Replies

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/

A stained reputation

The Duke lacrosse case has left serious stains on the reputations of Duke University and Durham County. Duke's administration, faculty and students almost immediately abandoned any semblance of a belief in innocent until proven guilty and threw their own to the wolves.

Durham has approved, through an election, what may well prove to be one of the most egregiously flawed, malicious prosecutions in history. How sad that it has taken the State Bar, the Association of North Carolina District Attorneys and the scrutiny and condemnation of the national press to begin the process of correcting this travesty.

Much of the world now has the image of Durham as a lawless backwater where citizens can, for political expediency, be railroaded by haphazard investigations, ignoring of evidence and incredibly weak charges.

These stains will not soon fade.

Robert Miller
Durham
January 7, 2007

The real Nifong

I find it entirely fitting with what we, the public, have learned of District Attorney Michael Nifong's personality and conduct that he arranged his swearing-in as a public officer of North Carolina to occur in private.

He forced the entire lacrosse team to present themselves for DNA sampling in a way that amounted to a public "perp" walk. Didn't bother him.

He had the accused arrested and brought to the station in handcuffs in front of national TV cameras. Didn't think twice.

But face the public and press himself after the revelations about his own misconduct and the subsequent condemnations from his peers, the media and regular citizens far and wide? Not a chance.

Instead he ensured that the public would literally be locked out of the ceremony by which he accepted the office they granted him. Was he too afraid that there would be laughter in the courtroom as he reaffirmed his pledge to faithfully discharge the duties of his office at the same time as he faces a State Bar complaint resulting from his failure to honor that very pledge?

Peter Bove
New York, New York
January 7, 2007

Reinstatement of players doesn't square Duke

Duke has not covered itself in glory on the lacrosse allegations. Last spring, when the three lacrosse players were indicted, they were, of course, presumed innocent until proven guilty [wink, wink]. But Duke wanted to get ahead of the story and decided to kick the two returning players out of school.

Today, the same two are still indicted and, of course, still presumed innocent until proven guilty. So Duke, wanting to stay ahead of the story, has magnanimously offered to reinstate them. In a letter to one of the students, Larry Moneta, vice president for student affairs at Duke, writes, "We believe that circumstances warrant that we strike this balance differently."

That's indefensibly weak and borders on being disingenuous. What changed? If the two players were deemed too bad to be allowed to return in the fall of 2006, are they less bad now that the rape charges have been dismissed but the sexual assault and kidnapping charges retained? Duke did the wrong thing last year by caving in to public outrage fomented more by District Attorney Mike Nifong's comments, magnified by the press, than by any other factor. (And Duke took the opportunity to clean out the stables by firing the coach, too.)

Now, even though Duke has taken the right corrective step, the university still seems to be reacting to public pressure by reinstating them when very little has changed except the widespread perception of the DA's damaged credibility and integrity rather than the students' ostensible innocence.

Michael Brady
Hillsborough
January 7, 2007