Duke Students for an Ethical Duke

Kristin Butler Wins National Award

2008-05-02T06:07:00.006-04:00

Kristin Butler recently became the top winner of The National Society of Newspaper Columnists Educational Foundation Scholarship contest, announced on April 24th. Editor and Publisher published an article about it. Surprisingly, the Chronicle opted not to report it in Monday's paper, though they were notified, but we are posting it here nonetheless.

Two of the judges had this to say about Butler and her work:

Goodman commented: “A good combination of reporting and opinion with a tough look at her own administration. Liked the variety as well, from health care to stripping!”

Suzette Martinez Standring, a preliminary judge, also commented on Butler. “Articulate and well-researched columns on social justice topics. Her Voice and point of view is one to be reckoned with.”

"I'm thrilled by the Society's decision, and grateful for the opportunity to visit New Orleans and interview Katrina victims this June," said Butler.

Her First Prize also comes with $1000. Kristin has not decided yet how to put that to use.

DCU Sponsors David Horowitz's Islamo-Fascism Awareness Speech

2008-04-19T15:55:00.012-04:00

David Horowitz's appearance at Duke prompted fierce opposition from the Chronicle. Such a stance seems to be an extraordinary step for the editorial board, as we cannot remember anything similar for other speakers brought to Duke. The editorial called him an "inflammatory demagogue" and then went on to take shots at the Duke Conservative Union claiming a "preference on the part of Duke Conservative Union for inciting belligerent dispute rather than encouraging intelligent discourse."

Aside from being high on inciting and accusatory language and low on substantiation or information of any sort for that matter, the little information the editorial did attempt to provide was quite inaccurate. It seems rather clear that the Chronicle horribly mischaracterized Horowitz's views on Academic Freedom and inaccurately claimed Horowitz has called for the removal of parts of the Koran.

No other examples come to mind of the Chronicle writing a staff editorial denouncing a campus speaker brought by a student group - or any other group - in such a fashion. It seems to be an infrequent occurrence at most. It is especially odd for the newspaper to dismiss Horowitz as an incendiary demagogue seeking shock value when the same newspaper gave a platform to Shadee Malaklou for an entire year. When asked how the Chronicle - a Duke sanctioned monopoly - could retain the services of such an uniformed and slanderous individual as Malaklou, one of the Chronicle's senior editors answered, "readership." People would read the Chronicle on the day of Malaklou's column simply to see what absurd and outrageous nonsense she had published.

One of Malaklou's surreal choice offerings:

A rape may not have occurred on March 13, but as a woman on Duke’s campus, as a Woman’s Studies major, and as activist for survivors of sexual assault, I assure Mr. Cheshire that these men are not innocent, nor are they upstanding citizens of Duke or Durham law….Nifong might not be in the right legally, but that doesn’t mean he's not doing the right thing.

Moreover, the Chronicle accused Horowitz as someone who seeks to obstruct free speech and censor college professors - which seems completely inaccurate from reading the Academic Bill of Rights - yet the Chronicle refused to print a paid advertisement in advance of Horowitz's speech calling for an end to genocide, calling it incendiary. It is tough to reconcile that stance with the Chronicle's assertion that "unlike the man himself, we trust students' ability to freely form opinions rather than be forced into them, despite the 'dangerous' ideas that we allow to be expressed on our campus."

Worst of all, it should be clear from the video below as it was at the event that it was nothing like the Chronicle's characterization whatsoever. It was informative and there was plenty of constructive dialog. A number of Muslim students showed up with tough questions and challenged Horowitz frequently. He answered them all. Several Muslim students congratulated Horowitz in person after the event and expressed their gratitude to him for coming. Two of them requested his autograph.

The Chronicle then ran a story to which Chronicle Chief Editor David Graham gave the title "Horowitz Sounds Off to Small Crowd." It should be noted that there were closer to 90-100 attendants, nearly double the 50 claimed by the Chronicle (the room held 180 and was at least half full). In fairness to the Duke Conservative Union, who sponsored the event, calling that a "small crowd" completely lacks perspective when it comes to speakers sponsored by student groups, especially around exam time. One cannot help but note the irony that the Chronicle mocks the speech for a low attendance (inaccurately) after publishing an editorial (whose two attempted facts were both dead wrong) ensuring that the entire campus should dismiss the speaker as an inflammatory bigot incapable of reasoned discussion.

DSEDuke was not involved in bringing Horowitz to Duke, but we have agreed to post the video online anyway so that all may judge for themselves whether Horowitz, his speech, or the DCU have been treated fairly by David Graham's Chronicle.

Use Internet Explorer. You cannot view this with Firefox.
www.duke.edu/~kcl10/DavidHorowitz4-18-08.wmv

Grace Wang Seeks to Set Record Straight

2008-04-18T15:50:00.005-04:00

The New York Times and Washington Post have reported on the plight of Grace Wang, and the Times has provided the above photo depicting the viciousness of the confrontation faced by Wang. Attendants of the pro-Tibet vigil have reported to us that the rhetoric directed at her was largely unfit for print.

But Grace Wang's role in the conflicting demonstrations has been widely misunderstood, especially by those in the Chinese blogosphere that have demanded that her life be terminated by any number of creative or ancient means. She was not a party to either side. As she has explained and participants of the vigil have confirmed, she arrived at what had become a chaotic scene and sought to mediate between the two groups and encourage a more peaceful, understanding, and thoughtful demonstration.

She has repeatedly made clear that she does not advocate Tibetan independence to any who will listen. Unfortunately, the pro-China demonstrators seem to have had little interest and drown her out with chants and accusations. She does, however, advocate fair treatment and more freedom for Tibet, much as she advocates more freedom throughout China.

As her message is slowly getting out, Grace tells us that some of the thousands of emails she has received have been supportive - including emails from China - though that portion remains a minority.

[Update 5:49 pm 4/18/08]
WRAL also ran the story last night and have published an article on their website.

Targeted Chinese National Students' China Home Vandalized

2008-04-16T14:33:00.006-04:00

Grace Wang, who has recently decided to identify herself publicly, was publicly outed recently by members of the Duke Chinese Scholars and Students Association on their website for attending a pro-Tibet vigil. Her name and her involvement in the vigil have exploded in the Chinese blogosphere and in internet forums, and she has received an onslaught of threatening and harassing phone calls, as have her parents in her home town of Qingdao, China. A video of Wang participating in the vigil was also posted on YouTube, and has received over 640,000 views and counting. The video has since been reposted by many others as well. From the reports we have heard from pro-Tibet participants, the treatment of Wang by the crowd of pro-China protesters consisted primarily of a barrage of profanity and insults.

More recently, as the Chronicle reports, Wang's parents' apartment in China has been vandalized with a bucket of feces poured in front of its door.

Wang has been participating in numerous interviews, one of which we have clipped for your convenience. Here is Wang on PRI's The World.

Motion Denied

2008-04-15T18:28:00.003-04:00

Judge Beaty denied Duke's motion to eliminate the website maintained by Bob Bork's D.C. based public relations firm on behalf of the 38 families currently suing Duke University and Durham. Ray Gronberg of the Durham Herald Sun and Dan Galindo of the Winston-Salem Journal report.

This development comes as little surprise given what uninvolved lawyers have predicted, including Duke Law's own Thomas Metzloff. Metzloff has stated that he believes the motion is "future-oriented" to inform the judge of the publicity the case is likely to receive and to ensure that the website does not, at a future date, cross the line in terms of prejudicing a jury. Powerline's Paul Mirengoff noted that "setting up this kind of website, and indeed ones that are much more aggressive, is a common thing for plaintiffs to do these days."

A likely explanation for Duke's motion was offered by one of KC Johnson's more thoughtful commenters - a litigator himself - suggesting that the motion was likely an attempt to gauge the judge's receptiveness to the possibility of limiting discovery. Duke's lawyers may believe - or may know for a fact as Pam Bernard of Duke's General Counsel has been collecting the emails of all university employees involved since early last fall - that discovery in this affair has the potential to become very painful for the Duke University defendants in particular regardless of what it contributes to the legal case. The embarrassment of such publicity alone could potentially be a motivation for Duke to settle simply to keep such information out of the public eye.

Duke Chinese Scholars and Students Association Allegedly Incites Vicious Harassment of Tibet Supporter

2008-04-14T15:39:00.002-04:00

The Chronicle published a brief report today, though we expect there is much more to come. We will keep you updated as we learn more. We understand that this young lady has been viciously threatened, as well as her family back home.

2008 Campus Outrage Award: Duke Wins Grand Prize

2008-04-04T17:29:00.014-04:00

Duke recently won an unfortunate award for hosting the Sex Workers Art Show as the SWAS continues to make headlines. ISI awarded Duke University the Grand Prize for 2008 for what Larry Moneta apparently called “a hallmark of the intellectual environment [students] will experience at Duke.” The prize money of $1000 for the Grand Prize will go to the New Right Review for Angela Czahor's and David Bitner's pieces on the affair. Congratulations to all involved!

Congratulations go to the runner up, the University of Delaware, for a an extremely valiant effort to outrage every sane person in the nation with their absurd racial training program, which defined "a racist" as a term that "applies to all white people." It is tough to imagine a more worthy adversary.

April Fools Day Chronicle

2008-04-01T23:05:00.005-04:00

The Chronicle front page today featured a number of April Fools Day stories. We aren't sure if they are available online, but one of them was quite well done and worth reprinting. Ken Larrey agrees they got his number. Here it is:

Man sues Duke for bracket loss
By Boobs Allison

John Matthews, Trinity '69, is suing the University for emotional damage and conspiracy after the men's basketball team's loss to West Virginia, putting him at the bottom of his NCAA bracket pool.
The suit was announced on JuicyCampus.com in a thread entitled, "What does a bracket disaster look like?"
Readers rated the thread 88-percent juicy.
Suits were rumored last week when John Burnedout, vice president for government affairs and public relations, announced that the University had added literary attorney Atticus Finch to its legal team.
"A lot of people said it couldn't be done, because [Finch] is fictional. And over-qualified. It's really unprecedented," he said. "We're prepared to defend the University vigorously in this matter, by way of seances and memoranda."
Duke's attorneys filed a motion Friday saying that Mathews had broken state bar rules in publicizing his suit and called for JuicyCampus to be shut down.
Burnedout said the details of the University's legal strategy were a secret that many wouldn't understand.
Duke Students for a Moral Duke President Ben T. Jarry, a super-senior, said Duke's motion was actually a thinly-veiled aspect of Laurence "Of Arabia" Vendetta's "secret file" to have a post removed that criticized the West Campus Plaza and veganism.
"I have been told by a number of sources, including members of the Board of Trustees, that Duke is screwed," Jarry said. "Oh wait- can I go off the record? I'm not sure I can say that," he said.

Touche, Boobs Allison.

Response to Duke Motion Concerning Rule 3.6

2008-03-13T22:52:00.019-04:00

Charles Cooper, attorney for the 38 lacrosse players, has filed a response to Duke's motion claiming a violation of Rule 3.6 by the plaintiffs' attorneys. Dukelawsuit.com has posted the response pointing out both the legal and logical absurdities of Duke's motion and much more credibly claiming ethical violations by Duke's lawyer Pam Bernard:

Duke’s motion is extraordinary. Duke not only acknowledges that the specific extrajudicial attorney statements it challenges either directly quote or closely paraphrase the allegations of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, it concedes that such statements are expressly authorized by Rule 3.6(b)(2)’s so-called “safe harbor” for attorney comments that relate “information in a public record.”

[...]

But Duke’s motion is even more remarkable for what it does not say. Nowhere does Duke cite a single case in which a court, state or federal, has imposed sanctions or otherwise enforced the attorney speech restrictions of Rule 3.6 in civil litigation, and our research has turned up no such case. Duke’s motion thus seeks a ruling from this Court that appears to be without precedent in American jurisprudence.

[...]

Nor does Duke, finally, even refer to, let alone cite any evidence for, this Court’s supposed “very strict practice forbidding lawyers from discussing their litigation with the press” in civil cases such as this. We assume that Duke’s counsel had a good faith basis for making this representation to Plaintiff’s counsel, notwithstanding their failure to provide any.

[...]

We note initially our disagreement with Duke’s claim that the passages from the press release excerpted in Duke’s brief are framed in “incendiary language”... indeed, even now we are hard pressed to see how we might edit the statements to make them less embarrassing to Duke. [emphasis added]

[...]

If Duke had not so callously and deliberately violated its contractual and legal duties to its innocent students, it would not now be facing these historically unprecedented legal actions by what effectively amounts to its entire 2006 lacrosse team.

[...]

Duke accuses Mr. Henkelman of speaking “in a manner calculated to engender sympathy,” Duke Br. 12, but no calculation or artifice is necessary to render sympathetic the prolonged anguish of a parent who has been forced to watch helplessly as his innocent child was falsely condemned by officials, professors, and students of the very institution that agreed to educate and care for him. Yes, Mr. Henkelman’s words were indeed poignant and moving, and it is not surprising that Duke cringes with embarrassment to hear them. But that is hardly a reason to silence him. [emphasis added]

[...]

Duke itself, of course, also has a very sophisticated website on which it provides links to news stories and posts its own frequent press releases, including those about the lacrosse incident. Duke includes one such press release as an exhibit to its submission here, in which Duke’s General Counsel, Pamela Bernard, openly violates the confidentiality of settlement negotiations by revealing what purport to be details of a settlement offer made by Duke to the Plaintiffs...In contrast, when asked about Ms. Bernard’s press statement during the Plaintiffs’ February 21 press conference, Mr. Cooper declined to discuss the substance of the parties’ confidential settlement discussions. [emphasis added]

Duke’s counsel represent to this Court that Ms. Bernard’s press release was issued only “[i]n the face of [plaintiffs’] publicity,” and out of Duke’s “belie[f] that a statement was required to protect the Duke Defendants from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of this publicity which was initiated by the Plaintiffs . . . .” Duke Br. 6. But Duke issued a materially indistinguishable press release on December 18, 2007, in response to the filing of a similar civil action in this Court by three other lacrosse players, a filing which was not accompanied by any press release or press conference. (link) And Ms. Bernard also issued a press release in response to the state court action filed against Duke by former lacrosse team coach Mike Pressler, although the filing of his suit was not accompanied by a press release or a press conference. (link) Perhaps Duke’s counsel will be able to explain the purpose of these unprovoked press releases in their reply brief. [emphasis added]

Lawsuit Breakdown: The Coleman Report and Dean Bryan's False Statistics

2008-03-12T16:27:00.008-04:00

[The series Lawsuit Breakdown will attempt to highlight the main points of the lawsuit filed on 12/18/07 by attorneys for Ryan McFayden, Matt Wilson and Breck Archer with a focus on Duke University's involvement in the scandal.]

