CONSERVATIVE DUKE STUDENTS BLOG

On the day when the Duke Chronicle’s editorial board officially called for Mike Nifong’s resignation, eighteen professors from the Duke Economics Department signed their name to this letter:

We, the undersigned Economics Department faculty members at Duke University, are cognizant of the fact that, to date, the only collective signed statement by faculty members concerning the events of last March was an advertisement in The Chronicle subsequent to protests and a forum on March 29, 2006. We are aware too that the advertisement was cited as prejudicial to the defendants in the defense motion to change the venue of the trial involving the three Duke lacrosse team members.

We regret that the Duke faculty is now seen as prejudiced against certain of its own students.

In light of recent events detailed in court proceedings, it appears that there were a number of irregular acts committed by members of the Durham law enforcement agencies and District Attorney’s Office. We join with President Richard Brodhead in calling for an investigation of those acts, inimical to students at our university.

We welcome all members of the lacrosse team, and all student athletes, as we do all our students as fellow members of the Duke community, to the classes we teach and the activities we sponsor.

It is refreshing, at long last, to hear from the less-radical members (however small in number) of the Duke faculty. However, I am still amazed at how few have responded in this fashion. I cannot believe that they do not see the absurdity of Nifong’s charade or the egregious miscarriage of justice to this point. Do they not realize that, by their silence, they have let the “Gang of 88” speak for the entire Duke faculty? At this point, I would again harangue the “Gang of 88” for not having the fortitude to emerge from the shadows and decry Nifong’s treatment of the players, but they really are not worth it.

As an aside, does anyone doubt that if the three accused were a) non-athletes, b) non-white, and c) non-“privileged”, the “Gang of 88” would be railing against a “racist, white prosecutor” at every possible turn? If you would like to agree or disagree, please let me know under the “Comments” link below.

Finally, you can find a petition in support of the letter from members of the Duke Economics Department. I have signed it, and would encourage all our readers to do the same.

Here is the text of a letter sent today by President Richard Brodhead to members of the Duke community:

January 8, 2007

Dear Members of the Duke Community:

I write to greet you at the start of a new year. I also want to address
some important developments that have taken place while the University
was on break, and to offer some thoughts as we go forward.

Last spring, this community became embroiled in a major controversy
arising from a party held by members of the men’s lacrosse team. It is
universally acknowledged that the behavior at the party was inappropriate
and unacceptable. Several factors came together to intensify the emotional
response to this event. Though vehemently denied by team members, the
accusations that resulted from the party raised deeply troubling questions
about sexual violence and racial subjugation, issues of fundamental
concern to any decent community. Passions were further intensified by a
series of statements by the Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong that a
rape had indeed taken place. Intense media coverage heightened these
passions, promoting an air of instant certainty about rapidly changing
“facts.”

In the confusion of this situation, the University’s response was guided
by two principles: that if true, the conduct that had been alleged was
grave and should be taken very seriously, and that our students had to
be presumed innocent until proven guilty through the legal process.

As perceptions of the story changed, the University continued to maintain
the need for broad deference to the legal process. If this case has taught
us anything, it is our need for a legal process based in fairness, the
rule of evidence, and withholding judgment until the truth is established.
In an interview with “60 Minutes” last fall, I noted that given the
concerns that had been raised, when the case came before a judge and jury,
Mr. Nifong’s case would be on trial as much as the students would. But as
that comment recognized, the road to a resolution necessarily involved
going through legal process, not outside or around it.

In mid-December, there were important developments as the legal process
entered the courtroom. These included the revelation, in sworn testimony,
that the district attorney had not shared with the indicted students
potentially exculpatory evidence from the DNA tests. Also, on December 22,
the Friday afternoon before Christmas, the district attorney announced
that he was dropping the rape charge because the accuser was no longer
certain about her claim. After Christmas, the North Carolina State Bar
announced that it had reviewed concerns about the district attorney’s
public statements and found grounds to file a formal complaint. Days
later, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys also called
on Mr. Nifong to recuse himself in this case.

