Somebody at Duke obviously feared there was the potential for faculty liability or they wouldn't have worked to get that specific language included in the agreement.
It should also be noted that the agreement was between Duke and the three defendants and their families. Other members of the team did not share in the settlement and are not bound by the agreement. All of them suffered the public abuse and the threats from the witch hunt. Each of them incurred the expense of securing legal representation. Some of them sat through classes where they were depicted as criminals by their instructors.
The damages were real enough. As to whether Duke faculty could be found liable:
1. The university's lawyers made sure to get language absolving them for anything they said before the agreement (with the implicit message to the 88 that "you're on your own from here on. Keep up the crap you've been pulling and we won't be bailing you out!");
2. There will not be a shortage of legal talent ready to pursue civil claims against Duke, its administration and faculty on behalf on the dozens of other wronged parties.
The settlement with the three families saved Duke the expense and embarassment of fighting civil charges which they probably would have lost and which would have put the university in an extremely unflattering public light. Who wants to be the villain in the lead story on the news every night ("Duke vs falsely accused students")?
The settlement has also made it clear that Duke will use its deep pockets to put this incident "behind them". Surely no one at Duke (or in the Durham legal community) imagines that the university has written its last check in this affair.
With all due respect to your legal acumen, a typical release in any matter will be sure to release the "agents, employees, predecessors, successors, affiliates, attorneys on and on and on..." It is the only way to insure that a settling party in gettting complete peace for the funds he is paying. It doesn't mean that it was a major point in the settlement negotiation. Since the faculty were not liable for defamation in my opinion, I still believe it was boiler plate.
There will not be a shortage of legal talent ready to pursue civil claims against Duke, its administration and faculty on behalf on the dozens of other wronged parties.
I agree that there are probably lawyers out there that would take such a case, but the cases would have a low chance of success.In order to win you have to show a false statement, not just a incorrect opinion. The 88 were basically saying that, "we think the players are guilty." Despicable, to be sure. But not actionable in my opinion.
Now, if they took action against the players based on the mistaken belief( like the one who said his grade was lowered), then the player has a case.