In what is one of the more surprising revelations in this lawsuit, Ekstrand's lawsuit introduces allegations that the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee's report (Coleman report), long recognized as a "stunning vindication" (link) of the lacrosse team from every accusation of significance about the lacrosse team's culture, was based on deliberately fraudulent statistics. It should be noted that the lawsuit does not fault James Coleman or others on the committee for the conclusions of the report as the suit seems to believe the committee was mislead by Director of Judicial Affairs Stephen Bryan.

The significance of this allegation cannot be underestimated. Of all the assertions of horrific misbehavior - racism, violence, misogyny and of course rape - hurled at the lacrosse players publicly and privately by both faculty and administrators, the only accusations that have held any water amounted to minor, alcohol related irresponsibility and inconsiderateness. These kinds of infractions were so insignificant that the University did not even keep statistics of them until October 2004. Now it seems even those allegations were exaggerated by Duke nearly to the point of fabrication.

This section of the lawsuit is highly intriguing and seems well substantiated. It is worth reading in full to view the entirety of Ekstrand's substantiation. In summary the most incriminating assertion of fact is that Dean Bryan provided to the committee phony data from before October 2004. In October 2004, "the University began systematically recording data of incidents of all alcohol policy violations involving students" (p. 254). Furthermore, "it was Bryan's arbitrary enforcement of the alcohol policy that prompted the Campus Committee's 2004 Initiative" (p. 254). Yet inexplicably "Bryan concealed the existence" (p. 255) of the data collected systematically after October 2004 and "provided the Committee with unreliable and grossly misleading data sets [from before Oct. 2004] in order to induce the Committee to conclude that the lacrosse team members' conduct was out of step with that of comparison groups" (p. 255).

As brief examples of their absurdity, Bryan's statistics, as reported by the Ad Hoc Committee, held lacrosse players accountable for "50% of noise violations and 33% of open container violations" (p. 256) based on single instances of such violations by lacrosse players. If the idea that there were fewer than 5 such violations combined by Duke students in any significant time frame isn't in itself preposterous, Ekstrand notes that the University was well aware of a well publicized incident in the fall of 2006 where 7 students were given 7 noise violations and 7 open container violations in one night alone.

The report was slanted by absurd statistics to begin with, but even more relevant is the overtly slanted way in which the report has been used by administrators. Though Ekstrand does not mention it in the lawsuit, Brodhead, speaking of the report on June 5, asserted, “though it did not confirm the worst allegations against this team, [it] documents a history of irresponsible conduct that this university cannot allow to continue” (Until Proven Innocent p. 237).

Perhaps most telling of all is that the report, which was scheduled ("forced," claims Ekstrand) to present one day before the primary election for Nifong, was given to Nifong in advance but not to the players or their counsel: "Defendant Burness delivered an advance copy of the Ad Hoc Committee Report to the City of Durham Defendants so they could prepare statements for the press conferences. Burness did not send a copy of the Ad Hoc Report - in advance or after its release - to the Plaintiffs, their teammates or their counsel" (p. 260). An oversight? Perhaps. The problem for Burness and the rest of the Duke Administration is that it fits into a rather telling pattern of efforts by Duke not only to aid Nifong in his attempts to railroad Duke Students, but to assist in his reelection. These efforts by the Duke Administration are continued in shocking fashion before the general election in the fall of 2006, explained in the next segment of Lawsuit Breakdown.

"The myth of the Plaintiffs and their teammates as out-of-control, aberrant, abusers of alcohol, with a history of 'deplorable' behavior persists up to the present day" (p. 260), incited and continuously perpetuated by Brodhead and other Duke administrators and faculty.

Download Indoctrinate U

2008-03-10T02:25:00.003-04:00

[The following is a message from Indoctrinate U]

We're very happy to announce the arrival of the Indoctrinate U online store!

http://cts.vresp.com/c/?MovingPictureInstitu/f15dce67c5/581ff96251/29a88804bd

You can download the film today and watch it on your computer or TV.

The film is available as a high-quality MPEG-4 file or as a Virtual DVD, which allows you to burn your own DVD copy of "Indoctrinate U" and watch it on your TV. (The Virtual DVD is a standards-compliant ISO file.)

The MPEG-4 file and the Virtual DVD are compatible with Mac, Windows and Linux.

ALSO:

There are a number of new screenings that have been added to the schedule over the coming weeks:

http://cts.vresp.com/c/?MovingPictureInstitu/f15dce67c5/581ff96251/edb46f9c03

Note: Physical DVDs are not yet available, and will not be available for a number of weeks. If you can't make it to a local screening, downloading the MPEG-4 file or the Virtual DVD is the only way to see the film soon.

Lawsuit Breakdown: Attempts to Establish Plausiblity of Potential Frame Victims

2008-03-02T19:35:00.007-05:00

[The series Lawsuit Breakdown will attempt to highlight the main points of the lawsuit filed on 12/18/07 by attorneys for Ryan McFayden, Matt Wilson and Breck Archer with a focus on Duke University's involvement in the scandal.]

Ekstrand explains that before indicting Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty, Himan and Gottlieb not only had almost no evidence on which to indict the clearly innocent players, but also had "very little evidence that either Collin or Reade were present at the party at the relevant time" (p. 249). Fearing the possibility "one or both of those young men could immediately prove that they had no opportunity" (p. 249) to commit the alleged crime, "Himan and Gottlieb colluded with Duke Police officers to compel several team members to provide the information necessary to place Collin and Reade" (p. 250) at the party. As we now know, both Colin and Reade could prove they were miles away at the time of the alleged rape, and as Nifong and the officers had feared, Reade presented his impenetrable alibi one day after being indicted, making it clear that they had just indicted one - if not two - clearly innocent people.

The alleged conspiracy took form in two parts, both on April 13, 2006. First, on the morning of April 13, "conspirators whose identities are not as yet known to the plaintiffs sent an email through Breck Archer's 'duke.edu' email account. The email stated, 'I am going to go to the police tomorrow to tell them everything I know'" (p. 250). It seems Ekstrand is alleging that this email was created at the request or demand of Durham Police and may well have been facilitated by cooperation from the Duke Police and other Duke entities. If Ekstrand is correct, the purpose of the email would likely have been to stir up commotion on the team's email list that might have revealed information.

Second on the evening of April 13, Duke Police officers allowed Himan and Gottlieb into the Edens dorms "where most of the sophomore team members lived" (p. 250) in an effort to "develop evidence that Seligmann and Finnerty" (p. 250) were at the party (Reade and Colin were sophomores). The officers "cornered team members in their dorms" (p. 251), but instead of asking about the party, they "only asked who was (and was not) present at the party" (p. 251).

One player targeted by Gottlieb and Himan was Michael Young, who the investigators already knew had not attended the party. Furthermore, Himan "had specifically been told by Young's attorney that he was not to speak with his client" (p. 251). When asked, Young "guessed that Collin [sic] and Reade were both at the party because he did not see them in the dorms until after midnight" (p. 251).

All of this constitutes significant misconduct by the police that was aided and later condoned and justified by the Duke Police. When news broke of this police misconduct, Police Chief Graves publicly acknowledged the Duke Police's participation, condoned the misconduct and even left out the word "alleged" when referring to the rape.

Ekstrand characterizes these actions as a conspiracy "to force the waiver of plaintiffs' and their teammates' asserted constitutional rights" (p. 249).

USA Radio Interviews DSEDuke President

2008-02-23T18:26:00.006-05:00

On February 12, DSEDuke President Ken Larrey was awakened by a phone call from Charlie Butts with USA Radio and promptly agreed to a radio interview regarding the Sex Workers Art Show. Here is the audio clip.

Cooper Lawsuit Takes Dead Aim at Brodhead

2008-02-21T19:50:00.007-05:00

"The only wall of silence erected in this tragedy was Brodhead's."

Charles Cooper, lawyer for the 38 lacrosse players now collectively suing Duke University, held a press conference today to announce the filing of their lawsuit against both Duke and Durham. They have created a website, www.dukelawsuit.com, to keep individuals informed about the status of the suit.

We will begin another series breaking down this 225 page lawsuit shortly, in addition to finishing up the Lawsuit Breakdown series on the Ekstrand Lawsuit.

There seem to already be clear differences between the two lawsuits. Ekstrand seems to have adopted a somewhat more aggressive strategy early on while Cooper seems to be approaching the suit a more cautiously. It will be interesting to see how these potentially complementary approaches play out. It is interesting that most of the significant facts alleged in each lawsuit are the same, corroborating each suit.

Also noteworthy is that Ekstrand's lawsuit carries an interesting focus on Chairman of the Board of Trustees Bob Steel and seems to place him as the lead decision maker. In contrast, Cooper's lawsuit places the blame primarily on the shoulders of President Richard Brodhead. Both suits, however, place heaping blame upon the duo for the suppression of evidence and other efforts to interfere with the team's pursuit of justice, so there is plenty to go around.

However, at this time, Bob Steel's name is noticeably absent from the list of defendants in the Cooper lawsuit.

The most significant difference between the Ekstrand and Cooper lawsuits consists not of factual assertions but of the allegations. Ekstrand repeatedly levels accusations of an active "conspiracy" involving Duke officials whereas Cooper's lawsuit is much more cautious in using that word. Perhaps time will show how these lawsuits evolve as they are modified and amended in the coming months.

Letter to the Editor: Response to Sex Show Article

2008-02-20T14:03:00.000-05:00

The DSEDuke President wrote a letter to the Chronicle correcting their most recent mistake. The letter was published today:

I was disappointed the other day when a Chronicle article mistakenly asserted that I was "offended" by the Sex Workers' Art Show. That is precisely not the point of Duke Students for an Ethical Duke's efforts to bring national media attention to the matter, as we are not in the business of defining what is socially acceptable on this campus. We are, among other things, in the business of ensuring that Duke's own rules are created for and applied fairly to all students.

From reading The Chronicle, you might have thought that DSED and I want to keep similar shows out of Duke.

Quite the contrary, I encourage student groups to hire as many strippers as they like. I'm eager to see what happens when a fraternity sponsors an educational strip show intended "to get people talking about fraternity culture in a way that they never do normally." We'll see if Duke's opinion of stripping transforms from sexual expression and female liberation to exploitation and sexual gratification.

The show, of course, violated Duke's policy on strippers. Publicly, Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta has fiercely asserted that Duke's commitment to "free speech" and "academic freedom" permitted the recent sex show. In person, when I inquired about the policy conflict saying Duke can't have it both ways, Moneta responded, "I can." Why? Because "I can make the distinction" between personal gratification and education, he said.

So these distinctions are entrusted to Larry "Water Buffalo" Moneta, who classifies sticking a sparkler in one's anus as "speech" and finds bouncing breasts "academic." What might people have learned? "I have no response," Moneta wrote in an e-mail. Then how do you know the show was educational? "I'm done with this conversation," he said.

I may or may not personally agree with what you're doing, but the next time any student group wants to throw a stripper-fest on campus, I will defend to the death your apparent right to have strippers regardless of race, gender, class or ideology. In fact, we will even help ensure you get sponsorship from the University and Cultural Funds.

Topless car wash in the blue zone? Wet T-shirt contest in the Bryan Center? Call it the Larry Moneta Wet Water Buffalo Blast, call it artistic and educational and we'll see to it that you have your event.

Kenneth Larrey

Pratt '08

Martha Brucato Explains Sex Workers Art Show

2008-02-19T11:01:00.005-05:00

Martha Brucato, the HealthyDevils organizer of the Sex Workers Art Show, wrote a guest column in today's Duke Chronicle entitled "Returning Meaning to the Sex Workers Art Show," in which she attempts to explain some of the potential educational messages delivered by the show. DSEDuke will try to avoid evaluating gender studies rhetoric and leave it to the reader to evaluate her interpretations of the performers respective messages.

It is disappointing that these messages should require such extensive and creative explanation.

Lawsuit Cliff's Notes

2008-02-16T21:03:00.000-05:00

We are simultaneously compiling the essentials of our series Lawsuit Breakdown on a separate blog for a concise and easy understanding of Duke's place in this lawsuit. We thank the fellows at Liestoppers for the image at left.

Still to come:
The Coleman Report and Dean Bryan's False Statistics
Duke's Illegal Efforts to Re-elect Nifong
...and more...

Welcome, News Media

2008-02-15T17:40:00.001-05:00

For all that have received our press release, to follow along with the Duke Sex Show story, we suggest that you start reading at the bottom of the page and work your way up, as that is the order in which our pieces have been posted.

To contact us, email dsfeduke@gmail.com.

N&O Publishes Four Sex Show Letters Today

2008-02-13T16:25:00.007-05:00

Today the Raleigh News and Observer published four letters, including one by DSEDuke president Ken Larrey to the editor concerning the Sex Workers Art Show, Ruth Sheehan's Column on the SWAS, and Larry Moneta's response to Sheehan's column:

Vulgarity as art (Larrey's letter, though not his title)

Dehumanizing sex workers

A voice misused

Downhill Duke

Meanwhile, in the Chronicle, Duke Student Angela Czahor published a letter in the Chronicle making up for the paper's own lack of specifics in characterizing the Sex Workers Art Show. She managed to obtain an interview with Martha Brucato, the student most responsible for bringing the show to Duke.

Even the very liberal Independent Weekly's Marc Maximov, whom we met at the show, made it very clear that there was nothing educational about this performance, saying the show's multiple departmental sponsors "would seem to imply some sort of educational mission, but the acts were never didactic and didn't advocate an agenda. The main goal, it seemed, was to entertain."

Duke Chronicle Hysterically Censors Message Board Regarding Sex Show

2008-02-12T17:10:00.012-05:00

Duke Students for an Ethical Duke President Ken Larrey has at times been critical of the Duke Chronicle's coverage of certain issues and has at other times been critical of disturbingly overt attempts by the Chronicle to slander Duke Students for an Ethical Duke, at least one of which has been characterized as everything from "journalistic malpractice" to "an unwarranted cheap shot" by both experienced, internationally renowned columnists and other Duke Chronicle columnists.

For whatever reason, the Duke Chronicle seems to be making an especially frantic attempt to keep the Sex Show story under wraps. Ken Larrey posted two comments that were critical of yet another misrepresentation of Larrey's words and quotes. For this story, Larrey corresponded with the Chronicle by email this time to avoid any potential mistakes, yet somehow they managed to completely botch it all yet again while writing a flagrantly biased articl e. Having written two stories so far on the show, both heavily weighted with comments complimentary of the show, the Chronicle has yet to write a single news story mentioning anything significant that took place on stage at the Sex Workers Art Show of February 3rd, aside from this lone description from its Feb. 4 article:

"The remainder of the event featured political statements, musical theater, a mild dominatrix act, the elaborate removal of clothing and an anal sparkler for the grand finale. Audience member reactions ranged from rowdy cheers to awkward silences."

