Posted on 11/28/2006 6:02:52 AM PST by Ready4Freddy
Uncle Moneybags
With all deliberate speed
Kristin Butler, The Chronicle, 12/1/06
If recent events are any indication, Durhamites are competing with us for use of the phrase "outrageous ambitions."
Case in point: Durham's plans to build a massive new performing arts complex.
At 2,800 seats, the proposed Durham Performing Arts Center will be bigger than the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. (2,442 seats), the largest theater on Broadway (1,940 seats), and only four seats smaller than Carnegie Hall.
Yes, the notion that Durham-with its population of 209,000-can regularly fill Carnegie Hall is undeniably ambitious. What's outrageous, though, is local officials' plan to have Duke pay for some of the Center's $44-million price tag.
Here are the sordid details: After nearly 10 years of setbacks, shortfalls and shake-ups, Durham mayor Bill Bell and Duke administrators formulated a plan to "sell" us control of Anderson Street this fall. The price? The University "donated" $2 million to the city, an amount equal to the performing arts center's emergency funding shortfall.
Although Duke had already pledged to donate $5.5 million to the center, this $2-million chaser had one important catch: Durham only got $500,000 up front. The remaining $1.5 million would be dispensed if-and only if-the City Council approved Duke's petition to control on-campus portions of Anderson Street. It eventually greenlighted the plan Nov. 12 by a vote of 5-1.
Unsurprisingly, it was only due to a technicality (of the hair-splitting variety) that this deal was permissible under North Carolina law. Despite tepid legal assurances, councilman Thomas Stith-the lone dissenter in the 5-1 vote-called the deal "quid pro quo." Angry Durham residents also chimed in, denouncing the deal as "bribery," "criminal" and a "boondoggle."
At this juncture, it's hard to disagree with them. This "gift" was a blatant attempt to evade the zoning wars that have plagued other phases of the Central Campus reconstruction plan. Though I share Duke officials' frustrations with those disputes, this was not the solution I was hoping for.
To explain why, I'll defer to Nan Keohane, who dealt with repeated demands for payouts of up to $20 million during her tenure. Commenting for a 2004 Herald-Sun article, Nan insisted that "we don't just want to be seen as a money bags, as a rich uncle that can solve all of Durham's problems." She ultimately concluded, "Donors and parents give money to Duke for projects and tuition, not to support the city."
How true. Even today, it remains unclear to me why Duke is paying for the Bull City's renaissance. And our contribution doesn't stop at alma mater's $7 million; more than $20 million in funding comes from a 1-percent increase in Durham's hotel occupancy tax, paid in part by legions of Duke students, their families and other campus visitors.
In fact, the only thing missing from this project is a financial commitment from the Durham residents themselves. Aside from Duke's contribution and the hotel tax, the Center's funding comes primarily from the Downtown Revitalization Fund and the sale of sponsorship and naming rights.
And considering that they will benefit most from the Center, I don't see why Durham residents aren't paying for at least part of it; Mayor Bell intentionally structured the deal to shield his constituents from footing the bill. If residents had more skin in this game, I can't help but think that the Center's astonishing size, its rising construction costs and its location (across the street from a jail) would be more of an issue.
Why, then are we going along with this misadventure? Beats me. In fact, there's not even a particularly good reason why we need to own Anderson Street. I'm told that "traffic safety, accessibility and crime-related issues" are all reasons why, and that legal ownership will grant us the "privilege" of repaving and lighting the street on our own terms.
John Burness added via e-mail that this money was "offered to ensure the long-term viability of Anderson as a street with a campus feel," and that it may be involved in plans for an on-campus "arts corridor." Yet explanations as to why this should cost Duke $2 million (especially since the deal saves the city the cost of future maintenance) have not been forthcoming.
So, Duke administrators, it's time to face the facts. The millions of dollars you've frittered away in the form of payoffs, "donations," "contributions" and other financial transactions all add up to one thing: Duke behaves more like a sugar daddy than a partner these days, and the impulse is spreading.
Even some Duke professors have jumped on the bribe-and-let-bribe bandwagon. My favorite among them has to be Joe Dibona, an associate professor in the education department, whose Nov. 8 letter to the Herald-Sun suggested a $3-million payoff in the lacrosse case. Although he doesn't specify who's paying, Dibona did note that $1.5 million should go to the alleged victim and $1.5 million to the attorneys, which would "serve the interests of any parties concerned."
