ESPN 30 for 30 Fantastic Lies

[Owen Meany]

Mods can move this if they would like - but I know it will be of interest to many here. Tonight is the ESPN 30 for 30 on the Duke Lacrosse Case (http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/14949958/one-duke-high-profile-alumni-pens-letter-calling-leadership-justice).

ESPN has a letter that Jay Bilas wrote to Duke Magazine calling on Brodhead and Steele to resign or be removed.

[subzero02]

Any guesses on what Duke focused 30 for 30 will debut on selection Sunday in 2017?... "I hate Grayson Allen: A recap of Duke's remarkable 2016 final four run"

[weezie]

I feel uneasy about this show tonight. Stupid espn is somehow going to make Duke look bad.

[dukelifer]

I feel uneasy about this show tonight. Stupid espn is somehow going to make Duke look bad.

Some faculty, some administrators, Nifong and the accuser are all going to have bad moments in this one. . Curious to see what the ex players have to say about how this has affected their lives.

[DukieInKansas]

Word from another board I am on is that it gives a good view of the events. It is not an attempt to show the players in a bad light. The "accuser"* wanted to be interviewed but prison authorities didn't allow it. Nifong and Brodhead declined to be interviewed. The falsely accused were not interviewed but some parents were. There was a screening a week or so ago.

[-jk]

Let's be careful with this one, folks. Even 10 years later, there are still raw feelings. If this discussion doesn't remain civil, we'll issue infractions and shut this thread down.

thanks,

-jk

[nyesq83]

"Thanks for your message. Here is my take on the issues in your e-mail:

I will never agree with the manner in which Duke and President Brodhead handled the Duke Lacrosse matter. From the beginning, I disagreed with both on the actions taken and the statements made, both public and private. I stand by my statements made at that time, and I do not regret one thing I said or wrote. I believed I was right then, and I believe I was right now. I thought many people should have been dismissed at that time. Were I in charge, I would have shown quite a few people the door.

However, I have spent time with President Brodhead at that time and since then and, while we differed profoundly on the Lacrosse matter, I support him and his leadership in virtually every other area. I called for his resignation based upon the Lacrosse matter only. Since he remained in place, and the Lacrosse matter is over, I have accepted our differences on that matter, and I have chosen to unite with the administration and move forward in areas of agreement on other matters, for the better of the university.

The handling of the Lacrosse matter will always be a sad and sorry episode in Duke history, and on President Brodhead's record. However, we can move forward and do great things."

[77devil]

I feel uneasy about this show tonight. Stupid espn is somehow going to make Duke look bad.

Because the facts speak for themselves, there isn't a way to make Duke look good in this story no matter in which direction it leans. That's why ESPN made the episode.

Looking forward to the 30 for 30 on the UNC cheating scandal.

[Henderson]

Let's be careful with this one, folks. Even 10 years later, there are still raw feelings. If this discussion doesn't remain civil, we'll issue infractions and shut this thread down.


It's not only still raw, but all the facts are known now. I don't see the point of watching this. None whatsoever.

[77devil]

From her opening remarks, it appears the director might have an agenda. We'll see.

[Newton_14]

From her opening remarks, it appears the director might have an agenda. We'll see.

Yeah I did not like the start either... nor the repeated phrase "something happened for sure".... that was a big theme here locally after the players were declared innocent by AG Roy Cooper. "Well, something happened. They aint totally innocent".. Extremely unfortunate but some people will go to their graves believing that the players did something to her. Sad.

[SCMatt33]

Interesting so far. It seems like they're going through the lens of what thing ms were like at the time, not looking back. Therefore if you didn't know the title, you'd think they're guilty so far. I'm interested to see the pivot that inevitably must occur

[fidel]

I'm finding my nerves still raw on this. More KC Johnson please...

[DukieInKansas]

I'm finding my nerves still raw on this. More KC Johnson please...

Have patience.

[fidel]

Yeah, well, I still won't subscribe to the NYTimes.

[Dukehky]

This is brutally in depth. Just hard to watch. Really well done.

I would just like to reiterate that I am not behind Duke or any of its officials involved in this case. It is appalling to me that those in charge were not removed. Whatever good they have done since them could have been replicated by another and was outweighed 10x by the damage they did.

Nifong should have had to do real time, not 3 hours in Durham County.

Don't spork me if you agree, don't blame me if you disagree, don't respond or reply or PM me. This just brings back a lot of memories that I don't care to remember. I needed to say this.

[CameronBlue]

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/14949958/one-duke-high-profile-alumni-pens-letter-calling-leadership-justice

[nyesq83]

Synopsis, anyone? I don't have cable. Thanks.

[DukieInKansas]

Synopsis, anyone? I don't have cable. Thanks.

Follows the case from beginning so you see the attitudes that were, we now know, jumping to conclusions and making judgements without all the facts. Jay Bilas talked about the letter he sent Duke Magazine that they didn't run. Nifong's campaign director talked about Dave Evans speech making an impact on her and when she quit his campaign. Currently, talking about the 2nd DNA testing - Brad Bannon is still my hero of the case for spending multiple days learning about DNA and realizing the significance of the reports.

eta: I have strong feelings on the case. I will try to keep them out of any comments.

[Bluedog]

The majority of speaking time is from the accused parents, which gives an interesting perspective, and the defense attorneys. Mostly focused on the media and community response to things at the beginning and now getting into more of the (lack of) evidence and Nifong's prosecutorial misconduct.

[Newton_14]

Its just about over. All in all, it was very thorough and very well done. Especially the last half of the show. The only thing I think got glossed over is the hour or two after she left the house that night, that led to her being with police or in a hospital to begin with... to me that was critical in terms of how she came to make the accusation to begin with.

Outside of that. I'm pleased. Very well done.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Its just about over. All in all, it was very thorough and very well done. Especially the last half of the show. The only thing I think got glossed over is the hour or two after she left the house that night, that led to her being with police or in a hospital to begin with... to me that was critical in terms of how she came to make the accusation to begin with.

Outside of that. I'm pleased. Very well done.
Agree. It was well done.

I had forgotten about the other Nifong case that was reviewed recently and was interested to learn about the continued push to investigate other of his convictions in light of his penchant for not disclosing evidence. Wow.

[fidel]

Missing was recognition of the astounding efforts from KC Johnson on innocence. An amazing feat for a blogger from NYC, on actions happening in NC.

When all the 'you know you know' was being reported, he reported actual fact.

God bless him.

[weezie]

I was apprehensive but it was excellent. I remember meeting Jackie Brown at a support march for the accused. She was exactly as she came across in the film, stunned but with a conscience. Very true to the story. I'm proud of Jay Bilas, too.

And still, outside of the monetary settlement, there has never been anything said about an apology from Brodhead to the three players, am I correct on that?

Does anyone know if that is true?

[subzero02]

Wow, I guess I will have to watch it.

[Bluedog]

Uh, they interviewed KC Johnson and gave him airtime, so you certainly got his perspective in there. I appreciated the fact the documentary conveyed the huge amount of media, outside and Duke community pressure that was on the team and Duke administration to swiftly punish the team and those constituents all thought Duke acted too LIGHTLY at the time and demanded more force. Don't want to get into a discussion on this, but simply state that I thought they did a good job in this regard, depicting the media hysteria and jump to conclusions.

[Bluedog]

I was apprehensive but it was excellent. I remember meeting Jackie Brown at a support march for the accused. She was exactly as she came across in the film, stunned but with a conscience. Very true to the story. I'm proud of Jay Bilas, too.

And still, outside of the monetary settlement, there has never been anything said about an apology from Brodhead to the three players, am I correct on that?

Does anyone know if that is true?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Brodhead did apologize to the players later on, but that was not mentioned in the film. Brodhead also had some harsh words for Nifong before the case was dismissed, but that was also not mentioned. Obviously, they couldn't cover every single thing that occurred in a 2 hour film, so had to make some decisions on the focus of the story. They mentioned lawsuits against Duke, but not against Durham, for example. (Not sure why they left that out since it was the "follow-up text" at the end). Overall, I found it fair to Duke and was glad that they didn't interview Nancy Grace (although Selena Roberts got some airtime...).

[lmb]

This was heart wrenching to watch. Because of my Duke basketball fandom I started following the lacrosse team and began to admire the sport. I remember this whole thing playing out through the conversations on this board.

I couldn't help but put myself in the shoes of these families. Maybe because my son is starting his freshman season of high school lacrosse. I picture him being at a party when something goes wrong. It hurts to think about what these families went through as they watched their sons go through these awful circumstances.

There were no winners here. The documentary makes that clear. I felt sick to my stomach watching this. Ugh

[weezie]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Brodhead did apologize to the players later on, but that was not mentioned in the film.

You understood the question, thanks.

[77devil]

Better than I expected after the opening remarks by the film maker. Aside from Jay Bilas, there should have been more critique of the Duke administration and the gang of 88 faculty. Even though the administration wouldn't talk and the parents couldn't, the director should have at least included more commentary from K.C. Johnson and/or others to counter the clips she used from Bill Chafee and Houston Baker.

[barjwr]

...was glad that they didn't interview Nancy Grace (although Selena Roberts got some airtime...).

I actually would have loved for them to interview Nancy Grace, just to see what sort of nonsense she could come up with to defend her own rush to judgment. Some of the best TV ever to "Grace" The Daily Show was the segment that aired after the announcement that Evans, Seligmann, and Finnerty were innocent.

[Stray Gator]

This is brutally in depth. Just hard to watch. Really well done.

I would just like to reiterate that I am not behind Duke or any of its officials involved in this case. It is appalling to me that those in charge were not removed. Whatever good they have done since them could have been replicated by another and was outweighed 10x by the damage they did.

Nifong should have had to do real time, not 3 hours in Durham County.

Don't spork me if you agree, don't blame me if you disagree, don't respond or reply or PM me. This just brings back a lot of memories that I don't care to remember. I needed to say this.

While you may prefer to foreclose any response that disagrees with your position, I believe that in fairness the readers here should be afforded the opportunity to consider another perspective. What some people seem to forget in concluding that the Duke administration should have immediately come to the defense of the accused lacrosse players is the context in which the University's officials were required to act, as defined by the extraordinary circumstances that existed and evolved as events transpired. Given (a) the lacrosse team's past incidents of misconduct and disciplinary problems (there was a reason they chose to move into a house off campus), and (b) the fact that the district attorney (before his true character and motives became known) publicized information which appeared to show that there was evidence to support the allegations of sexual assault, and (c) the highly charged emotional frenzy fomented by media commentators, which drove outside organizations and internal factions of the Duke community to demand that everyone "take sides" and rush to judgment based primarily on racial and socioeconomic stereotypes, I believe the administration's response -- to caution against premature judgments until the investigation could be completed and all the facts were known -- was the correct and appropriate course.

With the benefit of hindsight, few would dispute that the Duke administration made some public statements during the course of the controversy that could have been better articulated, and took some actions that could have been more thoughtfully implemented. I also believe that there were some faculty members whose behavior during this controversy was so disgraceful, and so manifestly contrary to the fundamental principles that they should have been promoting as educators, that their dismissal was clearly warranted; and I fault the Duke administration for not ultimately punishing them, or at least publicly repudiating them for setting a terrible example. But for me at least, this program reaffirmed that until it became evident that the charges against the lacrosse players were not true, the Duke administration could not be blamed for trying to maintain institutional neutrality pending the outcome of the legal process and to counsel against prejudgment for or against either side in the meantime.

[DukieInKansas]

While you may prefer to foreclose any response that disagrees with your position, I believe that in fairness the readers here should be afforded the opportunity to consider another perspective. What some people seem to forget in concluding that the Duke administration should have immediately come to the defense of the accused lacrosse players is the context in which the University's officials were required to act, as defined by the extraordinary circumstances that existed and evolved as events transpired. Given (a) the lacrosse team's past incidents of misconduct and disciplinary problems (there was a reason they chose to move into a house off campus), and (b) the fact that the district attorney (before his true character and motives became known) publicized information which appeared to show that there was evidence to support the allegations of sexual assault, and (c) the highly charged emotional frenzy fomented by media commentators, which drove outside organizations and internal factions of the Duke community to demand that everyone "take sides" and rush to judgment based primarily on racial and socioeconomic stereotypes, I believe the administration's response -- to caution against premature judgments until the investigation could be completed and all the facts were known -- was the correct and appropriate course.

With the benefit of hindsight, few would dispute that the Duke administration made some public statements during the course of the controversy that could have been better articulated, and took some actions that could have been more thoughtfully implemented. I also believe that there were some faculty members whose behavior during this controversy was so disgraceful, and so manifestly contrary to the fundamental principles that they should have been promoting as educators, that their dismissal was clearly warranted; and I fault the Duke administration for not ultimately punishing them, or at least publicly repudiating them for setting a terrible example. But for me at least, this program reaffirmed that until it became evident that the charges against the lacrosse players were not true, the Duke administration could not be blamed for trying to maintain institutional neutrality pending the outcome of the legal process and to counsel against prejudgment for or against either side in the meantime.

