Mike Pressler on 60 Minutes Tonight

[burnspbesq]

CBS was as responsible as any media actor for the firestorm that cost Coach Pressler his job in 2006. Nine years later, he gets his turn to talk.

In advance of tonight's appearance, a fine article from Lacrosse Magazine.

http://www.laxmagazine.com/college_men/DI/2014-15/news/041215_pressler_finds_truth_in_loyalty_to_bryant

[Reilly]

60 minutes beginning now ... just previewed ... looks like it'll be the third story if the order of stories follows the order of previews

[77devil]

The Duke administration comes off poorly as it should.

[roywhite]

Good for Mike Pressler; I hope speaking out gives him some peace.

Good for Chris Kennedy; I admire his courage and honesty.

[stals]

Good for Chris Kennedy; I admire his courage and honesty.

I wonder how Chris defines loyalty?

[westwall]

I wonder how Chris defines loyalty?

-- by this?

[fisheyes]

Mike Pressler sounds like a great man.

Duke administration...not so much.

So, why now? Why was this presented now?

[stals]

by this?
Chris stayed as a senior Duke staffer for the past 9 years and g
Has a tower named after him and his wife at the renovated Koskinen Stadium. Enuff said.

[weezie]

Terrific job. Brought back some harrowing memories. Fight on Bryant!

[cspan37421]

The Duke administration comes off poorly as it should.

Not for the last time, sadly. Not by a country mile.

[stals]

Not for the last time, sadly. Not by a country mile.

Chris Kennedy is part of the Duke administration.

[roywhite]

I wonder how Chris defines loyalty?


by this?
Chris stayed as a senior Duke staffer for the past 9 years and g
Has a tower named after him and his wife at the renovated Koskinen Stadium. Enuff said.


Chris Kennedy is part of the Duke administration.

3 posts on this, and I'm still not quite sure of your point?
Is it that Chris Kennedy should have been more outspoken originally, and is complicit because he was part of the athletic administration?

[stals]

3 posts on this, and I'm still not quite sure of your point?
Is it that Chris Kennedy should have been more outspoken originally, and is complicit because he was part of the athletic administration?
My point is he shouldn't have appeared on 60 minutes tonight given his position.

[duketaylor]

Chris Kennedy is a great person and I knew him well when I was in school. He helped many athletes with their academics back in the day as an advisor and assisted in getting tutoring help for those that needed it. Joe Alleva and other folks in the administration rushed to judgement in the whole debacle.

[JDukie]

I have a feeling if our athletic department had been led then by the outstanding leadership of Kevin White things would have been handled much differently during that time. However, it wasn't and we are very fortunate to have him now along with Coach Danowski. Coach Pressler is obviously a fine man, very loyal, and is seemingly in a great place now. Only negative for me was that his Bryant team didn't beat UNC this year!

[killerleft]

My point is he shouldn't have appeared on 60 minutes tonight given his position.

I still don't understand your point. I found Mr. Kennedy's honesty to be refreshing. It really was about the truth, after all. If there were people at Duke cautioning him not to appear on 60 Minutes, they were wrong, in my opinion. All that stuff really happened. If the Duke Administration tries to pull the old ostrich ploy, it still happened, and this 60 Minutes segment was going to air with or without Kennedy. Kennedy's appearance and statements are good for Duke, even if there are those at Duke who don't know it.

Would you rather Duke University employ The Carolina Way?

[burnspbesq]

The only problem I have with what Chris Kennedy said on "60 Minutes" was that it was Chris Kennedy saying it, and not President Brodhead or the chair of the board of trustees.

Duke's treatment of Mike Pressler was deplorable, and the damages he collected aren't enough to expiate Duke's guilt. He has never received an appropriate apology, and it's long overdue.

[SoCalDukeFan]

The only problem I have with what Chris Kennedy said on "60 Minutes" was that it was Chris Kennedy saying it, and not President Brodhead or the chair of the board of trustees.

Duke's treatment of Mike Pressler was deplorable, and the damages he collected aren't enough to expiate Duke's guilt. He has never received an appropriate apology, and it's long overdue.

At the time I felt Duke handled it very poorly. When I said I had doubts as to the players guilt a golfing partner said something like: "Duke must think they are guilty thats why they fired the coach."

Of course it was easy for me to be critical, 3000 miles away. Two people whom I respect and who were at Duke felt that Duke had no choice but to handle the case as they did.

I do wonder why 60 Minutes thought this was a story 9 years later.

SoCal

[MCFinARL]

I have a feeling if our athletic department had been led then by the outstanding leadership of Kevin White things would have been handled much differently during that time. However, it wasn't and we are very fortunate to have him now along with Coach Danowski. Coach Pressler is obviously a fine man, very loyal, and is seemingly in a great place now. Only negative for me was that his Bryant team didn't beat UNC this year!

While I agree that Kevin White is an able athletic director, I doubt his presence would have made a major difference in how this situation was handled. By all reports that was driven more by the University administration and the Board of Trustees than by the athletic department. Perhaps a stronger athletic director would have defended the coach and team more assertively, but it seems unlikely that would have changed the outcome.

