[The following was posted as a comment on the Breck Archer post. We have not looked into the matter and cannot confirm or expand upon this account of events, but we thought we would share Judith's story. Judith, there is no need for trepidation on behalf of your remaining children if we may have anything to say about it.]
I have up-close and personal experience with the "fairness" of Dean Stephen Bryan. My son was accused of Lying by Kim Curtis (yes, that Kim Curtis) in the Spring of 2004.
She accused him of turning a paper in a day late in March 2004, and then lying about it. He was in Army ROTC and a student athlete.
Dean Bryan notified him of this charge AFTER classes and finals in the May of 2004, and his "Hearing" was held in early September, BEFORE classes even started.
The Judicial Advisor he was referred to during the summer was conveniently "on leave" and the second one had left the Advisor program. He finally met an available Judicial Advisor less than 24 hours before his hearing.
She told me that had she had the time, she would have researched all other cases of Lying, but she was not allowed to keep researching the files, because it was after 5 PM and Dean Bryan needed to leave.
After my son was found Guilty of Lying, and suspended for two semesters, he was given 48 hours to vacate his dorm room on Craven Quad. Dean Bryan considerately inactivated his DukeCard so that he could not even GET INTO HIS DORM to move out, or even buy a meal.
I have written about my son's situation before, on DIW and FODU, and I have trepidation now, because I still have two children who are students at Duke.
In our case, my son jumped through the appropriate hoops, was allowed back into Duke, and graduated. He has moved on, and we have moved on.
But I often wonder about students who have also been targeted by rogue faculty or administration, and who may not have the support and resources to return to Duke.
So I don't think that Duke's treatment of Breck Archer was unique. I think that the Judicial System has been used on occasion as a tool to punish students for not adhering to the agenda of certain members of the faculty and administration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I have no doubt that what you say it true. My question for you is why do you allow your other childern to stay at duke and expose them to the known risks?
One shouldn't lie. On the account provided, there is no denial and no description of the evidence. So one is left to think about what is described.
The timing of the hearing, the uselessness of the Judicial Advisor, and the apparently premature and unexpected deactivation of the student's keycard give one the impression that the Dean is not a likable man.
Apparently at Duke, the truth is sometimes important and sometimes not. It was important when Prof. Curtis accused Judith's son of lying. On the other hand according to Coach Pressler, when he was forced out and protested that the charges against his players were not true, he was told that "It's not about the truth."
What Judith's son and Coach Pressler have in common is that Duke treated both of them in a way that reflects poorly on Duke.
Judith's son should sue Duke, Stephen Bryan, and Kim Curtis. Documented misbehavior, in particular Kim Curtis's grading, should make the case much easier. Even if whoever got the grade settlement agreed to nondisclosure provisions, these can probably be broken by a court demand for testimony.
Also, I am puzzled about why Judith is still sending other children to Duke.
It should be remembered that there is currently a committee headed by Noah Pickus of the Keenan Ethics Institute to review Duke's judicial policies and procedures. That Duke is reviewing Judicial Affairs is encouraging. That it took this much to instigate change is not encouraging.
Ekstrand has been lobbying for these kinds of changes for several years. Though DSG has also made efforts to push for change in the last few months, it is hard to ignore that the committee was created only after it was clear Duke would be facing another barrage of lawsuits.
It is better late than never, of course, and Duke deserves credit for attempting to eliminate some of these risks you speak of.
It should also be remembered that Duke created a new position, that of University Ombudsperson filled by John Blackshear, to aid in resolving these kinds of disputes between faculty and students. Theoretically that should provide some protection from rogue faculty and administrators.
Dr. Blackshear is one of the individuals scheduled to participate on our panel at the Indoctrinate U event.
Duke students need to read these reports carefully, and consider how the facts at Duke affect their personal security. This is serious business.
Look what has happened to dozens of your fellow students. It could happen to you. Then, Duke students need to take action.
It seems that the Duke administration is utterly absent from its duty to protect Duke students.
The faculty is absent as well.
Shame, shame, shame.
Jim Peterson
There have been several comments regarding, "Why would I send my children to Duke?" after our experience with Kim Curtis and Dean Bryan.
The answer is that I am a Duke alum (T'74 MHA'78) and my father is a Duke alum (JD'51). I have loved Duke since I was a little girl, and my husband and I have been consistent donors of time and money on behalf of the University.
Last year, before the lacrosse news broke, we endowed a scholarship with a six-figure donation, because we felt that the education provided by Duke should be available to students of all means.
I thought at the time that Brad's experience was a fluke, and like most reasonable mothers, I first BLAMED HIM!
As more facts came to light re Kim Curtis, and the administration's treatment of the lacrosse team and coach, I started rethinking his whole experience.
But in the end, I feel that I have more of a vested interest in the well-being of the University than Dean Bryan, Kim Curtis, Larry Moneta and even President Brodhead and BOT Robert Steele. They will come, and they will go. As a family, we will remain.
judith,
Your sentiments and support are what make Duke, or any other great university, great.
However, unfortunately, Dean Bryan, Kim Curtis, Larry Moneta, President Brodhead and BOT Robert Steele, and OTHERS of their ilk, right now ARE Duke university.
It is of course true they will eventually leave. They, as will all of us, will also eventually die. It is the way of all flesh, so to speak.
In the meantime, they are redefinng Duke university in ways that no one with a sense of right, justice, responsibility, fair play, or ethics could possibly support.
They are changing Duke university from what it was and what you hope it will continue to be, into something different and undesirable.
History tells us that, if the good stand quietly by, the bad will have their way.
Jim Peterson
Judith, present day Duke doesn't deserve you and your incredible family. But I sincerely hope that some day it will. However, that day won't come until after Curtis and the Gang are made to answer (with penalties and suspensions) for their attacks on Duke students. In addition, Brodhead, Bryan, Monetta and Steele must also be made to answer for why they not only let those attacks occur, but even participated in them.
May I respectfully suggest, Judith, that one of the ways this might be accomplished would be if you would be so kind as to contact Ekstrand and relate to him the facts of the abuse which Curtis and Duke leveled against your son? Such an action would not only force Duke to confront what it did to you and your son - but also force Duke to confront what has changed it from the incredible university you so deeply love and respect into the university it has now sadly degenerated into.
I hope Judith sees this.
The best interest of Duke University is served by removing Stephen Bryan, Larry Moneta, Richard Brodhead, and their collabotarors, including the Gang of 88, as soon as possible. Paradoxical though it may seem, this means the best interest of Duke University is served by filing more lawsuits.
Duke University has a chance to become a great leader. Replacing Broadhead, Dryan, Moneta, etc. by people who actively repudiate the ideology of the Gang of 88, and doing so in a very public way, would suddenly make Duke very attractive to students wanting to avoid political indoctrination. It would also make Duke very attractive to prospective faculty members who have serious intellectual goals instead of ideological posturing. This would be especially true in the humanities and social sciences, but would also make a difference in the natural sciences.
The result would be to make Duke very attractive to many excellent minds. Because the ideological rot exemplified by the Gang of 88 has infected a great many universities, there would be little competition for them from other universities. Duke could considerably increase the quality of both its students and its faculty.
Post a Comment