Posted on 03/12/2007 2:20:58 PM PDT by abb
DURHAM, N.C. — Through the pane of a Gothic window, the office of Duke University President Richard Brodhead looks out over students and faculty strolling across the hub of campus. It's an ordinary collegiate scene — and a far cry from a year ago.
"You couldn't park down here because we had every media van in America, and a student could scarcely go to class without a big furry mike stuck in his face," Brodhead recalls.
The media had descended on the quad following the now infamous off-campus party — on March 13, 2006 — that led to three Duke lacrosse players being charged with rape. Everyone connected with the university, it seemed, was anguished, angry, and under intense scrutiny.
A year later, the TV trucks may be gone but the case lingers. Rape charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans have been dropped and District Attorney Mike Nifong has removed himself from the case. Special prosecutors, however, are still evaluating charges of kidnapping and sexual offense.
On campus, the lacrosse team is playing again following an extended suspension of competition, and students seem interested in moving on.
A deep rift, however, remains in Duke's faculty, who have spent much of the last year arguing over a raft of sensitive issues including race, sex and elitism at one of the country's leading universities. Those debates have taken place under the scrutiny of outsiders following the case — some producing thoughtful commentary, but others only a flood of hateful e-mails, Internet postings and phone calls.
"I don't think any of us all saw that coming," said Lee Baker, an associate professor of anthropology who as chair of the Arts and Sciences Council, a faculty group, was one of those trying to keep the peace.
"Our syllabi are getting scrutinized. There are a couple Web sites that instruct people to go to ratemyprofessor.com and give negative comments. The white supremacists sites have our names and e-mails. It goes on and on."
As Brodhead works to repair Duke's public image, there is also healing to do closer to home.
"This situation did harm to many, many different parties," Brodhead told the AP in an exclusive interview. "If it has done good to a single one, I don't have much sense of that."
Much of the friction has surrounded an ad that got little notice when it first appeared in the student newspaper last April.
Titled "What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like," the ad was signed by 88 of the approximately 760 non-medical faculty.
It stated: "Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent every day now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism. ..." Below were 11 quotations from unidentified people about the environment at Duke.
It included: "We go to class with racist classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists."
Organizers said they only wanted to reassure students their voices were being heard.
But the ad became the center of a firestorm. Critics said they didn't object to discussion, but that the ad defamed Duke and that its tone and language presumed the players' guilt.
In mid-December, defense attorneys cited the ad in motions claiming the accused players couldn't get a fair trial in Durham.
"The idea that people would think the faculty of Duke University was prejudiced against its own students was horrifying to me," said Roy Weintraub, one of 18 economics faculty who signed a petition stating "the Group of 88 does not speak for all Duke faculty."
Some faculty who signed the ad later tried to clarify their positions, emphasizing they hadn't meant to imply the students' guilt. But many maintain they weren't wrong to use the case to call attention to important issues.
"There are no circumstances under which people are going to be happy to have the institution criticized for its participation in structural inequality," said Wahneema Lubiano, an associate professor or literature and African and African-American Studies, who has been one of the strongest defenders of the ad. "I don't have any regrets. We were not talking about the case. But to avoid the spotlight would have meant walking around a very large elephant."
Faculty say the ad has been the topic of numerous private conversations, some fruitful and dignified, some angry and petty.
But almost everyone agrees technology made it harder to keep the debate civil.
Blogs closely followed the response of Duke's faculty, often tying them to a broader critique of radical academic politics. Many faculty, including Lubiano, were bombarded with e-mails. Some thoughtfully criticized their positions and even academic work; some were simply racist diatribes.
"Dear (vulgarity)," read one e-mail sent to William Chafe, a respected former dean who had signed the ad. "I doubt that you'll read this because you're too weak and feminine to dare to hear anything critical. I simply want to thank you for your mindless racism and feminism." It closed with an unprintable racist and sexual insult.
For all the concern about hateful speech, there also is worry that silence is the real price of the last year's events.
