"We will immediately begin taking discovery"

WASHINGTON, DC – April 1, 2011 – Charles J. Cooper, partner at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, representing the 39 unindicted Duke lacrosse players in their lawsuit against Duke University and others, issued the following statement today:

“We are heartened by the judge’s carefully considered decision permitting the lacrosse players’ primary claims to move forward. We will immediately begin taking discovery and preparing the case for trial.”

Judge Beaty Rules - Lawsuits can move forward

Federal Judge Beaty ruled today in the lawsuits filed against the numerous defendants including the Disbarred, Disgraced, and former Durham DA Nifong, DPD officers, City of Durham, Duke President Brodhead, Duke University Medical Center, and Duke employees.

It his opinion he dismissed some charges but let stand others and the door to Discovery has been opened. We will be analyzing the lengthy court opinion and posting on it.

You can follow the discussion on the LieStopper's Forum

Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits to Move Forward

Duke University puts up a Wall of Silence

The Chronicle is reporting the Duke Board of Trustees meeting will be held without access to reporters or interested public. Normally some parts of the meetings were open to the public since 1971 where students and alumni could listen in on the meetings. Traditionally reporters have been allowed to Q & A with the Duke President and Chairman of the Board, BUT not this year.

The Board of Trustees has taken a critical eye to its practices in the past year, and the conclusions of an internal evaluation will result in fewer people taking a close look at them.

When the Trustees gather this weekend, all parts of the meeting will be closed, from the plenary session to a press conference that once gave media an opportunity to ask questions of President Richard Brodhead and Board Chair Robert Steel, Trinity '73.

"Just to be frank, when you have an open session, what it means in effect is that the Trustees are no longer engaged in the kind of confidential conversation about open questions of the University," Brodhead said, adding that the Trustees hope to improve efficiency, given the limited time weekend meetings afford them.

Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations, said there was no particular impetus for the changes, apart from a desire to assess how the Board could best operate. He noted that such evaluations are typical of nonprofit boards, and in general can be driven by external events that highlight a need to increase oversight or otherwise evaluate how well a board is serving its purpose... Chronicle

Hiding from Reporters?

So why the wall of silence this year? Could it be that Brodhead and Steel do not want to take questions about their management of the University? The cost of the defense on the Duke Lacrosse Case is soaring for the City of Durham to over $1.2 million and one can only imagine a similar amount for Duke.

Wall of Shame: Wachovia CEO Bob Steel

Then there is Steel's abject failure with his management of Wachovia Bank which cost billions to investors. Never has a new CEO lost so much money so fast. After appearing on CNBC Mad Money to reassure investors two weeks ago the stock value of Wacvhovia dropped 80% in one day.

Just two weeks ago, Wachovia CEO Bob Steel told Mad Money viewers that out of $500 billion in loans on the bank’s books, only $10 billion were bad. Today, Citigroup bought Wachovia “for a pittance,” Cramer said, because the actual total was $42 billion, and the FDIC was about to seize Wachovia. Mad Money

Crammer went on TV yesterday and apologized for his having Steele on his program and placed him on his corporate Wall of Shame! See Video

Boo-yah!

Duke Lacrosse Hoax/Frame awaits in the wings.

There is the very real possibility that Duke University will be held liable for tens of millions of dollars and it could be much worse if it is discovered that the University knew the players were innocent and threw the whole team under the bus as is alleged in the two lawsuits filed in the case. In the Ekstrand lawsuit Senior Duke Administration officials were alleged to have attended critical meetings with the City of Durham , DPD, and Nifong where there were told of the lack of evidence and Duke employees joined in doing the Durham Shuffle! Brodhead & Steel are alleged to have known of the innocent of the players very early and appeased the angry Durham mob incited by some of their very own faculty.

See Quasi's Thread over at the Liestopper's Forum

It is no wonder that Brodhead and Steel will be in hiding!

It would have been unfair - Elmo

With the revelations in the Ekstrand amended complaint we were wondering what should President Brodhead have done when the accusations first broke, back in March 2006?

Joan Foster had this

What should Richard Brodhead have done? I would have advised him to do something he supposedly does so well….read Shakespeare.

In his office, away from the din and distraction of the early days of the Frame, he might have looked for warning signs in these classic stories of great leaders toppled by their individual tragic flaws. He might have culled a cautionary word for himself in those tales of once “great men”…. trapped by their baser, lesser natures to become, at stories end, only pathetic anti-heroes in memorable tragedies.

Reading Othello again, he might have turned a wary eye to the Iagos around him; reading MacBeth, he might have been reminded that treachery fueled by ambition often rebounds right back at you. Better yet, reading Julius Caesar, he might have ruminated over the masterful scene where Mark Antony faces the mob at Caesar’s funeral. Perhaps, inspired, Mr. Brodhead might have considered using his own (supposed) oratory skills to not…. “Cry havoc” but quell it, and move Durham’s mob to some measure of justice and reason.

As he barricaded himself in his office, without the moral sufficiency or spine to face the distraught families of the Lacrosse players, he might have remembered the words of the Merchant of Venice, imploring us to see beyond “labels” and limits and even, yes, legalistic excuses… and embrace our shared humanity. Instead behind the scenes, it is alleged, he aided and abetted a corrupt prosecutor and put three young lives at risk. He did this because THREE YOUNG LIVES in Brodhead’s shallow system of priorities could not trump the necessary P.C. and P.R. posturing that was “Best for Duke.” Behind the scenes, it is also alleged, he aided and abetted the Chairman’s wish that those three Innocents face trial. Perhaps, Brodhead could never have been a moral Superman, a “Man of Steel” leading us through the Frame…but he might have been a bit more than Steele’s liege man, his lackey.

But Alas! Poor Brodhead. NOW we know him well.

Instead, we have watched for months, as the supposed leader of a great University simply “struts and frets his hour upon the stage.” Brodhead is still “strutting and fretting.” He should have read his Shakespeare again at the very start of this debacle, but now his moment has past. If there are any on the Board who still love Duke, they should push him stage left, toward the exit. “All his yesterdays have lighted (Duke) the way” to the dusty, death of its once vaulted principled reputation.

Brodhead’s leadership amounted “to a tale told by an idiot” signifying…nothing but disdain for common decency and a very public failure.

“Out, out, brief candle.”

Baldo chimes in

When Duke President Brodhead first learned of the allegations, what should he have done? Maybe a call to Durham's "On Time Taxi" asking Elmo for advice would have been wise.