According to Dibona, the payoff would avert more "senseless and bombastic rhetoric in the lacrosse case." He also assured me in an e-mail that if the "complainaince [sic] withdrew all charges, the students would be free of any lingering doubt over what happened." This is presumably why Dibona thinks $3 million would be "a small price to pay for the solution of this painful affair."
Decide for yourself whether or not you find Dibona's suggestions credible; for my part, I found the proposal to be as classless as it is misinformed. But the point is that Dibona's proposal is not so different from what passes for institutional policy these days, and I think it's about time we held administrators-and ourselves-to a higher standard.
And if administrators won't listen to their better judgment, perhaps they'll listen to Nan Keohane. Uncle Moneybags we are not.
Kristin Butler is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every Friday.
http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/12/01/
Columns/Uncle.Moneybags-2517778-page3.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.
com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
GbA, Prof. Crowley's opinion piece wasn't so much inflammatory as it was factually incorrect. I doubt it had much of an effect on the 'public firestorm', esp coming as late as it did.
I give the man credit for having the honesty and fortitude to retract his opinion.
"Controlled-chaos -- 500 criminal cases a day-- the Courthouse is always the busiest place downtown."
Downtown Durham is dead. On a routine basis, the courthouse is the ONLY busy place downtown. Bulls games are an exception.
Sounds like Boston and Cambridge could learn a few things from the shakedown artists in Durham. The price of moral cowardice, I guess.
If CBS 60 Minutes is doing a follow-up
on the Durham hooker scandal, would
Sunday Dec. 10, 2006 be a good time,
five days before the Fri. Dec. 15th
hearing?
If they spent all that time and money
for six months in Durham, they must be
holding some good stuff in the can.
The late Ed Bradley certainly knew how
to conduct a criminal investigation.
The first double-segment barely scratched
the surface of this multi-faceted affair.
Yes, but characters like Nifong are likely to treat the whole thing as a macho contest. It will take somebody less significantly less pathological than he to intervene to ensure that the right thing is done.
In the mean time has Precious resurfaced anywhere? If not the County must be picking up the tab for lost wages.
I received this "editorial" via Free Republic email; is has been sent to the Editor of the Duke Chronicle this past week; as the writer says, let's see if they actually use it:
An Open Letter to the Duke University Community:
I am a Duke alumnus, and as such have followed the lacrosse saga with great interest. I am sad to report that, among other things, I am not pleased with public perceptions of the University's response. Such negative perceptions of the response within the University community have hurt Duke’s reputation more than anything else having to do with the entire affair.
Despite the conclusions of the various committee reports commissioned by the Office of the President, the opinions of many of the people with whom I regularly come into contact reflect their belief that Duke University threw those associated with the team -- collectively and individually -- under the proverbial bus. Some believe that the President went so far as to figuratively “rev” that bus, then drive it repeatedly over the team and the Head Coach, while the Dean of Students rode shotgun, the Athletic Director watched powerlessly, and bigoted Faculty cheered rabidly.
As unflattering as those characterizations of the visible University response may be, my experience tells me that such impressions are as pervasive as they are negative. Some report that they practically expected such responses within the University community, given their personal views regarding rampant political correctness at major educational institutions, and in particular, Duke.
I understand the procedural step of suspending students while they face criminal charges, if for no reason other than the students’ own protection; however, as information continues to emerge about what, to a rational observer, appears NOT to have happened on March 13-14, 2005, many believe that the time has come for Duke to take a stand in support of (or at least say something nice about) the members of its community who appear to quite possibly have been falsely accused -- and opportunistically charged -- of heinous crimes.
With each passing day, it becomes ever more apparent that unscrupulous societal elements motivated by their warped senses of payback for historical inequities based on gender, race, and politics have -- and continue to -- exploit the circumstances of this terrible situation. Having said that, printing articles such as “A Spring of Sorrows” in University-sanctioned publications does nothing to help matters.
Of course, it is possible that public perceptions could be way off base. Perhaps Duke has done or is doing things behind the scenes to help the accused students. Perhaps the Head Coach was not pressured to resign or otherwise led to believe that it would no longer be possible for him to continue at Duke. If so, the University should not be afraid to do more to help, or to allow news of such support to get out, because all indications point toward a concerted effort by Duke University Administrators to distance themselves from these individuals, leaving them to twist in the wind.