There are multiple ways people can, and will, view how the administration handled the situation at the time. Given the protests and atmosphere at the time, as much as I didn't like it, I understood canceling the season, mainly from a safety aspect. I didn't feel that the administration did enough to remind people to reserve judgement - innocent until proven guilty should have been emphasized and I didn't get the sense that they were doing that. As you said, there were faculty members that should have been publicly called on the carpet and, possibly, dismissed for how they treated the players.

It is ok to disagree.

[ncexnyc]

Aside from the multitude of commercials that plagued my viewing I found it to be a fair and balanced, 30 for 30 episode.

As others have already mentioned, some of the comments made at the start of the show had me scratching my head. I also wasn't fond of the comment made near the end of the show, which attempted to portray the young lady as a victim.

And anyone who ever doubts that Jay Bilas, bleeds Duke blue needs to have their head examined.

[53n206]

There are multiple ways people can, and will, view how the administration handled the situation at the time. Given the protests and atmosphere at the time, as much as I didn't like it, I understood canceling the season, mainly from a safety aspect. I didn't feel that the administration did enough to remind people to reserve judgement - innocent until proven guilty should have been emphasized and I didn't get the sense that they were doing that. As you said, there were faculty members that should have been publicly called on the carpet and, possibly, dismissed for how they treated the players.

It is ok to disagree.

In retrospect I agree with Stray Gator, but at the time I was very disappointed in the Duke administration.

[77devil]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Brodhead did apologize to the players later on, but that was not mentioned in the film. Brodhead also had some harsh words for Nifong before the case was dismissed, but that was also not mentioned. Obviously, they couldn't cover every single thing that occurred in a 2 hour film, so had to make some decisions on the focus of the story. They mentioned lawsuits against Duke, but not against Durham, for example. (Not sure why they left that out since it was the "follow-up text" at the end). Overall, I found it fair to Duke and was glad that they didn't interview Nancy Grace (although Selena Roberts got some airtime...).

I'm confident that Brodhead's apology was a condition of the settlement. Doubtful he otherwise does so.


While you may prefer to foreclose any response that disagrees with your position, I believe that in fairness the readers here should be afforded the opportunity to consider another perspective. What some people seem to forget in concluding that the Duke administration should have immediately come to the defense of the accused lacrosse players is the context in which the University's officials were required to act, as defined by the extraordinary circumstances that existed and evolved as events transpired. Given (a) the lacrosse team's past incidents of misconduct and disciplinary problems (there was a reason they chose to move into a house off campus),

This statement is a complete red herring. Most of the players lived on campus. The houses off East campus have been occupied by upper class Duke students for decades.


and (b) the fact that the district attorney (before his true character and motives became known) publicized information which appeared to show that there was evidence to support the allegations of sexual assault, and (c) the highly charged emotional frenzy fomented by media commentators, which drove outside organizations and internal factions of the Duke community to demand that everyone "take sides" and rush to judgment based primarily on racial and socioeconomic stereotypes, I believe the administration's response -- to caution against premature judgments until the investigation could be completed and all the facts were known -- was the correct and appropriate course.

With the benefit of hindsight, few would dispute that the Duke administration made some public statements during the course of the controversy that could have been better articulated, and took some actions that could have been more thoughtfully implemented. I also believe that there were some faculty members whose behavior during this controversy was so disgraceful, and so manifestly contrary to the fundamental principles that they should have been promoting as educators, that their dismissal was clearly warranted; and I fault the Duke administration for not ultimately punishing them, or at least publicly repudiating them for setting a terrible example. But for me at least, this program reaffirmed that until it became evident that the charges against the lacrosse players were not true, the Duke administration could not be blamed for trying to maintain institutional neutrality pending the outcome of the legal process and to counsel against prejudgment for or against either side in the meantime.

The administration's response was anything but. Brodhead's infamous public statement early on that "whatever they did was bad enough" belies neutrality or a call against prejudgement much less a presumption of innocence. He did nothing to rein in the gang of 88's rush to judgement, refused to meet with parents, all while knowing that the team captains had told him nothing had happened. So it's fair to assume he didn't believe the players and presumed guilt.

Further, the administration's presumption of guilt continued after the exculpatory DNA evidence was released in April, 2006. The administration released records to the Durham police arguably in violation of FERPA, and gave them access to the dorms without a warrant or probable cause. There was nothing neutral in its behavior throughout.

The administration created a mess from the start and spent tens of millions of dollars cleaning it up. And yet, not a single person was held accountable.

[SoCalDukeFan]

There are multiple ways people can, and will, view how the administration handled the situation at the time. Given the protests and atmosphere at the time, as much as I didn't like it, I understood canceling the season, mainly from a safety aspect. I didn't feel that the administration did enough to remind people to reserve judgement - innocent until proven guilty should have been emphasized and I didn't get the sense that they were doing that. As you said, there were faculty members that should have been publicly called on the carpet and, possibly, dismissed for how they treated the players.

It is ok to disagree.

Letting Coach Pressler go was a big mistake in my opinion. He did nothing wrong. He did not write the email. A golf partner said to me : "Look you know they're guilty, Duke thinks they are guilty, thats why they fired the coach."

I could never understand why Duke did not say "innocent until proven guilty."

Lastly, I will say that I (and I assume DukieinKansas) was many miles from Durham while this was going on. I have talked to two who were living in Durham and both said that given the environment Duke handled it about the best they could.

SoCal

[BigWayne]

While you may prefer to foreclose any response that disagrees with your position, I believe that in fairness the readers here should be afforded the opportunity to consider another perspective. What some people seem to forget in concluding that the Duke administration should have immediately come to the defense of the accused lacrosse players is the context in which the University's officials were required to act, as defined by the extraordinary circumstances that existed and evolved as events transpired. Given (a) the lacrosse team's past incidents of misconduct and disciplinary problems (there was a reason they chose to move into a house off campus), and (b) the fact that the district attorney (before his true character and motives became known) publicized information which appeared to show that there was evidence to support the allegations of sexual assault, and (c) the highly charged emotional frenzy fomented by media commentators, which drove outside organizations and internal factions of the Duke community to demand that everyone "take sides" and rush to judgment based primarily on racial and socioeconomic stereotypes, I believe the administration's response -- to caution against premature judgments until the investigation could be completed and all the facts were known -- was the correct and appropriate course.

With the benefit of hindsight, few would dispute that the Duke administration made some public statements during the course of the controversy that could have been better articulated, and took some actions that could have been more thoughtfully implemented. I also believe that there were some faculty members whose behavior during this controversy was so disgraceful, and so manifestly contrary to the fundamental principles that they should have been promoting as educators, that their dismissal was clearly warranted; and I fault the Duke administration for not ultimately punishing them, or at least publicly repudiating them for setting a terrible example. But for me at least, this program reaffirmed that until it became evident that the charges against the lacrosse players were not true, the Duke administration could not be blamed for trying to maintain institutional neutrality pending the outcome of the legal process and to counsel against prejudgment for or against either side in the meantime.
I donate 88 cents a year to Duke and will do so until Brodhead is gone, maybe longer. I could forgive some of what the Duke admin did during this case, but what they did wrong was about 5X what I can forgive.

On the episode, overall it was nicely done and lays the biggest part of the blame on Nifong, Gottlieb, and Meehan, where it should be. It also shows an unflattering view of the media as it should. I don't think they should have given Chafe as much time to look professorial given his role in the gang of 88.

[Pghdukie]

I thought the last scene (demolition of the house) sent a powerful message. It's Over. Lets Move On.

[TruBlu]

Now available for replay on ESPN3 for those that missed it last night.

[aimo]

I thought the last scene (demolition of the house) sent a powerful message. It's Over. Lets Move On.

I actually viewed it as representing the administration's "Final Solution" to the problem.

[aimo]

I have talked to two who were living in Durham and both said that given the environment Duke handled it about the best they could.

SoCal

I disagree. They let those boys down.

[aimo]

I actually would have loved for them to interview Nancy Grace, just to see what sort of nonsense she could come up with to defend her own rush to judgment. Some of the best TV ever to "Grace" The Daily Show was the segment that aired after the announcement that Evans, Seligmann, and Finnerty were innocent.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/95y6wd/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-duke--non--rape-case

My favorite Daily Show clip.

[wsb3]

Did the show even mention the second dancer? & it has been a long time but didn't the second dancer do an interview on 60 minutes & say that it was a made up allegation?

Memory plays tricks & I actually thought the DA went to jail for more than a few hours. He certainly should of.

I did not know that about the young attorney being pressed into action during the DNA part.

[howardlander]

I disagree. They let those boys down.

Yep, I strongly disagree as well. It was obvious pretty quickly that the "victim" was lying her fanny off. The most amazing thing to me was the support she had in the community even when it was clear the whole thing was garbage. I understand the racial aspect, but I was still surprised anyone wanted to support obvious prosecutorial misconduct. If the 3 were poor black kids, they'd have been doing their 20 years before they knew what hit them.

Howard

[Dukehky]

There is no defense for Duke University or its officials coming from this situation. They did not handle things well, they did not handle things as well as they could have, they went into butt covering mode almost immediately and handed the whole team up to the media, DA, and public on a silver platter, and they lost probably 100s of millions of dollars because of it, which we won't ever hear about because there is likely a gag order on both sides.

THAT is why Duke came out not looking that bad last night, because players and parents aren't allowed to talk about Duke's roll, and because why the Hell would Duke want to comment on it. They've all survived and fully recovered, no need to go back.

[OldPhiKap]

I don't think there is any way for me to discuss the issue without getting sent to time-out. All I can say is, that show made me angry all over again.

[walras]

I was peripherally involved (helping KC Johnson etc.) and on campus during the entire time. The Duke administration did not in fact behave "impartially" nor did a number of its members "withhold judgement". There was an orchestrated campaign, led by the senior leadership group (the crisis group, reporting regularly to Bob Steel), to shape public opinion against the players, to anticipate what they thought would be actual convictions and to separate those "bad Duke" from "good Duke".

The often spoken line "they were no choirboys" appeared in public statements by Burness and Robert Thompson, Trinity Associate Dean. (Thompson in fact led the drive to study "campus culture", performed by three committees he formed, to use the events to deemphasize athletics among other things.) It began surfacing everywhere. The Coleman report, which was done at the time, showed that the players were no more "criminal" than others on campus in terms of behavior. This was buried as they were portrayed, on campus and off, as "out of control". There was a great deal of pandering on campus, by Burness and members of the Arts and Sciences administration, to black faculty like Holloway and Haynie and McClain who were certainly not "withholding judgment".

[mgtr]

THAT is why Duke came out not looking that bad last night, because players and parents aren't allowed to talk about Duke's roll, and because why the Hell would Duke want to comment on it. They've all survived and fully recovered, no need to go back.

Roll? Possibly a typo, but accurate as it stands! Sad.

[Indoor66]

It was ten years ago. Why do so many deal in self flagellation? I taped it but have decided to delete it and never watch it. It is history. It was what it was and is what it is. Why get upset again?

[SoCalDukeFan]

I did think the program was very good.

I would have liked to know what Meehan and Nifong are doing now.


SoCal

[tendev]

While you may prefer to foreclose any response that disagrees with your position, I believe that in fairness the readers here should be afforded the opportunity to consider another perspective. What some people seem to forget in concluding that the Duke administration should have immediately come to the defense of the accused lacrosse players is the context in which the University's officials were required to act, as defined by the extraordinary circumstances that existed and evolved as events transpired. Given (a) the lacrosse team's past incidents of misconduct and disciplinary problems (there was a reason they chose to move into a house off campus), and (b) the fact that the district attorney (before his true character and motives became known) publicized information which appeared to show that there was evidence to support the allegations of sexual assault, and (c) the highly charged emotional frenzy fomented by media commentators, which drove outside organizations and internal factions of the Duke community to demand that everyone "take sides" and rush to judgment based primarily on racial and socioeconomic stereotypes, I believe the administration's response -- to caution against premature judgments until the investigation could be completed and all the facts were known -- was the correct and appropriate course.

With the benefit of hindsight, few would dispute that the Duke administration made some public statements during the course of the controversy that could have been better articulated, and took some actions that could have been more thoughtfully implemented. I also believe that there were some faculty members whose behavior during this controversy was so disgraceful, and so manifestly contrary to the fundamental principles that they should have been promoting as educators, that their dismissal was clearly warranted; and I fault the Duke administration for not ultimately punishing them, or at least publicly repudiating them for setting a terrible example. But for me at least, this program reaffirmed that until it became evident that the charges against the lacrosse players were not true, the Duke administration could not be blamed for trying to maintain institutional neutrality pending the outcome of the legal process and to counsel against prejudgment for or against either side in the meantime.

