PDA

View Full Version : Brodhead's "Uncle Terry" Letter



Devil07
11-16-2010, 12:19 PM
Although we're in the midst of basketball season now, I thought that this email from President Brodhead warrants some discussion. In a relatively rare move on his part, Brodhead apparently emailed the entire undergraduate body to encourage them, a la Terry Sanford, to self-initiate a change in culture. In fact, he specifically tied his email to Sanford's famous letter. With a number of events that have reflected poorly on the university this semester, I think Brodhead's email is appropriate and a positive step, even if it is a bit vague as to specifics. Frankly, I am happy to see him take a more active role in addressing issues that do need to be discussed on campus. When national media has covered a number of Duke social stories in a negative light, the administration should confront the issue. Whether or not his email will have any real impact is an interesting question, but at the very least I like that he's getting involved. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say though.

The Chronicle article about the email is here: http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/president-urges-student-led-culture-shift-e-mail. The actual email can be found here: http://dukechronicle.com/sites/default/files/brodheadletter.jpg

Mods please feel free to move this to the tailgate thread if you deem appropriate, but I thought that since its a broader topic it merited its own discussion.

SMO
11-16-2010, 01:43 PM
Sounds like a second Campus Culture Initiative is in order. Time for some committees. I suspect white male priveledge is to blame...somehow.

All kidding aside, what else has taken place besides Karen Owen and the tailgate incident? Have there been others?

BD80
11-16-2010, 02:07 PM
Although we're in the midst of basketball season now, I thought that this email from President Brodhead warrants some discussion. In a relatively rare move on his part, Brodhead apparently emailed the entire undergraduate body to encourage them, a la Terry Sanford, to self-initiate a change in culture. In fact, he specifically tied his email to Sanford's famous letter. With a number of events that have reflected poorly on the university this semester, I think Brodhead's email is appropriate and a positive step, even if it is a bit vague as to specifics. Frankly, I am happy to see him take a more active role in addressing issues that do need to be discussed on campus. When national media has covered a number of Duke social stories in a negative light, the administration should confront the issue. Whether or not his email will have any real impact is an interesting question, but at the very least I like that he's getting involved. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say though. The Chronicle article about the email is here: http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/president-urges-student-led-culture-shift-e-mail. The actual email can be found here: http://dukechronicle.com/sites/default/files/brodheadletter.jpg

...

To me it is a load of condescending tripe. Terry spoke to us, as equals. It was understood that he had more life experience and was there to help us learn, but he engaged us as equals in life and spoke of a problem "WE" had and could solve.

Brodhead is speaking down to the students, as if it is their problem and he wants it solved. This is a CYA attempt more than a sincere effort to effect a change in culture.

Bluedog
11-16-2010, 02:10 PM
Sounds like a second Campus Culture Initiative is in order. Time for some committees. I suspect white male priveledge is to blame...somehow.

All kidding aside, what else has taken place besides Karen Owen and the tailgate incident? Have there been others?

The fraternity invite e-mail to a Halloween party that some saw as sexist, asking the partygoers to dress slutty among other things. (All of their jokes from the flyer were completely taken from the site someecards.com, by the way. They weren't original sexist jokes at all, but hey, it was a private e-mail, not a term paper.). An unknown person printed thousands of flyers of the e-mail and posted it all over campus, marking it with text "IS THIS WHY YOU CAME TO DUKE?" and "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

By the way, I thought Brodhead's e-mail was fine. I didn't read it as condescending.

killerleft
11-16-2010, 02:28 PM
The fraternity invite e-mail to a Halloween party that some saw as sexist, asking the partygoers to dress slutty among other things. (All of their jokes from the flyer were completely taken from the site someecards.com, by the way. They weren't original sexist jokes at all, but hey, it was a private e-mail, not a term paper.). An unknown person printed thousands of flyers of the e-mail and posted it all over campus, marking it with text "IS THIS WHY YOU CAME TO DUKE?" and "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

By the way, I thought Brodhead's e-mail was fine. I didn't read it as condescending.

I'm no fan of Brodhead, but I didn't see the email as condescending, either. But as someone who is reminded from time to time that he does not have a Duke sheepskin, there may be a code or something I can't quite grasp on this and other campus issues.

Seriously, the timbre of the email seemed exactly right to me. Oak, wasn't it? Served with Grey Poupon, no doubt.:)

Devilsfan
11-16-2010, 04:49 PM
It all starts with listening. Listen to your student body. The student leaders will teach you how to be more effective. It's all happening under Mr. Broadhead's watch and a lot of it isn't very pretty.

weezie
11-16-2010, 05:27 PM
Terry spoke to us, as equals. It was understood that he had more life experience and was there to help us learn, but he engaged us as equals in life and spoke of a problem "WE" had and could solve.

Brodhead is speaking down to the students, as if it is their problem and he wants it solved.

Not quite the tone I took from the latest letter. More like Broadhead doesn't have the sense of humor that Terry had. Sanford was a very warm and welcoming person....not saying that Broadhead might not also be the same, but it never comes across in any dealings that I have had with him, although granted, in groups.