You be the judge. Compare it to the video. Does that sound like real reporting from the Chronicle? It's a good thing we still have Kristin Butler's exemplary work.

The two critical comments posted by Larrey were removed as soon as he informed Chronicle editor David Graham, as well as Tina Mao and Leslie Griffith of those two comments. The Chronicle has repeatedly removed those two comments from the message board all day long, though they have been reposted by others and Larrey himself. No other comments have been censored, and there is no vulgar or inappropriate language. This is the first time to our knowledge of the Chronicle ever doing something of this sort.

We may delve into possible reasons for the Chronicle's censorship later, but here are the original two comments:

Ken Larrey
posted 2/12/08 @ 12:47 PM EST
I regret that I am again disappointed with the Chronicle, but for crying out loud, please get my quotes right.

Senior Ken Larrey, founder of Duke Students for an Ethical Duke, said he takes offense at the show and that his organization has "gone to considerable efforts to publicize" the issue.

Nowhere in my email correspondence with Tina did I say that I was offended by the event, and that certainly does not have a darn thing to do with why Duke Students for an Ethical Duke has been publicizing the issue, as I made very, very clear. We are not in the business of establishing moral standards. We are pointing out the truly extraordinary sets of double standards Duke maintains and Duke's unwillingness to follow it's own rules when certain people or ideological agendas are concerned.

I could not have made that more clear, and I am very disappointed that you reduced our entire correspondence to this inaccurate clip.

Best,
Ken Larrey

Ken Larrey
posted 2/12/08 @ 12:59 PM EST
Additionally, I am astounded that this explanation by Annie Oakley was printed, unchallenged:

"'Sex workers hired by student and feminist organizations to tell their stories is vastly different than a drunk lacrosse team hiring strippers to perform as strippers.'"

Give me a break. "To tell their stories" is simply NOT a fair characterization of what happened, and it is certainly not the conduct at issue, so again, by all means, see for yourselves what the show was about at ethicalduke.blogspot.com, where we have posted pictures and video.

It's astonishing that the Chronicle did not bother to even describe on its own any of the events that actually took place at this show. Nor did it quote anyone else describing any of the events. How can you possibly justify that?

The Chronicle's coverage is getting really, really ridiculous, and it is an extraordinary disservice to the Duke Community.

Best,
Ken Larrey

Stuart Taylor on Sex Show

2008-02-11T16:51:00.000-05:00

We had been waiting for permission to post Stuart Taylor's National Journal article, but apparently Liestoppers found a copy already online, so here is Stuart Taylor's piece, "The University Has No Clothes." The title is especially interesting because the story of The Emperor's New Clothes fits events at Duke University of the last few years on so many levels. Congratulations to Stuart Taylor on yet another sharply insightful exposé.

Mr. Taylor lamented to us that he is kicking himself for accidentally removing the part about Brodhead not wanting to know about the event in his meeting with Ken Larrey. In fact, Brodhead refused to read the HealthyDevils' description of the event that Larrey had printed out for him, so Larrey simply read it to him.

[Edited: 9:26 PM 2/11/08]
The following screenshot of the Facebook event created by HealthyDevils contains that description.

Pictures from SWAS

2008-02-10T22:15:00.001-05:00

To avoid cluttering the front page, we have posted 15 pictures extracted from the video footage on a post that we have moved to the back pages. Here is a link. Additionally, we moved it to a back page because they contain nudity that we have not blurred out, so be warned.

If you are curious what is going on in any of the pictures, have a look at our time-codes.

O'reilly Factor's Laura Ingraham Hosts SWAS Organizer

2008-02-09T12:40:00.000-05:00

The O'reilly Factor, with Laura Ingraham subbing for Bill O'reilly, did a short segment on the Sex Workers Art Show involving SWAS organizer Annie Oakley. Ingraham capably pointed out the absurdity of the show, but regrettably glossed over the astounding hypocrisy of having this event at Duke. As expected, Oakley managed to dig herself into some holes, and even lied about her own show claiming four of the eight performers did nothing but read from literature they had written. Only two did.

It sounds as though Oakley also said "it's not a transvestite" in reference to the last performer who held a lit sparkler in his bottom, as depicted in a previous post. We're simply not sure what to make of that claim.

Larry Moneta Responds to Sheehan on SWAS

2008-02-08T16:50:00.000-05:00

Responding to Ruth Sheehan's Feb. 6 editorial on the Sex Workers Art Show at Duke with a letter to the Raleigh News and Observer, Larry Moneta explained, "the fact that [Duke] provides a venue for an event organized by students through well-established procedures does not mean the university endorses the views expressed." Moneta does not say whether the university endorses the body parts exposed, but regardless that is beside the point.

Moneta claims events like the Sex Workers Art Show "should be perceived as evidence that Duke continues to be a community filled with diverse people and opinions, and one committed to academic freedom and free speech." Again, Moneta completely misses the point. It is difficult to understand how Moneta can reconcile this show (he makes no effort to do so) with Duke's policy against strippers or with the administration's previous condemnation of the lacrosse party of March 2006. He especially avoids explaining how a burlesque dancer pulling a chain of money out her bottom with her backside raised to the audience constitutes "free speech" or "academic freedom," let alone anything remotely academic.

O'reilly Factor, USAToday Cover SWAS at Duke

2008-02-08T14:16:00.000-05:00

The O'reilly Factor should be running a segment on the Sex Workers Art Show this evening at 8pm ET. DSEDuke President Ken Larrey, currently in Washington DC, was originally tapped to appear on the show, but was bumped in favor of Annie Oakley, the SWAS organizer, once O'reilly producers contacted her this afternoon. Laura Ingraham will be conducting the show this evening in place of Mr. O'reilly.

USAToday has now picked up the story as well.

ABCNews.com covers Sex Workers Art Show

2008-02-07T13:42:00.001-05:00

ABCNews.com recently posted a video on their homepage about the Sex Workers Art Show at Duke. They interviewed several Duke students, including Martha Brucato, the HealthyDevils organizer of the event, as well as Larry Moneta.

"Watch: The Strippers Are Back at Duke"

Letter to the Editor: Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Review Committee

2008-02-06T23:46:00.000-05:00

Yesterday the Chronicle delivered the regrettable news that the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Review Committee had been terminated at the request or suggestion of the General Counsel for Duke University. As even Dean Nowicki admits, this decision had much to do with limiting Duke's liability. Today, Ken Larrey penned and submitted a letter to the Chronicle regarding the termination of this committee. We hope to see it published in the next two days. The letter's current draft follows:

The Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Review Committee was one of the few positive responses of the Duke administration to issues publicized and revealed by the lacrosse affair. Yesterday was a sad day as Duke has yet again prioritized short-term liability over responsibility, continuing its pattern of indefensible, morally indifferent decision making that has put Duke in this rapidly expanding multimillion dollar hole with the cancellation of that committee.

The explanation that the review was ended because of fairness to the committee members who might be deposed is a preposterous joke. Here’s a solution: ask them if they’re ok with that, and if they aren’t, find others. This was a liability decision, and while Duke has lots of that, if we allow legal liability to freeze essential university processes like this review committee, it may not happen for another six years. If there are certain administrators or faculty who cannot perform their duties because of pending civil liability and theoretically even eventual criminal charges, then they should be at least temporarily replaced.

Now is a time when bodies like the Duke Student Government are most needed. DSG should demand that the committee go forward, one way or another. It is unacceptable to use these lawsuits as an excuse not to do what clearly must be done. Justice for Duke students should come first.

Most importantly, Duke representatives will inevitably attempt to blame the lacrosse players as they have in the past for this hold up for having the audacity to demand accountability and financial redress for the harm done to them by other Duke representatives. Don’t believe that load of horse manure. It is Duke’s own unwillingness to either act responsibly, ethically, legally, and probably constitutionally or to hold itself accountable that has caused this mess. These lawsuits are not bad for Duke. The people responsible for creating this liability are.
Ken Larrey
Duke Students for an Ethical Duke

Ruth Sheehan on Sex Workers Art Show

2008-02-06T11:46:00.001-05:00

Ruth Sheehan wrote an editorial in today's News and Observer about the Sex Workers Art Show. She spoke with DSEDuke President Ken Larrey, whose only disagreement was Sheehan's gratuitous and presumptuous implication that he would describe all Women's Studies professors as "male bashers." It is unclear whether Sheehan attributes that description to both Larrey and Schalin or Schalin alone, but Larrey says he simply did not say that.*

Sheehan made a few other minor mistakes including attributing audio and photographs of the event to Larrey. We did not receive video, audio, or photographs from Larrey. Also, the performer that came on stage after the "infamous patriot act," The World Famous Bob (complete legal name), is a female, not a male.

[Edited 11:32 AM 2/06/08]
*Sheehan confirms that she was only attributing "male bashers" to Schalin.

Video Footage

2008-02-05T18:01:00.001-05:00

FIREFOX DOES NOT WORK FOR THIS VIDEO
We don't know why, but it just doesn't. Use Internet Explorer, and email us if you have any trouble.

Our source has sent us video footage of the second half of the show which we have posted online. It is somewhat limited as she did not fix the zoom until a little ways into the show - 6 minutes into the file. However, the audio is still accessible.

We now have video footage of the first half of the show as well.

We have also posted time-codes to help navigate the footage.

Use Internet Explorer to view the video. For some reason FireFox never works.

Jay Schalin on the Sex Workers Art Show

2008-02-04T12:07:00.000-05:00

We obtained the following picture from an anonymous attendant of the Sex Workers Art Show. It depicts transvestite Krylon Superstar on his/her hands and knees with a sparkler inserted into his buttocks, and as seemed likely, his/her rectum. The words "F___ Bush" were taped onto his chest with red tape (not visible). This spectacle was the grand finale to end the show.

The Sex Workers Art Show was far, far more grotesque than we could have ever imagined. We can assure you our cartooning ways are not even close to finished. Jay Schalin of the John Williams Pope Center for Higher Education Policy wrote about the spectacle last night. Let us just say that Jay was censorious of the kind of utter vulgarity on display in an effort to protect his readers' sensibilities.

We understand that an anonymous person was successful at obtaining limited video footage of the event and complete audio coverage, which may be made available sooner or later. If we can get it, we will see if we can post it.

We also obtained interviews with Annie Oakley, the "brains" behind the operation and Martha Brucato, the student in Healthy Devils who brought the Sex Workers Art Show to Duke. We will write on those shortly.

It should also be noted that according to Annie, what we saw was the "PG-13 version."

Sex Workers Art Show

2008-02-03T02:00:00.000-05:00

Here are some fliers that we have created for the Sex Workers Art Show. We thought we would help them out with advertising. They have been plastered all over West Campus. There will likely be more to come.

Brodhead

Moneta

Holsti

You don't have to approve, but you do have to admit it is very funny. We believe they are a tough but fair way to depict the hypocrisy of Duke's policy implementation.

Indoctrinate U Screening

2008-01-30T16:13:00.000-05:00

Last night's screening of Indoctrinate U was fantastic! The film was insightful, provocative and often hilarious. The Duke Chronicle reported the event in today's issue, though with a few significant mistakes and a somewhat unfortunate title. DSEDuke sponsored the film, with contributions from the Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace and the Political Science department. A discussion afterwards was co-sponsored and promoted by the Duke Conservative Union, College Republicans, Duke Democrats, and the Center for Race Relations.

We promoted the event (albeit with late start) with an attempt to attract a diverse audience, both ethnically, ideologically and intellectually. We encouraged attendees to prepare to ask tough, penetrating questions during the Q&A with Thor and Evan. Evan and Thor were fantastic. With the exception of perhaps one question, we were somewhat disappointed that neither was ever really challenged. Thor in particular was remarkably insightful, animated and inspiring in his responses.

It was also wonderful to meet them in person. Evan and Thor both joined all of us for dinner afterwards at the Washington Duke Inn.

We are currently lobbying for them to create a documentary on the Duke Lacrosse Affair.

Another Judicial Hearing Account

2008-01-24T23:44:00.000-05:00

[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.

Lawsuit Breakdown: Duke's Treatment of Breck Archer

2008-01-17T16:12:00.001-05:00

[The series Lawsuit Breakdown will attempt to highlight the main points of the lawsuit filed on 12/18/07 by attorneys for Ryan McFayden, Matt Wilson and Breck Archer with a focus on Duke University's involvement in the scandal.]

The section covering Duke's treatment of Breck Archer is concise enough that we have posted the entirety of it below. Though the incident predates the lacrosse affair, it is yet another example cited by Ekstrand of what he alleges are a long-standing dislike of and bias against the lacrosse team and lacrosse players by Dean Bryan. The section proceeds as follows from p. 221 of the lawsuit:

In the Summer of 2005, Breck Archer was called into Defendant Stephen Bryan’s office to answer to a charge that damage was done to his room during a party. The room was only technically Breck’s at the time of the party; he had not moved in, he did not have a key to it, and he was not present at the party.

Nevertheless, Bryan punished Breck with community service hours at the Duke Gardens. Breck completed the hours, notified Defendant Bryan of his completion, but did not submit a form Bryan expected to receive.

Based upon Beck’s failure to submit the form after completing all of his community service requirements, Defendant Bryan convened a Judicial Affairs panel of students and faculty hand-picked by Bryan. At the close of evidence, Defendant Bryan remained in the room with the panel for the deliberations. Upon information and belief, Bryan influenced the panel to vote to suspend Breck, in violation of the Student Code of Conduct and the Faculty Handbook.

The panel suspended Breck for the 2005 fall semester for “failure to comply.”

Upon information and belief, until Breck, no one in the history of Duke University has been suspended or otherwise separated from the University for a semester for failing to submit a form documenting work that was completed as required.

Defendant Bryan did not have a basis in the Student Code of Conduct to punish Breck for damage done at a party he did not attend, nor did Defendant Bryan have a basis in the Student Code of Conduct to suspend Breck for failing to turn in a form.

[Edited 11:36 PM 1/18/08]
Also unique to Breck Archer is that an email was sent from his account on April 13, 2006 by "conspirators whose identities are not yet known" (p. 250) stating "'I am going to go to the police tomorrow to tell them everything that I know'" (p. 250). Breck never sent this email, nor did he permit anyone to send it.

Lawsuit Breakdown: Duke's Treatment of Matthew Wilson

2008-01-16T22:12:00.000-05:00

[The series Lawsuit Breakdown will attempt to highlight the main points of the lawsuit filed on 12/18/07 by attorneys for Ryan McFayden, Matt Wilson and Breck Archer with a focus on Duke University's involvement in the scandal.]

Matthew Wilson was cited for Driving While Impaired in Chapel Hill in May of 2006, six days after David Evans was indicted. He accepted responsibility for his mistake and entered a guilty plea at his first court appearance. He sought counseling from Duke's Counseling And Psychological Services (CAPS), but was told that because he was not enrolled in the summer session, he was not eligible.

