Posted on 10/01/2006 1:40:53 AM PDT by abb
Update on Duke blocking student voter registration at the homecoming game. Monks was apparently allowed to distribute campaign literature inside the stadium. Plus, Nifong campaign deception. Must read.
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/10/durham-da-race-updates.html
Unreal. Monks is allowed to distribute campaign literature inside the stadium but Duke students aren't allowed to register students to vote either inside or outside of the stadium? Ya gotta be kidding me. Somebody needs to explain that one.
Looks like Liestoppers and KC Johnson are hot on this story. Hopefully, the students will use this as a teachable moment, and shame their wayward elders. They've got until Oct. 12 to register more student voters.
Justify or Retract
[snip]
Duke officials should be made to justify their claim that material could come out at trial to disprove allegations that Mike Nifong has violated various procedures of either the city of Durham or the North Carolina Bar. And if Duke officials cannot offer evidence that could rationalize Nifong's conduct, they should retract their claim, and publicly demand that the district attorney apply to Duke students the same procedures that all other citizens of Durham receive.
Accordingly, I invite readers of this blog who attended Duke to email Duke Alumni Association president Tom Clark (whose email, according to the DAA website, is tcclark100@aol.com ), with a cc to BOT chairman Robert Steel (whose email, according to the Duke website, is boardchair@duke.edu ). I urge asking the following:
In light of repeated statements from administration and alumni officials that the university must wait until a trial to demand that the district attorney uphold the due process rights of all Duke students, could you please tell me what material could possibly appear at trial to disprove allegations that:
District Attorney Nifong violated city procedures and statewide norms in the April 4 photo ID array;
District Attorney Nifong violated Rule 3.8, comment 2, of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which states that "a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor's case or aid the accused," when he refused to meet with Reade Seligmann's attorney to consider Seligmann's alibi evidence;
District Attorney Nifong violated Rule 3.8(f) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which states that a prosecutor must "refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused," in his public relations spree of late March and early April.
I will post any replies that are received.
[end excerpt]
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 04, 2006
Duke lacrosse: A letter to the Chapel Dean.
Dear Dean Wells:
I'm a Duke alum. I publish the electronic daily, www.johnincarolina.com.
[snip]
As you know, the Durham Herald Sun recently reported statements it said you made. ("Duke leaders discuss 'toll' of lacrosse," Sept. 30)
Newspapers often get things wrong.
That allows me to hope you didn't make the statements the H-S attributes to you. Or if you did, that the H-S so misrepresented the actual import of your statements that you are taking steps to publicly correct the misrepresentation(s).
[end excerpt]
Some Duke students say school discipline is 'double jeopardy'
By Ray Gronberg, The Herald-Sun
October 4, 2006 9:22 pm
DURHAM -- Student leaders at Duke University might lodge a formal protest against the campus administration's attempts to discipline classmates for violations of Durham's noise ordinance and the state's underage-drinking and fake-ID laws.
A draft resolution debated a week ago in Duke's student senate asked that Duke's Office of Judicial Affairs "cease all prosecutions" of such offenses pending a review of the rules on its jurisdiction over off-campus behavior.
Sponsors said the office's attempts to police alcohol, ID and noise laws in parallel with state courts amount to double jeopardy and a violation of students' privacy rights, and in response to pressure from campus neighbors have engaged Duke in an enforcement effort that's of no benefit to its own constituents.
The resolution and an accompanying PowerPoint presentation also included a disputed line that indicated sponsors didn't see compliance with the laws in question as part of "the standard we set for ourselves and our peers."
Duke's "philosophy should in no way assert the university's right to duplicate the judicial process of civil authorities, nor should it claim that these types of minor infractions threaten the [undergraduate] community in any way," the resolution said.
But after a lengthy discussion, senate members tabled the resolution. Student Government President Elliott Wolf said it's now being reworked and might resurface next week.
Wolf said he thinks the revision will ask the university to return to what students saw as its practice before the fall semester of 2005, "where we would only adjudicate infractions considered a direct threat to the university community."
He added that the senate balked at endorsing "a statement that said let everybody use fake IDs and drink off campus."
Duke Student Government spokesman Kevin Troy said the "standard we set" line was susceptible to being read several ways, including as an endorsement of underage drinking, a problem that contributed to the decision to rework the resolution.
"There would be arguably grounds for concerned discussion and potentially condemnation, were that the language adopted by Duke Student Government as the institutional view," Troy said. "The fact it was discussed and set aside for negative reasons shows the value of the deliberative process. We were able to recognize the flaws in the language and reasoning, and hopefully we're going to correct them by addressing the change in student affairs policy without sending an unfortunate message about Duke Student Government and Duke in general."