Durham Cab Driver, Moezeldin "Elmo" Elmostafa, was arrested by Nifong's Officers after he backed up Reade Seligmann's alibi on national TV. They arrested him on what was clearly trumped up charges . As they handcuffed him, “They asked me if I had anything new to say about the lacrosse case. When I said no, they took me to the magistrate.” Later he would be found not quilty.

When Elmo was presented the Reader's Digest Hero of the Year award on the Today Show he was asked why didn't he remain quiet and just not come forward? Elmo explained he was scared, had come from the Sudan where you fear the authorities, and he could have been deported back there. His dream of citizenship would have been over and family would never come to the United States. Instead Elmo explained, "It would have been unfair to those three players."

Simple words, what should Brodhead have done? He could have been fair. He could have demanded his Duke PD complete a through and honest investigation since they had jurisdiction over all Duke properties. In fact the case was transferred to the Duke PD on the loading dock of DUMC the morning of March 14 and the SANE Kit was given to Duke PD.

But he didn't!

Instead Brodhead and Steel sacrificed the 2006 Duke Lacrosse Team to the political ambitions of Nifong, a Durham PD investigator with a known history of harassing Duke students, the campus mob led by Duke's Faculty, community activists out to promote a political agenda, and a national media firestorm.

“Steel is going to f**k those lacrosse players.”

(Ekstrand & Ekstrand LLP has filed an amended complaint)

(Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB-WWD Document 33-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 139 of 486)

XVII. THE CHAIRMAN’S DIRECTIVE

445. The Chairman was aware that Mangum was a deeply disturbed young woman who exhibited signs of psychosis, and that her accusations were false.

446. The Chairman was aware that Gottlieb was on a vendetta in response to the Gottlieb Dossier.

447. The Chairman was aware that Nifong was preparing to ride the case into office.

448. The Chairman knew that Addison was lying publicly about the evidence.

449. The Chairman was aware that the investigation belonged to the Duke Police Department.

450. The Chairman knew that, if the public perceived Duke abandoning the Plaintiffs, the public would conclude that Duke knew they were guilty.

451. The Chairman knew Plaintiffs were innocent, and, to the extent he was not certain, he ensured that neither he nor any senior University officials saw the evidence of innocence that he knew was offered.

452. To the Chairman, Plaintiffs’ innocence was irrelevant: what was “best for Duke” turned upon perception.

453. Aware of these things, the Chairman announced that it would be “best for Duke” if Plaintiffs were tried and convicted on Mangum’s false accusations.

454. In response to a plea for Duke to show some measure of support for the students who were being framed in plain view of the University’s leadership, the Chairman explained, “sometimes individuals have to be sacrificed for the good of the Organization.”

455. The Chairman’s Directive, as it was understood by one who received it, was straightforward: “Steel is going to f**k those lacrosse players.”

XVIII. THE CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THE DUKE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE AND INVESTIGATE

456. To that end, the Chairman directed the Duke Police Department to act in furtherance of that objective. For example, the Chairman, through Brodhead, Trask, Burness, and Graves, directed the Duke Police Department:

A. To cease all efforts to find evidence of the truth, particularly evidence that
contradicted the accuser’s account;

B. To conceal evidence of Duke Police Officers’ prior investigative role in the
investigation;

C. To conceal all evidence of the Duke Police Department’s primary jurisdictional authority to control the investigation and its power to intervene to prevent the wrongs conspired to be done;

D. To fabricate false and misleading police reports, disguise them as bystander
“witness” statements, that covered-up the Duke Police witnesses’ personal knowledge of Mangum’s psychosis, her radically changing story, the overwhelming consensus among her doctors and nurses at DUMC that she was lying, and the inability of any doctor, nurse, or police officer to find even a spider-web of evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted; and

E. To direct those who were at the hospital on March 14th to give “not-for attribution” false reports about Mangum’s appearance at DUMC in order to lend credibility to Mangum’s false claims in the eyes of the public.

457. At all times subsequent to the Chairman’s Directive to force a trial and convictions, the Duke Police Department had the power to revoke its delegated authority and/or to intervene to prevent or aid in preventing the unlawful conspiracies and violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights as alleged herein, and, yet, refused to do so.

458. At all times relevant to this action after March 25, 2006, the Chairman and the members of the CMT directed the Duke Police Department not to intervene to prevent or aid in preventing the wrongs that they knew were conspired to be done to Plaintiffs and their teammates by their co-defendants in this action. In compliance with the Chairman’s Directive, the Durham Police ‘turned a blind eye,’ and did nothing.

Were Duke Officials briefed about no matching DNA?

Upon Information and Belief

n. a phrase often used in legal pleadings (complaints and answers in a lawsuit), declarations under penalty of perjury, and affidavits under oath, in which the person making the statement or allegation qualifies it. In effect, he/she says: "I am only stating what I have been told, and I believe it." Law Dictionary

A Serious Allegation is made in the civil complaint

In the civil complaint filed last week a serious allegation was levied against Duke University which has far reaching repercussions for the future of the Duke Officials named in the civil lawsuit. The plaintiff’s attorneys said "Upon Information and Belief" they believe that Duke University Officials were informed in a meeting in late March that there would be no DNA matching any of the members of the Lacrosse Team to Crystal Gail Mangum's body swabs. Further the attendees of that meeting were also informed of her failure to ID any Lacrosse player in two attempts.

Civil Complaint- pages 106-107

IX. DNA Evidence Dispositively Exonerates The Lacrosse Players But Is Ignored By Defendants

A. The State Bureau Of Investigation's DNA Testing Results Are Negative
By March 28, on information and belief, the State Bureau of Investigation ("SBI") concluded an initial examination of the rape-kit evidence from the forensic examination of Mangum at Duke Hospital, and the DNA samples from the lacrosse players. On March 28 or March 29, the SBI gave an initial report to Nifong regarding its analysis of these materials.

The SBI reported to Nifong that their examination of the rape kit items had not discovered any semen, blood, or saliva on any of the rape kit items. The absence of semen, blood, or saliva was obviously highly exculpatory, given Mangum's stories at Duke Hospital, which had alleged a violent gang rape without condoms and with ejaculation into both her mouth and her vagina or anus.

306. Either the same day or the next, Duke officials met with key members of Nifong's investigative team and the Durham city government, including Gottlieb, Himan, Durham City Manager Patrick Baker, and Durham Police Chief Steve Chalmers, among others. Duke's administration was represented by Aaron Graves, Duke's Vice President for Campus Security, Duke Police Director Dean, and perhaps other Duke officials. On information and belief, this was the first of several meetings held between Duke and Durham officials during the ensuing investigation. On information and belief, at this meeting, Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan reported to Duke and Durham officials that Mangum's accounts of the attack were patently inconsistent, that the SBI lab results had come back negative, and that Mangum had failed to identify any alleged attackers in two separate photo arrays.