Matthew's DWI was discovered by Duke University when it became front page news and even national news after a reporter cross-referenced new court files against the CrimeStoppers Wanted poster. Ekstrand then notes that "Duke University unilaterally suspended Matthew from the lacrosse team indefinitely and made multiple public statements to representatives of the press to ensure the University's disciplinary action against Matthew was widely known" (p. 219). Next, "Defendant Bryan told Matthew and his father that he was referring Matthew to a Judicial Board hearing, in which he expressly stated that Matthew would be suspended for two semesters. Defendant Bryan falsely stated - repeatedly - that it was "the policy" to suspend for two semesters all students who are charged with Matthew's offense" (p. 219). Ekstrand also notes that it is also false that Bryan's office suspended for two semesters every student cited with that charge.

Fearing for the publicity generated by Matthew's citation and Duke's public announcements, Matthew's parents "asked Defendants Moneta and Bryan to allow Matthew to transfer in lieu of a judicial affairs hearing. Moneta and Bryan both claimed that there was a 'policy' forbidding that; he could transfer but not as a student in good standing" (p. 220). Ekstrand asserts that there neither was such a policy nor a precedent, as many students in the same position had been allowed to transfer in good standing.

From Ekstrand's account, both Moneta and Bryan had already determined the sentence and delivered it repeatedly to Wilson's family before there was ever a hearing. Moneta told Matthew's father that "he and Bryan had no choice 'because he's a lacrosse player,' rhetorically asking, "What would we say to people if we didn't suspend him?" (p. 220). Especially extraordinary is that Bryan "claimed that he had picked a sympathetic group who would look favorably on Matthew's extraordinary efforts in the summer" (p. 220), an odd offering of comfort considering Bryan had already determined the sentence. It becomes even more peculiar consolation noting that the panel hearing "was filled with questions - not about the driving incident - but about the events of March 13th-14th at the 610 Buchanan house" (p. 220).

Eventually, by the Appeals Board, the two semester suspension was modified to suspension for the summer session. However, "neither body addressed the fact that the Student Code of Conduct clearly does not authorize the Undergraduate Judicial Board to subject students to disciplinary proceedings for conduct that occurs off-campus, out of county, while not enrolled, and not even eligible for a 30 minute CAPS appointment" (p. 221).

Thus, if Ekstrand is correct, violating precedent and citing policy that did not exist, Bryan and Moneta prevented Matthew from transferring in good standing in order that, with no disciplinary authority, they could subject Matthew to a hearing to determine punishment after punishment had already been determined according to policies that do not exist, and then used this hearing to interrogate Matthew about the party at 610 Buchanan in spite of Duke University's public assertions that it cannot conduct its own investigations for fear of "witness tampering." All of this at a time long after DNA had already cleared every member of the team and long after it had become extremely obvious to anyone paying the slightest attention that three honorable and demonstrably innocent Duke students were being subjected to extraordinary violations of their constitutional rights.

Duke Students for an Ethical Duke agrees with KC Johnson that this is one of the more disturbing parts of the entire lawsuit. We intend to discuss advocating at least the temporary replacement of the administrators involved until student confidence can be restored in the Duke administration in these essential positions that require the utmost integrity and trust.

Lawsuit Breakdown: Duke's Treatment of Ryan McFadyen

2008-01-16T02:31:00.000-05:00

[The series Lawsuit Breakdown will attempt to highlight the main points of the lawsuit filed on 12/18/07 by attorneys for Ryan McFayden, Matt Wilson and Breck Archer with a focus on Duke University's involvement in the scandal.]

On April 5, 2006, the false rape case against the lacrosse team had already unraveled substantially as the impossibility of the stories Durham Police were feeding to the media were becoming clearer and clearer. However, that day Judge Stephens unsealed a warrant to search the dorm room of lacrosse player Ryan McFadyen. The warrant included an excerpt from an email that McFadyen had sent to the rest of the team containing a crude parody of a passage from the novel American Psycho, a favorite among Duke students and required reading for three Duke courses. Though Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan agreed to add a new charge of conspiracy to commit murder to the rape allegations, it was plainly obvious that the charges were beyond absurd, and that the email was clearly a joke, especially to anyone who knows the size of an Edens dorm room (lest anyone believe McFadyen actually intended to fit an entire lacrosse team into a 160-170 sq. ft. room along with two strippers).

When the news broke, "Defendants Moneta, Bryan and Wasiolek unilaterally suspended Ryan, without notice, hearing, or inquiry" (p. 213). Ekstrand alleges that Dean Wasiolek "searched frantically for Ryan demanding that Ryan come to her office to sign a waiver of his FERPA [Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act] rights" (p. 214). Ekstrand does not specifically say whether or not McFadyen ever actually signed this waiver, but he seems to imply that Ryan did not:

"That evening, believing that Ryan had waived his rights to privacy under FERPA, Defendant Brodhead [...] provided on the record comments in which he condemned Ryan, revealed that the University had suspended him under the 'safety of the community' provisions of the student code of conduct, [...] that he would be held to answer for his 'conduct' in the University's disciplinary proceedings, and claimed that he was free to say all of these things because Ryan had signed a waiver of his FERPA rights."

If it is correct that Ryan never actually signed a waiver, and yet his "punishment" was advertised to the world in this fashion, then this is clearly abhorrent behavior from the Duke administration, and Brodhead in particular, and yet another violation of federal law. Even if Ryan signed a waiver, it is nevertheless appalling that administrators would have gone to such effort to get him to sign a waiver for the sole purpose of being able to publicly assail him on clearly absurd grounds. On top of that, it is astounding that in spite of those efforts, no effort was made to ask Ryan about the nature of the email before publicly sliming him.

In case the despicable motives of the administration were not already apparent from their handling of the McFadyen email, Ekstrand contrasts this response to a clearly harmless email with the administration's response to "an actual email threat" in Chauncey Nartey's infamous email to Coach Pressler. Sue Pressler filed a police report with the Duke Police, who did nothing, and Mike Pressler met with Moneta, who "refused to take any action on Nartey's email, or submit the matter to the Undergraduate Judicial Board" (p. 216). Nartey was also the president of a fraternity that had recently lost its charter for hazing violations. Nevertheless, Nartey was "one of five students appointed to Defendant Brodhead's Campus Culture Initiative" (p. 216). On top of that, "Nartey was a recipient of the 2007 William J. Griffith University Service Award" (p. 216), an award "given to graduating students 'whose contributions to the Duke and larger community have significantly impacted University life. Students who demonstrate an understanding of the responsibilities of effective university, communal and global citizenship...'" (p. 216-217).

Ryan McFadyen was pilloried by Brodhead and the Duke administration for a clearly harmless, private email while Chauncey Nartey was not only given immunity from discipline but showered with honors by the Duke administration in spite of sending and email that would obviously be perceived as a severe threat to Coach Pressler's daughter at a time when threats of violence and drive-by shootings were abundant. Nartey even went to the trouble to look up his daughter's full name.

[Edited 12:14 AM 1/17/08]
Please take note of a thoughtful exchange between UNCW professor Chris Halkides and DSEDuke in the comments section of this post.

DVDs Available

2008-01-14T17:25:00.000-05:00

We now have both KC Johnson's 9/11/07 speech Until Proven Innocent and Stuart Taylor's 11/2/07 speech on DVD. We are happy to mail them to you. Email us at dsfeduke@gmail.com if you would like a copy. Please write "DVD" in the subject line, to ensure that your request does not slip through the cracks.

We will likely respond to these requests periodically and in bulk, so it may take several days before you hear from us.

Lawsuit Breakdown: Q&A between DSEDuke and KC Johnson

2008-01-13T17:31:00.000-05:00

[The series Lawsuit Breakdown will attempt to highlight the main points of the lawsuit filed on 12/18/07 by attorneys for Ryan McFayden, Matt Wilson and Breck Archer with a focus on Duke University's involvement in the scandal.]

The following questions were answered by KC Johnson, co-author of Until Proven Innocent and author of the Durham in Wonderland blog on 12/28/07.

1) How long do you expect these civil lawsuits to drag on? How would you project the timeline for each phase?

These could go on for some time. Take a look at the lawsuits filed by the three falsely accused players: none of the defendants has even filed a response yet, and yesterday Patrick Baker was granted another month (till mid-Feb.) to respond. So it could well be several months before the initial paperwork is complete.

All of the defendants, I suspect, will file motions to dismiss the suit. Assuming that (for most, anyway) this motion isn’t granted, the next step would be depositions and discovery, which would take another several months, at least.

2) The Ekstrand Lawsuit named nearly every top administrator at Duke. How do you think this lawsuit and ones to follow will affect those administrators’ abilities to perform in their duties until these matters are resolved, and what will it mean for Duke?

The lawsuit clearly isn’t good news for Duke: I can’t imagine there’s any university in the country that would like to be sued. And, of course, the lawsuit is just one of many—the Dowd suit, the three players’ suit, the Pressler suit—that Duke has either faced or settled before the lawsuits were filed.

The question, of course, is whether the Trustees and administration have engaged in any critical self-reflection as to what exactly the University did wrong in this affair, and what improvements can be made to ensure that such errors don’t recur in the future. In this respect, the litigation could represent an opportunity for the University to move forward.

We haven’t seen many signs of this process to date, but I continue to hold out hope.

3) The lacrosse season was cancelled because of the gravity of the allegations in question. Should someone like Dean Bryan, to name one, whose ability to perform his job depends upon his moral high ground, step down and be temporarily replaced until these matters are resolved?

Yes.

The single most troubling item in the Ekstrand suit is the claim that the Bryan prosecution of Matt Wilson involved asking Wilson questions about the party—which, by Duke’s own standards, would have constituted the University obstructing justice. (Recall that throughout 2006, Brodhead repeatedly contended that any University inquiry would have opened up the school to obstruction of justice, and therefore Duke had no choice but to both defer to Nifong and remain silent about Nifong’s procedural abuses.)

In combination with the highly damning revelations in the Elliot Wolf series about Bryan, it seems to me that the dean should be reassigned until the questions about his performance have been answered.

[Note: one of our sources has asserted that the majority of the complaints Wolf has with the trend of judicial policy regard policies enacted by Bryan's predecessor, Kacie Wallace. In fairness to Bryan, we will try to look into this matter]

4) Did Brodhead’s condemnation of “ill-judged” statements from the faculty in his apology surprise you given his own conduct? Do you believe his own failings and resulting vulnerability (and those of other administrators) have played a significant role in Duke’s continuing unwillingness to condemn or address faculty behavior?

It did surprise me, in large part because in early 2007, he thrice issued public statements that interpreted the highest-profile of these “ill-judged and divisive” statements—that of the Group of 88—in a more benign fashion than that offered by many Group members. So his remarks represented a radical—and welcome—change of perspective.

As for why the administration has been so unwilling to address the inappropriate behavior of some professors, I suspect it’s a combination of two things. First, a fear of litigation—that any rebuke or disciplinary action would also constitute an admission of wrongdoing (essentially the same reason why Durham shut down the Whichard Committee to investigate the DPD). Second a fear of the Group of 88, who, as we’ve seen with their responses to Steve Baldwin and to the Ec professors, are more than willing, loudly and publicly, to brand as racists or sexists anyone who stands in their way. In today’s politically correct academic structure, any administrator (not just at Duke) fears few things more than being called a racist or a sexist by faculty “activists.”

5) You have said you believe the feds aren’t merely stalling but will never actually get involved. Regardless, how much of a setback will that be to a state investigation by Roy Cooper, and could there still be criminal charges against Duke employees or officials? If so, who would be prominent targets? Will they wait out the civil suits?

6) It is difficult to justify the feds’ unwillingness to investigate. Is it possible to appeal their decision? Are there any other recourses to get federal help in the investigation?

(Take 5 & 6 together). It’s not possible to appeal—except for to the AG’s boss, and somehow I doubt George W. Bush is going to intervene. The lack of federal intervention is very troubling; this is a case in which, from all appearances, a prosecutor, an investigator, at least one police officer, and a SANE nurse-in-training conspired over a months-long period to manufacture evidence that could send three innocent people to jail. It’s hard to imagine a more serious type of misconduct from criminal justice officials.

As to a state inquiry: as we’ve learned over the past year, the state’s powers in NC are very limited. Since the state doesn’t have authority to empanel investigative grand juries, it appears unlikely there will be any criminal investigation at all.

7) It is hard to imagine all of the Duke administrators and officials named in the suit retaining their positions through these civil actions if many of these allegations are demonstrated to be true. It is also difficult to imagine all of them being promptly dismissed. How would you evaluate each administrator’s chances of survival, and what factors will go into the decisions for each official from the following list?

Richard Brodhead, Peter Lange, Tallman Trask, Larry Moneta, Stephen Bryan, Suzanne Wasiolek, Kemel Dawkins, and Matthew Drummond.

It’s hard to me to imagine Bryan lasting. But, then again, it was hard for me to imagine Duke first hiring and then reappointing Larry Moneta—and yet the University did so.

8) In terms of a basis for civil action, you mention the case against DNASI and Meehan as a weak argument in the case. On a factual basis, what do you see as the weaker points of the suit? Where do you think Ekstrand might have overreached, or do you suspect he can confidently substantiate each of his accusations?

I don’t see any case against Peter Lange, who strikes me as someone who has repeatedly tried to do the right thing over the past 20 months.

The tactic in any lawsuit, however, is to be ambitious in initial filings.

9) Vindication or Reparations: if you accept the premise, which motive do you expect to prevail among the lacrosse families? How do you think the allegations already revealed in the Ekstrand lawsuit will affect Duke’s willingness to settle with the other families, or even the three families represented by Ekstrand?

I think that the lacrosse players have already been vindicated—except for the truest of true believers (for whom no evidence will ever sway their mind) no one any longer believes a crime occurred in this case, and there’s a widespread consensus that the administration and “activist” faculty rushed to judgment. So I don’t think they needed a lawsuit to achieve vindication.

As to Duke’s settlement strategy: I can’t imagine the University would want to allow this to go to the depositions/discovery phase. The administration’s strategy has been to “move on” with no inquiry into either its conduct or the faculty’s rush to judgment; such an approach would be impossible as long as previously unreleased material keeps dribbling out.

[by vindication we didn't mean from the crime of rape but from the notions that they are "hooligans" whether or not the rape occurred. We may ask KC about this again with the clarification and will then update his response]

10) How should student leaders at Duke respond to these revelations and allegations? What effects do you foresee, and how should student leaders mobilize to address them?

The passivity of Duke parents has surprised me. How can parents stand idly by knowing their sons or daughters could get wrapped up in—say—Stephen Bryan’s discipline system; or be the subjects of the next denunciatory ad that the remaining members of the Group of 88 throw together?