The appearance of a lack of support has led to the following phenomena: Many parents state adamantly that they would no longer consider sending their children to Duke. Similarly, many teens state that they will no longer consider attending Duke. Such statements are the direct result of negative opinion of the University response to the situation, which is the real source of damage to Duke’s reputation.
I call on the Administration of Duke University to end the practices that give the appearance that it panders to the gender and race baiters – of whom some of the most shameful happen to be Duke Faculty members -- who derive their livelihoods from the perpetuation of division within our society.
(Name redacted for now)
Engineering ‘85, Fuqua ‘95
P.S. Pease advise of your intent to publish or otherwise utilize any of the content submitted herein.
***I am redacting the name for now; if the Freeper who wrote this wants to identify himself/herself, they can do it here.***
Good! It's time the alumni took a stand on this outrageous behavior.
Past time, if you ask me.
Bump for a good letter.
Awesome letter. Let's see if it does any good. I,for one will not hold my breath.
Terrific letter! I also graduated in 1985 like the writer. It may get published but do not be surprised at the number of Brodhead apologists who save their irritation for the lacrosse team and blame them completely for putting Duke in a bad position. Brodhead's infamous "whatever they did was bad enough" comment sadly captures the attitudes of the administration and some students and alums.
I grow more convinced as evidence emerges that the school made a cynical decision early on (as in the first week or two) to cut these guys loose if the press did not get better quickly, curry favor with Nifong, local officials and organizations and radical faculty so that they would be in position to say that they tried to get these guys but good if the charges had any merit. THere are alos indications that Brodhead and company wer emore duplicitous than the innocent bystanders they have presented themsolves to be. What they did not count on was the charges being a hoax, and they have no idea what to do to CYA.
What this means in English is that will do everything to see this through to trial and pray that Nifong has something that justifies the decisions in the first couple of weeks. They do not need a conviction, just enough to show probable cause. They made their bed by badmoutning hte players, making misleading and false statements, and letting falsehoods go unchallenged. Changing tact now would be an admission that they may have been wrong. If, as we anticipate, the trial will confirm the obvious, the finger pointing and potential lawsuits will begin in earnest. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
"I grow more convinced as evidence emerges that the school made a cynical decision early on (as in the first week or two) to cut these guys loose if the press did not get better quickly,"
As Robert Steel of the Board of Trustees said in a New Yorker interview, “We had to stop those pictures [of the players practicing]. It doesn’t mean that it’s fair, but we had to stop it. It doesn’t necessarily mean I think it was right—it just had to be done.”
That Democrat Governor would be smart to call an end to this game.
Good catch. Adds weight to the view that Duke could give flying hoot about the students; the only thing that mattered were their own sorry rear ends.
I recall that comment from Steel -- I knew these boys were in deep trouble when he said it because their so-called leaders are not exactly stand up guys. Of course, my father was a veteran of the Korean War, and his character standard is whether you want a person next to you in a foxhole when the Chinese artillery started coming in . . .
"When all of the facts are in, Duke will be judged by how it responded to the challenges before us. The trustees recognize these challenges and pledge our personal and collective support over the coming weeks to ensure that Duke University responds in a manner consistent with the great institution we know it to be."
RE: to which a recent blog commentor said:
*********************************************
Unless things change remarkably, this line from the movie "A Knight's Tale" will be (is??) all too applicable:
"You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting."
To paraphrase the last part of that exchange in the movie:
'In what world could you possibly think that your utter failure to offer 'personal and collective support' is 'consistent with the great institution [you] know it to be'?
*********************************************
LOL, I love that movie, and that exchange, so I now have a new tagline for dukelax threads! ;>)
"When all of the facts are in, Duke will be judged by how it responded to the challenges before us"
OK. All (or nearly all) of the relevant facts are in. There was no rape.
Where is coach Pressler?
Where are two lax players who are still banned from campus?
Where are two sophmores who are still banned from campus?
Where is the statement of support? (If Donna Shalala can go to the wall for her students, where is Brodhead? He has even MORE reason to support his students--who were totally innocent--than Shalala had to suppor hers.) So where is his statement?
I wonder how many Duke alums have written to their alma mater.
The AAAS can now offer PhDs in pot-banging.
Where is the statement of support?
As a Duke alumnus (or alumna, if you are female) how do you feel about Duke using alumni donations or possibly some of its endowment to build a performing arts center for Durham? Might this move have an impact on fund raising?
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.