Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of The Chronicle's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search
6 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
I am responding to the Editorial Board's March 25 column "(Purchase) power of donors." In the column, the authors made a disturbing reference to the Duke lacrosse scandal, mentioning that the scandal highlighted "sexual assault, gender privilege and racial discrimination" at Duke. In short, no, it did not, because it simply did not happen. And that is a fact.
I am responding to Sabriyya Pate's Oct. 24 editorial "The 'nasty woman' DSG needs." In her article, Pate defends the current DSG President, Tara Bansal, and states that criticism of her administration comes from sexist, "gendered remarks," instead of certain policy decisions. In my opinion, this assertion could not be further from the truth.
I am responding to "fari nzinga's" absolutely appalling April 7 editorial. In particular, I was horrified by their comments regarding the Duke lacrosse allegations of 2006. What nzinga wrote about the Duke lacrosse case was not only outrageous but also patently false.
I would like to share my observations from the DukeEnrage protest in front of the Delta Sigma Phi section. I will not address my opinion on the issue of the purportedly "offensive" party theme. I came to learn and figure out why it caused such a stir among certain members of the Duke community. I left very disappointed with some of the actions of the DukeEnrage protestors.
Duke basketball has the best fans in the world, bar none. Or at least we used to have the best fans in the world. In my opinion, Cameron Indoor Stadium has lost some of its luster. And, with our beloved team in the midst of a three-game losing skid, the team needs us more than ever before. So, I would like to share a few observations from my perspective as someone who sits on the baseline looking in at the Crazies.
I am responding to your 16 Sept. editorial entitled "Legacy admissions: something given for little returned." In your article, you state, among other ridiculous untruths, that "those that believe legacy students bring a coherent or uniquely beneficial background to Duke are deluding themselves." In other words, you believe that legacy students do not belong at Duke. This statement is patently false.