Acymetric
11-16-2010, 05:32 PM
It all starts with listening. Listen to your student body. The student leaders will teach you how to be more effective. It's all happening under Mr. Broadhead's watch and a lot of it isn't very pretty.

Not trying to discount the value of student leadership, but what exactly would the leaders say that would make Broadhead more effective?

phaedrus
11-16-2010, 05:32 PM
Not quite the tone I took from the latest letter. More like Broadhead doesn't have the sense of humor that Terry had. Sanford was a very warm and welcoming person....not saying that Broadhead might not also be the same, but it never comes across in any dealings that I have had with him, although granted, in groups.

I agree with regard to the letter and I'd add that my experiences with Brodhead are quite different from yours. He has always come across as very friendly, open, and actually pretty funny.

CameronBornAndBred
11-16-2010, 05:35 PM
I didn't find the letter all that impressive, but I'm still happy it was written. Anything the administration can do to raise awareness within the student population that this is their issue to act upon works for me.

Bluedog
11-16-2010, 05:37 PM
I agree with regard to the letter and I'd add that my experiences with Brodhead are quite different from yours. He has always come across as very friendly, open, and actually pretty funny.

I agree, he's fairly witty and cracks jokes with regularity...It's more of a dry sense of humor, though.

DevilHorns
11-16-2010, 05:44 PM
I agree with regard to the letter and I'd add that my experiences with Brodhead are quite different from yours. He has always come across as very friendly, open, and actually pretty funny.

I second this. The few actual interactions I have had with Brodhead have been great. He's actually a fun and pretty goofy guy.

I liked the 'idea' of the letter, but seriously doubt it will actually have any true tangible results. Real results are from actions. A key action is getting rid of 'Tailgate.'

77devil
11-16-2010, 05:46 PM
Not quite the tone I took from the latest letter. More like Broadhead doesn't have the sense of humor that Terry had. Sanford was a very warm and welcoming person....not saying that Broadhead might not also be the same, but it never comes across in any dealings that I have had with him, although granted, in groups.

Couldn't agree more. In my experiences, Brodhead has been a cold fish, introverted, uncomfortable, and pompous. Terry invested time with the students, at least when I attended, and earned credibility and respect with the undergraduates that Brodhead will likely never enjoy. He's too imperial and aloof.

Devil07
11-16-2010, 06:05 PM
I didn't find the letter all that impressive, but I'm still happy it was written. Anything the administration can do to raise awareness within the student population that this is their issue to act upon works for me.

I think that sums up exactly how I feel about it. I am glad that he wrote the letter and frankly that he took the initiative to address the issue of campus culture. That being said, he didn't really actually have much substance to his message. While it was nice to see, it wasn't exactly an inspirational call to arms to take a critical look at things that need to change. Part of that of course is the nature of the problem. The issues he's trying to at least touch on are a lot broader than behavior at basketball games. To me, the question will be what does he do now. Will there be more than just an email? I honestly don't know.

As far as Brodhead himself goes, I have always liked him when I've personally interacted with him. He's a bit awkward in an impish, academic way, but came across, at least to me, as a warm, genuine person. That doesn't mean that I've always liked him as a leader, and I think many students who like me were at Duke during the lacrosse situation share that sentiment. Still, I don't have anything against him personally, and although I think his email isn't worth much without more action to follow, I am happy to see him at least trying to take some initiative in addressing these issues.

uh_no
11-16-2010, 06:14 PM
i would like to point out that the potti affair, the handling of the lacrosse incident, the recent DCR scandal (the federal department of education is now investigating the university on this one) are far more embarrasing to Duke than the stupid tailgate

Poincaré
11-16-2010, 06:34 PM
To me it is a load of condescending tripe. Terry spoke to us, as equals. It was understood that he had more life experience and was there to help us learn, but he engaged us as equals in life and spoke of a problem "WE" had and could solve.

Brodhead is speaking down to the students, as if it is their problem and he wants it solved. This is a CYA attempt more than a sincere effort to effect a change in culture.

Completely agree. First of all, to voluntarily invoke a comparison to Terry Sanford's letter is an incredibly pompous way to begin a letter.

I know that Brodhead can seem funny and charming in the absence of conflict. I don't see that as a particularly valuable quality (because it is not a scarce quality). From my own interaction with him, and his words and actions when the university was recently in turmoil, I am convinced that he is an intellectually dishonest man and an appeaser of the loudest pot-banger. I only add this comment to balance the praises being sung of Brodhead by some others.

Now, I think the basic message of this letter is fine, and maybe even the correct one. However, self-comparison at the beginning sets the tone. Writing "maybe it's time for a new letter from your uncle" is just cleverly disguised condescension.

So yeah. Right message. Wrong delivery. Wrong messenger.

gus
11-16-2010, 06:41 PM
To me it is a load of condescending tripe. Terry spoke to us, as equals. It was understood that he had more life experience and was there to help us learn, but he engaged us as equals in life and spoke of a problem "WE" had and could solve.