On December 22, I issued a statement saying that, given the certainty with
which the district attorney made his public statements regarding the rape
allegation, his decision to drop that charge must call into question the
validity of the remaining charges. I added that the district attorney
should now put this case in the hands of an independent party, who can
restore confidence in the fairness of the process. That last phrase is,
for me, the heart of the matter. We entrust our conflicts to the law to
provide a path to a fair resolution. But to earn this faith from the public,
those who work in the legal process must behave with elemental fairness and
regard for the rights of those involved. We need and deserve for that faith
to be restored.

In the wake of these new circumstances, I concluded upon the recommendation
of Vice President Moneta that we should offer reinstatement to Collin
Finnerty and Reade Seligmann so that they can return to Duke and resume
their studies. (David Evans graduated last spring.) Interim suspension,
the policy measure that had been invoked last April, is not a disciplinary
measure or judgment of guilt. It is a temporary measure taken when a
student is charged with a violent crime, and its use must balance a
variety of factors, including the gravity of the charge, the presumption
of innocence, the possibility of danger to the student or the community,
and the need of students to continue with their education. Although the
two students still face serious charges, in the changed circumstances,
it seems only right to strike the balance at a different point. The fair
thing is to allow the students to continue with their studies.

We all pray that the legal matter will be resolved in a fair and speedy
fashion. But as a university, we also need to look to the future and see
how we can learn from this chapter of history. By facing the lessons of
this painful episode, we can make Duke a better place. Let me outline a
few specifics.

First, we still have work to do on this campus. One thing that has made
this event so difficult is that particular charges against individuals
have tended to be conflated with larger community issues of race, gender,
privilege, and respect. During these hard months, some have seemed to
imply that if you insist on the students’ innocence, then you must not
care about the underlying issues. Others have seemed to suggest that if
you insist on the underlying issues, then you must not care about fair
treatment for the students.

But it is essential that we separate the legal case from the larger
cultural issues and give each its separate, appropriate response. The
Campus Culture Initiative, begun last year and due to report this spring,
is not a referendum on the party last March. It is an effort to visualize
the best community we could make for students to grow and learn in, a
community of mutual respect and vibrant mutual engagement. It will be all
of our work to advance toward that goal. I see this as a chance to build
on existing strengths in our educational experience and to press toward
higher ambitions: the latest chapter in Duke’s long history of self-
improvement.

Just as important, we must work together to restore the fabric of mutual
respect. One of the things I have most regretted is the way students and
faculty have felt themselves disparaged and their views caricatured in
ongoing debates, often by individuals – sometimes anonymous – outside the
Duke community. In the age of instantaneous worldwide media coverage,
members of the lacrosse team were judged around the world on the basis of
highly selective, highly prejudicial coverage last spring. A number of
them were subjected to vile abuse. More recently, a group of Duke faculty
members (including a number of African American faculty) have been widely
attacked in blogs and emails – and in some cases personally attacked in
highly repugnant and vicious terms – based on caricatured accounts of
their statements on the lacrosse event.

We want to see an end to these destructive assaults. We cannot change the
nature of modern communications, but we can make an effort on this campus
to promote more constructive dialogue and a more charitable atmosphere for
exchange. This does not mean that troublesome issues should now be avoided.
It’s the mark of maturity in a university when hard issues can be freely
and vigorously engaged, and this past year has shown us many areas in need
of discussion and debate. But it does mean that we need to be less quick to
take offense at the words of others, and work harder to understand what
others are actually trying to say – even if we then disagree with it.

In its very difficulty, this moment gives us a chance to strengthen the
climate of respectful engagement in this community, and it is crucial that
we come together to seize the chance. Turning conflict among divergent
points of view into the basis for mutual education is at the core of the
university’s work.

Last, in the heat of recent debates, there’s been a danger that we will
lose sight of something fundamental, and I want to say it on all of our
behalf. This is a great university, one of the greatest in the world.
The vigor, intelligence, and devotion of each member of this community –
faculty, students, and staff – are what make Duke great. This place needs
all of us. And all of us are incalculably lucky to be part of this place,
and to have the others who surround us for partners and colleagues.

Duke can and will become better yet, and it’s our business to make it so.
This is the season of the New Year – a time for new starts and fresh
beginnings. Let’s work together to make our university as great as it can
be.

Richard H. Brodhead
President

KC Johnson brilliantly takes apart Brodhead’s confusing “apologia”