This is right on target Stray Gator. I have never completely understood those who have criticized Brodhead in this matter. Cancelling the lacrosse season was an unavoidable, tragic consequence of a intense and emotionally charged atmosphere at a time when the facts were not known. One fact that was not in dispute is that the lacrosse team members hired a stripper who happened to be a black woman. She alleged she was gang-raped. So, you are Brodhead. You can believe all you want about innocent until proven guilty and hope that the charges are not true. I am sure he had his doubts. But you don't have the luxury of waiting for the criminal justice system to discover the facts. The season was going on right then and you have to make a call. It just was not an appropriate time to be playing games.

Jay Bilas can say all he wants about the failure of leadership. It is easy to criticize the man in the arena. But what did Bilas know when he wrote the letter? A rhetorical question was asked by one of the parents as to whether the basketball team's season would have been cancelled under the same circumstances. I hope so.

[Tom B.]

My take, which I posted in largely this same form to another Duke online community in which I participate:

Overall I thought it was reasonable and pretty well-done. There was some criticism of the administration's handling of the events, including Bilas talking about his unpublished letter that took Brodhead and the administration to task for, in his words, failing to provide leadership. But that was, at best, a tertiary theme, and a comparatively small part of the film. The documentary focused primarily on the misconduct by Nifong and the Durham police, and the rush to judgment in the media -- those were, IMO, the subjects that deserved the most attention, so I thought the focus on them was appropriate.

None of the accused players agreed to appear in the documentary, nor did Nifong or Pressler. But it did make liberal use of old footage containing statements by the players, Nifong, and Pressler, including Pressler's appearance on 60 Minutes a while back.

The story was told mostly through the eyes and voices of the accused players' parents and their lawyers. A couple of the unindicted players (McDevitt and Wellington) also appeared and were featured prominently, and they came off well.

It left out some details (likely because it had to fit into a two-hour time slot) and probably didn't contain a ton of new info for those who followed the story closely at the time. But one particularly interesting part was hearing the lawyers talk about the timeline that they put together from cell phone records (which showed it was pretty much impossible for the accused players to have committed a rape during the relevant time frame) and the DNA evidence. Especially riveting were the accounts of the hearing at which the head of the private DNA lab ultimately copped to withholding exculpatory DNA evidence at Nifong's request.

It was supposed to have been a hearing to deal with routine scheduling and administrative matters, but Nifong showed up with his DNA expert (the lab director) and offered to let him testify in order to quell any questions about the DNA evidence. Nifong knew that nobody on the defense teams would be prepared at the time to cross-examine his DNA expert. In fact, the only defense lawyer who had studied and knew the DNA evidence was Bradley Bannon, one of the junior lawyers on Joe Cheshire's team. The other defense lawyers wanted to ask for more time, but Cheshire sensed the importance of the moment and insisted that they go forward, with Bannon taking the lead on the cross-examination. When Bannon himself balked, Cheshire gave Bannon the "winners want the ball when the game's on the line" pep talk, told him that he was ready, and it was his time to rise to the occasion -- and he did. It was edge-of-your-seat stuff, and it was presented really well in the documentary.

Best one-liner of the documentary belonged to Bannon. While sifting through all the raw DNA evidence, he had figured out that the DNA of at least seven men -- none of them lacrosse players -- had been collected from Crystal Mangum or her clothes, but that info had been withheld from the lab's final report. The lab's notes indicated that one of the unidentified DNA samples might have belonged to the lab director himself -- i.e., the director had possibly contaminated the sample with his own DNA while doing the testing. Bannon's comment about making that discovery: "I was pretty sure that Mr. Meehan hadn't been at the party that night."

As for KC Johnson, I thought the amount of airtime given to him was appropriate. He was undoubtedly a prominent feature in the unraveling of the hoax -- not so much because he did any investigative legwork, but because he worked hard to process and aggregate information that was coming in from multiple directions and presented it on his blog in an easily-accessible manner. So if he hadn't been featured, his absence would've been conspicuous. At the same time, though, as I've said here before, it became apparent after a while that he wasn't just reporting on a compelling and high-profile legal case -- he was processing much of what happened in and around Duke through the prism of his own negative experiences with university politics, and sometimes had trouble disassociating his own biases from his reporting on the case. I thought the documentary makers did a good job of featuring Johnson in a way that highlighted and credited the work he did to advance the cause of justice, while filtering out his editorializing, which made the documentary stronger in the end.

[SoCalDukeFan]

This is right on target Stray Gator. Cancelling the lacrosse season was an unavoidable, tragic consequence of a intense and emotionally charged atmosphere at a time when the facts were not known. One fact that was not in dispute is that the lacrosse team members hired a stripper who happened to be a black woman. She alleged she was gang-raped. So, you are Brodhead. You can believe all you want about innocent until proven guilty and hope that the charges are not true. I am sure he had his doubts. But you don't have the luxury of waiting for the criminal justice system to discover the facts. The season was going on right then and you have to make a call. It just was not an appropriate time to be playing games.

Jay Bilas can say all he wants about the failure of leadership. It is easy to criticize the man in the arena. But what did Bilas know when he wrote the letter? A rhetorical question was asked by one of the parents as to whether the basketball team's season would have been cancelled under the same circumstances. I hope so.

I am not the moderator and maybe we should stick to the ESPN program and not rehash Duke/Brodhead etc.

I agree that the season should have been cancelled, I think for safety reasons. Beyond that, I disagree completely.

While it might be 20/20 hindsight and from 3000 miles away but I think Brodhead should have said the Duke students were innocent until proven guilty. He should have said that Mike Pressler did nothing wrong and would remain as the Duke men's lacrosse coach. He should have told the "gang of 88" that they should wait until they have facts. He maybe should have noticed that the dancer's story was constantly in flux but the story of the 40+ students was singular and consistent. He never should have made the "bad enough" statement which kind of put having a party with stripers to the same level as sexual assault. He should have stood by the players and their families. He should have disciplined the "gang of 88" when the truth came out.

My stance was "innocent until proven guilty." In my opinion Brodhead (and Steel) were more concerned about the Duke "brand" than about the truth.

SoCal

[Bluedog]

I am not the moderator and maybe we should stick to the ESPN program and not rehash Duke/Brodhead etc.

I agree that the season should have been cancelled, I think for safety reasons. Beyond that, I disagree completely.

While it might be 20/20 hindsight and from 3000 miles away but I think Brodhead should have said the Duke students were innocent until proven guilty. He should have said that Mike Pressler did nothing wrong and would remain as the Duke men's lacrosse coach. He should have told the "gang of 88" that they should wait until they have facts. He maybe should have noticed that the dancer's story was constantly in flux but the story of the 40+ students was singular and consistent. He never should have made the "bad enough" statement which kind of put having a party with stripers to the same level as sexual assault. He should have stood by the players and their families. He should have disciplined the "gang of 88" when the truth came out.

My stance was "innocent until proven guilty." In my opinion Brodhead (and Steel) were more concerned about the Duke "brand" than about the truth.

SoCal

March 29, 2006. Brodhead: "While we await the results of the investigation, I remind everyone that under our system of law, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. One deep value the university is committed to is protecting us all from coercion and assault. An equally central value is that we must not judge each other on the basis of opinion or strong feeling rather than evidence of actual conduct."

At that point, the DA had come out equivocally saying that they are 100% guilty, the media hysteria was at a fever pitch, and the Duke and Durham community were all calling for the administration to cancel the season and remove the players from the campus (season not canceled until April 5). I'm not going to say if I think the administration's actions were appropriate or not during the episode, but saying Brodhead never said that the students are innocent until proven guilty is factually inaccurate. Now, maybe you can say the MEDIA chose not to cover that as much as other things...or that you don't agree with the focus of the administration's messages, that's fine.

He also came down on Nifong pretty hard while the case was still ongoing:
Brodhead: "[Nifong's] handling of the Duke lacrosse case was deeply unfair to the young men involved and damaged the criminal justice system itself. Mr. Nifong brought great harm to these Duke students and their families, to the Durham community, and to Duke University and all who care about it. Even though his decision to resign comes under threat of sanctions by the North Carolina State Bar, I welcome it. "

"Our students were accused by the community's senior law enforcement officer with no credible basis in fact...Evidence that could have helped establish their innocence was systematically ignored. Meanwhile, the DA continued to make inflammatory statements expressing confidence that the crimes had occurred. A heavy responsibility flows from this abuse of power. The harshest and most direct harm was done to the three students and their families, who suffered from the very place we look to for justice. Other members of their team were also harmed when they were included in Mr. Nifong's blanket accusations."

I thought the documentary struck the right balance on topics and was well done.

[grossbus]

" donate 88 cents a year to Duke "

Wish I had thought of that.

[Stray Gator]

I'm confident that Brodhead's apology was a condition of the settlement. Doubtful he otherwise does so.



This statement is a complete red herring. Most of the players lived on campus. The houses off East campus have been occupied by upper class Duke students for decades.



The administration's response was anything but. Brodhead's infamous public statement early on that "whatever they did was bad enough" belies neutrality or a call against prejudgement much less a presumption of innocence. He did nothing to rein in the gang of 88's rush to judgement, refused to meet with parents, all while knowing that the team captains had told him nothing had happened. So it's fair to assume he didn't believe the players and presumed guilt.

Further, the administration's presumption of guilt continued after the exculpatory DNA evidence was released in April, 2006. The administration released records to the Durham police arguably in violation of FERPA, and gave them access to the dorms without a warrant or probable cause. There was nothing neutral in its behavior throughout.

The administration created a mess from the start and spent tens of millions of dollars cleaning it up. And yet, not a single person was held accountable.

1. By saying you're "confident" that Brodhead apologized only because it was a condition of settlement, aren't you're assuming the worst of a person in the absence of factual support? And isn't that contrary to the most important lesson we learned from this tragic incident?

2. Regarding the house on Buchanan, of course most of the players lived on campus. But isn't it an undisputed fact that members of the lacrosse team regularly had parties at that house, which were attended by dozens of players who didn't reside in the house? How many players were at the party on March 13, when the strippers were hired, who didn't actually reside in that house? Didn't the student who lived next door confirm that there were frequent parties at that house, which were well attended and widely known? And though it wasn't covered in the documentary program, weren't there a number of prior incidents at that house in which the police had been called? In fact, didn't the lacrosse team have a widely known reputation on and around campus for their rowdy parties and "frat boy" behavior?

3. As for Brodhead's "infamous" public statement that even if the lacrosse players who were at the party didn't commit a sexual assault, "whatever they did was bad enough," I interpreted that statement to mean that while they didn't deserve to be wrongfully accused of sexual assault, they were admittedly guilty of misbehavior that was bad enough to warrant some disciplinary action. While his statement was poorly worded and thus may well have been subject to a more sinister construction, I believe that's what he meant, and to that extent I agree with him.

No doubt, there were some statements that could have been better articulated and some actions that could have better conceived and implemented. But overall, given the extraordinary context and their obligation to the Duke community as a whole, I thought the Duke administration and Brodhead handled the situation about as well as possible under the circumstances.

The lacrosse players certainly didn't deserve to be wrongfully accused of sexual assault; but they are the ones who chose to put themselves in a vulnerable position by continuing to engage in questionable behavior despite previous admonitions. As I've said before, kids who ignore repeated warnings not to play in the street risk getting injured; and these were 18-21 year old kids, who were smart enough to understand and appreciate that risk. Unfortunately, in this case the kids got hit by a bus. But that bus was not being driven by the Duke administration or by Dick Brodhead.

People tend to forget what the circumstances were like in Durham during those first few weeks and months. There were angry mobs of students, groups of vocal faculty members, and more than a few notable "outside agitators" -- both local and national -- driven by dogmatic agendas and fueled by a frenzied media, all demanding that the lacrosse players be expelled and thrown in jail (or worse), based primarily on racial and socioeconomic animus. The Duke administration found itself in the position of the Old West town sheriff, trying to fend off the torch-bearing mob that was determined to lynch the accused without awaiting a trial. To those who say that the Duke administration was not really counseling people to be patient and reserve judgment, why do you think the Gang of 88 faculty members, in that despicable ad they published, said to the angry mobs that were demonstrating for immediate disciplinary action, "thank you for not waiting"?

It's easy to say now that the Duke administration could and should have done more to support the accused lacrosse players; but at that time, the administration could not possibly have foreseen that the district attorney would later be exposed as a corrupt liar who was fabricating "proof" of guilt while concealing exculpatory evidence. Until it became clear that the accusations of sexual assault were not true, I don't believe the Duke administration can be faulted for reserving judgment on the players' guilt or innocence, and for urging that everyone else do the same.