John Burness, Duke's chief spokesman, later said that the meeting "was just about the ways the university could assist in the investigation." Gottlieb said in his deposition that Duke Police came to "several" meetings of this same group.

On information and belief, the purpose of this meeting was to coordinate approaches to bolstering the prosecution's case, which was rapidly disintegrating in the face of Mangum's inability to identify any of her purported attackers in the March 16 and March 21 photo arrays and the SBI's report that initial analysis of the rape kit evidence showed no blood, semen, or saliva.

On information and belief, during this meeting, the Durham Investigators, the Durham Supervisors, and/or other Durham city officials agreed to expedite the identifications and arrests of Duke lacrosse players, notwithstanding evidence demonstrating the lacrosse players' innocence. On information and belief, Duke Police were present and agreed to cooperate in this expedited effort to make identifications and arrests notwithstanding the evidence. Duke Lawsuit

Were City Manager Baker, Durham Police Chief Chalmers, and Duke University officials getting briefings by Durham Police Investigators? According to the complaint on March 29th Nifong & the Police Investigators knew these charges were most likely false and there was wasn't any data to indict anyone. Over a year later NC AG Cooper's investigation confirmed these results and declared the three indicted Duke students totally innocent. There was no sexual assault and the allegations against the team were false. One wonders when presented with the briefing did the Duke Officials raise objections to Durham's Chief of Police Chalmers and his Police Investigators? Did they immediately inform Duke President Brodhead and the Crisis Management Team?

Nifong withheld that critical information from the Lacrosse Team attorneys for 13 days until the SBI DNA results were released. No one suspected that Duke Officals knew it also. One can only imagine the effect of those preliminary DNA results being released to the defense attormeys on March 29th. The case would have collapsed, as it should have.

If, as it is alleged, why didn't the Duke Crisis Management Team with President Brodhead try to calm down the Duke Community when a Duke Senior Official & the Duke's Police Chief knew the charges were most likely false? On Thursday, March 30, 2006 Brodhead sent out an e-mail to all parents and students.

...This is a difficult time at Duke. Allegations have been made that, if verified, will justify all of our outrage and call for very severe penalties. On the other hand, we need to remember that allegation is not the same thing as conviction, and that we must not prejudge until the facts are established. The Durham police will have our full cooperation in expediting their investigation.... E-mail

On Friday 31 Brodhead sent this e-mail to Alumni.

...“It's understandable to feel badly when terrible things may have happened at a place you love, and I've heard from many of you who have expressed sadness, anger, outrage and frustration about the lacrosse situation,” Brodhead wrote in an e-mail message to alumni. “Let me also say that as painful as these times are, the test of a school is not preventing bad things from ever happening, but in addressing them in an honest and forthright way. In my meetings with students, faculty, and administrators, I believe Duke is doing just that...” e-mail

Why did Brodhead send these e-mails when Senior Officials allegedly knew that the charges had no basis in fact? Clearly they were adding credence to the allegations at a time when the fate of the 46 innocent players was being decided in local protests, the local media, and by a national press & TV pundits. Some of the Lacrosse Team members were in fear of their safety and were being verbally abused on campus and in class by some professors. A calming voice was needed, it never came.

On April 5th Brodhead sealed the fate of the Lacrosse Team by cancelling the season and firing Coach Pressler. He did this after McFadyen's e-mail was selectively released, out of context in the search warrant, by Judge Stephens for no legitimate reason. Brodhead & Duke professors were well aware of the book "American Psycho" sick parody of a white Wall Street broker's sex crimes. It was still required reading in some of Duke's classes as late as last year. How could Brodhead have cancelled the season when his own Police Chief & Senior VP Official knew the charges were most likely false? One cannot imagine them not reporting to the Crisis Management Team.

I have canceled the men’s lacrosse season and all associated activities, effective immediately. Lacrosse Coach Mike Pressler has submitted his resignation to Athletics Director Joe Alleva, effective immediately. Brodhead

What did Duke know & when did they know it?

The questions we must ask from this Lacrosse Team lawsuit combined with the information and allegations in the Evans-Seligmann-Finnerty & Archer-McFadyen-Wilson lawsuit are these.

What were the real reasons Duke had to get Lacrosse Team off the cover of National Magazines as Chairman of the Board Steel said. If it wasn't about the truth as said to Coach Pressler in his book, "It's Not About the Truth." What was it about?

Has any member of Duke University or DUMC's staff been chastised or reprimanded for their conduct or performance in this Hoax/Frame?

Has the Duke Board of Trustees been fully briefed on this Hoax/Frame by someone other than the defendants in the lawsuits?

Finally did Duke University have good reason to suspect that the Lacrosse Team never committed these crimes and yet sacrificed them for political expediency in the face of activist pressure from the Duke's professors, pot-banging activists, Duke employees, local special interest groups, City of Durham Leaders, and a local & national press operating on false & malicious statements from DA & PD sources?

How could they be so indifferent when an injustice was occurring to their students?

One wonders why Brodhead & Duke took this course of action?

27.24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves."Gospel of Matthew

Durham-Duke Crisis Response Team

B. The CMT’S Acts in Furtherance of the Conspiracy

414. On or before March 25, 2006, Defendant Steel directed Defendant Brodhead to create a Crisis Management Team (“CMT”) to manage the University’s actions relating to the investigation of Mangum’s claims. The original participants in the CMT were Defendants Steel, Brodhead, Lange, Trask, Burness, and Moneta. Defendant Victor J. Dzau (Chancellor for Health Affairs, and President and CEO of Duke University Health Systems, Inc.) was added to the CMT shortly after it became clear that DUHS and Tara Levicy were critical to the State’s case. Defendant Allison Halton (the University’s Secretary) was also added to the CMT following its first meeting on March 25, 2006.

415. Both Defendants Trask and Burness had personal knowledge of the Gottlieb Dossier and the fact that Gottlieb had been removed from the patrol beat as a result of his misconduct in dealings with Duke students. Upon information and belief, Defendant Steel and CMT Defendants were all aware of these facts on or before March 25, 2006.

Duke needs a new seal!

The Blue Report

Trustee vice chair Dan Blue, who chaired the presidential review, told the trustees his committee had interviewed some 120 people and directly solicited comments from members of the university community and others with knowledge of the president’s leadership. Overall, the committee heard from more than 500 people, including some with no relationship to Duke.