For Wolf, the issue centers on the proper limits to the university's control over students.
"Right now, they're asserting that they can adjudicate any violation of Duke policy or the law prior to graduation, whether they occur on campus or off campus -- and 'off-campus' includes thousands of miles away," he said. "As a student, I object to such a broad jurisdiction."
Duke tightened its policies on off-campus behavior more than year ago and again this fall. Associate Dean of Students Stephen Bryan acknowledged Wednesday that the moves were, in part, intended to answer complaints from campus neighbors.
But they also stemmed from the failure of lesser measures to have much effect on off-campus problems, he said.
Last year's change -- launched at the same time Durham police were cracking down on off-campus party houses -- called for the university to consider disciplinary action any time a student was arrested or ticketed for criminal violations, or became the target of complaints about repeated misbehavior, he said.
The result was a lopsided crackdown that played out mostly in the fall semester of the 2005-06 academic year. All told, 221 students had to meet with administrators or the Undergraduate Judicial Board during the year to answer charges.
Drinking figured in many of the cases. Policy violations were found -- usually producing a warning -- in 96 of the 159 underage-drinking cases the university pursued, and in three of the five alleged noise-law cases, according to Office of Judicial Affairs statistics.
The office didn't report numbers specifically for fake-ID violations, but it did pursue seven "falsification/fraud" cases and found students responsible for violations of campus policy in six of them.
A committee of administrators, faculty and students has suggested further tightening Duke's "community standard" to stress that integrity is indivisible -- something that creates "behavioral expectations ... in all aspects of an undergraduate's life and in all places," it said in an Aug. 15 report to Provost Peter Lange.
Bryan said that's the point his office has been trying to get across.
"It does still puzzle me why students don't think the university should concern itself with off-campus behavior," he said. "To me it's an indication of where students are at, developmentally, at this stage. They seem able to compartmentalize their lives. For example, they agree that cheating is wrong, but a fake ID is not. Deception in the classroom is not viewed the same way deception outside the classroom is. I'd argue that both reflect one's character."
Bryan added that the double-jeopardy argument has been heard at Duke and other schools before, litigated even, and consistently rejected because university sanctions don't affect a person's basic liberty. Remaining enrolled at a college, especially a private college, "is not an inalienable right," he said.
Wolf acknowledged that student government has little real say in the matter.
"We have absolutely no control over the university judicial process," he said. "Our job is solely to articulate our best guess as to what the aggregate of Duke students want. It's unfortunately the case that as a private school, the university can punish us for anything they feel like."
Campus neighbors have welcomed Duke's harder line on off-campus misconduct, and on Wednesday one of their leaders said she'd wants that to continue.
"I wouldn't be happy to see them not held accountable by the university," said Alice Bumgarner, president of the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association. "That's been the position all along. They're accountable for their off-campus behavior just like if they cheat on an exam."
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-775749.html
Dear Greta,
This concerns the voter registration drive by the two Duke students you interviewed several weeks ago. Duke officials apparently prevented their group (DSED) from registering voters at the homecoming football game, yet allowed Steve Monks to hand out campaign literature. The deadline for signing up voters is October 12.
"DSED representatives did make several requests, however, and so seem to have supplied prior notice. It also is still unclear to me what rationale existed for stopping attempted registrations from outside the stadium. John Burness has promised to look into this issue for me; I have also emailed him with two additional questions, and will post on this issue as soon as I receive information back from him."
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/09/black-panthers-welcome-duke-students.html
"LieStoppers has learned that Nifong opponent Steve Monks and his campaign manager, Charlotte Woods, were allowed to distribute campaign material at a pre-game tailgate party and within the stadium during the game."
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/10/durham-da-race-updates.html
"For example, they agree that cheating is wrong, but a fake ID is not. Deception in the classroom is not viewed the same way deception outside the classroom is. I'd argue that both reflect one's character."
This is the same "They must have done something" attitude.
It comes from people who do not live in the real world, imo. They think that if you use a fake ID to buy alcohol or get into a club, that it means you will do other things like cheat on a test or shoplift.
It's the same out of touch with reality logic that says the LAX players might have raped Crystal because they behaved badly in other ways.
Peeing off your porch while buzzed means you will jump right in to a gang rape.
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/index.php?title=the_nifong_profile&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Read the blistering replies by Joan Foster and NDLax84, among others.
Good work, Ken. I think I'll e-mail Greta too.
Wow. They are really hammering her. She deserves it.
