Posted on 09/29/2007 12:43:28 PM PDT by Eccl 10:2
DURHAM, N.C. — Duke University President Richard Brodhead apologized Saturday for not better supporting the men's lacrosse players falsely accused in last year's highly publicized rape scandal. "Given the complexities of this case, getting the communication right would never have been easy," Brodhead said. "But the fact is that we did not get it right, causing the families to feel abandoned when they were most in need of support. This was a mistake. I take responsibility for it and I apologize for it."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
In your dreams. Only a Republican would be expected to resign.
The unindicted 44 lacrosse players are also going to sue, and in addition Brodhead is under review from the trustees and there are SEVERAL big donators that are mucho disgusted with this feckless POS.
Imagine!! 18 months later and no punishments of the reprehensible faculty behavior, and only this belated apology for Duke's inaction and non-support. That guy and the BOT chairman Steele, have to go!
Actually, it was the non-accused Lacrosse players that said they would sue.
Late and hollow.
I hope they out...
Heh! Slight modification, if I may:
I'd like to apologize to my brother if he felt I stole some of his Halloween candy in 1978.
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE USING A, B, or C:
"Innocent until proven...
A) A Klingon.
B) Look! Up in the sky! Superman is real!
C) Guilty
Aha! Bet the apology was one of the terms of the ‘undisclosed settlement’.
This is an improvement on the last statement in which the Duke President lamented the pain of the the college community (inciters to riot and their “Marat”, the Humanities Dean). I would wager this commnunity consisted of this professor and her closest students and faculty fellow-travelers, and that’s it. So as far as the statement goes it’s far too little. He should resign out of conscience alone.
Is there an apology in here?
Complete text of President Richard H. Brodhead’s prepared remarks to the Duke Law School conference on Sept. 29, 2007:
This conference is not just about the Duke lacrosse case. It is about a kind of event that has taken on a central place in American culture: the legal case that creates a national community of attention, the case the public consumes every “fact” of with an endless appetite for more. Cases like these typically combine scandal, celebrity, and highly combustible social issues, race and sex perhaps chief among them. And having become one of America’s principal forms of shared public life, these cases highlight crucial problems of our culture — problems of achieving justice in a media-saturated society, problems of fundamental fairness to individuals, and problems in the way the American public is informed and misinformed about the world we live in.
The Duke community lived through a classic example of such a case. When a case like this is over, it’s tempting to think that the facts so clearly established at the end of the day must have been equally clear throughout the process. This was not the case. When the accusations were made, our students said emphatically that they were innocent. On the other hand, the district attorney made a series of public statements expressing absolute confidence that a crime had occurred and that the students were guilty of criminal charges. These starkly opposite versions of the truth created deep uncertainty about what had happened.
Added to this, the local and national media began weeks of highly sensational coverage, creating an air of instant, uncritical certainty that fed on itself in a remarkable way, with each day providing new “revelations” that became known around the world, confirming and re-confirming public assurance that an outrage had occurred.
Given the uncertainty at the heart of the case and given the tides of passionate prejudgment the DA’s comments and media accounts touched off, I staked out a position on behalf of the university that contained three principles. First, the type of crime that had been alleged had no place in our community. Second, the presumption of innocence is fundamental to our legal system, and our students were entitled to that presumption. And third, this whole matter had to be entrusted to the criminal justice system for its resolution.
As president, I had responsibility for the statements the university made and the actions the university took in a virtually unprecedented situation, and I take responsibility for them now. But I didn’t come here to retell the story or explain the logic of our acts. We are now in the aftermath of this extraordinary case, and the aftermath, we have to hope, is a time for learning. Having spent my life in the cause of teaching and learning, I am not at all unwilling to learn lessons of my own. I am happy for this chance to share some of those lessons.
First and foremost, I regret our failure to reach out to the lacrosse players and their families in this time of extraordinary peril. Given the complexities of the case, getting this communication right would never have been easy. But the fact is that we did not get it right, causing the families to feel abandoned when they most needed support. This was a mistake. I take responsibility for it, and I apologize.
Second, some of those who were quick to speak as if the charges were true were on this campus, and some faculty made statements that were ill-judged and divisive. They had the right to express their views. But the public as well as the accused students and their families could have thought that those were expressions of the university as a whole. They were not, and we could have done more to underscore that.
Third, I understand that by deferring to the criminal justice system to the extent we did and not repeating the need for the presumption of innocence equally vigorously at all the key moments, we may have helped create the impression that we did not care about our students. This was not the case, and I regret it as well.