Blue said the “review committee’s report affirmed Brodhead’s leadership, after considering his goals and vision for the university, his effectiveness in advancing its interests, the exciting challenges and opportunities facing Duke, and the wide range of comments and opinions we heard.” Referring to the Duke lacrosse case, he said, “The committee heard from people who were disappointed with Duke’s handling of the case and others who felt strongly that President Brodhead had managed a uniquely difficult situation with maturity. Those who communicated with the committee can be confident the spectrum of views was heard, considered and reported to the trustees and to President Brodhead. The review committee has now completed its work.” Duke News

The Blue committee has apparently joined forces with the "MoveOn" crowd. It is clear that the Duke Board of Trustees do not want to investigate Brodhead, his Administration, and the Duke Faculty in their shameful conduct.

The Seal of Duke University proclaims Eruditio et Religioit. Apparently the motto comes from an old Methodist hymn "Sanctified Knowledge" by Charles Wesley, who was the brother of the founder of Methodism. The hymn, lamented the division of the ideals of religion and education and hoped for a future where knowledge and the goals of religion would be united.

Duke University needs a new seal!

Brodhead's Apology

Video Clip

Today Duke President Brodhead gave a presentation at the Duke School of Law conference, "The Court of Public Opinion: The Practice & Ethics of Trying Cases in the Media." In it he apologized.

As president, I had responsibility for the statements the university made and the actions the university took in a virtually unprecedented situation, and I take responsibility for them now. But I didn’t come here to retell the story or explain the logic of our acts. We are now in the aftermath of this extraordinary case, and the aftermath, we have to hope, is a time for learning. Having spent my life in the cause of teaching and learning, I am not at all unwilling to learn lessons of my own. I am happy for this chance to share some of those lessons.

"First and foremost, I regret our failure to reach out to the lacrosse players and their families in this time of extraordinary peril. Given the complexities of the case, getting this communication right would never have been easy. But the fact is that we did not get it right, causing the families to feel abandoned when they most needed support. This was a mistake. I take responsibility for it, and I apologize.

Second, some of those who were quick to speak as if the charges were true were on this campus, and some faculty made statements that were ill-judged and divisive. They had the right to express their views. But the public as well as the accused students and their families could have thought that those were expressions of the university as a whole. They were not, and we could have done more to underscore that.

Third, I understand that by deferring to the criminal justice system to the extent we did and not repeating the need for the presumption of innocence equally vigorously at all the key moments, we may have helped create the impression that we did not care about our students. This was not the case, and I regret it as well.

Fourth, this episode has taught me a hard lesson about the criminal justice system and what it means to rely on it. Given the media circus and the public reactions it fed, I thought it essential to insist that the matter be resolved within the legal system, not in the court of public opinion. As far as it went, this was right. But what this case reminds us is that our justice system -- the best in the world -- is only as good as the men and women who administer it. In this case, it was an officer of this system itself who presented false allegations as true, suppressed contrary evidence, and subverted the process he was sworn to uphold."...excerpt of his presentation

Statement by Duke President Richard H. Brodhead on Disbarment of Durham DA Mike Nifong

Statement by Duke President Richard H. Brodhead on Disbarment of Durham DA Mike Nifong

Durham, NC -- Today, the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the North Carolina State Bar determined that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s “intentional prosecutorial misconduct” in charging three Duke students with serious crimes. The judgment of Mr. Nifong by his professional colleagues is a stinging rebuke.

At the end of the Attorney General’s review in April and now the Bar’s proceeding, one fact stares us in the face: the ordeal of the last 15 months was wholly unnecessary. It was not the result of reasonable differences of legal opinion or honest errors of judgment. Our students were accused by the community’s senior law enforcement officer with no credible basis in fact.

Evidence that could have helped establish their innocence was systematically ignored. Meanwhile, the DA continued to make inflammatory statements expressing confidence that the crimes had occurred. Repeated around the world, these statements established a “certainty” it took months to dispel.

A heavy responsibility flows from this abuse of power. The harshest and most direct harm was done to the three students and their families, who suffered from the very place we look to for justice. Other members of their team were also harmed when they were included in Mr. Nifong’s blanket accusations. Duke University was also included in the harm in having to respond to the Durham District Attorney’s assurances that a crime had been committed and the unprecedented crisis those assurances unleashed. The actions Duke took caused consternation to many in the university family, which I profoundly regret.

Finally, harm was done to the criminal justice system itself. In our society, we rely on the criminal justice system to settle disputes of fact and value. But our system only works when the public has faith in the system’s integrity and justice; and this requires that those entrusted with the law act in a way that assures us of their fairness and uprightness. We applaud the actions of the bar today -- and of Attorney General Cooper in April -- in helping to restore that elemental trust. The appointment of a new District Attorney will be another positive step.

As Duke University’s president, I resolve to do my part to repair the harm unleashed by Mr. Nifong’s actions and to move forward from this painful episode.

For more information, contact: John Burness | (919) 681-3788 | john.burness@duke.edu

Brodhead Rehab Tour Hits Philadelphia

Blog Hooligans buddy and Lazierthanmost attended Tuesday's "A Duke Conversation: Making a Difference" at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Selected observations from our citizen journalists appear below. To read their reports in full, please visit the LS Forum.

Buddy:

I just got back from the Philadelphia version of A Duke Conversation. I thought the crowd was on the smallish side for a major city, but there were a plethora of Duke personnel--Dr. & Mrs. Brodhead, Burness, Moneta, Dean Sue, Sterly Wilder and at least two other Alumni reps, a couple of people from the Library, Bob Bliwise from Duke Magazine, and various others that I did not know. I would guess 15 in all.

The Q&A started with Brodhead talking about the past fifteen months. He said we should all learn about prejudgment (do you think!), but we had a DA making strong statements, he had the reputation of being a decent guy, blah, blah, blah. The Q&A had only four questions about the entire situation.

1. Someone pointed out the new article in the Duke Magazine which he said pointed out things he did not know before. Brodhead referred to the Group of 88 statement and said people should read it, because it doesn't say what people have been told it says.

2. I asked the following: "Last spring Visiting Assistant Professor Kim Curtis failed a
lacrosse player due to her ideology and not his scholarship. Why is she still teaching at Duke." The question was met with applause. His answer was that the matter had been litigated and he could not comment. Another non-answer.

3. A little later Steve Henkleman, the father or godfather of 2006 graduate Erik Henkelman (those of you who read Pressler's book will know of Erik as the "Keeper of the Grail"--but you have to read the book to find out what that means.) Steve relived the weekend of the cancellation of the Georgetown game, mentioned that they made themselves available all weekend, and asked Brodhead why he wouldn't meet with them. Brodhead's response was events were moving fast. In short, still another non-answer. Henkleman also got significant applause.