Finally, to those who state that they refuse to contribute to Duke until Brodhead is gone, I respect your right to do as you wish with your money. But if you believe that you are hurting President Brodhead by withholding contributions, or that "voting with your checkbook" will somehow hasten a change in leadership, I believe you are mistaken and that your protest is misguided. To the extent that there may be a shortfall in donations, I seriously doubt that it affects the income of President Brodhead or other administrators; nor does it come out of the pockets of faculty members. Instead, any such burden is likely falling on those who bear no responsibility for the decisions you decry -- current students seeking financial aid, staff members requesting additional resources, employees asking for higher wages, etc. Fortunately, despite the insistence of some observers that Duke would suffer from the administration's handling of the lacrosse controversy, applications for undergraduate admission and financial contributions to Duke have continued to grow at a healthy rate. As I indicated earlier, I don't feel that Brodhead or the Duke administration is entirely faultless for their handling of the lacrosse controversy; but I don't feel that my disagreement with some of the things they have said and done -- both during that period and with respect to other matters since -- justifies withholding my contributions and thereby effectively punishing the institution itself or innocent members of the Duke community.

I don't expect to change any minds. I merely hope to offer a different perspective -- one that some may consider unfounded, but that I prefer to think of as more forgiving.

[oldnavy]

I don't think there is any way for me to discuss the issue without getting sent to time-out. All I can say is, that show made me angry all over again.

That is why I am not going to watch it. The book, "It's Not About The Truth..." by Don Yeager had me so mad...

Anyone who doesn't get ticked off by this case needs to do a self assessment of their values and sense of fairness.

[BLPOG]

2. Regarding the house on Buchanan, of course most of the players lived on campus. But isn't it an undisputed fact that members of the lacrosse team regularly had parties at that house, which were attended by dozens of players who didn't reside in the house? How many players were at the party on March 13, when the strippers were hired, who didn't actually reside in that house? Didn't the student who lived next door confirm that there were frequent parties at that house, which were well attended and widely known? And though it wasn't covered in the documentary program, weren't there a number of prior incidents at that house in which the police had been called? In fact, didn't the lacrosse team have a widely known reputation on and around campus for their rowdy parties and "frat boy" behavior?

There is nothing wrong with throwing a party. Noise complaints happen and are totally irrelevant. I had the cops called on my house when I was living off East on more than one occasion. We weren't even loud (and the house had excellent sound-proofing), we just had a jerk for a neighbor ("Angry Steve"). What do parties or even having the cops called have to do with anything? This line of the discussion has always struck me as nothing but excuse for knee-jerk condemnation.

[77devil]

1. By saying you're "confident" that Brodhead apologized only because it was a condition of settlement, aren't you're assuming the worst of a person in the absence of factual support? And isn't that contrary to the most important lesson we learned from this tragic incident?

2. Regarding the house on Buchanan, of course most of the players lived on campus. But isn't it an undisputed fact that members of the lacrosse team regularly had parties at that house, which were attended by dozens of players who didn't reside in the house? How many players were at the party on March 13, when the strippers were hired, who didn't actually reside in that house? Didn't the student who lived next door confirm that there were frequent parties at that house, which were well attended and widely known? And though it wasn't covered in the documentary program, weren't there a number of prior incidents at that house in which the police had been called? In fact, didn't the lacrosse team have a widely known reputation on and around campus for their rowdy parties and "frat boy" behavior?

3. As for Brodhead's "infamous" public statement that even if the lacrosse players who were at the party didn't commit a sexual assault, "whatever they did was bad enough," I interpreted that statement to mean that while they didn't deserve to be wrongfully accused of sexual assault, they were admittedly guilty of misbehavior that was bad enough to warrant some disciplinary action. While his statement was poorly worded and thus may well have been subject to a more sinister construction, I believe that's what he meant, and to that extent I agree with him.

No doubt, there were some statements that could have been better articulated and some actions that could have better conceived and implemented. But overall, given the extraordinary context and their obligation to the Duke community as a whole, I thought the Duke administration and Brodhead handled the situation about as well as possible under the circumstances.

The lacrosse players certainly didn't deserve to be wrongfully accused of sexual assault; but they are the ones who chose to put themselves in a vulnerable position by continuing to engage in questionable behavior despite previous admonitions. As I've said before, kids who ignore repeated warnings not to play in the street risk getting injured; and these were 18-21 year old kids, who were smart enough to understand and appreciate that risk. Unfortunately, in this case the kids got hit by a bus. But that bus was not being driven by the Duke administration or by Dick Brodhead.

People tend to forget what the circumstances were like in Durham during those first few weeks and months. There were angry mobs of students, groups of vocal faculty members, and more than a few notable "outside agitators" -- both local and national -- driven by dogmatic agendas and fueled by a frenzied media, all demanding that the lacrosse players be expelled and thrown in jail (or worse), based primarily on racial and socioeconomic animus. The Duke administration found itself in the position of the Old West town sheriff, trying to fend off the torch-bearing mob that was determined to lynch the accused without awaiting a trial. To those who say that the Duke administration was not really counseling people to be patient and reserve judgment, why do you think the Gang of 88 faculty members, in that despicable ad they published, said to the angry mobs that were demonstrating for immediate disciplinary action, "thank you for not waiting"?

It's easy to say now that the Duke administration could and should have done more to support the accused lacrosse players; but at that time, the administration could not possibly have foreseen that the district attorney would later be exposed as a corrupt liar who was fabricating "proof" of guilt while concealing exculpatory evidence. Until it became clear that the accusations of sexual assault were not true, I don't believe the Duke administration can be faulted for reserving judgment on the players' guilt or innocence, and for urging that everyone else do the same.

Finally, to those who state that they refuse to contribute to Duke until Brodhead is gone, I respect your right to do as you wish with your money. But if you believe that you are hurting President Brodhead by withholding contributions, or that "voting with your checkbook" will somehow hasten a change in leadership, I believe you are mistaken and that your protest is misguided. To the extent that there may be a shortfall in donations, I seriously doubt that it affects the income of President Brodhead or other administrators; nor does it come out of the pockets of faculty members. Instead, any such burden is likely falling on those who bear no responsibility for the decisions you decry -- current students seeking financial aid, staff members requesting additional resources, employees asking for higher wages, etc. Fortunately, despite the insistence of some observers that Duke would suffer from the administration's handling of the lacrosse controversy, applications for undergraduate admission and financial contributions to Duke have continued to grow at a healthy rate. As I indicated earlier, I don't feel that Brodhead or the Duke administration is entirely faultless for their handling of the lacrosse controversy; but I don't feel that my disagreement with some of the things they have said and done -- both during that period and with respect to other matters since -- justifies withholding my contributions and thereby effectively punishing the institution itself or innocent members of the Duke community.

I don't expect to change any minds. I merely hope to offer a different perspective -- one that some may consider unfounded, but that I prefer to think of as more forgiving.

Well, I don't think having parties and a reputation for frat boy behavior was grounds for being targeted by some of the faculty in their rush to judgement. Further, the team had an excellent academic record and a reputation for community service that was conveniently ignored. In my opinion, Brodhead and his team failed in a primary duty to protect the students from unwarranted behavior by other members of the Duke community in positions of authority. Whatever words the administration may have initially uttered urging restraint and presumption were hollow compared to their actions, or lack thereof, and their subsequent public statements.

Again, the fact that no one in authority was held accountable notwithstanding the big checks written to settle is telling.

[johnb]

I thought the show was very good. I would like to have seen more specific criticism of the media, but it stayed on point in a way that seemed reasonable.

It's also a feel-good ending, if you like that sort of thing. Leaving aside the reality that everyone involved wishes the night had never happened: the 3 primary victims netted millions of dollars, the team went on to win the NC with a loaded roster, and the coach landed on his feet at a solid job (and with extra money). Nifong went bankrupt, lost his lifetime pension, and was humiliated and disbarred. Mangum is in prison for murder. My impression is that the only Duke guy whose career significantly suffered was the guy who wrote the American Psycho email; last I read, his job prospects have gotten pummeled whenever a potential employer googles him.

I think Brodhead--fairly early in his Duke tenure--got a C+. He was officially neutral, but he and the administration must have privately assumed that the guys were guilty of something significant. Rarely do middle class white people get indicted when there is simply no evidence. Nifong's agenda and incompetence were outside Brodhead's experience, and that of the Board/administration, plus the president is a serious academic and was presumably sorting out his own philosophy in regards to big time athletics (and big time partyers) on campus. In regards to the comparison with basketball, I don't believe a similar thing would happen to a K-led team, if only because it seems hard to imagine that K would ever shower the players with a spring break per diem and then look the other way while team captains hired strippers for the whole team. Very different culture and coaching.

Anyway, we could hope that Broadhead would have been able to pull off a Bobby Kennedy on the night of the MLK assassination (calming Indianapolis), but that feat would have gotten Brodhead an A+. Not many people get A+'s when confronting an urgent topic informed by falsified information in a storm of very real but essentially unrelated issues involving racial, gender, and socioeconomic disparities.

In reviewing the internet, I was glad to be reminded to move on. That's what I'll do.

[OldPhiKap]

Although the show did not mention it, I think Mike Pressler coached the 2010 national lacrosse team. Good for him. And IIRC, Duke settled the lawsuit he brought as well and issued an apology.

My other memory back to then is Nancy Grace calling in sick the day the case was dismissed and the new prosecutor announced that the defendants were innocent. What an expletive. I don't think she ever apologized or acknowledged that she was wrong.

[Dukehky]

Although the show did not mention it, I think Mike Pressler coached the 2010 national lacrosse team. Good for him. And IIRC, Duke settled the lawsuit he brought as well and issued an apology.

My other memory back to then is Nancy Grace calling in sick the day the case was dismissed and the new prosecutor announced that the defendants were innocent. What an expletive. I don't think she ever apologized or acknowledged that she was wrong.

Pressler went to Bryant almost immediately. Duke in 2010 was coached by Danowski. Danowski was the coach in 2007 when the team came back (maybe it was 2008).

[uh_no]

" donate 88 cents a year to Duke "

Wish I had thought of that.

at least when I was in school, I knew a lot of the students doing the annual fund/pratt fund drives....they said they got quite a number of folks saying they wouldn't donate a dime while brodhead was still there. There's no doubt the overall cost to the university was and likely still is monumental....both due to the cost of fighting it, the settlements, and the continued lost donations.

For my part, I've chosen to not donate not only because of the lax stuff, but because of the repeated bondoogling of major issues....the potti scandal and the kunshan debacle are two that most come to mind....given i'm sure they're really missing my 88 cents....

I think on the whole, however, duke emerged a better place because of the scandal. We CAN'T rush to judgement anymore...(unlike some other schools, especially when concerning sexual harassment)...otherwise it will be "just like the lax case".

Anyway, I didn't watch and probably will never watch the serial...how college men can have their lives ruined for simple assault allegations without a lawyer, without a case, without any chance for defense or recourse is probably the thing that riles me up the most in this world.

I'm probably going too borderline political. It's hard not to at least a tiny bit in this thread. I'm done. I'll move on.

[Stray Gator]

There is nothing wrong with throwing a party. Noise complaints happen and are totally irrelevant. I had the cops called on my house when I was living off East on more than one occasion. We weren't even loud (and the house had excellent sound-proofing), we just had a jerk for a neighbor ("Angry Steve"). What do parties or even having the cops called have to do with anything? This line of the discussion has always struck me as nothing but excuse for knee-jerk condemnation.

Where I come from, having a party attended by dozens of students that involves hired strippers and underage drinking, which ends in a heated dispute over payment for services and racial epithets, is wrongful behavior. That's what I believe Brodhead was referring to when he said that "what they did was bad enough." I submit that such behavior, compounded by a history of similar disregard for the rules of good conduct that customarily apply to all Duke students, and especially those who are representing Duke in the public eye, matters a great deal when reasonable people are being asked to disbelieve a presumably credible district attorney who is insisting that he has solid evidence of more serious misconduct by those students.

There is a commonly misconceived premise that people are "innocent until proven guilty"; under the law, however, people are only "presumed innocent until proven guilty." The fact that this presumption tends to be eroded and weakened in the minds of ordinary people when the accused has a history of questionable behavior is a matter of human nature and practical reality, not a knee-jerk condemnation. In fact, I believe the Duke administration had every reason to be upset with the lacrosse players, whose exercise of poor judgment created the opportunity for this disaster, which caused so much damage not only to the players and their families, but to Duke University and everyone associated with it.

One of my children was an undergrad at Duke when these events occurred, and another was a recent grad who was living and working in Durham during that period, so I was fairly well tuned in to what was transpiring on and around the Duke campus as these events unfolded. If you'll go back and read the statements made by Brodhead that are quoted by Bluedog in post #55 above, you'll see that the Duke administration pleaded for people to respect the presumption of innocence and resist the temptation to prematurely judge the players. The fact that there was far too much premature judgment of guilt being done was due mainly to racial and socioeconomic bias, but not exclusively so; the reputation of the lacrosse team for bad behavior was a contributing factor. Whether you believe that was appropriate or not, it's not that difficult to understand.

[OldPhiKap]

Pressler went to Bryant almost immediately. Duke in 2010 was coached by Danowski. Danowski was the coach in 2007 when the team came back (maybe it was 2008).

Right. I meant the US National team.

