If you thought the $30-million lawsuit against Durham was the end of the lacrosse litigation, think again. According to blogger KC Johnson, "Duke, its administrators, and its extremist professors are not out of the legal woods yet.... A high-powered legal team representing most of the other 44 members of the 2006 lacrosse team is exploring a possible lawsuit."
Johnson added that the grounds for such a suit could include "mistreating the entire team, including misleading smears of the players by Duke President Richard Brodhead and dozens of professors." In this scenario, attorneys would likely argue that those "misleading smears" were slanderous and asserting that Duke should be held liable for the actions of its employees.
A more creative rationale could hold that participation on the 2006 team constituted a de facto contract to play for the University. Because Board of Trustees Chair Bob Steel admitted that negative publicity ended the team's season (Steel told The New Yorker he did it "to stop those pictures... it doesn't necessarily mean I think it was right"), attorneys might argue that this justification was not sufficient to legally void that contract.
No matter how attorneys decide to structure their arguments, the bottom line is that the University may not be done cutting super-secret settlement checks yet. And although the remaining players' cases probably aren't as compelling as the ones that have already been settled, they could (in a worst-case scenario) lead to lengthy depositions and eventually a trial. Important facts could be revealed if proceedings went that far, but that would effectively end Duke's chances of "moving on"-at least within this decade.
Turning our attention to ongoing settlement negotiations for Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans in Durham, it becomes apparent that local residents are exploring innovative (and occasionally hilarious) ways to protest a potential $30-million payout. You may recall Barry Saunders' offensive vow to "go down to City Hall and slap somebody" if officials acquiesce; compared to this, Cindy Wrenn took the high road when she pleaded for "compassion" on lacrosse players' part.
Durham resident Donna Tanzi, by contrast, claims she has "100 supporters, and I can get more" who will refuse to pay extra taxes in the event of a settlement. According to Tanzi, "These boys should have been taking their girls out to the mall, the movies, bowling.... [They] made the wrong choice." At the very least, Tanzi reasons, Durham residents shouldn't have to fund any more "drunken orgies" for wealthy ex-Dukies.
Ongoing threats of Tanzi-esque civil disobedience should make for significantly better-than-average political theatrics as we complete a local election cycle this fall.
Yet as the debate intensified in Durham last week, lacrosse players were attracting a different sort of attention on campus.
When settlements with the Seligmanns, Finnertys and Evanses were announced in June, players signaled an interest in 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 echoed that sentiment when it promised to "work to protect others from similar injustices in the criminal justice system in the future."
Just three months later, the University's newly announced $1.25-million expansion of the School of Law's Wrongful Convictions Clinic and Innocence Project goes a long way toward fulfilling that pledge.
The new center, which will be led by prominent lacrosse commentator and law professor James Coleman and Associate Dean Theresa Newman, will combine existing law school programs with undergraduate coursework and a minilecture series.
Given Duke's questionable conduct during the scandal, it seems somehow appropriate that we now become a national standout in combating judicial abuse.
It is doubly fitting that the announcement was accompanied by law school Dean David Levi's affirmation that Duke "has a unique responsibility and opportunity to address [acts of judicial misconduct], to increase public awareness of them and to assist those who are wronged by flaws in the system."
A final aside: It was hard to miss the hidden irony of this announcement, which came on the same day Dean of Undergraduate Education Steve Nowicki proposed a committee to evaluate whether students should retain due process rights on campus. How Duke can simultaneously employ Larry "However-evidence-is-obtained-is-immaterial" Moneta-who has so little respect for the Constitution that he doesn't think students merit its protections-and establish a center for the defense of civil liberties remains a mystery to me.
Perhaps lawyers for the remaining 44 lacrosse players can take up this discrepancy.
Kristin Butler is a Trinity senior. Her column runs every Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.