Brodhead is speaking down to the students, as if it is their problem and he wants it solved. This is a CYA attempt more than a sincere effort to effect a change in culture.

wow- I don't think the letter was condescending either. If this was condescending, than Uncle Terry's was too. Sure, Sanford used the word "we" more often, but the tone is similar, down to his command that "you should do it" when claiming it wasn't up to him to "enforce proper behavior". If that isn't a CYA, than Brodhead's isn't either.

I think you're injecting tone into Brodhead's letter that's just not there.

gus
11-16-2010, 06:44 PM
i would like to point out that the potti affair, the handling of the lacrosse incident, the recent DCR scandal (the federal department of education is now investigating the university on this one) are far more embarrasing to Duke than the stupid tailgate

It depends on who you ask, of course, but this is a tu coque argument. Is what Brodhead's saying wrong?

gus
11-16-2010, 06:48 PM
Completely agree. First of all, to voluntarily invoke a comparison to Terry Sanford's letter is an incredibly pompous way to begin a letter..

My main objection is that the Avuncular letter was nearly *27* years ago, not 25. Brodhead either can't do math, or his knowledge of Duke history is faulty!


So yeah. Right message. Wrong delivery. Wrong messenger

If the message is right, why should your disdain for Brodhead matter at all?

Poincaré
11-16-2010, 10:25 PM
If the message is right, why should your disdain for Brodhead matter at all?

Let's break down the differences in our views.

I start with two beliefs, which you can disagree with. That's fine.

1) I believe that this letter was condescending.
2) I believe that Brodhead has relinquished his moral authority through his past behavior.

You might disagree with 1) and 2) above. Even though I strongly believe them to be true, these are subjective judgments based on my evaluation of available evidence not irrefutable truths. However, IF you assume that 1) and 2) are true, then you might draw the following conclusions.

A) The letter may cause backlash or reactionary sentiments among students.
B) Brodhead may have undermined his goal because of A).

IF you assume 1) and 2), I believe A) and B) are reasonable conclusions.

Now, if you happen to agree with my assumptions, then I think that you can be convinced of my conclusion as well.

You can disagree with my assumptions (it is likely that you do indeed disagree), but I hope that you can see that they are at least possibly true. If so, then we can just peaceably agree to disagree. Even though I posted in this thread, I do regret the presence of anything that divides us on this board and detracts from our goal of rooting on the Devils this season.

uh_no
11-16-2010, 10:29 PM
It depends on who you ask, of course, but this is a tu coque argument. Is what Brodhead's saying wrong?

nope

but it's like trying to cut down a forest with a lawnmower.....yeah the grass has to go....but its not the biggest issue

4decadedukie
11-17-2010, 07:39 AM
Without comment on the e-mail’s/letter's specific qualities, I am surprised that more focus has not been placed on the fact that President Brodhead works for the Trustees, most of whom are alumni and all of whom monitor Duke meticulously and care passionately about the University and its future. As I side note, the lack of apparent Trustee concern with and involvement in UNC-CH's current, substantial athletic and academic ethics crisis has astonished me -- this simply would not happen at Duke. While, personally, I feel a letter from President Brodhead to the student body -- complemented with many small, private "listening" meeting with undergraduate leaders -- is overdue, my sole purpose in this post is to point out that this letter may well have been: (a) the collective desire of the Trustees or the Executive Committee (as well as the Duke's senior officers) and (b) drafted “by committee” (many officials providing guidance and editorial advice). This, as we all know, tends to reduce the intensity and the eloquence of any communication.

It might be prudent to consider the many aspects of this letters already discussed in this tread, in the context of a “group communication” that necessarily reflects the concerns, ideas, editorial style, and literary approach of several senior Duke leaders, not Dick Brodhead alone.

flyingdutchdevil
11-17-2010, 08:25 AM
my sole purpose in this post is to point out that this letter may well have been: (a) the collective desire of the Trustees or the Executive Committee (as well as the Duke's senior officers) and (b) drafted “by committee” (many officials providing guidance and editorial advice). This, as we all know, tends to reduce the intensity and the eloquence of any communication.

Do you actually think that Brodhead would let this go out without a) his consent and b) looking it over? It may have been ghost written, but if Brodhead signs it and sends it out from his account, he is held accountable for whatever is said and how it is said.

4decadedukie
11-17-2010, 08:52 AM
Do you actually think that Brodhead would let this go out without a) his consent and b) looking it over? It may have been ghost written, but if Brodhead signs it and sends it out from his account, he is held accountable for whatever is said and how it is said.

I am afraid you entirely miss my point. Of course President Brodhead was deeply involved in this letter/e-mail (he almost certainly was its principal architect). In addition, however, others (trustees, University officers, and so forth) are likely to have contributed, both in the ideas conveyed and in the actual writing. This is the precise reason I clearly stated: "sole purpose in this post is to point out that this letter may well have been: (a) the collective desire of the Trustees or the Executive Committee (as well as the Duke's senior officers) and (b) drafted “by committee” (many officials providing guidance and editorial advice). This, as we all know, tends to reduce the intensity and the eloquence of any communication." I never even remotely suggested that President Brodhead would not have been its primary author -- and accountable for it -- but I further said that it "necessarily reflects the concerns, ideas, editorial style, and literary approach of several senior Duke leaders, not Dick Brodhead alone."