[dukelifer]

1. By saying you're "confident" that Brodhead apologized only because it was a condition of settlement, aren't you're assuming the worst of a person in the absence of factual support? And isn't that contrary to the most important lesson we learned from this tragic incident?

2. Regarding the house on Buchanan, of course most of the players lived on campus. But isn't it an undisputed fact that members of the lacrosse team regularly had parties at that house, which were attended by dozens of players who didn't reside in the house? How many players were at the party on March 13, when the strippers were hired, who didn't actually reside in that house? Didn't the student who lived next door confirm that there were frequent parties at that house, which were well attended and widely known? And though it wasn't covered in the documentary program, weren't there a number of prior incidents at that house in which the police had been called? In fact, didn't the lacrosse team have a widely known reputation on and around campus for their rowdy parties and "frat boy" behavior?

3. As for Brodhead's "infamous" public statement that even if the lacrosse players who were at the party didn't commit a sexual assault, "whatever they did was bad enough," I interpreted that statement to mean that while they didn't deserve to be wrongfully accused of sexual assault, they were admittedly guilty of misbehavior that was bad enough to warrant some disciplinary action. While his statement was poorly worded and thus may well have been subject to a more sinister construction, I believe that's what he meant, and to that extent I agree with him.

No doubt, there were some statements that could have been better articulated and some actions that could have better conceived and implemented. But overall, given the extraordinary context and their obligation to the Duke community as a whole, I thought the Duke administration and Brodhead handled the situation about as well as possible under the circumstances.

The lacrosse players certainly didn't deserve to be wrongfully accused of sexual assault; but they are the ones who chose to put themselves in a vulnerable position by continuing to engage in questionable behavior despite previous admonitions. As I've said before, kids who ignore repeated warnings not to play in the street risk getting injured; and these were 18-21 year old kids, who were smart enough to understand and appreciate that risk. Unfortunately, in this case the kids got hit by a bus. But that bus was not being driven by the Duke administration or by Dick Brodhead.

People tend to forget what the circumstances were like in Durham during those first few weeks and months. There were angry mobs of students, groups of vocal faculty members, and more than a few notable "outside agitators" -- both local and national -- driven by dogmatic agendas and fueled by a frenzied media, all demanding that the lacrosse players be expelled and thrown in jail (or worse), based primarily on racial and socioeconomic animus. The Duke administration found itself in the position of the Old West town sheriff, trying to fend off the torch-bearing mob that was determined to lynch the accused without awaiting a trial. To those who say that the Duke administration was not really counseling people to be patient and reserve judgment, why do you think the Gang of 88 faculty members, in that despicable ad they published, said to the angry mobs that were demonstrating for immediate disciplinary action, "thank you for not waiting"?

It's easy to say now that the Duke administration could and should have done more to support the accused lacrosse players; but at that time, the administration could not possibly have foreseen that the district attorney would later be exposed as a corrupt liar who was fabricating "proof" of guilt while concealing exculpatory evidence. Until it became clear that the accusations of sexual assault were not true, I don't believe the Duke administration can be faulted for reserving judgment on the players' guilt or innocence, and for urging that everyone else do the same.

Finally, to those who state that they refuse to contribute to Duke until Brodhead is gone, I respect your right to do as you wish with your money. But if you believe that you are hurting President Brodhead by withholding contributions, or that "voting with your checkbook" will somehow hasten a change in leadership, I believe you are mistaken and that your protest is misguided. To the extent that there may be a shortfall in donations, I seriously doubt that it affects the income of President Brodhead or other administrators; nor does it come out of the pockets of faculty members. Instead, any such burden is likely falling on those who bear no responsibility for the decisions you decry -- current students seeking financial aid, staff members requesting additional resources, employees asking for higher wages, etc. Fortunately, despite the insistence of some observers that Duke would suffer from the administration's handling of the lacrosse controversy, applications for undergraduate admission and financial contributions to Duke have continued to grow at a healthy rate. As I indicated earlier, I don't feel that Brodhead or the Duke administration is entirely faultless for their handling of the lacrosse controversy; but I don't feel that my disagreement with some of the things they have said and done -- both during that period and with respect to other matters since -- justifies withholding my contributions and thereby effectively punishing the institution itself or innocent members of the Duke community.

I don't expect to change any minds. I merely hope to offer a different perspective -- one that some may consider unfounded, but that I prefer to think of as more forgiving.

I agree with most of what you say here. I also believe that in the beginning the administration was dealing with a fire that got out of control very fast. If this is your first fire of that kind- you will make mistakes. The administration has to manage many constituencies and do this on the fly- not easy. Those who are critical of the administration's management of the situation have to admit that some of the players did not always handle themselves well prior to the party and certainly during the party. Some players hired strippers and when they felt they did not get what they thought their money paid for- acted poorly and acted in a way that was, at the least, disrespectful to other humans, all the way to majorly intimidating. That is not in dispute. Yes you can have parties- but there are real lines you cannot cross when dealing with other human beings and alcohol consumption is not an excuse. I am not sure what the correct protocol is for not getting your money's worth when dealing with strippers- but usually you use the legal system for recourse for a business transaction gone wrong. They chose not to do this- probably because this is all on the fringe of legitimate and at some level embarrassing- ie something you can't ask your parents for advice. It is similar to the risk you can encounter when you decide to buy illegal drugs- something that many college students do. Deals go bad and bad things can happen. When you decide to use intimidation to get your way- you may get hit in the nose. When Mangum decided to throw her biggest punch by making an accusation of rape- the fire was lit.

Your first assumption is that something must have happened because this is not going away. That is what I thought. Presumption of innocence is in the back of your mind but you still wonder and lots of questions go through your mind. Could it have happened? Why would the students be that stupid to do that? Rape? Doesn't make sense- but physical intimidation? Did someone get hurt or worse? When the infamous email got leaked, gasoline was poured on said fire and the administration felt they needed to act- leading to the forced resignation of Pressler and shutting down Lacrosse until things settled down. Perhaps the email was some inside joke and explainable, but the narrative of disrespect and intimidation was supported in the moment. It is not obvious how long you should wait to act when fire is all around you and it just got hotter. The university probably could have done more once evidence started to get leaked that pointed to many inconsistencies. I have no idea what advice the administration was getting from lawyers- but lawyers tend to be hyper conservative and likely argued that the administration should stay silent until things take their course. They probably said- this is now in the legal system so you need to wait. Some faculty came forward in defense but others also waited to see what would happen. Of course, nobody knew at the time that Nifong was using all this to forward his career and refused to back down. There is no doubt this turned out to be a huge mess and affected many, many lives- but bad things can happen when you play with matches and can get completely out of control when the chief fireman is an arsonist.

[cspan37421]

I didn't want to watch it; I felt I was more than sufficiently informed about the matter having read Until Proven Innocent, but DS had it on and I was pretty quickly drawn into it, catching about the last 30-45 minutes or so. I thought the production values were quite good, and it really did add vividness to the whole debacle by having so much visual to go along with the narrative explained by Johnson & Taylor. It would not surprise me if certain things has to be trimmed out - probably things that showed the defense case to be even even stronger than it was, and it was pretty darn solid as shown. I presume they had to narrow the focus to the key bits of exculpatory evidence and may not have had time to pursue in detail secondary matters (which, taken collectively, would probably have led to an acquittal by themselves). The major problem was, of course, pursuing the case while suppressing exculpatory evidence. What Bannon did was simply remarkable.

As Reade (?) pointed out, if they could get this far railroading kids with the resources to defend themselves, imagine what they could do to people of ordinary means (or less).

[BD80]

Yale athlete sues school:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/former-yale-captain-says-hell-sue-school-over-expulsion/ar-AAgLxIv?li=BBnba9I&ocid=spartanntp

Similar "rush to judgment?" - students protest against team for supporting their teammate

[BigWayne]

3. As for Brodhead's "infamous" public statement that even if the lacrosse players who were at the party didn't commit a sexual assault, "whatever they did was bad enough," I interpreted that statement to mean that while they didn't deserve to be wrongfully accused of sexual assault, they were admittedly guilty of misbehavior that was bad enough to warrant some disciplinary action. While his statement was poorly worded and thus may well have been subject to a more sinister construction, I believe that's what he meant, and to that extent I agree with him.
As is well documented, this case took over a year to play out. Brodhead had plenty of opportunity to clarify and/or walk back this damning statement. It took him 18 months from the original incident and 5 months after they were declared innocent to offer a half hearted, most likely legally vetted, apology.




The lacrosse players certainly didn't deserve to be wrongfully accused of sexual assault; but they are the ones who chose to put themselves in a vulnerable position by continuing to engage in questionable behavior despite previous admonitions.

Many other teams, including the Men's Basketball team were reported to have held similar parties prior to March 2006. None of those teams were reprimanded by the Duke administration as far as I can tell.



People tend to forget what the circumstances were like in Durham during those first few weeks and months. There were angry mobs of students, groups of vocal faculty members, and more than a few notable "outside agitators" -- both local and national -- driven by dogmatic agendas and fueled by a frenzied media, all demanding that the lacrosse players be expelled and thrown in jail (or worse), based primarily on racial and socioeconomic animus.

The fog of war period lasted a couple months. After that, more information started to come together questioning the premises of the mobs and agitators. Never during any of the succeeding months did Brodhead and the Duke administration take any actions against any of the agitators and in fact promoted some of the worst offenders into leadership positions. This is the main reason I refer to his apology as half hearted. Actions speak louder than words. Instead of using this incident to reign in the groups that used it to falsely promote their agendas, Duke doubled down and put itself in a position to be wagged by these groups even more going forward.

[sagegrouse]

Yale athlete sues school:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/former-yale-captain-says-hell-sue-school-over-expulsion/ar-AAgLxIv?li=BBnba9I&ocid=spartanntp

Similar "rush to judgment?" - students protest against team for supporting their teammate

No, IMHO, there is no comparison between what is probably a he-said, she-said episode on a college campus and the knowingly false charges and suppression of evidence by an officer of the state.

[burnspbesq]

Right. I meant the US National team.

With respect to coaches, I would have been happier if the program had found a way to mention the extraordinary work done by Kevin Cassese to keep the program functioning and the players' heads on straight during the period between the Pressler resignation and the Danowski hire. Cassese was interim head coach in everything but name, and he was fantastic.

[Stray Gator]

. . .

Many other teams, including the Men's Basketball team were reported to have held similar parties prior to March 2006. None of those teams were reprimanded by the Duke administration as far as I can tell.

. . .

I'm going to address this and then leave the issue alone before this thread devolves ever further.

Was it "reported," or merely rumored, that the basketball team had parties similar to the stripper party held by the lacrosse players? If it was reported, I don't recall seeing such a report, and I'd appreciate a link so that I can assess the credibility of the report. If it was merely a rumor, then what basis would the Duke administration have for reprimanding them? Wouldn't that be inconsistent with the Duke administration's stated position -- and what I thought was the most important lesson of this entire episode -- that people should only be judged based on proven facts and evidence of actual misconduct?

[sleepybear]

I was apprehensive but it was excellent. I remember meeting Jackie Brown at a support march for the accused. She was exactly as she came across in the film, stunned but with a conscience. Very true to the story. I'm proud of Jay Bilas, too.

And still, outside of the monetary settlement, there has never been anything said about an apology from Brodhead to the three players, am I correct on that?

Does anyone know if that is true?

Brodhead apology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXi7mKf81K8

[BigWayne]

I'm going to address this and then leave the issue alone before this thread devolves ever further.

Was it "reported," or merely rumored, that the basketball team had parties similar to the stripper party held by the lacrosse players? If it was reported, I don't recall seeing such a report, and I'd appreciate a link so that I can assess the credibility of the report. If it was merely a rumor, then what basis would the Duke administration have for reprimanding them? Wouldn't that be inconsistent with the Duke administration's stated position -- and what I thought was the most important lesson of this entire episode -- that people should only be judged based on proven facts and evidence of actual misconduct?

There was more about it at the time, but I found this old link. https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/william-l-anderson/why-the-duke-hoax-continues-part-i-the-duke-faculty-2/

I don't think any mainstream media reported it, but it was a pretty widely declared statement at the time and there was never a statement by anyone denying that such a party took place.

My point really is that the accusation of bad behavior in the lacrosse case coming from Brodhead was unique and only as a result of having to deal with exculpatory evidence starting to show up and derail the narrative. There was no effort, at least publicly, to denounce bad behavior of any other team or group that I can recall.

[BigWayne]

I did think the program was very good.

I would have liked to know what Meehan and Nifong are doing now.


SoCal

Meehan moved to South Carolina. http://www.forensicdnaexpert.org/BWM_Forensics_2012_Resume.pdf

[duke79]

Where I come from, having a party attended by dozens of students that involves hired strippers and underage drinking, which ends in a heated dispute over payment for services and racial epithets, is wrongful behavior. That's what I believe Brodhead was referring to when he said that "what they did was bad enough." I submit that such behavior, compounded by a history of similar disregard for the rules of good conduct that customarily apply to all Duke students, and especially those who are representing Duke in the public eye, matters a great deal when reasonable people are being asked to disbelieve a presumably credible district attorney who is insisting that he has solid evidence of more serious misconduct by those students.