As for students: passivity implies acceptance. Students have a right to fair treatment by administrators, and the Duke Faculty Handbook (theoretically, at least) requires all Duke profs to treat all Duke students (regardless of their race, class, gender, or athletic status) with “respect” as “fellow members of the academic community.” If students don’t stand up and demand fair treatment, it’s unrealistic to expect that others will do it for them.

Lawsuit Breakdown: University's Effort to Force Waivers of 5th and 6th Ammendment Rights

2008-01-12T17:01:00.000-05:00

[The series Lawsuit Breakdown will attempt to highlight the main points of the lawsuit filed on 12/18/07 by attorneys for Ryan McFayden, Matt Wilson and Breck Archer with a focus on Duke University's involvement in the scandal.]

Ekstrand alleges that after the failure of the plan to orchestrate the mass interrogations without council in which Duke Officials endeavored to deliver the lacrosse team into the trap set by Durham Police, Executive Vice President Tallman Trask then "immediately demanded meetings with team members for the purpose of forcing them to effectively waiver their First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights" (p. 155). In the meeting, attended by Trask and other Duke Administrators as well, Trask demanded, "'tell us what happened'" (p. 156). After the team members declined as they had been advised to do by their legal counsel, Trask falsely told them that the conversation was protected from disclosure by a student-educator privilege that does not exist.

Ekstrand then explains that, "fearing their status as students was in jeopardy" (p. 156), the students were compelled to tell Trask what happened and emphatically denied the allegations. By demanding the full story, Trask and other administrators were leveraging the University's disciplinary power over the lacrosse players "to coerce what was effectively the waiver of their asserted First, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendment rights" (p. 156). Moreover, Trask and the other CMT members also intentionally "subverted their right to counsel by insisting the team members speak in the absence of counsel" (p. 156).

As we already know, soon after falsely telling the students the discussion was protected, Trask, Brodhead and several other administrators were brought in (to avoid subpoena) to testify to Durham Police about their discussions with the players, as the lawsuit mentions. To our knowledge, they all brought lawyers with them.

More Pics from SWAS

2008-01-10T21:25:00.000-05:00

Keva I. Lee

Erin Markey

The World Famous Bob
[Note: the first few pictures show Bob after picking up the, shall we say, "funny money" left on stage by Dirty Martini after Dirty pulled it out of her bum. Bob picked up the chain of money, ran it under her nose, and threw it to the crowd.]

Dirty Martini walking off stage

COMMENTS ALLOWED!!

2008-01-10T12:59:00.000-05:00

By popular demand (and DSEDuke judgment), we will be opening up the message boards beginning today, January 10, 2008. This decision is made largely to enable us to answer any questions that our readers have regarding any of these posts and to respond so that all may see. We will have heavy comment moderation, however, and profanity and gratuitous name calling will not be published. We will try to limit published comments to thoughtful and helpful contributions, but please do not worry if your comment does not get published.

We especially encourage questions and comments from Duke students.

Correction Regarding Kim Curtis

2008-01-10T12:36:00.001-05:00

It seems that Kim Curtis will not be leaving until after the Spring semester. We have corrected the original post.

However, we will look into the matter of Curtis teaching this Spring further and report back.

Lawsuit Breakdown: Conspiracy to Interrogate without Counsel

2007-12-25T20:41:00.000-05:00

[The series Lawsuit Breakdown will attempt to highlight the main points of the lawsuit filed on 12/18/07 by attorneys for Ryan McFayden, Matt Wilson and Breck Archer with a focus on Duke University's involvement in the scandal.]

The following excerpt outlines the complaints against Duke in the conpsiracy between Duke Police Defendants, Duke Officials Defendants and Durham Police Defendants to "orchestrate the mass interrogation of uncounseled students" (p. 126).

Duke Police and Duke Officials understood and agreed to:
(1) Deliver all 47 team members to Gottlieb and Himan, at a designated location, to be interrogated by Durham Police;
(2) Create a false sense of security in the team members by minimizing the seriousness of the investigation and the charges being investigated, and encourage team members not to seek legal counsel or to reveal the planned interrogations to anyone;
(3) Provide no information to the Plaintiffs or their teammates about the nature or scope of the interrogations;
(4) The team members would not be informed that, during the interrogations, every one of them would be asked to volunteer to give their DNA and a “mug shot” photograph, or that a team of CSIs from the Durham Forensic Services Unit (“FSU”) had been mobilized for purpose of taking DNA swabs, mug shot photographs, and pictures of any scars or marks on the team members’ arms and torso.
(5) The team members would also not be advised that if they submit DNA samples and mug shot photographs voluntarily, they waive their right to a report of the results of all DNA testing and photo identification procedures as soon as they are available; and, further, that they could have that right merely by requesting a Nontestimonial (“NTID”) Order be obtained for the same purposes; and, further that, absent an NTID Order, a right to that information would not arise again unless the individual is indicted, and then only pursuant to constitutional and/or statutory discovery; and
(6) Provide a primary location and/or a satellite location(s) for isolated interrogations of individuals (p. 127) .

The Durham Police were then to report to Duke Police and Duke Officials "with information relating to their charging decisions" (p. 128). Duke Police and Duke Officials implemented the plan according to the agreement. At 7:00 pm on March 21st the players were instructed to report to the Duke Police Department at 3:00 pm the next day, leaving little time to consult significantly with counsel. They were told they were "going in to answer one or two questions" (p. 129), leaving out the plan to take DNA samples and photographs and subject the team to harsh and deceitful interrogation. Ekstrand alleges the advice given to the captains the week before by Wasiolek, the effect of which was "'you don't need a lawyer,' and "'don't tell anyone this is happening, not even your parents'" (p. 129), had been disseminated to the rest of the team. The rest of the team, however, did not know the purpose of the questioning or the severity of the allegations, and certainly not that they could all be charged as accomplices based on their presence at the party. Duke administrators, it seems, were demonstrably well aware of and acting in accordance with these intentions:

The University Officials’ agent responsible for coordinating the mass interrogation was directed to notify the Durham Police that the team members were told of the planned interrogations without sufficient time to discuss it fully with their parents (p. 130).

The disaster that likely would have resulted from these interrogations was averted only by the exhausting overnight efforts of Bob Ekstrand and his paralegal, Stef Sparks.

Next, Ekstrand alleges a conspiracy by both Duke Officials and Durham Police to retaliate against the players for delaying the interrogation to speak with their parents and counsel before being questioned by police.

Lawsuit Breakdown: Jurisdiction Part 2

2007-12-22T21:44:00.000-05:00

[The series Lawsuit Breakdown will attempt to highlight the main points of the lawsuit filed on 12/18/07 by attorneys for Ryan McFayden, Matt Wilson and Breck Archer with a focus on Duke University's involvement in the scandal.]

Follow-up on Lawsuit Breakdown: Jurisdiction in the Rape Claim Investigation

It has become clear that the matter of jurisdiction deserves another post. As a reminder, here are the two main points on this issue:

1. The Duke University Police Department had Jurisdiction
2. ALL of the defendants conspired to publicly and privately conceal the fact of the Duke Police Department's "jurisdictional obligation" (p. 4)

1. Jurisdiction
It appears more and more that the matter of jurisdiction is more or less incontestable. As the lawsuit convincingly demonstrates, not only was there an established protocol as well as precedent designating this rape investigation under the jurisdiction of Duke Police rather than the Durham Police, but this rape investigation was transfered from the Durham Police to the Duke Police: "pursuant to the Durham Police Departments [sic] written protocol, General Order No. 1006 R-1, a transfer of the investigation to the Duke Police Department was initiated [...] immediately a cadre of Duke Police officers and supervisors descended upon the E.D. in response" (p. 94) where they were briefed on the bizarreness of Mangum's behavior, the inconsistencies of her stories, and the "specious circumstances surrounding her rape claim" (p. 94).

That the investigation belonged to the DUPD seems established.

2. Conspiracy
It gets worse. A lot worse.

We may revisit this section to add more commentary, but many of these excerpts from the complaint speak for themselves. What Ekstrand is alleging implies that Bob Steel and high level administrators were issuing commands to suppress exculpatory evidence and manufacture fraudulent evidence in order to conceal Duke's involvement in the affair, both publicly and privately, as well as its jurisdictional authority.

"Duke Police Supervisors, Duke Officials, and Durham Police Supervisors would overrule their investigators’ decision to wind up the investigation, and, instead, agree to put Mangum’s false claims into the hands of a known rogue officer, who they knew had a documented, alarming pattern and practice of abusing Duke students, falsifying testimony and fabricating evidence to
close holes in his many baseless prosecutions of Duke students on misdemeanor charges" (p. 113).

"Defendant Robert K. Steel, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Duke University Board of Trustees, through the CMT and/or Duke Police Supervising Defendants understood, agreed, and conspired to direct the Duke Police officers and investigators to (1) cease all participation in the investigation, (2) conceal evidence of their prior role in the investigation and evidence of their authority to intervene and control the investigation, and (3) fabricate false and misleading 'witness' statements calculated to conceal their personal observations of Mangum’s bizarre behavior" (p. 141).

"On or about March 27, 2006, in response to a request for Duke Police Officers’ statements from Nifong’s assistant, Sheila Eason, Duke Police Supervising Defendants directed the Duke Police Officers who interacted with Mangum at DUMC to violate protocol and standing General Orders by not writing a standard incident report or operations report on the forms prescribed for that purpose. Instead, the Officers were directed to write what can only be characterized as 'bystander witness statements' that conceal the exculpatory evidence they derived from their interactions with Mangum" (p. 146).

Ekstrand goes on to explain the suspiciously uniform nature of these "bystander witness statements."

As we have known for some time, the Bowen/Chambers report (evaluating the administration's initial response) justified the Duke administration's slow response to the allegations by pointing to a report by Duke Officer Christopher Day which suggested Mangum was not credible. When the existence of Officer Day's report was revealed, Ekstrand says, the media began asking "a barrage of questions about...why he was involved in the investigation" (p. 98) being a Duke Policeman.

"Duke Police and Durham Police agreed to misrepresent what transpired on the loading dock of the E.D. and told reporters that Officer Day was 'eavesdropping' on Durham Police conversations, and had no place in the investigation" (p. 98)

Day's report, however, "contained a synopsis of much of the exculpatory evidence gathered by Durham Police and Duke Police on March 14th, and concluded that the felony investigation had been closed. Because everything in Day's report was already approved by the command and was at odds with the directive to conceal exculpatory material, Day was directed to write a 'Continuation' report" (p. 150) which "deliberately impeaches his own contemporaneously written synthesis of the reports he received in the transition briefing at the E.D. in the early morning hours of March 14, 2006" (p. 150). By impeaching his own report, Day was forced to discredit the evidentiary and exculpatory value of his report.

There are three Duke Police Officers that the complaint lists as individuals who were forced to commit these frauds: Officers Mazurek, Falcon, and Day. Officers Mazurek and Falcon have since obtained employment elsewhere. Ekstrand's explanation of this fact implying they were each "free to report any exculpatory information" (p. 149) seems to imply that much of Ekstrand's substantiation for these accusations of conspiracy against Duke Officials and Duke Police defendants may be coming from these very officers. If such is the case, their testimony could prove devastating.

Wait until we get into Ekstrand's allegations of Duke administrators' efforts to "force waivers of the plaintiff's fifth and sixth amendment rights" (p. 155).

Stuart Taylor wasn't messing around when he predicted this case was going to get "uglier and uglier and uglier" at our Nov. 2nd event. Whether or not these allegations are successfully contested, the whole affair got quite a bit uglier on Dec. 18 with the filing of this complaint.

Lawsuit File (Video and Audio Included)

2007-12-22T17:17:00.000-05:00

Ekstrands website, www.ninthstreetlaw.com, has posted the complete pdf file of the complaint, which includes audio and video attachments. The file is a 72 MB pdf.

Lawsuit Breakdown: KC Johnson Weighs In

2007-12-21T23:50:00.000-05:00

[The series Lawsuit Breakdown will attempt to highlight the main points of the lawsuit filed on 12/18/07 by attorneys for Ryan McFayden, Matt Wilson and Breck Archer with a focus on Duke University's involvement in the scandal.]

The following Q&A with KC Johnson was provided by Liestoppers:

What parts of the filing came as a surprise to you? Any new information you were not aware of?

To me, the single most signifiant aspect of the filing comes on pp. 217-221, discussing the treatment of Matt Wilson. Wilson, it's clear, received disproportionate punishment based on his status as a lacrosse player. More problemmatically, however, the filing alleges that in his Judicial Board inquiry, he was asked multiple questions about the party.

If Wilson was asked even one question about the party, such an act would have violated the University's stated policy, that it was not and could not investigate the case, since doing so would be tantamount to obstruction of justice. In short, if this claim is true, the University had, by its own admission, obstructed justice.

The other significant element that wasn't public information was the extent to which Duke tried (and succeeded) to make sure that McFadyen signed a FERPA waiver--which allowed the University to describe his suspension and made sure that there would be no problems in denouncing him publicly.

The conduct is particularly egregious for three reasons: (1) as the claim pointed out, other students who had sent far worse e-mails were punished less; (2) Brodhead was an English prof--presumably he was familiar with the book; (3) if the University was able to track McFadyen down to sign a FERPA waiver, why didn't the University ask him what the e-mail referenced? Of course, when the University actually got around to doing that, the suspension was lifted.

As the onion gets pealed back more, is it about as bad as you anticipated or worse based on this filing?

It's about as bad as I had expected. The filing hints at greater involvement than has been documented to date by Bob Steel--which could create a most interesting discovery process.

What is your assessment of Sam Hummel's role within this filing? Will he be added to it?

I doubt Hummel will be added. The question with him is (a) whether his supervisors knew of his activity; and (b) whether it can be proven that he did anything on Duke's time or equipment. Are there people, for instance, who could testify that they saw him creating wanted posters on a Duke copier? The creation of those posters was a direct harm to the three plaintiffs, obviously.

Could the Honorable Judge Stephens be a likely candidate for an addition to this? It has come to light he enabled some very unethical things without doing the appropriate amount of homework?

Stephens won't be added to the filing--unfortunately, incompetence isn't grounds for a civil suit. I think we see from this filing that there's a long trait of laziness in the Durham DA's office. It recalls Nifong's claim at the criminal contempt trial that he had open file discovery because that way he could be saved the problem of actually reading his own files and determining whether documents needed to be handed over to the defense.
Is any portion of the filing weak in your opinion?

It's hard to imagine the filing against Meehan or DSI surviving--they are both highly vulnerable to the three accused players, but if Meehan and DSI hadn't entered into an agreemet with Nifong to intentionally withhold exculpatory evidence, I'm not sure it would have affected the position of the three plaintiffs.

I also think the filing could have done more with the point that Duke failed to require its faculty to treat all students equally on basis of race, class, gender, or athletic status. McFadyen was in Reeve Huston's class--subjecting him to one of the most egregious acts of faculty harassment in the case.