4. A 1970s era lacrosse alum noted that every e-mail from Steel says Duke has handled this well and its time to move on. (The Duke theme is time to move on-nothing to see here folks.) These gentlemen basically said progress can't be made until the issues of last year are dealt with. He also received applause as well.

It's safe to say that most of the alums in attendance had only a passing acquaintance with the facts of the case. Several individuals I talked with had no idea of Kim Curtis' actions, although all admitted it was wrong. The Nartey e-mail came up in private conversations, but not otherwise. Several individuals came over to talk with those of us who rained on Brodhead's parade. The common theme was that Brodhead did not answer the questions. So we maybe made some progress.

I frankly was surprised at the turnout. Invitations were sent to alums from Philadelphia and Delaware. We had 60 people to hear Coleman for lunch in Wilmington two weeks ago. I would guess there were 150-200 people (including staff) present. Fairly heavy concentration of recent grads, say at least 20.

One trustee, Susan Stalnecker was there. I did not get to speak with her, but she certainly heard the applause and Brodhead's non-answers.

Nice to see people we knew, and to meet new people. I think many in the crowd just wish the lacrosse matter would go away, because its presence causes them to think, and they don't want to offend anyone. Some are concerned that the controversy will cheapen their or their children's degrees. It was clear that Brodhead is going to stonewall meaningful questions--therefore those of us that asked made statements to set up the issue. He will not respond, but it is obvious that he has not responded.

There was another question, a follow-up to my Kim Curtis question, about stories of professors harassing students in class and what actions did the administration about this. Brodhead's answer was about the constantly changing information available.

When asked if the faculty response should be studied he said the university should study everything.

The University smoozers generally avoided those of us who expressed support for the team after the Q&A.

Brodhead is very engaging when talking about what he wants to talk about, but it was clear his message was "nothing to see here folks, just move along." When challenged with lacrosse specific questions he became defensive and defiant. When asked the question about why he wouldn't meet with the parents he went rambling on some tangent. Henkleman called him back as being non-responsive, and Brodhead made some smarmy comment about he would have to give a long answer to the long question, but in the end never did say why he didn't have the decency to at least speak to the parents.

In the interest of fairness, one recent grad a rambling question something to the effect that the East Campus wall represented a "barrier" between Duke and Durham, and wouldn't it symbolically be better to tear it down. ... To his credit, Brodhead first quoted Robert Frost ("good fences make good neighbors"), pointed out that there is a running track all around the campus side of the wall that many people, both from Duke and the community use, and then pointed out that "it's only three feet high." (Just a little comic relief from an otherwise depressing event.)

It is very hard to understand the lack of compassion that Brodhead showed to these parents. While there may have been nothing he could do for them in a legal sense, trying to allay their fears would have been appropriate. But as we have seen, the Duke administration did not care one whit what happened to these boys. No extra counseling, no safe place to sleep at night, no protection from rogue instructors who regularly slandered and harassed them. I don't know quite why I get so passionate, as I have zero connection to the team, except that I am royally offended by the insensitive actions of people who are always preaching about understanding differences. The look on Brodhead's face when he answered that question was sufficient. It was utter contempt.

There were no expressions of support for his handling of the matter. I was surprised, because there was at least one person there who told Sandy Coveleski (Josh's mother, #19, plays on the extra man offense) and I that we didn't know what we were talking about after the Coleman luncheon in Wilmington last month. (By the way, he said that to the wrong person, and I don't mean me.)

What appalled me most about Tuesday night was Brodhead's insulting and condescending treatment of Steve Henkleman. Brodhead could have said, "In retrospect, I made an error of judgment by not meeting with you, and I apologize for adding to your pain."

Lazierthanmost:

Brodhead said the words "move forward" at least 15 times by my count. ...

The Q&A session was a joke in my opinion. Brodhead was obviously stalling and did his best to waste our time with lengthy prevarications that hammered home the "move forward" theme over and over again. Only a few questions were asked, and once the lacrosse-related questions started flying in rapid succession, he shut down the Q&A using time constraints as an excuse. ...

On the bright side, I got to meet some of the lacrosse parents in person. Their pain and feeling of betrayal was evident, and Brodhead's insensistivity to their suffering was agonizing. ...

After the Q&A was over, I was able to stop Brodhead in the hallway for a few quick questions.

Q: He personally wrote to the president of Armenia in support of jailed graduate student Yekatan Turkyilmaz. Why show that level of support to him while doing absolutely nothing for the lacrosse players.

A: An obviously exasperated Brodhead condescendingly answered that the lacrosse [supporters?] just don't understand how difficult the situation was for him. He emphasized to me that if Duke had done anything to support the students, everyone would have believed that Duke University was buying the freedom of its students. He also mentioned NC law that only allows the DA to remove himself from the case. He seemed to think that his absolute non-intervention was somehow critical to Nifong removing himself from the case.

Q: It was clear from early on that due process and the rights of the students were violated. Could you not have spoken out in support of their civil rights without involving innocence or guilt?

A: He reiterated (as he has many times before) that it is easy to look back with the benefit of hindsight. He seemed to believe that he DID speak out as soon as the procedural injustices were brought to light. ...

Q: The Chauncey Nartey situation. Why was the Ryan MacFayden e-mail, essentially a crude, if stupid and untimely, joke sent to a private group of friends deserving of suspension while the far more serious Nartey e-mail, a communication to a stranger about his daughter that could likely be seen as a threat and at the very least constituted harassment, received no official reprimand. I wished to follow-up and ask him to justify Nartey's position on the CCI as the representative of university fraternities when his fraternity was essentially dissolved (in addition to Nartey's involvement in ADC Charlotte), but he cut me off.

A: Brodhead seemed somewhat flustered, and again reiterated that people just don't understand what the situation was like. He added that he could not stand in the Philadelphia Museum of Art and answer every single question about the lacrosse case. I asked him if he was involved in the decision or if this was entirely Larry Moneta's domain. Instead of answering directly, he said that Larry Moneta was in the building if I wanted to question him....

After having met with Brodhead in person, I must say that he was far more ardent in private than we was in public. While he repeated the same bull he said in public, he was far less defensive (in attitude, though not in content). ...

We are never ever going to convince Brodhead of anything. He seems to actually believe that his actions were correct and has an air of woe-is-me-why-won't-these-fools-understand about him.

Can't Anybody Take A Joke?

"WHAT IF JANET LYNN WERE NEXT???"