[weezie]

...Duke's treatment of Mike Pressler was deplorable, and the damages he collected aren't enough to expiate Duke's guilt. He has never received an appropriate apology, and it's long overdue.

As do the players at the center of the storm. Which is exactly what we say whenever the evening calls come through from alumni development for contributions. We're IDs, yes, we support the library, yes, but general fund gets the polite decline.

Right on burnspesq.

[budwom]

Not a great moment for Duke, but it is pretty unusual to have a prosecutor as dishonest as Nifong (and who is actually disbarred for his actions).
When allegations like Nifong's are made, you'd like to think there is at least some substance behind them, instead of a completely dishonest, calculated, cynical
strategy for re-election.

[77devil]

The only problem I have with what Chris Kennedy said on "60 Minutes" was that it was Chris Kennedy saying it, and not President Brodhead or the chair of the board of trustees.

Agreed but it will never happen. The administration is still in the bunker, and frankly, based on conversations with one board member in the room at the time and still there, almost all believe Brodhead, et al. did what they had to.


Duke's treatment of Mike Pressler was deplorable, and the damages he collected aren't enough to expiate Duke's guilt. He has never received an appropriate apology, and it's long overdue.

Pressler received a carefully worded sort of apology in 2010 in the settlement of his lawsuit against John Burness and Duke for breaching the non disparagement clause of the original financial settlement. Certainly not enough but that's all he'll ever get from Duke. Washington and Lee comes off poorly in the story as well.

[Saratoga2]

What I remember was the media crying for blood and in particular the NY Times, who never really apologized for their crass handling of the case. In addition, I remember a large segment of the academic staff were at Duke were asking for severe punishment of the Duke students involved. Yes, the administration and board of directors was also guilty of throwing the coach and the students under the bus.

Was this a case of liberal bias against the students because they were perceived as rich, white althletes? Perhaps it made the attackers of the students feel justified in their beliefs to be after the advantaged in society regardless of the facts. In truth, it became obvious early on that Nifong was corrupting evidence and using the case as a springboard to become reelected. It should remind us all that such cases as these have also been trumped up against others in society and freuently those caught up in the issues didn't have the strong support base to fight the injustice.

[tux]

What I remember was the media crying for blood and in particular the NY Times, who never really apologized for their crass handling of the case. In addition, I remember a large segment of the academic staff were at Duke were asking for severe punishment of the Duke students involved. Yes, the administration and board of directors was also guilty of throwing the coach and the students under the bus.

Was this a case of liberal bias against the students because they were perceived as rich, white althletes? Perhaps it made the attackers of the students feel justified in their beliefs to be after the advantaged in society regardless of the facts. In truth, it became obvious early on that Nifong was corrupting evidence and using the case as a springboard to become reelected. It should remind us all that such cases as these have also been trumped up against others in society and freuently those caught up in the issues didn't have the strong support base to fight the injustice.

By far the worst actor in the entire mess was Nifong. I would like to believe that the administration would have taken a different course if they were dealing with an even minimally honorable DA.

[ksimp112]

What I remember was the media crying for blood and in particular the NY Times, who never really apologized for their crass handling of the case. In addition, I remember a large segment of the academic staff were at Duke were asking for severe punishment of the Duke students involved. Yes, the administration and board of directors was also guilty of throwing the coach and the students under the bus.

Was this a case of liberal bias against the students because they were perceived as rich, white althletes? Perhaps it made the attackers of the students feel justified in their beliefs to be after the advantaged in society regardless of the facts. In truth, it became obvious early on that Nifong was corrupting evidence and using the case as a springboard to become reelected. It should remind us all that such cases as these have also been trumped up against others in society and freuently those caught up in the issues didn't have the strong support base to fight the injustice.

One of my main memories of this whole ordeal, was Mr. Jesse Jackson and the Rev Al Sharpton rolling into town with the mighty Black Panthers conducting marches on campus. Not even knowing all of the facts right after the accuser went to the police, this group comes riding in on their high horses thinking that they are the cavalry and are going to save the day, as Jackson and Sharpton always try and do.

Wanting to rush to judgment and turning it into a white vs. black issue. Rich white northerners from an elite private school, taking advantage of a poor black southern student from a public school, saying that they have to be guilty regardless.

But as time took it's course and the layers of the event were peeled away, the truth was eventually revealed and the real picture was seen of what the accuser really was.

If I was going to take up for someone like this and know that it was going to be a national headline story, I would have do some research on the accuser before rushing into it, pointing fingers, and causing a media frenzy like Jackson and Sharpton did.

I believe that this whole ordeal would not have blown up so quickly like it had, if these two individuals hadn't thrown a temper tantrum like they always do. I am sure it would have been in the national headline news, but not the way this ordeal escalated.

[Reisen]

Was this a case of liberal bias against the students because they were perceived as rich, white athletes? Perhaps it made the attackers of the students feel justified in their beliefs to be after the advantaged in society regardless of the facts.

Is the pope Catholic?