Could this new information, if validated in a court of law lead to federal charges?

Unfortunately, no. It's clear the feds rejected becoming involved for political reasons--they had overwhelming evidence that a crime occurred. How often does the Justice Department turn down a request from a sitting AG? I can't imagine anything that will bring about a federal inquiry at this stage.
Do you feel the actions of Tara Levicy in this frame are becoming more serious than what you initially assessed?

No, but only because I always had assessed her actions as very, very serious. It's worth remembering that this case never would have reached Nifong but for two people--Levicy and Gottlieb.

The filing very cleverly positions Levicy as she should be known--the de facto accuser. Since the police had no statement from Mangum until 4-6, it was the zealot Levicy who was consistently providing the "voice" of the "victim"--and, as this filing makes clear, was constantly changing her story to fit the prosecution's needs.

The filing also gives the lie to those who have claimed that Levicy is blameless because, as a Duke employee, she was covered in the civil suit the three falsely accused players settled with Duke.
Do you think anything has been held back in an effort to combat Duke/DPD's response?

Possibly, though the filing does go to great lengths in explaining the Duke PD's role. The allegation that Duke Police officers were pressured to give incomplete pro-Mangum reports is a very, very troubling one.

One aspect of the case as a whole about which we still know little is the full extent od DPD-DukePD contact. If I were Duke's attorneys, I'd be afraid of what discovery could yield on this score.

What can we expect in the additional filings by other unindicted players?

We know that the other players are represented by some of Washington's top lawyers. If they file, then, I would expect the document to be as or more powerful than this filing.

Why was there no dollar amount attached to this filing?

To keep open the prospect of negotiations.

Anything you wouldlike to add?

I'm especially intrigued by the prominence given to Bob Steel in this filing. Steel is one of the few figures involved in the case who not only has never been deposed but who has not been recently interviewed. His only on-the-record interview (to the New Yorker, in Aug. 2006) was a disaster for Duke. (Recall he asserted that the season was cancelled because Duke had to stop the photos of the team practicing, whether this was fair or not.) His deposition, if discovery is allowed to proceed, could be very interesting.

Kim Curtis Gone

2007-12-20T16:36:00.000-05:00

To follow up on our previous Kim Curtis post, Duke Students for an Ethical Duke has been told by two confidential sources with knowledge of personnel decisions that Kim Curtis, the political science professor who was sued by former student and lacrosse player Kyle Dowd for giving him a failing grade on the basis that he was a lacrosse player, will no longer be returning to Duke University for the spring of 2008. Duke was forced to settle with the Dowd family and changed both his grade and the grade of the only other lacrosse player in the class, who was also failed on the final assignment, to a "P" for passing. Though the Dowds amassed overwhelming proof of their allegations, and in spite of the settlement, Duke refuses to acknowledge that a violation took place and has continuously refused to reprimand Curtis or punish her in any way.

We have learned that Curtis and her husband Romand "Rom" Coles, both members of the Group of 88 and signers of both the listening ad and the clarification letter, are in the final paperwork stages of accepting employment from Northern Arizona University. Rom Coles has been a candidate for the McAllister Chair at NAU, and it seems that he has accepted the position (or obtained a different one).

Curtis has been one of the most outlandish condemners of the lacrosse team, frequenting protests, suggesting in writing that the aforementioned lacrosse players were guilty of obstruction of justice, and even donating to the Diane Catotti campaign for Durham City Council - a candidate who attempted to block an independent inquiry into the conduct of the Durham Police. Couple that with the almost undeniable grade retaliation and discrimination, and it is unthinkable that Duke has been content to allow this kind of conduct.

Though it is a welcome and somewhat reassuring development that Curtis will no longer have the power and authority to abuse Duke students, it remains a troubling matter that Duke continues to condone the kind of conduct she has displayed.

[Updated 7:51 pm 11/26/07]
Another relevant Curtis-link to Durham in Wonderland

[Edited 12:31 pm 1/10/08]
Our information was apparently incorrect. Apparently Kim Curtis will still be teaching one class during the Spring semester 2008. She and her husband will be leaving the following semester.

Lawsuit Breakdown: Jurisdiction in the Rape Claim Investigation

2007-12-20T12:11:00.000-05:00

[The series Lawsuit Breakdown will attempt to highlight the main points of the lawsuit filed on 12/18/07 (part 1, part 2 and part 3) by attorneys for Ryan McFayden, Matt Wilson and Breck Archer with a focus on Duke University's involvement in the scandal.]

The revelation in what we will call the Ekstrand lawsuit, henceforth, that the investigation of Crystal Mangum's false rape claims was not within the jurisdiction of the Durham Police Department, but instead the Duke University Police Department seems to be an enormous one, and the implications of this revelation are extensive indeed. The assertions made regarding jurisdiction (not yet referring to the alleged conspiracies, mind you) seem to be easily verifiable, and it will be interesting to see if the defense challenges them.

The lawsuit seems to make two key points regarding the matter of jurisdiction:

1. The Duke University Police Department had Jurisdiction
2. ALL of the defendants conspired to publicly and privately conceal the fact of the Duke Police Department's "jurisdictional obligation" (p. 4)

1. Jurisdiction
The former point seems easily provable, and the suit appears to do so citing both legislation and precedent. The suit explains that "the Duke Police Department had original, primary, and continuing authority to investigate Crystal Mangum's false accusations from March 14, 2006 through January 12, 2007" (p. 33). The grounds for this authority are that the residence at 610 N. Buchanan, the site of the alleged rape which had been purchased by Duke University roughly two weeks prior to the alleged incident, was property of Duke University. In accordance with North Carolina state law enacted in 2003 and amended in 2004, the Duke police have and did have "primary jurisdiction over all properties owned or controlled by Duke University, regardless of location" (p. 36).

Not only does the suit establish the legal authority of the Duke Police Department, but Ekstrand further demonstrates that "Durham and Duke Police Departments had an established practice of strictly dividing cases according to the jurisdiction allocation agreement" (p. 37). The DUPD "was required to-and did- initiate and conclude investigations" (p. 37) of crimes alleged on Duke property regardless of location and regardless of the severity of the reported crimes including sexual assault and rape. The Duke Police handled reports of 22 forcible sex offenses and rapes between 2003 and 2005. Assaults alleged to have occurred everywhere from 2100 DUMC North Hospital in 2005 to Koehane dormitory and 2017 Yearby Street in April and July of 2006, respectively, both after the false rape claims of Mangum, were handled entirely by Duke Police. Similarly, in September of 2006 the Duke Police handled a report of Breaking or Entering of a Motor Vehicle and Injury to Personal Property reported at 704 N. Buchanan Blvd, a residence that became Duke property in the very same transaction in which Duke acquired 610 N. Buchanan, the site of the alleged rape.

Significance
The essence of this first point, the matter of jurisdiction, is that the Duke University Police Department serves as an agency for its own jurisdiction (Duke owned property) in every way that the Durham Police Department serves its jurisdiction, the City of Durham. The fact that the Duke Police had jurisdiction in this matter poses a number of problems for Duke, the first being that Duke is therefore likely responsible for the conduct of Durham police. The second problem is that it means the entire time, from March 14, 2006 to January 12, 2007, the Duke police and indeed Duke had the power to put an end to the extraordinary abuses of the police investigation. Moreover, this revelation puts the lie to every statement Dick Brodhead and other university agents made claiming there was nothing they could do.

All of this looks much worse for Duke in light of the second point, the allegations of conspiracy to conceal jurisdiction.

2. Conspiracy

"After Mangum’s allegations became a national media story, the Duke University Defendants and Durham Police Defendants conspired, agreed, and understood that the Duke Police Department would abandon its investigation of Mangum’s false claims, and cede the investigation to Sgt. Mark D. Gottlieb, a known rogue officer, who, upon information and belief, only weeks before, was taken off the patrol beat due to his abusive tactics with Duke students" (p. 33)

The lawsuit alleges that in particular Bob Steel, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Brodhead, and the rest of the Crisis Management Team "directed the Duke Police Department not to intervene" (p. 42). Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that:

"Duke University Defendants, Ex-District Attorney Michael B. Nifong, and the City of Durham Defendants colluded to conceal from the public the fact that the Duke Police Department had the authority and obligation to initiate and conclude an investigation of Mangum’s false claims" (p. 33-34).

Contrast these two allegations with the following internationally publicized address from Duke President Richard Brodhead:

“To determine responsibility, we need to learn the full truth as quickly as possible. While I have urged and while I continue to urge everyone to cooperate with this inquiry to the fullest. Unavoidably, we have to look to the Durham Police to take the lead in the investigation. Duke doesn’t have the power to compel testimony from citizens of this city, and Duke lacks access to warrants, DNA records, and other confidential information. I have confidence in the authorities to find the truth and I have confidence that the authorities will take whatever legal steps are necessary in the best interests of this community.” (we should have a video clip of this within a few days)

Significance
For well over a year, this line of argument has been integral to the Duke administration's defense: that there was nothing it could do. If the allegations in this lawsuit are true, that would be a rather indefensible position, and moreover it would prove to be a rather malicious lie. If true, these allegations will prove that Brodhead, Steel, and the CMT were not merely guilty of failing to stand up for their students but directly responsible for putting the matter into the hands of a known corrupt investigator, Gottleib, who had a history of wildly and even violently abusing Duke students - a history readily familiar to those on the Crisis Management Team.

Still think the lacrosse affair is over?

Lawsuit Breakdown: The Defendants

2007-12-19T20:09:00.000-05:00

"The fact of Duke Police Department’s jurisdictional obligation to investigate Mangum’s false accusations was kept secret through another overarching conspiracy among all Defendants to publicly and privately conceal it" (p. 4).

The lawsuit names several individuals within the DuPD as defendants grouped as supervising defendants and investigator defendants.

We will delve into the fascinating matter of jurisdiction in a separate post.

2. Duke Officials Defendants
__a. Crisis Management Team (CMT) Defendants
The lawsuit explains that "the CMT was formed to direct the University’s conduct in the
investigation of Mangum’s false allegations" (p. 13). Each of the members, listed below, are listed as individual defendants in the lawsuit.

Crisis Management Team:
Robert K. Steel, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Duke University Board of Trustees; Richard Brodhead, President; Peter Lange, Provost; Tallman Trask, Executive Vice President; John Burness, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs & Government Relations; Larry Moneta, Vice President for Student Affairs; Victor J. Dzau, Chancellor for Health Affairs, and President and Chief Executive Officer of Duke University Health Systems, Inc.; and Allison Halton, University Secretary.

We will elaborate on each individual's alleged involvement in subsequent posts.

__b. Duke Administrator Defendants
The Duke Administrator Defendants are Duke administrators not member to the Crisis Management Team, and are listed below.

Kemel Dawkins, Vice President for Campus Services; Suzanne Wasiolek, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students; Stephen Bryan, Associate
Dean of Students and Director of Judicial Affairs; and Matthew Drummondd, Senior Manager IT in Auxiliary Services and Head of the University’s Duke Card Office.

3. Duke SANE Defendants
The complainant in the false rape claim, Crystal Mangum, was examined by Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) nurses at the Duke University Medical Center.

The Duke SANE Defendants are listed below.

Duke University Health Systems Inc. (DUHS); Private Diagnostic Clinic, PLLC (PDC), Julie Manly M.D., member of the DUHS House Staff, a physician member of the PDC, and an affiliated physician at Duke University; Theresa Arico R.N., clinical nurse on DUHS’s staff; and Tara Levicy R.N., SANE-in-Training.

Similarly, more to come on each individual's involvement in subsequent posts.

Three More File Suit, Name Brodhead Among Defendants

2007-12-18T23:32:00.000-05:00

Current senior Ryan McFadyen as well as former lacrosse players Matt Wilson and Breck Archer have all filed a federal lawsuit against a long list of defendants including Mike Nifong, the City of Durham, Duke University, top administrators and members of the faculty. The complaint lists 35 causes of action, and among the allegations are fraud, negligence and conspiracy. The three players are represented by Bob Ekstrand, formerly a defense attorney for many of the lacrosse players not indicted.

Of particular interest is that the suit names Duke President Richard Brodhead as one of the defendants, a notable inclusion considering the Blue Committee, charged with a standard evaluation of the president conducted three years into his tenure, recently gave Brodhead an ostensibly hearty thumbs-up. A Duke spokesman David Jarmul offered part of Duke's defense: "Duke University reasonably relied on the statements of a prosecutor whose path of destruction could be stopped only by the North Carolina Attorney General."

However, as DSEDuke has repeatedly pointed out, the defense that Duke administrators were relying on flawed information from a district attorney who was the only man to blame is difficult to maintain when one considers that Duke administrators were repeatedly approached by defense lawyers (notably the office of Ekstrand himself) offering to disclose much (and later all) of their files as early as March of 2006, according to Ekstrand. These efforts were also documented in Until Proven Innocent. Though the Duke administration repeatedly met with Nifong and police, neither Nifong nor the Duke administration would listen to the defense.

We will post again soon after reviewing the 391 page complaint.

Kim Curtis' Return to Duke

2007-12-06T16:04:00.001-05:00

A number of people have asked what we intend to do about Kim Curtis, who it seems is returning to the classroom next semester. She will be teaching PolSci 183 - Ecological Crisis and Pol Theory in addition to being listed under various independent study and research courses.

Kim Curtis failed two lacrosse players in her class on their final assignment during the Spring of 2006, the same Spring in which the lacrosse episode began. One student, Kyle Dowd, filed suit against both Curtis and the university on the grounds that Curtis had given him failing grades for participation and for his final paper and a mathematically impossible failing grade for the semester simply because Dowd was a lacrosse player. Dowd and his family tried repeatedly to work with the university to correct the situation, one that would have prevented him from graduating and forced his employer to withdraw its job offer, but they were forced to file suit in spite of their good intentions. Their lawyers put together an almost impenetrable case, which you may review here, and the university was forced to settle on behalf of itself as well as Curtis and changed his grade to a P for passing. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. For a more complete account of the appalling story of Professor Curtis, see KC Johnson's post entitled Dowd and Duke.

We are seeking comment from Duke administrators regarding Curtis' return to campus, and will post once we have learned more. Neither the university nor Curtis has publicly acknowledged any wrongdoing, nor has there been any indication of action taken by the university against Curtis.

If the Dowd side of the argument is correct - and as the settlement by Duke would seem to confirm - Kim Curtis has engaged in one of the worst possible violations of an educator's responsibility. The university's unwillingness to address the misconduct of its own professors is an extraordinary problem that is at the heart of Duke Students for an Ethical Duke's mission. It is simply impossible to maintain an ethical institution in which those with the most responsibility and power, the professors (especially tenured), are held to seemingly non-existent standards.

In what is an unacceptable double standard, the university has made clear throughout the lacrosse affair that it will hold its students to exceptionally high standards and will even approve of the violation of students' constitutional rights to do so (see Good Neighbor Policy).