Excerpt from "A Rush to Injustice" by Nader Baydoun and R. Stephanie Good:

As unnerving as McFayden's e-mail was, it didn't compare to the one that Coach Pressler received shortly thereafter. Apparently, the coach had been receiving numerous harassing e-mails in regard to the lacrosse incident. One such e-mail came from Duke student Chauncey Nartey. Several sources have confirmed that the e-mail was sent on March 27, 2006, at 2:01 p.m. The e-mail's subject read, "WHAT IF JANET LYNN WERE NEXT???" Janet is Coach Pressler's daughter's name. I was told that Pressler brought the e-mail to Vice President Moneta, and it was traced to Nartey, an African American student.

.

After what is assumed to have been an investigation into the matter, Pressler was told that the e-mail was not regarded as a threat. Thus, no action was taken, not in the form of punishment, that is. So, McFayden was suspended for sending an e-mail out to his friends as a joke, while Nartey send an e-mail that contained at least an implied threat to the lacrosse coach and was simply told not to do it again.

.

Here's the interesting twist in regard to the e-mail situation. Within a couple of weeks of Mangum's lacrosse allegations, Brodhead formed five committees to investigate the issues that arose out of it. One such committee was the Campus Cultural Initiative Steering Committee, and it was headed up by Larry Moneta and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Graduation and Dean of Trinity College Robert Thompson. Brodhead stated, "The task of the Initiative is to evaluate and suggest improvements in the ways Duke educates students in the values of personal responsibility, consideration of others, and mutual respect in the face of difference and disagreement." You may be wondering what this has to do with the e-mail. This information is relevant because when you look at the responsibilities of the Committee, and you see that Moneta is at its helm, and then you learn that one his appointees to this Committee is Nartey, the student who sent the allegedly threatening e-mail out to Pressler, you have to question what is really going on in the administrative offices of Duke University. (pp 87-88)

Selected comments from the LS Forum Blog Hooligans in response to Naultey's email:

"Duke's Tale of Two Emails, the McFadyen email and the Nartey email is very
interesting.

"Anyone following this case knows about the McFadyen email and the shameful way in which the Duke administration handled it. Very few have probably even heard of the Nartey email and the equally shameful but opposite way in which the Duke administration handled it.

"Mr. Nartey apparently is one of Duke's "trophy" students. He may have many admirable qualities but his "rush to judgment" and his radically anti-lacrosse position make Chauncey Nartey a poor choice to represent the Duke student body.
.
"... I find it appalling that Nartey was invited by the Duke administration to participate in the ADC presentations with Duke's full knowledge of the email that he sent to Pressler.
.
"Does anyone know if this email precipitated Pressler's decision to have his young daughters leave Durham?
.
"Nartey should've been admonished not rewarded." - veritas

"The contrast between his treatment and that of Ryan McFadyen could not be more stark. McFadyen’s message was transparently a joke and was sent to like minded individuals. In case that was not obvious from the message itself, it was clear from the context of the other messages and replies related to it. Yet Ryan was kicked off campus and, not only was Nartley unpunished, he was held out as a model Duke student. Moreover, if actual threats were communicated to a specific individual, that is usually a crime in most states.

"When I saw Chauncey Nartley’s name on the list of featured students at the Duke Conversation in Charlotte, I absolutely could not believe it. It is not just the hypocrisy and dishonesty. Did Duke really believe that this information would never come out at some point?" - Jason Trumpbour

"I am physically ill after reading this...to promote the "student" who made the threat as an ambassador of the university is unconscionable." SMO

"This development marks a turning point for me in the lacrosse case. As a Duke alum, I had resisted the conclusion of many that President Brodhead was at fault in this case. I had some sympathy with him, although I deprecated his statement that while they might not have been guilty of the criminal charges laid against them, what the Lax players did was bad enough.

"I was incredulous when I read about the Nartey development... That he was chosen to be presented with Brodhead at one of the Duke Conversations finishes Brodhead, in my opinion. If this account of the emails is verified, Brodhead is through in my opinion and I am going to bend my own personal efforts to see that this comes about.

"I am truly disgusted." - Diesel

For additional information or to join the discussion, please visit the LieStoppers Forum by clicking here.

Hat tip: Buddy

Sleeping with Snakes

My son is the oldest, and he was the first to leave the nest ... off to a large university to try his wings on his own. He was ready. I was not. I fussed over details, fretted over my loss of control. Would he get enough sleep? Would he eat? Would he study? My husband enrolled him in a private dorm option, mainly, in retrospect, for my mental health. So off he went. He looked so young to me, and yet, all the early reports from him were glowing and positive.

On Parents Weekend, he met us in the lobby of his dorm. He looked uneasy. As we approached the door to his room, he faced me full on and warned, "Mom, promise me you won't say anything! Promise!" The door swung open.

He was living with a boa constrictor.

Oh, yes. This private dorm that I insisted on ... allowed his roommate to keep a pet. My son, the focus of eighteen years of close maternal oversight, was now sleeping in a room with his head inches away from a very big and powerful snake.

You cannot make this stuff up.

For weeks after our visit, ... out to lunch with friends, cooking dinner, drifting off to sleep ... I'd be jolted by the memory of The Snake in the Dorm Room. At one point, I did a little research, and I called my son and asked him the dimensions of the fish tank the creature was living in. He hung up.

So, I've been thinking about the Moms again. No, not Rae, Mary Ellen, and Kathy... though I still think of them often. No, I've been thinking about the Moms who are about to send their children off to school for the first time this fall... to Duke, to Durham. My Snake in the Dorm Room scenario is small potatoes compared to what they must be feeling if they've followed this Nifong-Mangum Hoax. The Herald Sun has this quote today from a George Washington University law professor:

"It's all very, very damning [to Nifong]," (Professor) Banzhaf said of the report. "He should be forced to step down, and there should be civil action. I think he presents a clear and present danger to students at Duke. He has clearly demonstrated a desire to violate their constitutional rights. I'd be a little frightened if I were a parent looking at my kid's acceptance letter from Duke."

So would I, Mr. Banzhof.

In Durham, although violent crime was up a stunning 32% in 2006, enormous resources were used to engage in a false prosecution of three Duke students. In Durham, gang violence is escalating out of control, but Durham police have been told to target Duke student partygoers. To add to the local atmosphere, Duke students can breathe in the pollution from the frequent waste dump fires (two in the last two years), drink the lead infused Durham tap water, and dodge the life threatening rock-droppers on the freeway.