There is a commonly misconceived premise that people are "innocent until proven guilty"; under the law, however, people are only "presumed innocent until proven guilty." The fact that this presumption tends to be eroded and weakened in the minds of ordinary people when the accused has a history of questionable behavior is a matter of human nature and practical reality, not a knee-jerk condemnation. In fact, I believe the Duke administration had every reason to be upset with the lacrosse players, whose exercise of poor judgment created the opportunity for this disaster, which caused so much damage not only to the players and their families, but to Duke University and everyone associated with it.

One of my children was an undergrad at Duke when these events occurred, and another was a recent grad who was living and working in Durham during that period, so I was fairly well tuned in to what was transpiring on and around the Duke campus as these events unfolded. If you'll go back and read the statements made by Brodhead that are quoted by Bluedog in post #55 above, you'll see that the Duke administration pleaded for people to respect the presumption of innocence and resist the temptation to prematurely judge the players. The fact that there was far too much premature judgment of guilt being done was due mainly to racial and socioeconomic bias, but not exclusively so; the reputation of the lacrosse team for bad behavior was a contributing factor. Whether you believe that was appropriate or not, it's not that difficult to understand.

You make some very valid points. I watched the entire 30 for 30 documentary last night and thought that, overall, given the time constraints, the film makers did a reasonably good job at trying to present the entire matter in a fair manner. However, after watching the two-hour show (with commercials), you realize that they could have easily made a four or five hour documentary (or longer), if they had completely covered all of the complex issues that this whole fiasco generated. Even if you had tried to write such this story as a work of fiction, I'm not sure you could create such a perfect Tsunami of societal issues that exploded in a short period of time - race, wealth, privilege, sexual assault, irresponsibility, dishonesty, political correctness etc., and they all happened at a university and in a community that had had a very mixed record (at best) of good relations. My heart certainly went out the three accused players, right from the beginning, and their families. I cannot even begin to imagine what they must have been going through at that time, especially since the three accused all KNEW the truth and knew what a crock the indictments were. It had to be a Kafkaesque nightmare. No doubt President Brodhead and the Duke administration (and many of the faculty members, i.e., the "gang of 88") could have handled the situation MUCH better right from the beginning. But you also have the realize that the flames of the chaotic story were being fanned by the ubiquitous 24/7 news cycle that we now have in this country, with Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., who need to drive news cycles all day and night long. If this type of event had happened in the 60's or 70's or even 80's, would it have transpired as it did in 2006? I don't think so. I don't believe any of the participants had any real experience in dealing with this type of scandal and it showed. No doubt Mike Nifong, who created this mess for reasons that perhaps only he knows, deserves whatever punishment he has gotten (and perhaps more). I believer I read somewhere that he is living in Durham on a small pension. I hope he doesn't sleep well at night, but who knows?

This was a very ugly story that did almost no one any good (except for maybe the lawyers representing the players). I hope we are finally done with the books and documentaries about this episode. There are lessons to be learned but it's also way past the time to move on. (sorry to ramble on incoherently but you could write long books, as others have, about this episode)

[sagegrouse]

I think Brodhead--fairly early in his Duke tenure--got a C+. He was officially neutral, but he and the administration must have privately assumed that the guys were guilty of something significant. Rarely do middle class white people get indicted when there is simply no evidence. Nifong's agenda and incompetence were outside Brodhead's experience, and that of the Board/administration, plus the president is a serious academic and was presumably sorting out his own philosophy in regards to big time athletics (and big time partyers) on campus. In regards to the comparison with basketball, I don't believe a similar thing would happen to a K-led team, if only because it seems hard to imagine that K would ever shower the players with a spring break per diem and then look the other way while team captains hired strippers for the whole team. Very different culture and coaching.



One factor is that Duke had no legal ability to investigate and gather evidence for an off-campus incident, even if Duke students were involved. It, of course, could ask the lacrosse players at the scene, but the answer through their attorneys would have been "bug off."

And, of course, one would ordinarily expect university counsel to get some information from the prosecutor -- but Nifong was busy manufacturing a case that did not exist.

[Atlanta Duke]

One factor is that Duke had no legal ability to investigate and gather evidence for an off-campus incident, even if Duke students were involved. It, of course, could ask the lacrosse players at the scene, but the answer through their attorneys would have been "bug off."

And, of course, one would ordinarily expect university counsel to get some information from the prosecutor -- but Nifong was busy manufacturing a case that did not exist.

This was a statement issued by President Brodhead at the time to address why no independent inquiry was being conducted by or on behalf of Duke.

Frustrating though it is, Duke must defer its own investigation until the police inquiry is completed, first because the police have access to key witnesses, warrants, and information that we lack, and second because our concurrent questioning could create a risk of complications—for instance, charges of witness tampering—that could negatively affect the legal proceedings.

http://today.duke.edu/2006/04/rhbletter.html

Duke has maintained an online archive of official statements issued on behalf of the university from March 2006 through April 2007.

http://today.duke.edu/showcase/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/announce_archive.html

[uh_no]

No, IMHO, there is no comparison between what is probably a he-said, she-said episode on a college campus and the knowingly false charges and suppression of evidence by an officer of the state.

for the potentially wrongly accused student, his life is ruined either way.

He'll never get into another college. There was an article about the harvard kid this happened to....he lost a rhodes scholarship because of it. Is it facing a potential trial? No. but you might as well toss all those ambitions you had away.

[nyesq83]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ffcFNQa1vvM

[nyesq83]

It was ten years ago. Why do so many deal in self flagellation? I taped it but have decided to delete it and never watch it. It is history. It was what it was and is what it is. Why get upset again?

Here's to never forgetting, [lest history repeat].

[nyesq83]

Overall a superb summary of what happened. The parents were amazing. Random thoughts:

The film failed to mention a couple important things about Nurse Tara:
Early on, Nifong and Duke relied on "her" exam notes (no mention of Dr. Manly, the doctor in charge of the exam).
They should have quoted her statement that no DNA equals "rape is about power and not sex."

They should have mentioned Mangum chose 4 of the 3 attackers from the lineup.

When Brodhead made formal statements about the presumption of innocence, he seemed to immediately undermine that with a message that indicated an assault of some kind had occurred.

The team's "criminal" behavior was over a number of years. Past students were partly responsible. Open container citations, minor destruction of property, noise complaints, and public urination accusations spread over a number of years by different people are not exactly the stuff of violent racist rapists.

The film should have mentioned Nifong's witness intimidation of Elmo, the noise violation, Colin's DC charge, etc. and his description of defense counsel as poultry.

It seemed the director of the film was too soft on the City and County and the black power structure.

They should have had a clip of when Donna Shalala publicly but indirectly stated Brodhead had "thrown the team under the bus."

No mention of Linwood Wilson and his role in the frame-up after the Meehan admission to withhold exculpatory evidence.

[JetpackJesus]

I haven't seen this posted anywhere yet, but the director of Fantastic Lies was interviewed by David Greene last week on Morning Edition on NPR (http://www.npr.org/2016/03/10/469897698/fantastic-lies-lays-out-2006-duke-lacrosse-rape-case). I thought I would share in the event anyone want to hear what she has to say about the program.

As for the episode, I DVR'd it but have not watched yet because I was travelling yesterday. This was my final semester of college, so I have considerable feelings and thoughts about the whole affair. I am looking forward to watching as soon as I get a chance.

[Newton_14]

I haven't seen this posted anywhere yet, but the director of Fantastic Lies was interviewed by David Greene last week on Morning Edition on NPR (http://www.npr.org/2016/03/10/469897698/fantastic-lies-lays-out-2006-duke-lacrosse-rape-case). I thought I would share in the event anyone want to hear what she has to say about the program.

As for the episode, I DVR'd it but have not watched yet because I was travelling yesterday. This was my final semester of college, so I have considerable feelings and thoughts about the whole affair. I am looking forward to watching as soon as I get a chance.
She was also interviewed on local 680 AM last week and I caught the entire interview. I think she gave it her best effort, honestly, at least per her own word. She tried to interview every single person of note. Interestingly the State would not let her/advised against, interviewing Mangum, due to the mental issues.

[throatybeard]

Here's the only thing I know.

Ten years on, when people yell at me for wearing Duke clothes, lacrosse doesn't come up anymore. It did for a while.

[devildeac]

Here's the only thing I know.

Ten years on, when people yell at me for wearing Duke clothes, lacrosse doesn't come up anymore. It did for a while.

espn (aka as unc tv) hoping to change that...

[Clay Feet POF]

Jay Bilas can say all he wants about the failure of leadership. It is easy to criticize the man in the arena. But what did Bilas know when he wrote the letter? A rhetorical question was asked by one of the parents as to whether the basketball team's season would have been cancelled under the same circumstances. I hope so.

And would you also let the Coach resign?

[Rudy]

It was ten years ago. Why do so many deal in self flagellation? I taped it but have decided to delete it and never watch it. It is history. It was what it was and is what it is. Why get upset again?

Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. That's why. Google Jack Montague for a smaller scale version. Or see this latest development in the Yale Daily News report of today http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/03/14/montague-to-file-lawsuit-against-the-university/

[Rudy]

It's easy to say now that the Duke administration could and should have done more to support the accused lacrosse players; but at that time, the administration could not possibly have foreseen that the district attorney would later be exposed as a corrupt liar who was fabricating "proof" of guilt while concealing exculpatory evidence. Until it became clear that the accusations of sexual assault were not true, I don't believe the Duke administration can be faulted for reserving judgment on the players' guilt or innocence, and for urging that everyone else do the same.



I followed the case closely as it was happening from my secure perch in Virginia. I disagree with almost everything you said in your post, but most strongly with the selection above. Did Brodhead not believe in the honor of the three captains who met with him early on and told him no sex happened? Whatever the merits of staying neutral, when the state lab results reported no player DNA from the accuser, there was no longer any justification to refuse to back the players. I expect quite a bit more of an Atticus Finch from a college president. He should have criticized, at the very least, the Gang of 88. I reread his apology today in the Chronicle. He apologizes for mistakes "we" made and he took responsibility as President, making it sound like the mistakes he apologized for were made by his underlings.

I don't harbor ill feelings toward Brodhead now. My views are more in line with what someone reported are Jay Bilas'--- that Brodhead handled it very poorly but he's done other things well since and there is nothing to be gained by continuing to hammer him. Neither is any useful to be gained, though, from whitewashing his role.

[Rudy]

It was supposed to have been a hearing to deal with routine scheduling and administrative matters, but Nifong showed up with his DNA expert (the lab director) and offered to let him testify in order to quell any questions about the DNA evidence. Nifong knew that nobody on the defense teams would be prepared at the time to cross-examine his DNA expert. In fact, the only defense lawyer who had studied and knew the DNA evidence was Bradley Bannon, one of the junior lawyers on Joe Cheshire's team. The other defense lawyers wanted to ask for more time, but Cheshire sensed the importance of the moment and insisted that they go forward, with Bannon taking the lead on the cross-examination. When Bannon himself balked, Cheshire gave Bannon the "winners want the ball when the game's on the line" pep talk, told him that he was ready, and it was his time to rise to the occasion -- and he did. It was edge-of-your-seat stuff, and it was presented really well in the documentary.


Agreed. As a trial lawyer myself and about 20 years older than Brad Bannon, I had a great appreciation for what he did in that moment. Few trial lawyers in their lifetimes conduct a cross-examination that important and that devastating to the other side's case. Whatever doubt or confusion any listener might have had about what that cross showed was crystallized by attorney Cooney's follow up getting Meehan to admit directly that he and Nifong intentionally left the critical exculpatory evidence out of the official report. The show captured it very well.

[OldPhiKap]

Agreed. As a trial lawyer myself and about 20 years older than Brad Bannon, I had a great appreciation for what he did in that moment. Few trial lawyers in their lifetimes conduct a cross-examination that important and that devastating to the other side's case. Whatever doubt or confusion any listener might have had about what that cross showed was crystallized by attorney Cooney's follow up getting Meehan to admit directly that he and Nifong intentionally left the critical exculpatory evidence out of the official report. The show captured it very well.

Agree with this. Totally ballsy cross by a young lawyer. And the experienced Cooney coming behind to put the nails in the coffin.

Forget television lawyer shows. This actually happened.

(And it proves the point -- you need to know the science better than your opposing expert witness)

[Olympic Fan]

I just got through watching my DVRed copy.

I was a terrible experience to re-live. But I did think the show was fair and fairly comprehensive. I know that it did leave out certain facts and details, but that's understandable.

Very well done, Very fair. But vey painful to watch, because I love Duke and I think the school I loved behaved badly in this instance.

