't withdrawn their support in large numbers shouldn't detract from the palpable sense of outrage lingering over Duke's recent behavior.
To get a sense for how intense these feelings can be, consider this online comment left in response to a recent Chronicle article: "The fact is that, with the current state of the university, an inept and feckless leader and at least 1/5 of the faculty extreme left wing airheads, a few of us do not give a rat's patoot whether you survive or not. I will not contribute to this idiocy, my wife (N62) will not give, my daughter (T88) will not give and 8 of 12 fraternity brothers I have contacted will suspend contributions."
Another alumnus announced on a Liestoppers message board that he'd modified his family trust so that "if one of my grandchildren really, really wants to go to Duke. the trust will not pay for it. they will have to figure out the money on their own." Additionally, the man changed his "'planned giving' bequest from Duke to Claremont McKenna College" because "Duke and Durham have just been rewarded for their behavior. We will see more of it."
Again, only a small minority of alumni have reacted this strongly. And yet there are hundreds of comments like these scattered across the Internet, ranging from parents who vow never to let their children apply to Duke to angry alumni who swear never to support the University again. Many more express strong reservations about the administration's conduct, often railing against the fact that the University has never acknowledged its mistakes or acted to change the status quo.
Combine those protests with the more than 1,000 students who recently signed a petition condemning the "Group of 88's" now-infamous "Listening Statement," and it is clear that the conflicts festering between segments of the Duke community have divided us more deeply than we realize.
That's why Dukies should consider the recent success of disaffected alumni at Dartmouth, who channeled their outrage over similar questions constructively. Indeed, University of Virginia School of Law Professor Stephen Smith rode a wave of discontent to victory last month, pledging to fight increases in administrative expenditures, the presence of restrictive speech codes on campus and athletics cutbacks. Given that Smith is the fourth "insurgent" candidate elected at Dartmouth within the past three years, Dukies should be incensed at being denied similar opportunities.
Surprisingly, Duke alums are already entitled to control 12 of 37 trustee seats. However, University bylaws also mandate that alumni "shall organize and conduct their affairs through the Duke Alumni Association," which does not hold public elections.
Imagine if it did. For the first time, we could learn trustees' agendas and build a (thin) layer of accountability into a governing body that shrouds its every action in secrecy. At this juncture, the only glimpse we have into the Board's ideology dates to Chair Bob Steel's April 12, 2007, e-mail, which reveals that the "board agreed with the principles [President Richard Brodhead] established and the actions he took" and that "anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board."
But instead of telling us who to blame for past mistakes, I wish Steel would actually take his own advice: "unite us all," learn from "the events we have lived through" and "put this learning to use." Let's "make our community stronger" by engaging more Dukies, not just angering them. More input into how our university is run would be a positive start.
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.