Yes, all this, Duke parents, can be yours for around $45,000 a year! Why it's like sending your child on a four-year action adventure vacation! Consider the thrilling uncertainties! My child, can you achieve your Duke degree and still survive the toxic situation in the town outside the gate? Can you navigate the streets without a Gottlieb-grab? Can you complete four years without our family being nifonged into financial ruin? Can you pass classes taught by professors who despise you? Perfect for those seeking the "high" of extreme sports, matriculating at Duke also offers the survivors the thrill of a real life video game and the possibility of a prestigious degree to boot!

For that $45,000 price tag, just what "customer service" is the leadership of Duke University promising all the Moms and Dads who write the checks? Well, for insight, here is Duke's latest statement from John Burness:

"Duke senior vice president John F. Burness issued the following statement after the N.C. Attorney General's Office on Friday released its Summary of Conclusions in the Duke lacrosse case

Friday, April 27, 2007
Durham, NC -- “Attorney General Cooper’s Summary of Conclusions that was released today documents the absence of any credible evidence that would justify any conclusion in this case other than the one Mr. Cooper announced a few weeks ago -- that David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann are innocent of all charges brought against them last spring by District Attorney Nifong. We welcome this report as we welcomed the Attorney General’s announcement on April 11.

“We now await the N.C. State Bar’s review of the charges against Mr. Nifong for his conduct in this case.”

Got that, Duke freshmen parents? The current leadership of Duke University's response to Cooper's astounding findings is to meekly "now await" what might happen to the Snake in the Prosecutor's Office. I'm amused by that phrase "now await." Gee, last year, 88 Duke faculty members were lauding activists, who were publicly demanding castration, for "not waiting." Why the hesitancy and hand-wringing now? How about a little consistency? How about actually stepping out to make the very environment your students are paying $45,000 for you to provide, a reasonably safe place for them to reside? How about you, Mr. Brodhead, or you, Mr. Burness, or some member of the Law faculty, how about SOMEONE finally publicly recognizing the enormous wrong done to the Finnerty, Seligmann and Evans' families this past year? Now that it's safe to come out from hiding, how about the leadership of Duke University filing a 7A-66 affidavit to remove the viperous Mike Nifong, as the courageous Beth Brewer has done at great personal risk?

How about putting Judge "Not acting is acting" Hudson under some pressure from the largest employer in the area? How about publicly making it clear that Duke will not abide a corrupt prosecutor who targets its students without a scintilla of evidence? The state's attorney has laid out the scenario for you, Mr. Brodhead. Some presume you summarily fired Mike Pressler for "appearances" sake. Then, what explains your boundless tolerance of rogue prosecutor Mike Nifong ... faculty appeasement? You know, Dick... you don't have to wait for the Bar hearing. North Carolina's Attorney General has told you whatever Nifong did "was bad enough."

I also think about another group of ravaged Moms (and Dads) I read about recently... the Durham chapter of Parents of Murdered Children. I think of how it must feel to those families, who love their children no less than you or I, to have observed last year's legal farce play out. To see through their eyes the manpower and money squandered by Mike Nifong's self-interested pursuit of false rape charges against three Duke students! I invite any of these parents to contact LieStoppers and tell us if their children's murders were given that same zeal, that same expenditure of effort and intensity Nifong lavished on the Hoax. Not that any of them would sanction, nor do we, Nifong's illegal line-up lotteries, witness intimidations, invented or non-existent notes, and numerous lies both in and out of the courtroom ... but it does speak to the exceptional effort that Inspecteur D.A. put into this shameful debacle.

But what about these murdered children of Durham? Could it be that their cases fell into no fortuitous political "meta narrative" for Nifong to exploit? Could it be that these murdered children, these anguished families, these little known cases received minimal attention or respect? Could it be that these families are not "privileged" enough to be worthy of the excessive devotion Nifong gave to pushing a case HE KNEW HAD NO MERIT before he sought indictments? Though some of these cases involve Durham's gang violence, each victim is still someone's much loved child. Perhaps the tragedies of these Durham families, personally useless to Defendant Nifong, are simply deemed expendable.

There is a Snake in the Prosecutor's Office in Durham. His name is Michael B. Nifong. Nifong, the 27 yr. assistant DA, "shed his skin" as soon as he was given the reins of power. Like all snakes, Nifong depended on his sense of smell, and he immediately smelled the race-pandering opportunity in the Hoax. He cannot shed his scales at this late date and ask a nation to forget or these families to forgive. City Manager Baker could have been Saint Patrick and acted to rid Durham of this poisonous snake. Instead, Baker currently seems to have chosen to play Cleopatra and clutch the venomous asp to his city's bosom. This is unacceptable to decent people everywhere. We need, Mr. Brodhead, to "await" NOTHING. We demand some leadership.

Indeed, the Durham power structure is stalling, hoping to keep Nifong coiled at their collective feet, ready to rise to their music and strike at their will. We understand now, that's how the game works. In the days ahead, we will see who is most invested in retaining Durham's Snake in the Prosecutor's Office. We must watch and listen carefully. The official cover-up is about to begin. The leadership of Durham and Duke must again be judged by what they DO and do Not do in the weeks ahead. It will be a road map pointing to who is guilty... and who is fork-tongued, and who is exceedingly, institutionally gutless.

Joan Foster

NCCU's "Campus Echo" Responds to Exoneration of Hoax Victims With Call to Arms

In a frighteningly militant response to the end of the Hoax, North Carolina Central University student columnist, Solomon Burnette calls for black men, women, and children to wage the war against white people in the current issue of the Campus Echo. With a "reminder" that the time to fight is now, Burnette suggests that "fear of physical retribution" is the only deterrent to "legally, socially and economically validated" murder, beatings, and rape by whites against blacks. Despite the comprehensive investigation conducted by the special prosecutors of Attorney General Roy Cooper and regardless of the resultant unequivocal exoneration, Burnette attempts to summon hate to match his own with his call to arms.

Ignoring independent witness Jason Bissey's recent debunking of the n-word myth, Burnette turns the Campus Echo into the equal but opposite number of the Vanguard News Network as he unleashes hateful rhetoric unmatched by even the unconscionable words of fellow student Chan Hall, the student government who told Newsweekthat the players should be prosecuted "whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past." Burnette's hate speech reminds one of New Black Panther Party Chief of Staff Min. Hashim A. Nzinga who assailed the innocent Reade Seligmann with a venomous, "Justice Will Be Done Rapist" as he attempted to enter the Durham County Courthouse and the words of a yet unidentified New Black Panther Party member who threatened Mr. Selgimann with, "Dead Man Walking" on the way out of the courtroom.

Burnette's spew:

Death to all rapists

On March 13, 2006, some forty affluent white men solicited the presence of two black women on (former) plantation property for the explicit purposes of racially denigrating, disrespecting, and exploiting them.