As KC Johnson says, "as to grade retaliation—even one instance is one instance too many for any university, much less one with the academic prestige of Duke."

UNCW Professor Chris Halkides

2007-12-04T18:09:00.000-05:00

Dr. Chris Halkides, associate professor in UNCW's Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, attended Stuart Taylor's Nov. 2nd speech and decided to write a piece on it. For this piece, he also interviewed Duke's own Dr. Stephen Baldwin, among others. We have posted his piece here.

Dr. Halkides also explains his interest in the affair and what motivated him to journey all the way to Durham to hear Mr. Taylor speak.

Back in Business/Fraudulent Posting?

2007-11-29T17:01:00.000-05:00

We've been quiet for a while as we have all been on Thanksgiving break, but we are back now!

A number of people have brought a certain blog and poll on sodahead.com to our attention. Though "Rob," the owner of the blog, quotes our mission statement, we have no idea who he is, and if he has any connection to our organization, then it is news to us. He claims that Duke professor Dr. Karla Holloway will be subjected to an ethics hearing by the student body. If there is any basis to that claim, then it is even more shocking news to us. The posting, however, seems at the moment to be a fraud.

In Rob's profile, he claims that he is "entering [his] senior year," that he is a "member of student government, and the paper (The Duke Chronicle)", and that he "sit[s] on Greek Council." As one of our members has pointed out, the way that "Rob" refers to what almost all members of the paper simply call "The Chronicle" and what any Greek at Duke knows is the "Inter-fraternity Council" or "IFC" raises questions about the veracity of his entire profile.

We will post anything of significance that we learn about "Rob" or this claim of his.

[Edited 4:24 pm 12/07/07]
We have removed the links to "Rob's" sodahead blog. We do not wish to direct traffic there.

Letter to the Editor

2007-11-18T17:00:00.000-05:00

Elliott's Column

Correspondence with Elliott Prior to Column

Elliott's Full Correspondence with KC Johnson

Dr. Gustafson's Chronicle Correction

Letter sent to the Chronicle [letter published]:

I am profoundly hurt and disappointed by what Elliott has produced here, but I am especially appalled at the way Elliott has gone about producing it. We are all (DSED and Friends/partners) preparing a well-reasoned, fair, and well informed response to Elliott's column, not only a necessity but also a courtesy to Elliott that we believe he has not extended to us, nor is it what he has provided to the readers of the Chronicle. I hope that in addition to this letter, the Chronicle will publish that response defending our integrity with the same publicity with which Elliott has besmirched it.

In the meantime visit our Blog, ethicalduke.blogspot.com, where you will find much of the substantiation that he demanded and that I provided to him. Elliott made it clear that unless I betrayed my own integrity by revealing to him anonymous sources, he was going to publish a column attempting to eviscerate DSEDuke and me. Though I easily substantiated my arguments - indeed I bent over backwards to meet his absurd time demands - with publicly available sources, he ignored them.

With some minor modifications to a single sentence from my piece in the NRR, I stand by my arguments as I have done my research. We welcome criticism, and as Dr. Gustafson will attest, we often have to pry it from him.

However, it is a bit much to be accused of things like “plagiarism” and “rush to judgment” in a defamation piece for which the near entirety of “investigation,” let alone writing, was conducted long after Elliott’s deadline for submission of the column. Equally odd was the absurd claim we are “rapidly losing support,” substantiated by a flagrant, malicious misquote of Dr. Gustafson (intentional or not) and anonymous “chron[icle message board] postings,” according to Elliott, who accused us of substantiating with “hearsay” and “gossip.”

Regarding what he calls our lack of “policy objectives,” Elliott did not even inquire about them, nor did he ask about any of our non-lacrosse related initiatives. We have not sought publicity for much of what we have done because we wait until we have done our due diligence. We invite the Chronicle to do a story on our other objectives in the near future.

Elliott has made a variety of mistakes and wildly misappropriated several quotes. While he included a quote of which I am quite proud, he left out the most important sentence: “similarly, when we are shown to be wrong, we must readily admit that we are wrong.” I am committed to that statement, and we hope Elliott will make the same humble commitment. I do not know what has prompted this betrayal of his usual journalistic integrity or his rush to discredit us, but we hope that we will be able to continue working for a better, ethical Duke together.

Sincerely,
Ken Larrey
Duke Students for an Ethical Duke

DSED Department of Attributions/Clarifications/Corrections/Proper MLA citations: Errata

2007-11-17T18:32:00.000-05:00

[message from Ken Larrey regarding his argument in the New Right Review. The online version contains at least one significant mistake that somehow arose in the editing process, but I believe that mistake was corrected in the print version, though the online version has yet to be updated. As written in the online version, the editor made a modification that has me stating that first amendment rights do not apply to faculty members, which was news to me]

One of the problems when submitting articles for fact-checking, editing, and review to someone who already knows a great deal about the relevant facts is that though both of us may understand what I mean, it may not be clear to others. Especially in an argumentative piece like this one that requires interpretations of fact on the part of the author, that can be a problem.

Precision and accuracy are important, even for irrelevant matters. There were a couple of corrections that I would like to make to my argument in the New Right Review, and you may judge their importance.

1) "what Brodhead termed the 'Good Neighbor Policy'"
According to KC Johnson, the "Good Neighbor Policy" was a nickname among administrators for the described policy or approach. However, we do not actually have Brodhead on record using that term.

2) “it was Duke that collaborated with police and [Alcohol Law Enforcement] to illegally raid student off campus houses without warrants—well in excess of 100 instances"
There were well in excess of 100 citations thrown out by judges because of the lack of warrants. However, as written, 100 instances seems to refer to "raid[s]," which was not the intent. Though this was not Elliott's objection (and actually he overlooked that too), this would nevertheless qualify as sloppy writing.

Also, in the context of the entire paragraph the meaning is much clearer [this is where knowledge of the facts can get in the way], but the argument is that Duke collaborated with the Durham Police in developing and/or approving the policies that led to this sort of police behavior that was abusive of Duke students. No, I was not trying to convince anyone that Dean Bryan went running around with Mark Gottleib threatening to deport people and dragging half asleep college students down stairs. I had taken that assumption for granted...as hilarious as the idea might be.

3) "so that Judicial Affairs could subject them to Duke justice"
Here is what I perceive to be the only mistake of noteworthy significance in the argument, and this is where Elliott did have a point. Including this statement as I did implied that Duke's intent in all of this was to be able to subject them to "Duke justice," and that is not something I am prepared to substantiate publicly. There is, however, ample reason to argue that this was the DPD's intent and ALE's intent - so that Judicial Affairs would subject them to Duke justice even though a court would have to throw out the citations - and that is what I want readers to take from all of this. Equally important is that Duke proved completely indifferent to these abuses and indeed seemed to support them by continuing to apply "Duke justice" based on this illegally obtained information.

So while Elliott is correct that there was some sloppy writing in this single sentence from my argument, I am nonetheless taken aback by his assault on Duke Students for an Ethical Duke, and we look forward to the opportunity to respond to a number of his statements of "fact."

DSED Department of Attributions/Clarifications/Corrections/Proper MLA citations

2007-11-14T15:46:00.000-05:00

[A message from Ken Larrey regarding his argument in the New Right Review]

Elliott Wolf had a few questions regarding my argument in the New Right Review and a few unclear points and minor errors have come to my attention that I would like to address. First of all, he argues that I probably should have attributed certain facts to sources (anonymous or otherwise) even though I was writing an argument (perhaps you could call it an op-ed, but it was one side of a two sided argument) rather than a newspaper story. I'm not sure what journalistic conventions or obligations may apply to such a piece (especially because I am not a journalist, and I'm not sure an argument is "journalism"), but nonetheless I will try to do so below just in case.

There were three passages that he specifically brought to my attention:

Passage 1 (in these passages I am quoting Elliott's rehashing of quotes from my argument)

administrators handed over troves of players’ confidential information that was later used to frame suspects and obtain indictments…[and] Nifong went out of his way to do favors such as his attempted cover up [sic] for this illegally leaked information.

Elliott questioned the basis for this statement. Though there are many ways to substantiate this statement, the easiest is to cite KC Johnson's Blog entry entitled Sunday Roundup from 6/22/07 which states:

the only time when the regular Durham judiciary (Judges Stephens and Titus) stood up to Mike Nifong was last July, when Judge Kenneth Titus rejected Nifong’s request for keycard records of the non-indicted players. Titus cited the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA). [...] the material released by the Bar suggests that “Duke University had already turned these records over to police months earlier in March evidently in violation of FERPA.”

As Gottleib testified in his deposition for Nifong's Bar hearing, this information was used in obtaining indictments. First of all, typically when I make a statement in this argument regarding someone's intentions, I figure it is implied that unless I state otherwise, I am making an educated intimation. Obviously calling it a "favor," whether it was intended as a favor or not, is a judgment call on my part and part of the argument, and I believe it is a fair one.

Passage 2

the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee, the Campus Culture Initiative and so on were planned several days before the McFadyen [sic] email became public and coach Pressler was fired. Brodhead was simply waiting for the right opportunity.

Here is the statement that I was referring to from Until Proven Innocent page 139:

Brodhead did not stop with banishing McFadyen. Accelerating plans that had already been made, he canceled the team’s season once and for all. He also appointed a gaggle of committees, to examine: (1) “persistent problems involving the men’s lacrosse team, including racist language and a pattern of alcohol abuse and disorderly behavior”—a statement misleadingly suggesting that these Duke students were racists even while a race-pandering prosecutor was making an identical case to Durham voters and potential jurors; (2) his own administration’s response to the crisis, especially complaints that it should have taken harsher action, sooner, against the team; (3) Duke’s disciplinary process; and (4) “campus culture,” including “personal responsibility,” “consideration for others,” and drinking. A fifth committee consisted of supposedly “wise figures” to advise Brodhead and the Board of Trustees. [emphasis added]

Upon second glance I realize that there are other interpretations to the emboldened text, but it was my interpretation that it applied to all of the plans in this paragraph. Because I can't imagine that plans to cancel a season would be complicated enough to require a period of several days or weeks between the decision and the cancellation or announcement, my instinct was that KC was referring to all of these plans. If I am incorrect in interpreting KC's intent, then that is why. Even if I am incorrect in that interpretation [I will update when he responds], then I would not be surprised my argument is nonetheless correct for at least some of the committees, and I will see if I can find other sources that shed light on this. As Elliott acknowledged to me, "one statement from the academic concil [sic] talked about the review committee before the email, but not the cci [sic]." If I did make a mistake, it was relatively insignificant and benign.

Given that Brodhead pulled four more committees out of his pocket on the same day that the McFayden email was released to the public, my guess would be that some sort of plans had been in the works. After all, which takes longer: "planning" the cancellation of a lacrosse season or outlining and organizing five separate committees with separate and formidable tasks? You decide.

Passage 3

“it was Duke that collaborated with police and [Alcohol Law Enforcement] to illegally raid student off campus houses without warrants—well in excess of 100 instances—so that Judicial Affairs could subject them to Duke justice.”

My sources behind this statement are all necessarily anonymous and I will keep them that way for the time being. Now apparently I misunderstood the precise relationship between ALE and the Durham Police. I am aware that ALE and the Durham Police collaborate a great deal, though that does not necessarily mean that policies discussed or arranged between Duke administrators and the Durham Police are actually discussed with ALE as well, even if they both act on them together or separately but in similar ways. Given what my sources have explicitly said, technically I should probably have only said that Duke collaborated with the Durham Police in developing and/or approving the policies that led to this sort of behavior. Nonetheless, there is a remarkable similarity in the behavior of ALE and the Durham police, who were in fact working together in many of the actions in question (see next block quote).

Note that in this argument I have not made the allegation that Duke sought out the Durham Police or ALE with these policies as opposed to vis-versa, though I am asserting that they were at the least mutually involved in the process of creating and approving some of these policies. Legally I understand that there is a difference in who approached whom, and maybe civil suits will shed light on that, but is it really any less disturbing to know that Duke approved of a policy like the Good Neighbor policy even if they didn't create it? You decide. That goes perhaps one step further than Until Proven Innocent, which states:

It was to appease neighbors that Duke’s administration had helped devise the police program targeting Duke’s own students for selective arrest and prosecution on petty charges for which other Durhamites would not be arrested. Duke president Richard Brodhead was later to acknowledge this arrangement, which Duke called its Good Neighbor Policy. But this crackdown had elements of a reign of terror. The year began with a series of planned, warrantless raids of student parties off campus. The police, joined by Alcohol Law Enforcement agents, raided several homes in pursuit of underage drinking.

As always, I am happy to answer questions about anything I print or say to the best of my ability and liberty and in a reasonably timely fashion, and the same goes for Duke Students for an Ethical Duke. We are also always willing to issue corrections when it becomes clear they are necessary. I post these explanations because Elliott tells me people have asked him about the these passages, and I figure that others may have similar questions as well.

Sincerely,
Ken Larrey
Duke Students for an Ethical Duke

[Edited 10:02 pm 11/17/07]
The above explanations were provided to Elliott Wolf in advance of his November 15 Column entitled "Physician, Heal Thyself." I have not really made any corrections of significance in it of my argument in the New Right Review (there are a couple minor things that I will be happy to correct) in this post, but I do not wish to modify this post (this edit aside) in order that people may see exactly what was provided to and ignored by Elliott in his column.

University of Delaware Diversity Facilitation Training

2007-11-12T13:48:00.000-05:00

A recent editorial published in National Journal by Stuart Taylor explains the University of Delaware's "Diversity Facilitation Training" program. The program was ended promptly on October 30th after it gained media coverage and evoked local outrage. We have posted the editorial here in its original form.

Here is the full document produced by the University of Delaware's Office of Residence Life outlining the program.

Follow up on Chronicle Editorial

2007-11-07T17:15:00.000-05:00

Most of what needed to be said about the Chronicle's overt agenda, at least for this week, was said in our previous post, so now we will focus more on the argument of the Chronicle Editorial itself, which should seem untenable to even the most modestly knowledgeable reader.

One point before we do: we notified the Chronicle of Stuart Taylor's speech 9 days before the event at the same time we sent press releases to other local media. Not only did both major local newspapers attend, but so did others that were not even sent the press release, including Metro Magazine and a gent from UNCW as well. Noting that there were no Chronicle reporters present, we then offered to bring them the video of the speech the next day. The offer was ignored.

A peculiarity of the editorial is that while it strongly and repeatedly asserts that "Brodhead should and must stay," the arguments made almost seem to argue the opposite. As one of our members joked, it seems the Chronicle decided to let each editor write a line in an editorial Mad Lib.