It looks like Monks is hell bent on ruining the election.
Slightly OT update
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=061005&cat=news&st=newsd8kinb700&src=ap
A judge dismissed child pornography charges Thursday against former JonBenet Ramsey murder suspect John Mark Karr after prosecutors said they didn't have enough evidence to take the case to trial.
9/1/06
Duke revamps voter registration efforts
David Graham
Coming soon to a mailbox near you: a North Carolina voter registration form, compliments of the Office of Student Affairs.
Forms will be placed in student mailboxes starting Wednesday as part of a University effort to better comply with the federal Higher Education Act.
The law mandates that institutions of higher education "make a good faith effort to distribute a mail voter registration form" to all students.
Associate Vice President for Federal Relations Chris Simmons said a speaker series and "Get Out the Vote" advertisements in student-targeted media will be part of a concerted push during the election season.
In previous election years, the University placed forms in high-traffic locations such as the Bryan Center, and links to the form were posted on the Community Service Center website.
He met with Elaine Madison, director of the Community Service Center, in late June to discuss compliance with the HEA.
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/10/wicked.html
[snip]
Make no mistake, the evil Wizard is well entrenched.
Our heroine, Beth Brewer, is heartened by the support the Recall Nifong -Vote Cheek campaign is receiving from the good people of Durham. The stench of previous cases, like the one of Leon Brown, are reminding Durhamites what reckless justice means for ALL of them, not just the three Duke defendants. But when apathy, agenda, and the local newspapers seem arrayed against the effort... we need to push harder. We know we are preaching to the choir here, but necessity demands it once again. Friends, please wave any magic wands you have, call upon ALL forces of Good and recruit anyone you know, and see if we can produce any of the following for Beth Brewer and the campaign:
[end excerpt]
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/index.php?title=march_25_interview&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
March 25 interview
March 25 interview
Our March 25 article that included an interview with the woman who accused Duke lacrosse players of rape has been the subject of questions and speculation on blog posts. There is a mistaken assumption that the N&O conducted an extensive interview with the woman and deliberately withheld a substantial portion of the interview.
Those assumptions are false.
The reporter’s interview with the woman was brief, an encounter that lasted a few minutes outside the woman’s parents’ home in Durham. Only two things the woman said at that time did not make publication. She provided a description of the then-unidentified second woman who had also been hired to dance at the lacrosse team party. She also offered an opinion about the other woman’s actions that night. The latter was clearly an opinion, offered without any substantiation. Omitting from published news articles unsubstantiated opinions is a standard, normal part of the journalistic process. The description of the second woman proved to be accurate when Kim Roberts exposed herself at a later date. That description was withheld in March, not because of doubts about its accuracy, but because it was deemed irrelevant since we had no other information to tell readers about the second woman.
The decision made prior to the March interview to limit it to the information in the police report was the correct decision and I stand by it. Our purpose was to hear from the woman in her own words the accusation she made to the police. We also wanted to know if she would say anything that contradict the police report. In the brief interview, she repeated the information we knew to be the gist of the police report that we had access to at that time.
The fairness issue we discussed was that we would not allow her to use the interview for unlimited comments about the men she accused. That would have been the governing decision in any situation where we were interviewing a subject about formal charges made against another person and that other person is not immediately available to respond.
Recent postings have also included inaccurate information about the N&O’s Voters Guide. The Voters Guide for the fall election does not exist. Reporters and editors are currently in the process of preparing the guide to be published on November 4. It is not true that N&O editors did not know what information was on news&observer.com. The site contains material generated for the guide published for the 2006 spring primary election. That is where some people commenting on this blog found the Mike Nifong candidate profile. While the material was accessible from news&observer.com, it was merely serving as a template for the staff to complete the online guide for the fall election. Now that we know that people may be reading the information as if it were a live document, we will block access to the information untill the fall guide is complete.
10/05/06 at 21:19 Atrocious and arrogant post, Ms Williams.
After months of hiding behind Melanie Sill, we have clearly now discovered the editorial source of most of the bad, bigoted and malicious journalism done at the N&O in the early days of the story.
It was the work of Linda Williams.
Ms Williams, your personal decision to hide CGM's statement to your reporter that she felt that Kim Roberts had robbed her that night was on-it-s-face a wrong decision.
Depriving your readers of a very important part of the story. it was likely motivated solely by your own agenda, Ms Williams.
Bad enough.
But worse is your arrogant unwillingness to own up to your mistakes. That is a very bad sign, Ms Williams. It makes people wonder what else you are hiding.
On this story, you rate an F. Poor show.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=326&st=0&#entry4273946
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.