[MCFinARL]

Agreed but it will never happen. The administration is still in the bunker, and frankly, based on conversations with one board member in the room at the time and still there, almost all believe Brodhead, et al. did what they had to.



Pressler received a carefully worded sort of apology in 2010 in the settlement of his lawsuit against John Burness and Duke for breaching the non disparagement clause of the original financial settlement. Certainly not enough but that's all he'll ever get from Duke. Washington and Lee comes off poorly in the story as well.

Re this, the New Yorker story in Sept. 2006 offered an enlightening quote from Robert Steel (then Board Chair): "We had to stop those pictures....It doesn't mean it's fair, but we had to stop it." The desire to protect the Duke brand from a media frenzy became the overriding consideration--and it's easy to see how, from the perspective of the Trustees, that was very important. In the end, of course, it didn't really halt the media frenzy, and there were a lot of other values and responsibilities that fell by the wayside in the rush to protect reputation.

Edit: seeing recent posts I'm pretty sure we are about 10 minutes away from having this thread closed--and maybe that is as it should be.

[sagegrouse]

One of my main memories of this whole ordeal, was Mr. Jesse Jackson and the Rev Al Sharpton rolling into town with the mighty Black Panthers conducting marches on campus. Not even knowing all of the facts right after the accuser went to the police, this group comes riding in on their high horses thinking that they are the cavalry and are going to save the day, as Jackson and Sharpton always try and do.

Wanting to rush to judgment and turning it into a white vs. black issue. Rich white northerners from an elite private school, taking advantage of a poor black southern student from a public school, saying that they have to be guilty regardless.

But as time took it's course and the layers of the event were peeled away, the truth was eventually revealed and the real picture was seen of what the accuser really was.

If I was going to take up for someone like this and know that it was going to be a national headline story, I would have do some research on the accuser before rushing into it, pointing fingers, and causing a media frenzy like Jackson and Sharpton did.

I believe that this whole ordeal would not have blown up so quickly like it had, if these two individuals hadn't thrown a temper tantrum like they always do. I am sure it would have been in the national headline news, but not the way this ordeal escalated.

Lessee.... The Durham County District Attorney files rape charges against three lacrosse players based on a false report, and sizable portions of the Duke student body and faculty are up in arms. The national news media are all over the case because it is a "perfect storm:" rich vs. poor, white vs. black, town vs. gown, and jock privilege.

But you are blaming Sharpton and Jackson for stirring up trouble. I am having trouble understanding your post.

[BD80]

Hopefully, young men everywhere learned that it is not a very good idea to have a party serving liquor to underage individuals and to bring in strippers.

And that perception can become reality in a heartbeat

[roywhite]

Hopefully, young men everywhere learned that it is not a very good idea to have a party serving liquor to underage individuals and to bring in strippers.

And that perception can become reality in a heartbeat

....and that University officials will have a higher regard for due process and the support of their own students.

(in before the thread lock ;) )

[duke09hms]

Think we can generally say it was a **** on the part of most parties.

That all started with Mike Nifong, what a guy. What a guy.

[Duvall]

What I remember was the media crying for blood and in particular the NY Times, who never really apologized for their crass handling of the case. In addition, I remember a large segment of the academic staff were at Duke were asking for severe punishment of the Duke students involved. Yes, the administration and board of directors was also guilty of throwing the coach and the students under the bus.


Memory? It was 2006, surely there are links to support all of this.

[rfaison]

What I remember was the media crying for blood and in particular the NY Times, who never really apologized for their crass handling of the case. In addition, I remember a large segment of the academic staff were at Duke were asking for severe punishment of the Duke students involved. Yes, the administration and board of directors was also guilty of throwing the coach and the students under the bus.


Not a direct apology perhaps but David Brooks did revisit & revise ... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/opinion/28brooks.html?_r=0

"...But now that we know more about the Duke lacrosse team, simple decency requires that we return to that scandal, if only to correct the slurs that were uttered by millions of people, including me..."

[OZ]

Was this a case of liberal bias against the students because they were perceived as rich, white althletes?


Am I suppose to take from this that liberals are somehow biased toward "rich, white athletes?"

If so, as someone who definitely considers himself to be of the "liberal" persuasion, I find this comment to be offensive and inappropriate.

[MCFinARL]

Am I suppose to take from this that liberals are somehow biased toward "rich, white athletes?"

If so, as someone who definitely considers himself to be of the "liberal" persuasion, I find this comment to be offensive and inappropriate.

I feel your pain, although I note that this was a question, however inartfully phrased, not a statement. I think a more useful way to talk about what happened here is to say that some people with a particular worldview and agenda chose to believe one claim about what allegedly happened because it fit that worldview and was useful for that agenda. While some people might call that worldview and agenda "liberal," that is a shorthand that here is overbroad and inaccurate.

[Kfanarmy]

Am I suppose to take from this that liberals are somehow biased toward "rich, white athletes?"

If so, as someone who definitely considers himself to be of the "liberal" persuasion, I find this comment to be offensive and inappropriate.

How can you take a statement saying "liberal bias against" and get "somehow biased toward?"