Regarding your written and published claim “We are listening to our students.”
Identify by name, student number and any other applicable means of identification each and every student listened to regarding this matter. Identify where and when each “listening” conversation took place. Identify where these memorizations of these “listneings” if any now reside and in whole custody they have been since they were memorialized.
Identify how each of these students you listened to were chosen by you to be “listened to.” Identify the age, gender, racial, educational and pertinent experiences of each student so “listened to.”
Identify each and every step you took to ensure a cross section of students in the cross section of age, gender, racial, educational and pertinent experiential level of these students and how they related to all the students of Duke, all students in Durham County, all students in North Carolina and all students in the United States.
Identify each and every course you have taken in statistical sampling and how you applied the lessons learned in these classes to each “listening” interview you conducted.
Identify how you applied the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) of the American Society of Certified Public Accounts to selecting, conducting and memorializing the results of the “listening” sessions you have claimed to conduct.
and it goes on.....
These are just about 5% of my first set of interrogatories generated by the first sentence of their letter.
They cannot win!
If so, your interrogatories would be "unduly burdensome," and they'd be thrown out. Keep it up, and you'd be thrown out for harassment.
For example: Identify how you applied the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) of the American Society of Certified Public Accounts to selecting, conducting and memorializing the results of the “listening” sessions you have claimed to conduct.
They're not accountants. Why would they follow GAAP?
You seem to have lost all objectivity. Let it go.
I really hope you are not a lawyer, but you are just playing one on free republic.
By your standards everyone on free republic could be a defendant in a libel suit over some of our opinions on the likes of Hillary and Bill and Obama and Giuliani.
What you are proposing is a tort in and of itself. You could get disbarred yourself for using such frivilous tactics and malicious prosecution techniques.
These idiot professors expressed their idiotic opinions on something they knew little, if anything, about. You can sue them till the cows come home. You will not get beyond a motion for summary judgment in any jurisdiction. You will most likely get your case dismissed by demurr. In fact you'd be lucky if it were dismissed on the pleadings. On the countersuit for malicious prosecution and abuse of judicial process, you'd probably walk away penniless.