[Vanceman201]

Agree with this. Totally ballsy cross by a young lawyer. And the experienced Cooney coming behind to put the nails in the coffin.

Forget television lawyer shows. This actually happened.

(And it proves the point -- you need to know the science better than your opposing expert witness)


[COLOR="#0000FF"]In hindrospect...it's almost unbelievable that this event happened...anywhere...but especially in a place like Duke...where the whole place is caked with brilliant lawyers, scientists, public policy folks, writers, etc....I'm left wondering just how it did take place....how it got so out of control.

I will say that this program will show that the university, the media, the cops, the community, etc...all have a lot to be ashamed of due to their reactions on this.

As the events of 2006 unfolded, I didn't pay much attention to it in real time. I did initially think that this bunch of "upper-class" Duke may have assaulted the poor black women and were going to get away with it. However, even then, when I looked at interviews, public reaction, the victim herself...etc...a lot seemed fishy to me -- somewhat like Nifong's reelection manager.
This show blew my mind. I could write a lot about my reaction, but, will distill it down to a few bullet points in no particular logical order.

1) I felt like this show was beautifully done and didn't seem to have a particular agenda. I was left with the idea, like Jay Bilas, that the Duke suits didn't do enough to support their coach, players, and by default....the whole of Duke University, early on...when they had a chance. Now, when the D.A. is pronouncing all this dark evidence...it's understandable to some degree that the system would cave. But, damn...aren't we talking about right and wrong here. Duke turns out brilliant legal minds...how could so much of the administration climb on the band wagon with much of the public and condemn these players without really strong evidence. Mind boggling that they did.

2) It seems that Nifong was willing to send 3 innocent men to prison in order to be "right"...to win...and to further his political ambitions. How is this not criminal? He was caught red-handed trying to "frame" these players. One day in jail? That one fact is puke worthy.

3) Nobody has inferred that the lacrosse players were choir boys. Sure, they had cop calls to them....they had exhibited all manners of bad behavior in the past. This party wasn't a Sunday school class. Let's just say they some of them were "uppity pricks". Well ok, so what? Being an uppity prick is a universe away from being a rapist. And no manner of ill feelings by the cops, community, black community, women's community, Duke hater community....can in any way justify "framing innocent people". Holding up signs that say I don't like you because you're an "uppity prick" is much different from the hate filled and wrong reaction of many people...wanting to crucify the "rapists".

4) I don't mean for this to sound nasty in any way....but, the girl involved in the case had some real issues and much of that was brought out during the show. She "seemed" to acknowledge at the end that she was a "willing" participant in framing these boys. Of course, Nifong drove that wagon and she was obviously influenced.

5) Without offering spoilers here...the hard-working, dedicated, brilliant, young lawyer who argued the DNA side. To me he was "the hero" of the whole thing. He may have single-handedly saved those young men.

I would highly suggest that everyone interested in this subject should watch this program. Even as a Tarheel fan who sometimes enjoys when Duke comes out on the losing end of a situation....this episode was just plain wrong....and it could have happened to almost about anybody anywhere.
Thank goodness for the legal teams who were diligent in helping the truth to come out.

[johnb]

As I said above, I give Brodhead a C+. If he had overtly sided with the players early on in the investigation, which many of us did as the case quickly unraveled, he'd have risked being seen as someone who used the huge clout of Duke to squash the case. I don't think it would have had that impact, but it is simply not within his role as a university president to say whatever he personally feels. I'd have liked him to rise above the specifics of the case and more forcefully redirect the very legitimate concerns of his various constituents, but that was beyond his abilities so early in his career. By the way, one reason some of these constituents don't feel terribly apologetic is that they (meaning African Americans, women, those who've been raped) are convinced that the system is rigged to protect the perps. For every wrongfully accused college guy, there are at least a dozen college rapists who get off without any punishment. When it's "he said/she said," the "he" is usually guilty. As for getting rid of faculty who spoke out during the witch hunt, the most visible ones had tenure. No way could he fire them for speaking out in good faith. They erred, but tenure is set up partly to allow professors to speak as they wish. That's the way it goes with the academy (at least for tenured faculty; don't get me started on the abuse of adjuncts).

By the way, I read the linked article that was supposed to direct us to the proof that the basketball team had similar parties. Didn't even find the assertion in the long, rambling article, much less any evidence. 15 Duke lacrosse players had been recently censured by the university for behavior related to rowdy drunkenness. As far as I know, nobody from basketball or football had been getting into similar trouble. Does anyone think that Coach K or Coach Cut would shower the players with hundreds of dollars for spring break money? Lacrosse was innocent of the Big Crime, but they brought on some of the ill will by being moderately out of control. So, yes, Pressler had to go, even if he was a great coach with lots of team support.

[burnspbesq]

Mike Pressler is the guest on Eamon McAnaney's podcast this week at Lacrosse Magazine. Haven't had time to listen yet. Link:

http://www.laxmagazine.com/landing/index

[DukieInKansas]

Brodhead* was certainly between a rock and a hard place. He was never going to be able to make all parties happy - at the time or in hindsight. Two of the things I think he* should have done would be to have met with the parents and to not discourage the players from contacting their parents at the beginning.


* In some ways, this is the "royal" he - as some actions were taken by others in the adminstration.

[Udaman]

StrayGator - so nice to have a true voice of reason on this. Thanks for keeping this thread open. I think it's leading to a very productive and important discussion. I'll add my thoughts:

1) This entire episode was really about two things. The first, was the actions of the Durham D.A. and Nifong. On that, I think everyone can agree that they handled it in a manner that was beyond awful. It looks as though they ignored and withheld evidence. They rushed to judgement. Nifong said inflammatory things to the media that helped fuel the prevalent feelings that the three accused men were guilty. He then clung to those beliefs even when he knew the actual evidence no longer supported. It was awful. It was a miscarriage of justice, and the three men got (basically) nothing from the city or the D.A.'s office for the pain and suffering that this put them through. I think on this everyone agrees. The documentary certainly showed that in an effective manner.

2) The second was the actions and history of the Duke lacrosse team, and the response by Duke when the story broke. This seems to be the part that most people miss, or ignore, or sweep under the rug. The lacrosse team had a history of flaunting the rules. They were already basically on probation (double secret probation?). And yet they had a party where the senior captains of the team invited underage members to their party, served them alcohol and hired strippers to entertain them. OK, I know, I know some of you are saying "What's the real harm in that? It's college. Everyone does stuff like that." I get it. I'm a Duke alum. I drank while underage. My fraternity served alcohol to people who were underage. But here's the thing...I wasn't at Duke on an athletic scholarship. I didn't have a free ride, like many of these young men had. When you accept an agreement where Duke says "We are going to cover your costs...and in return you need to realize that you are representing Duke all the time," well, there are consequences when you violate that agreement. If people who come to Duke on a JBDuke scholarship screw around and get C's...they lose their scholarship. And if my fraternity had ever served alcohol to an underage student who then fell and died while inebriated, it's almost a certainty that our fraternity would have been suspended, and our leaders charged with a felony. There are consequences when you knowingly break the law and the rules. Even if everyone else is doing it. It's heightened when you are a varsity athlete getting full tuition.

So at the very least - the absolute very least- the captains of the team showed horrible judgement, violated team rules, violated Duke rules, and did all of this while they were already under a tight leash. And they didn't care. That was sort of their attitude.

And then when the night turned bad for them, as the women were leaving, they came out and made some pretty awful comments to the two women of color (and also made some comments while the women were performing). They talked about thanking the women's grandparents for their cotton shirts. When Broadhead said "just their actions alone that night were enough that night" that's what he meant. Ask yourself this question - and be completely honest - let's say there had never been any allegations of rape. If three days after the party, the Chronicle had come out with a story that said "Duke Administration Cancels Remainder of Lacrosse Season" and then the article talked about a party that the lacrosse captains had held where they served alcohol to their underage members and had hired strippers to perform, and then had made some racist comments to the strippers as they left, all while already haven been warned that there would be no more patience for actions like this, would anyone have freaked out? Yeah, people might have said that the administration overreacted....but a lot of people would say "Well, they were idiots. They had it coming. You can't pull crap like this when you've been warned."

As for the ad by the Group of 88. To me it's the perfect example of revisionist history. I was on campus when this thing blew up. People were really upset - and I mean REALLY. Especially people of color, people who felt like members of the varsity teams could get away with anything. People who wondered why it was OK for members of a varsity team to have a party like that in the first place. And, oh by the way, all during this the D.A's office and media were claiming that the men raped this women (which certainly seemed possible). The Group of 88 wasn't trying to say the lacrosse guys were guilty. They were saying "these issues are important and we are listening. We want to start a conversation about this." Was the timing of it bad? Yeah. They will admit that. They have. But they weren't abandoning the students, they were actually trying to reach out to them. I know plenty of people who disagree with this. But I also know many of the Group of 88, and ALL of them say this. So when you retort by going "that's not true. They really meant X," that's you. Not them. And let me tell you, they paid a price. They amount of horrific hate mail they got was unreal. People threatening to kill them. To lynch them. Calling them cowards and traitors - and those were the good e-mails.

Lastly, as for the three main men in question....I'll end with my beginning. They were treated awfully by the D.A.'s office. I still am not convinced that Duke treated them awfully. They suspended them when they were accused of a felony. They ended the lacrosse season (which they absolutely should have done, just for the party). I can say retroactively that they probably should have done a better job saying that the three men are presumed innocent. That was a mistake. But guess what? All three young men.....got millions of dollars from Duke. Millions. It was an awful thing to go through, but they are all millionaires because of it. Their lives turned out OK. I've heard plenty of people ask "Yeah, they got money...but don't you think they would rather have not had any of this happen?" I'm honestly not sure what the answer to that is. But Duke certainly tried to make their lives better by giving them an outstanding settlement, when all Duke was really doing was responding to the party, to the claims by the DA's office, and to a situation that exploded around them.

[mayrer]

I am a Duke alum. The show did a great job, but it touched only lightly on two players who deserve serious castigation; both of them abandoned the student / athletes immediately. The administration showed no support and precious little belief in "innocent until proven guilty", even after evidence continued to mount that its Duke student / athletes were innocent. President Brodhead and Chairman of the Board Bob Steele both acted cowardly (I’m sure they were hiding behind legal advice, when it was clear that they should act differently and do the right thing, no matter what the lawyers said) and both should have resigned immediately themselves, once the truth came out.

The Group of 86 was represented on the show by a History Professor (Chace, I think) who sounded reasonable, while the group itself and the unrest it raised on campus were anything but reasonable. Indeed many of them were shown to be frauds, with false academic credentials (mainly claiming to be published when they weren’t) and classes that weren’t too much more legit than the UNC scandal classes (if KC Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland blog is still up, there’s plenty on there).

….and finally the squashing of a letter from Jay Bilas, such a prominent and respected Duke alum, both for his athletics and his post-grad achievements) is beyond despicable. Actually quite reminiscent of the Kremlin.

All in all, not much to be proud of from our alma mater, and, in the end, the lacrosse players were among the least of offenders.

[53n206]

Thoughtful, and well presented reply by Udaman.

[duke79]

2) The second was the actions and history of the Duke lacrosse team, and the response by Duke when the story broke. This seems to be the part that most people miss, or ignore, or sweep under the rug. The lacrosse team had a history of flaunting the rules. They were already basically on probation (double secret probation?). And yet they had a party where the senior captains of the team invited underage members to their party, served them alcohol and hired strippers to entertain them. OK, I know, I know some of you are saying "What's the real harm in that? It's college. Everyone does stuff like that." I get it. I'm a Duke alum. I drank while underage. My fraternity served alcohol to people who were underage. But here's the thing...I wasn't at Duke on an athletic scholarship. I didn't have a free ride, like many of these young men had. When you accept an agreement where Duke says "We are going to cover your costs...and in return you need to realize that you are representing Duke all the time," well, there are consequences when you violate that agreement. If people who come to Duke on a JBDuke scholarship screw around and get C's...they lose their scholarship. And if my fraternity had ever served alcohol to an underage student who then fell and died while inebriated, it's almost a certainty that our fraternity would have been suspended, and our leaders charged with a felony. There are consequences when you knowingly break the law and the rules. Even if everyone else is doing it. It's heightened when you are a varsity athlete getting full tuition.

So at the very least - the absolute very least- the captains of the team showed horrible judgement, violated team rules, violated Duke rules, and did all of this while they were already under a tight leash. And they didn't care. That was sort of their attitude.

And then when the night turned bad for them, as the women were leaving, they came out and made some pretty awful comments to the two women of color (and also made some comments while the women were performing). They talked about thanking the women's grandparents for their cotton shirts. When Broadhead said "just their actions alone that night were enough that night" that's what he meant. Ask yourself this question - and be completely honest - let's say there had never been any allegations of rape. If three days after the party, the Chronicle had come out with a story that said "Duke Administration Cancels Remainder of Lacrosse Season" and then the article talked about a party that the lacrosse captains had held where they served alcohol to their underage members and had hired strippers to perform, and then had made some racist comments to the strippers as they left, all while already haven been warned that there would be no more patience for actions like this, would anyone have freaked out? Yeah, people might have said that the administration overreacted...but a lot of people would say "Well, they were idiots. They had it coming. You can't pull crap like this when you've been warned."