First of all the Chronicle describes Brodhead as "a president who is academic not managerial." Is there really such a thing as a presidential position that is not managerial in nature? Or do there exist presidential positions that might prefer or even tolerate someone who is "passive not active?" The title implies that Brodhead has "a chance [...] to do the defining," but the editorial then implies that yet another of his character attributes is "his inability to impose his own trajectory on the University." Somehow that also seems to be not merely a "weakness" but another attribute directly antithetical to presidency as well.

His strengths? The case revealed his "academic prudence, appreciation for complexity, willingness to explore deeper issues involved in the case, and capacity for self-criticism." We aren't sure what is meant by "academic prudence," how the case revealed it, or how it was an attribute in the affair, and a "capacity for self-criticism" or self-reflection is something that has been conspicuously absent throughout. Our sources indicate that Brodhead continues to believe he has done nothing wrong, and up to his apology, has asserted that he would have done almost everything the same if he were to start from the beginning again. As we have noted, Brodhead's apology was far more decorative than substantive. As for the other two strengths, it is probably no accident that the Chronicle avoids explaining how those attributes played out in a positive way.

In short, the Chronicle asserted that among Brodhead's weaknesses as a leader and a president are an inability to lead and an inability to manage. On the plus side though, he is an academic. If that doesn't put the writing on the wall...

Also among the peculiar assertions in this Brodhead apologia:

"Brodhead is no longer on the defensive"
The truth is Brodhead came back into the school year believing the lessons of the lacrosse affair needed to be learned by those meddling kids and their booze only to be rudely confronted with a number of lessons that were apparently lost on him. The Blue Committee presidential review just began a review of his presidency after what was likely among the worst demonstrations of administrative responsibility in university history. Even before that he has had to continuously face outraged students and alumni and defend himself in front of the Board of Trustees. Yet he's "no longer on the defensive?" Really?

"the lacrosse case over"
The second time around, Chronicle made a technically accurate statement, if "the lacrosse case" refers only to the rape charges, but it still misses the point completely. The lacrosse case, though over, is a bigger problem for Dick Brodhead than it ever was while heading towards the rocks.

"with all the forces of the world bearing impossibly down on a presidency barely begun"
First, Brodhead had been president for nearly two full years, so it seems a bit of a stretch to use this as an excuse or a significantly mitigating factor.
Second, if this really was an impossible, lose-lose situation for Brodhead, then it should have been that much easier for him to do the right thing, to speak and stick to the truth, NOT to spend over a year overseeing a massive sliming operation of his own students by his own administration and in several cases, by himself, and NOT to oversee efforts by the Duke administration to push this case to trial thereby denying his own students a fair legal process. If he was really destined to lose no matter what he did, isn't that a liberating predicament?
Third, the "uncertain" nature of this "impossible" situation has been DRAMATICALLY exaggerated, indeed invented, by administrators and Brodhead supporters, and this point is worthy of its own post. For now...read the book (Until Proven Innocent) and watch Stuart Taylor's speech.

"Yet because the Presidential Review Committee formed to evaluate the president's performance closed comments last week, we are compelled to offer the students' perspective-incomplete but important-on his performance thus far. We believe that Brodhead should and must stay."
We have already noted our amazement that a couple of Chronicle editors presumed to speak the collective voice of the student body. What is also peculiar is the explanation that the Chronicle feels "compelled to offer the students' perspective" now that the committee just closed comments...as though the Blue Committee was going to delete all of the comments they received from students, and our voice needed to be heard via the Chronicle staff.

The editorial as a whole was remarkably unprofessional and seemed to reveal a fairly overt bias and would suggest an attempt by the Chronicle to influence the Blue Committee whether there was a conscious attempt or not. We have come to expect much better from the Chronicle.

On the Brodhead front, we agree that "appreciation for complexity" is a positive attribute for people in just about any position. However, "appreciation for complexity" is one of the most notorious backhanded compliments to bestow upon a leader. Good leaders are able to grasp complex issues and from that comprehensive understanding, arrive at correct conclusions and make good decisions. Good leaders are complimented for their decision making. Implicit in the compliment of an "appreciation for complexity" is the acknowledgment that though an individual might contemplate and analyze matters at length, his analytical process falls short of yielding good decisions.

Everday Hero: Moezeldin Elmostafa

2007-11-07T09:16:00.000-05:00

Readers Digest honors Moezeldin Elmostafa, the cab driver who risked much simply to tell the truth, as one of its everyday heroes of the year:

The story of Mr. Elmostafa is heartwarming and remarkable indeed, and Duke Students for an Ethical Duke would like to explore the possibility of bringing him to campus to share his life experiences.

Until Proven Innocent Makes Amazon.com Top Ten List

2007-11-07T05:08:00.000-05:00

Congratulations to KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor! Until Proven Innocent made Amazon.com's Top Ten list for non-fiction books, checking in at #4. You might also notice that the average customer review is the full 5 stars out of 5 stars after 41 reviews.

It is rare that an institution such as Duke has the opportunity to receive such insightful, comprehensive critique as KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor have provided. Their dutiful and accurate pursuit of every relevant fact is nothing short of extraordinary. The debt of gratitude owed to these scholars by the Duke community is not lost on Duke Students for an Ethical Duke.

We have yet to hear of a single significant factual error that has not been corrected or a single convincing argument against the integrity of this work, and therefore it has the official endorsement of Duke Students for an Ethical Duke. KC Johnson was kind enough to sign 60 copies of the book before he left for Israel, and there may still be a few signed copies left at the Gothic Bookshop for those who have yet to read it.

Chronicle Intentions Become Clearer

2007-11-07T01:42:00.000-05:00

On Monday, we posted on the peculiarity that the Chronicle opted not to report on Stuart Taylor's speech on Duke's own campus while several other, far larger papers did. We also noted that instead, the Chronicle published a highly flattering front page article in the Chronicle on President Richard Brodhead. Specifically, we noted the preposterous and (perhaps) wishful assertion that the "lacrosse scandal [is] nearly behind him." Meanwhile, the Herald Sun published an article of the much more accurate title Author: Lacrosse case will 'get uglier'.

Today, the Chronicle made clear that the absurd assertion was no accident with a staff editorial officially endorsing Brodhead by repeating the assertion with a slight modification. In what has to be one of the worst examples of journalistic hackery, to borrow a bit of vernacular, from the Chronicle, the staff editorial preposterously claims to speak for all Duke Students:

Yet because the Presidential Review Committee formed to evaluate the president's performance closed comments last week, we are compelled to offer the students' perspective-incomplete but important-on his performance thus far.

Simply astonishing. They do not even make mention of conducting a poll.

Duke Students for an Ethical Duke aims to represent, among others, the Duke student body, and to that end we go to great lengths to seek out varied opinions. Though we aim to advocate principle and principle alone (indirectly at times), we do our best to consider all perspectives, and in the end come to educated, measured, and wise conclusions where conclusions are warranted. Though we aim to represent and to serve the students, we could NEVER claim to speak for the students. With every position we take and every perspective we voice, we can speak only for Duke Students for an Ethical Duke, and that is the best we can do.

The Chronicle has no business whatsoever claiming to offer the "students' perspective" - not even in an editorial, and especially not in a staff editorial. Their job is to speak to the students (among others), not for them. Tuesday's editorial voices the opinion of a small handful of Chronicle staffers and should be presented as such. If the combination of Tuesday's staff editorial, Monday's article, and the curiously simultaneous decision not to report Stuart Taylor's speech do not make it clear that Chronicle editors have decided this week to rather overtly dedicate the newspaper toward the advocacy of a single man, then the Chronicle's attempt to claim the "students' perspective" should make it exceedingly clear.

The Chronicle should correct this absurdity and apologize. We have again written to them for comment and will post any reply.

Tomorrow, we will break down the remainder of the editorial itself. We will also post again on Stuart Taylor's speech in the near future.

Stuart Taylor Speech at Duke

2007-11-05T13:26:00.000-05:00

The speech by Stuart Taylor sponsored by Duke Students for an Ethical Duke last weekend was a great success! Taylor spoke before a substantially packed Love Auditorium about the path to his involvement in reporting on the lacrosse affair. We have posted a very low quality video of the speech at www.ethicalduke.com, also available here. We hope to have a higher quality video available soon.

The crowd was quite impressive considering the number of events occurring on a busy parent's weekend. A number of parents did come and voiced concerns, raised by the lacrosse affair, about the well being of their own children currently attending Duke. Reporters from a variety of local media were in attendance; the Durham Herald Sun, the Raleigh News and Observer, and even UNCW were all represented, among others.

However, conspicuously and curiously unrepresented was the Duke Chronicle, who it seems opted not to report the event occurring on its own campus. Instead, the Chronicle published a front page article on President Brodhead asserting that the "lacrosse scandal [is] nearly behind him." DSEDuke will leave it to readers to judge the objectivity of the rest of the article, but the notion that the lacrosse affair is nearly behind Brodhead is absurd, and reporting it as such is not merely uninformed but dishonest. The Chronicle staff and editors know full well that the lacrosse affair is nowhere close to being a thing of Brodhead's past; quite the contrary, it would seem that Brodhead's problems are just beginning. Had the Chronicle, like other local media, decided to attend Stuart Taylor's speech, they would have had ample reminder of this indisputable fact. Indeed the Chronicle could have simply observed Monica Chen's coverage of the speech in the Herald Sun: Author: Lacrosse case will 'get uglier'

The Chronicle knows full well that the Blue Committee has just gone into deliberation to evaluate Brodhead's performance. If the Chronicle has substantial reason to be able to predict the committee's findings less than a week after the deadline for input, then it should be publishing that as well. Moreover as the Chronicle itself has reported, the university will likely be facing an onslaught of civil lawsuits filed by the remaining lacrosse players, Coach Pressler, and potentially others in the very near future. Far from being behind anyone, the lacrosse affair is about to get ugly for not only the City of Durham, which faces both civil suits from the indicted players and federal investigation for alleged civil rights abuses, but for a number of Duke University administrators. Not only will all of the aforementioned legal battles cost Duke piles of money and bad publicity, but if discovery results from any one of these processes and becomes public, the revelations will almost certainly be embarrassing at best and career-ending at worst for a variety of those involved in the lacrosse affair. Dick Brodhead is right at the center of that group.

As DSEDuke has maintained, if Dick Brodhead is to remain as the Duke president, he has an awful lot of explaining to do. While we do not subscribe to any one interpretation of Brodhead's motives behind a number of his decisions, words, actions and inactions, it is difficult to come up with interpretations that do not reflect poorly on the president, his leadership, his moral courage and his commitment to ethical university policy and policy implementation and enforcement. We believe it is high time that such explanations be heard.

[Edited 6:20 11/5/07]
DSEDuke has emailed the author of the Chronicle article as well as a senior editor at the Chronicle for comment and will post any replies we receive.

Brodhead's Administrative and Ethical Failings

2007-11-05T12:42:00.000-05:00

[The New Right Review, a new campus publication, desired a two part piece on Duke President Dick Brodhead and requested that DSEDuke President Ken Larrey compose the argument against the Duke president. The publication also contains an insightful review of Until Proven Innocent written by current DSEDuke treasurer Brian Pike. An unedited and uncut version of Larrey's argument is shown below]

[Edited 3:42 pm 11/14/07]
We have removed the unedited version as the argument has apparently come into question and we wish to avoid confusion as to which argument is being referenced. Ken Larrey has made a couple of minor corrections and/or slight clarifications in a post above, and there may be more to come depending on the allegations made in Thursday's column by Elliott Wolf.

Questionable Hiring Practices by Duke?

2007-11-05T10:47:00.000-05:00

Recently, national headlines were made when Duke Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky was initially hired as the founding dean of UC Irvine's new law school, then fired, and then re-hired when the affair brought national scrutiny to the fledgling law school. According to the L.A. Times, Chemerinsky claimed UC Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake told him that the reason for his temporary firing was "pressure from conservatives over his outspoken liberal politics." Drake has denied the claim, and upon Chemerinsky's rehiring, the two issued a joint statement attributing the confusion to "miscommunication and misunderstanding," but declared that "all issues were resolved to our mutual satisfaction." Though the issue may be resolved, several among the faculty, according to the L.A. Times, are pushing for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Drake over his handling of Chemerinksy's hiring.

Pepperdine Law Professor Douglas W. Kmiec wrote to the L.A. Times in defense of Chemerinsky, noting that Kmiec himself is a conservative who seldom agrees with Chemerinsky on "constitutional outcome." He asserts that Chemerinksy's politics should not matter, only his merit as "one of the finest constitutional scholars in the country."

In a situation that may have certain parallels to UC Irvine's Chemerinsky debacle, guest commentator Wheeler Frost reports in the Chronicle that impeccably qualified historian Mark Moyar, who applied for faculty appointment at Duke University, believes he was rejected based on his political affiliation. Reports Frost, "Moyar graduated first in the history department at Harvard; his revised senior thesis was published as a book and sold more copies than an average history professor ever sells." Given those credentials, what is most surprising is that he was not only rejected, but was denied an interview by Professor Alex Roland who provided no reasons for his refusal. The situation is undeniably peculiar, and if things are as they seem to both Moyar and Frost, it would seem to substantiate what Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson believe is an epidemic of powerful "extremist professors" seeking to "pack departments with more and more ideologically eccentric, intellectually mediocre allies."

Though there are many criteria for hiring professors, it would seem to go without saying that the primary criteria should undoubtedly be merit. Diversity of all kinds is often another desirable trait for an academic department. However if, as Moyar believes, Duke declined to even offer an interview to him based solely on his political affiliation, then it would appear that Duke rejected Moyar in spite of both his merit AND the diversity of thought that he would have provided to Duke's history department. If true, Moyar's rejection would raise a variety of questions about the fundamental ethics of the hiring process for the history department at Duke University.

Therefore, Duke Students for an Ethical Duke intends to explore the issue before rendering any judgments or taking any stance. We will then report back when we have a better understanding.

DSEDuke Blog Begins

2007-11-03T19:44:00.000-04:00

As a perhaps easier way of continually providing new information, we have decided to create a blog in addition to our website www.ethicalduke.com. This will give us more space, and we intend to use it in conjunction with our website. As an added benefit, we found that apparently Google Blogs allows us to earn revenue for Duke Students for an Ethical Duke by allowing advertisements on the page, so we figured we would try that out as well.

Equally important, the blog format should make it easier for readers to communicate with us and exchange information. Readers will be able to comment on postings to let us know what they think and to share what they might like to contribute, but at least initially, we will keep them hidden. We welcome readers to share with us information, articles, educated views, links etc. that pertain to our cause, and also to send us any questions they might have regarding our posts or our mission in general.

From time to time, we may publish thoughtful comments as posts or as available comments, and we welcome our readers to offer "guest posts" for our consideration. We only request that such offerings be thoughtful, respectful, and relevant to the domain of Duke Students for an Ethical Duke.

Regards,
Duke Students for an Ethical Duke