Fourth, this episode has taught me a hard lesson about the criminal justice system and what it means to rely on it. Given the media circus and the public reactions it fed, I thought it essential to insist that the matter be resolved within the legal system, not in the court of public opinion. As far as it went, this was right. But what this case reminds us is that our justice system — the best in the world — is only as good as the men and women who administer it. In this case, it was an officer of this system itself who presented false allegations as true, suppressed contrary evidence, and subverted the process he was sworn to uphold.
Relying on the criminal justice system in this case proved to have serious limits. But for the university to strive to set the system to rights — for instance, by attacking the District Attorney — presented problems as well. For one thing, none of us can lightly speak as if the system itself is tainted because some of our own have been accused of a crime. I was also concerned that if Duke spoke out in an overly aggressive fashion, it would be perceived that a well-connected institution was improperly attempting to influence the judicial process, which could have caused the case to miscarry in a variety of ways. Finally, there was no legal recourse against the District Attorney, for me or anyone else. Under North Carolina laws, no one had authority to take an active case from a DA absent the DA’s own request, as finally happened in January.
Even with all that, Duke needed to be clear that it demanded fair treatment for its students. I took that for granted. If any doubted it, then I should have been more explicit, especially as evidence mounted that the prosecutor was not acting in accordance with the standards of his profession.
The larger problem for society is how to create and maintain the optimal balance between the independence of the legal system and protection of individuals from false prosecutions. If this state should ever again have a rogue prosecutor on the loose with no more remedies than were available last time around, the failure to have learned the lesson of the Duke lacrosse case would be intolerable. I do not want to create some instant legislative “solution” that opens the door for new injustices tomorrow. I recognize that it is not easy to get the checks and balances right when two such important interests are at stake. But it’s essential for all relevant parties to work to create these mechanisms, and I trust the current conference will contribute to this cause.
Closer to home, this case highlights challenges universities face when students are tied to serious criminal charges. This challenge has many aspects: how the university advises a student in these circumstances, how the university regulates the presence on campus of students charged with serious crimes, how the university interacts with parents, and many more. My colleagues in the Duke administration are going over all our procedures to see what we can learn from our experience. But these are complex questions, and they aren’t ones Duke can or should hope to solve on its own. To work through these difficulties and see that their lessons are learned not only here but around the country, we will be hosting a national conference of educators, lawyers and student affairs leaders to discuss best practices in this important field.
I’ll end with the deepest lesson this case taught me. When I think back through the whole complex history of this episode, the scariest thing, to me, is that actual human lives were at the mercy of so much instant moral certainty, before the facts had been established. If there’s one lesson the world should take from the Duke lacrosse case, it’s the danger of prejudgment and our need to defend against it at every turn. Given the power of this impulse and the forces that play to it in our culture, achieving this goal will not be easy. But it’s a fight where we all need do our part.
Much of me hopes the Duke lacrosse case will be forgotten someday. But if it is remembered, let’s hope it is remembered the right way: as a call to caution in a world where certainty and judgment come far too quickly.
A truly dishonest weasel. The whole presentation is worse than just the “apology” quote in the article.
OOOOH!!! What you just said.
falls under the heading: TOO LITTLE TOO LATE!!
I don't know where you are getting your information but the annual fund is not down at all. Nor were applications last year (they are not due yet for this year) and yield (the percentage of kids that choose Duke once accepted) was one of the highest years ever last year. Yield is what colleges care about most. Most people see Duke for what it is: a fine institution that was involved in a rape scandal last year. There's a lot more to Duke than just this case. Is it liberal? Yes. Are all top tier schools (and a lot that aren't) in the US liberal? Absolutely! Do I hate it? Yes! but it is what it is. Duke, as much as I would like to see it, is not going to fire the 88. For one thing, in many cases, they can't. These are tenured professors. For another, school culture is different than business. It's not better or worse but it is distinctly different. You can't go firing people en masse even for garbage like this. As much as we would all love to see it, it's not going to happen. That doesn't mean there are no repercussions from this behavior. It just means that things are done more quietly and behind the scenes.
It's the weekend, you don't have to rude...
Why shouldn't river rat be rude? You have been to rude to spktyr. Spktyr gave you links, which you apparently didn't bother to study, and you kept after him to give more and stronly implied he was lying. I guess that's ok though, right, because you are liberal and liberals are allowed to be rude?
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.