Several faculty members declined to be interviewed, saying they fear even having their names appear in print would prompt another flood of e-mails.
"I believe the feeding frenzy of the last few months has scarred the intellectual community, largely because of the tone of the e-mails and the insinuations made," Chafe said in an e-mail from Europe, where he is teaching this semester. "There has been little willingness to presume good faith on the part of anyone, or to admit that there could be some justice on all sides of the issue. There is now fear on the part of many faculty to speak out lest they too become targets."
In an extraordinary speech in early January, Provost Peter Lange, the university's chief academic officer, criticized the torrent of abuse from outsiders, but also chided Duke's faculty for the lack of civility and mutual respect they had shown each other.
"In recent months we have lost some of our ability to exercise these qualities in speaking with one another," Lange said. "In the face of this decay some have become strident, harsh or unhearing; others have retreated from the public arena."
That, Lange said, caused him "real sadness at what was, and still is, happening to our community and its ability to reason together about the toughest, most divisive issues."
Opponents of the Group of 88 regret there were personal attacks, but say criticism is warranted. They say some colleagues exploited the players' predicament to advance their radical agendas — and it backfired.
"I think they've behaved like children, frankly," said Steven Baldwin, a chemistry professor, of some of the hard-core supporters of the ad. "They have done themselves a great disservice. The agenda they have — which is clearly focused on racial and gender lines — a lot of people are saying these people are hysterical, and their whole message is diminished."
Brodhead has tried not to be drawn in.
Critics should recognize the ad was published "against the background of the DA speaking with certainty about a rape having taken place," he said. In hindsight, "people spoke in tones that you wouldn't choose at a different point."
But he says he has always emphasized the players' presumption of innocence.
"I've made clear if there are issues here to debate, then let's debate them, but in a context separate from that case and separate from its implications about individuals."
Brodhead acknowledges there have been strains. But he and others say that in countless unpublicized moments — in classes, during office hours, over meals with students — Duke faculty did exactly what teachers should: used current events to talk seriously and respectfully about broader issues.
He also says the case, while taking up much of his time and energy, has not impaired the university. Applications and fundraising are steady. During the last year Duke has introduced a new service learning initiative, debuted global health projects and opened a new science building.
"We have to deal with this situation and we will," he said. "But it's been our job to remember that we have a university here, and after this story is long forgotten, that university is going to go on."
Ping
More of the interview here:
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/1232022/
Both Nifong and Duke will live in infamy for their callous disregard for the lives of those falsely accused.
...which he demonstrated by canceling the lacrosse season immediately after the accusations were made.
I think the students are right to hold these teachers accountable and responsible for their actions. Finally people can now see what is happening on our campuses and if anyone thinks the left is protecting, in this case, the students they teach, think again.
Interesting.
Sounds like a lot of the same ol' stuff coming from a academic fraud of a university president. Throw those slings and arrows of outrageous fame and if they hit, then claim "you didn't mean it." That is what this jerk is claiming and it is a liberal lie!
It's still all about THEM, not the 3 students they abandoned.
It'll be forgotten when the War of Northern Aggression is forgotten. :-)
Funny. I do not remember Professor Chafe showing any presumption of good faith toward the LAX players.
But before a trial and conviction. This crowd makes me sick.
The only reason for caution in ousting Brodhead is that there are even worse characters in close proximity, viz., Harvard
Says it all.
And as for brodhead, he is just a bald-faced liar:
But he says he has always emphasized the players' presumption of innocence.
At most, he gave a passing nod. It was never emphasized--or is he referring to when the players were kicked out of school?
It ain't over yet. The defendants STILL face 30 years in prison. And if North Carolina was willing to retry Gell in a death penalty case(knowing he was innocent) in order to spare the state from political fallout, do you think it wouldn't still try to convict these three? (And the prosecutor in the Gell case is now the Special Prosecutor in the Duke case.)
Petition for Justice in the Duke Lacrosse Case :
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/208340697
Rock the boat. Let the NC authorities know that the spotlight
is focused on them now.
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.