“Tell your Granddaddy thanks for making my cotton shirt,” they were reported to have said.

The women were, according to all accounts, called “nigger” and told to penetrate themselves with broomsticks (see Abner Louima). One of these women said that she was raped by three of these inebriated white men. People in power and those without disbelieved her. This is sickening.

I am not surprised at the outcome of the case. As a son of Africa, I know that American law is not worth the paper it is written upon. We all saw L.A. Gestapo beat Rodney King only to be acquitted. We were dismayed when the assassins of Amadou Diallo, who laced his area with a forty-one shot spectrum, were also acquitted. These injustices reflect the current disequilibrium in the American justice system.

We black people (while we may be able to bribe judges like white people) cannot expect justice from the American legal system, period.

Why are black people so apt to view this situation through a legal system created to perpetuate our repression?

The ‘facts’ of the case should not matter to us because even if we are unsure of sexual assault, these supremacists have admitted to sexually, racially and politically denigrating these women. Strippers or not, this must be addressed.

History has shown us that the (in)justice system cannot and will not address these issues because it is built upon them. So upon whose shoulders should the responsibility of retributive correction fall?

White people still murder us with impunity. White people still beat us with impunity. White people still rape us and get away with it.

The only deterrent to these legally, socially and economically validated supremacist actions is the fear of physical retribution.

Black men, stand up. Black women, stand up. Black children, stand up. We have been at war here with these same white people for 500 years.

The time to fight, whether intellectually, artistically or physically, has always been now.

The decision of the Campus Echo to publish Burnette's violent message of hatred and top it with a headline calling for death undermines the efforts of NCCU Chancellor James Ammons' call for closure and healing while praising the University communities patience and calm.

Outgoing North Carolina Central University Chancellor James Ammons said, “The Attorney General’s Office made an assessment today that brings closure to the Duke Lacrosse case.”

“Now that the investigation has concluded, let the healing begin and the growth continue.” Wilmington Journal

"There is a lot we can learn from this, and I am just really proud of the NCCU family and [that] the larger community remained calm, even though there was a temptation to do otherwise," Ammons said in an interview with the Campus Echo, the student newspaper.

"The chancellor praised members of the university family for their patience in the days when many were jumping to conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the lacrosse players, who were accused of rape." Black America Web

Throughout the Hoax, Chancellor Ammons has been the antithesis to Duke University President Brodhead. While Ammons offered a much needed voice of calm and demonstrated great love for his students in a sincere, if unpolished, manner, his counterpart Brodhead sold out his students with a mellifluous voice and articulate words. Substance over style has defined the difference. Sadly, the Echo's decision to publish Burnette's hate filled diatribe works against Ammons' continued efforts while seemingly validating the worst that has been said of the local racial landscape. Demonstrating poor judgment, at best, the Echo's willingness to confirm the exaggerated impressions created by Chan Hall and the rabid participants of the April 10, 2006 "Pep Rally for Indictments" can only serve to further diminish the world's view of Durham and NCCU.

He Didn't Really Just Say That, Did He?

"The Group of 88 are a group of professors who signed a petition to assist students who felt threatened."
Duke University President Richard Brodhead, A Duke Conversation
Chicago, IL
04/18/2007

Steele Praises Brodhead, Reaffirms Decision to Submit to Railroading of Students

In a letter to the Duke Community written on behalf of the Board of Trustees, Chairman Robert Steele praises President Richard Brodhead while asserting that the decision to defer to Defendant Mike Nifong's twisted version of a justice system was "essential."

Dear Member of the Duke University Community,

I write to you on behalf of the Trustees of Duke University.

Today the North Carolina State Attorney General announced that all remaining charges against David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann have been dropped and should never have been brought. This announcement explicitly and unequivocally establishes the innocence of David, Collin and Reade, who with their families have suffered an unimaginable year of accusation and public scrutiny. They deserve our respect for the honorable way they have conducted themselves during this long legal ordeal that ends with their exoneration.

The Attorney General determined that there was no credible evidence to support the charges that were brought, with so many statements of certainty, by the Durham District Attorney last spring. Many have suffered from his actions, these three students and their families most of all. The Attorney General's investigation places responsibility for this miscarriage of justice with the District Attorney, and we now look to the proceedings of the state bar to call him to account before his peers.

Much as we wish that these three young men, their teammates and their families and indeed the whole community of people who love Duke could have been spared the agony of the past year, we believe that it was essential for the University to defer to the criminal justice system. As imperfect and flawed as it may be, it is that process that brings us today to this resolution.

Throughout the past year President Richard Brodhead consulted regularly with the trustees and has had our continuing support. He made considered and thoughtful decisions in a volatile and uncertain situation. Each step of the way, the board agreed with the principles that he established and the actions he took. As we look back and with the benefit of what we now know there is no question that there are some things that might have been done differently. However, anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board.

In closing, we express our relief for today's outcome and recognize the character that our three students, their teammates and all of their families have shown over the past year. Furthermore, we hope that the resolution of this unfair, divisive and painful episode can serve to unite us all. There is much to learn from the events that we have lived through, and we intend to put this learning to use. Duke is a great university that steps up to challenges and opportunities, and together we will use this moment to make our community stronger.

Robert K. Steel, Chair,
Duke University Board of Trustees

Richard ”Whatever they did was bad enough” Brodhead Statement

Duke University President Richard "Whatever they did was bad enough” Brodhead has issued a statement on Attorney General Roy Cooper's declaration of the factual innocence of the Hoax victims.

I join with everyone who cares about justice in welcoming the North Carolina State Attorney General’s announcement that the remaining charges have been dropped against David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. This announcement comes at the end of an extraordinarily painful year for the young men and their families. They have carried themselves with dignity through an ordeal of deep unfairness.

Let’s be clear about what was said today. The Attorney General did not dismiss the allegations on narrow, equivocal or legalistic ground. He determined our students to be innocent of the charges and said they were “the tragic result of a rush to accuse.” In short, he used the strongest language of vindication.

From the outset, I have been careful to note that these students were entitled to the presumption of innocence and I looked to the legal system to determine the merit of the charges. Now, finally, that process has given us a decision based on a thorough and objective review of the evidence. This is what we have all needed from the start. I trust the State Bar’s review will be equally thorough so that we can understand the District Attorney’s conduct in this case. As for Duke, while not reliving the past year, we won’t be afraid to go back and learn what we can from this difficult experience.

During the past year, the world has known these young men, their teammates and a great university largely through the filter of unproven allegations. I trust that today’s decision will begin a new day for all involved.