A friend of mine who went to Duke claims he has NO sympathy for any of the lacrosse players for precisely this reason. I tried to convince him this was unduly harsh (the punishment did NOT fit the crime) but he hasn't waivered in his belief.

[BD80]

... two players who deserve serious castigation ...

Isn't that too severe a penalty? And outlawed in most countries?

[BLPOG]

A friend of mine who went to Duke claims he has NO sympathy for any of the lacrosse players for precisely this reason. I tried to convince him this was unduly harsh (the punishment did NOT fit the crime) but he hasn't waivered in his belief.

Although I know you're using a colloquialism, I feel compelled to say anyway: there was no crime committed by the players.*

I firmly believe that people who reference the alleged behavioral misconduct of some members of the team (while usually making this characterization about the whole team while drawing from potentially years of unrelated incidents, thereby conflating group and individual behavior in an attempt to establish a pattern) are acting as apologists for those at Duke who threw the team under the bus.

I agree with the idea that due to the public nature of athletics, and the granting of scholarships, it's fair for the athletics programs or the university to enforce stricter standards when compared with the students generally. The key point is that is not what happened. The treatment of the players was driven by the rape allegations. The rest was just used to fan the flames. That was borne out by both the statements and actions of several university officials. Remarks by Brodhead about allowing the legal process to run its course were hollow in that light. He and others contributed to the potential incarceration of innocents.

I use that word, "innocent," specifically, as it was used when the players were finally declared to be so, as opposed to the typical legal terminology of "not guilty." Whatever defects of character people might wish to ascribe to the team are irrelevant, because they weren't criminal, and the whole fiasco was a criminal matter. Even if the university wanted to punish individuals for their behavior, they had ordinary means to do so that went unused. They should have protected the players - not just because they were Duke students, not just because they were wrongfully accused, but also as an institution committed to excellence and rigor of thought, in keeping with sound legal principles that were so obviously ignored from the outset. They did not.

*Sure, OK, underage drinking. Anyone looking to find people who didn't engage in underage drinking at Duke (or any other university) is going to have a hard time. Until the feds extorted most states into changing their laws to get their highway grants back in the '80s, the drinking age was typically 18. I understand the argument of not violating the law, but let's not pretend there is an inherent moral problem there. Beyond that, Duke used to (somewhat less so after policy changes in 2012, IIRC) have an alcohol policy that implicitly "allowed" (not exactly the right word) underage drinking. I don't remember the terminology, but it was a strategy aimed at mitigating danger to students rather than pretending it could actually prevent them from drinking, which is a strategy employed by many other universities. The policy had the effect of keeping a large amount of the underage drinking on campus, with students basically getting a wrist slap for a violation. The changes a few years ago had the immediate effect of moving a great deal of social activity off campus. My point in bringing up the alcohol policy is that the university hasn't historically treated alcohol violations as the equivalent of violent crime (and I can't imagine why it would), so I think my statement is still fair. From Duke's perspective, it would be a potential student conduct or team policy violation.

[Stray Gator]

. . . I agree with the idea that due to the public nature of athletics, and the granting of scholarships, it's fair for the athletics programs or the university to enforce stricter standards when compared with the students generally. The key point is that is not what happened. The treatment of the players was driven by the rape allegations. The rest was just used to fan the flames. . . .

I strenuously disagree with the bolded statements above. What actually happened -- and there is no dispute about the following facts so far as I am aware, but I welcome correction or clarification of any misstatement -- is that some members of the lacrosse team hired two strippers to entertain at an off-campus party, where dozens of other lacrosse players were present and were drinking alcoholic beverages. When the strippers began dancing, things were said to them that they perceived as physically threatening. At that point, they stopped performing and a dispute ensued between the players and the strippers over payment for services. When the strippers left the house without performing for the two hours as agreed, some of the players followed them out and yelled racial epithets at them.

Not surprisingly, when the accusation of sexual assault was made, the players claimed that they were innocent of any sexual assault, while the district attorney and the police insisted that there was evidence to support the stripper's accusation of a sexual assault. At that point, the admitted facts about what had transpired at the party, taken together with the reputation and history of misbehavior by members of the lacrosse team, became a crucial factor influencing how the players were treated, because for most people it boiled down to an issue of credibility. If not for the nature of the party, the admitted incidents of bad conduct that occurred there, and the already-questionable reputation of the lacrosse team, there's no doubt in my mind that many more people would have believed the players' claim of innocence from the outset, even though at that point there was no reason to suspect that the local law enforcement authorities would resort to lying and fabricating proof and suppressing exculpatory evidence to perpetrate a fraudulent, malicious prosecution. So the surrounding circumstances showing a pattern of misconduct by the lacrosse players were not merely used to "fan the flames," but had a substantial effect on how the players were treated.

[BigWayne]

As for the ad by the Group of 88. To me it's the perfect example of revisionist history. I was on campus when this thing blew up. People were really upset - and I mean REALLY. Especially people of color, people who felt like members of the varsity teams could get away with anything. People who wondered why it was OK for members of a varsity team to have a party like that in the first place. And, oh by the way, all during this the D.A's office and media were claiming that the men raped this women (which certainly seemed possible). The Group of 88 wasn't trying to say the lacrosse guys were guilty. They were saying "these issues are important and we are listening. We want to start a conversation about this." Was the timing of it bad? Yeah. They will admit that. They have. But they weren't abandoning the students, they were actually trying to reach out to them. I know plenty of people who disagree with this. But I also know many of the Group of 88, and ALL of them say this. So when you retort by going "that's not true. They really meant X," that's you. Not them. And let me tell you, they paid a price. They amount of horrific hate mail they got was unreal. People threatening to kill them. To lynch them. Calling them cowards and traitors - and those were the good e-mails.


They were not reaching out to the students that were lacrosse players. They were opportunists using the incident to advance their own agendas. They joined in with the professional agitators and adapted their outrage as needed to have the greatest effect. A number of them were promoted to leaderships positions at Duke or used their notoriety to land attractive posts at other universities. Other than the hate mail they received, I am not aware of any of them suffering professionally as a result of their actions.

There are plenty of places that detail their actions at the time, but this one is a good start: http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/02/when-potbangers-were-riding-high.html

[77devil]

I strenuously disagree with the bolded statements above. What actually happened -- and there is no dispute about the following facts so far as I am aware, but I welcome correction or clarification of any misstatement -- is that some members of the lacrosse team hired two strippers to entertain at an off-campus party, where dozens of other lacrosse players were present and were drinking alcoholic beverages. When the strippers began dancing, things allegedly were said to them that they perceived as physically threatening. At that point, they stopped performing and a dispute ensued between the players and the strippers over payment for services. When the strippers left the house without performing for the two hours as agreed, some of the players followed them out and yelled racial epithets at them in response to the profanity the dancers yelled at them.

Not surprisingly, when the accusation of sexual assault was made, the players claimed that they were innocent of any sexual assault, while the district attorney and the police insisted that there was evidence to support the stripper's accusation of a sexual assault. At that point, the admitted facts about what had transpired at the party, taken together with the reputation and history of misbehavior by members of the lacrosse team, became a crucial factor influencing how the players were treated, because for most people it boiled down to an issue of credibility. If not for the nature of the party, the admitted incidents of bad conduct that occurred there, and the already-questionable reputation of the lacrosse team, there's no doubt in my mind that many more people would have believed the players' claim of innocence from the outset, even though at that point there was no reason to suspect that the local law enforcement authorities would resort to lying and fabricating proof and suppressing exculpatory evidence to perpetrate a fraudulent, malicious prosecution. So the surrounding circumstances showing a pattern of misconduct by the lacrosse players were not merely used to "fan the flames," but had a substantial effect on how the players were treated.

Corrected as requested.

If I understand the essence of your opinion, it was appropriate for the administration to presume that some of the players committed a heinous criminal act because of a reputation for boorish behavior even though the captains told Brodhead no such crime occurred. There were plenty of reasons for the administration to be skeptical of Durham law enforcement particularly when Nifong created a media circus.

[53n206]

Indeed it was quite the media circus. I live in Oklahoma, we have particularly poor newspapers as regards anything but local sports news. But the Duke lacrosse "scandal" was reported in the local news as described by the AP and the New York Times. I relied on the DBR to get accurate, up-to-date, and particularly, the local assessments, of the information. The television news from the major networks focused on Nifong and that he had all the facts of the case in-line. It was through the DBR that the reality came to me as to the truth of this horrendous situation. Yes, it took money to save these young men. It took political ambition to serve a liar. Strange that a liar's political ambitions can generate so much power.

[sagegrouse]

Indeed it was quite the media circus. I live in Oklahoma, we have particularly poor newspapers as regards anything but local sports news. But the Duke lacrosse "scandal" was reported in the local news as described by the AP and the New York Times. I relied on the DBR to get accurate, up-to-date, and particularly, the local assessments, of the information. The television news from the major networks focused on Nifong and that he had all the facts of the case in-line. It was through the DBR that the reality came to me as to the truth of this horrendous situation. Yes, it took money to save these young men. It took political ambition to serve a liar. Strange that a liar's political ambitions can generate so much power.

Perfect storm for the news media and all too easy to lap up lies from a crooked prosecutor:

Black vs. white
Town vs. gown
Rich vs. poor
North vs. south
Student and faculty uprising vs. jock culture

[Stray Gator]

Corrected as requested.

If I understand the essence of your opinion, it was appropriate for the administration to presume that some of the players committed a heinous criminal act because of a reputation for boorish behavior even though the captains told Brodhead no such crime occurred. There were plenty of reasons for the administration to be skeptical of Durham law enforcement particularly when Nifong created a media circus.

First of all, I neither stated nor suggested that "it was appropriate for the administration to presume that some of the players committed a heinous criminal act." What I said is that I believe the undisputed facts about the party and what transpired there, taken together with the history of the lacrosse players' past misconduct, influenced how they were treated, because it raised doubts about their credibility among many people who might otherwise have given no credence at all to the charges against them. My invitation to correct any misstatements of fact in my message was not intended as a license to distort the meaning of my words in an attempt to impute to me a opinion that is only contrary to what I said, but would be patently absurd.

Furthermore, you appear to posit as an established fact that the Duke administration presumed the players were guilty of a heinous criminal act. I realize that it is a popular view among those who criticize the administration that despite their public statements urging people to respect the presumption of innocence and not rush to judgment before the true facts could be discovered, Brodhead and the administration acted as if they believed the players were guilty. But whether they believed or presumed that the players were guilty is not an established fact -- it is an interpretation based on some peoples' perceptions and opinions. While I've consistently acknowledged that Brodhead and the Duke administration could have done a better job of handling the crisis, particularly regarding some of their public statements and actions with respect to the players and their families, I do not believe that the record supports the conclusion that they ever presumed the players were guilty of a heinous crime.

[throatybeard]

Maybe there needs to be a whole nother board dedicated to discussing this. Like a Lacrosse board.

Aaaaahh, I kill me.

[dukelifer]

First of all, I neither stated nor suggested that "it was appropriate for the administration to presume that some of the players committed a heinous criminal act." What I said is that I believe the undisputed facts about the party and what transpired there, taken together with the history of the lacrosse players' past misconduct, influenced how they were treated, because it raised doubts about their credibility among many people who might otherwise have given no credence at all to the charges against them. My invitation to correct any misstatements of fact in my message was not intended as a license to distort the meaning of my words in an attempt to impute to me a opinion that is only contrary to what I said, but would be patently absurd.

Furthermore, you appear to posit as an established fact that the Duke administration presumed the players were guilty of a heinous criminal act. I realize that it is a popular view among those who criticize the administration that despite their public statements urging people to respect the presumption of innocence and not rush to judgment before the true facts could be discovered, Brodhead and the administration acted as if they believed the players were guilty. But whether they believed or presumed that the players were guilty is not an established fact -- it is an interpretation based on some peoples' perceptions and opinions. While I've consistently acknowledged that Brodhead and the Duke administration could have done a better job of handling the crisis, particularly regarding some of their public statements and actions with respect to the players and their families, I do not believe that the record supports the conclusion that they ever presumed the players were guilty of a heinous crime.
I also agree that the admin's decision to suspend the season and force the resignation of Pressler was most likely based on the players willful decision to violate the rules that were set for them. It fair to argue if the punishment was appropriate or whether they would have done the same thing had it been the basketball team instead (as asked in the documentary). But I don't see the evidence that the admin presumed the players were guilty of rape.

[Indoor66]

I don't understand the rehashing of this matter. Agreement about the Administrations actions will never be reached. I think I'll retire from this thread to avoid reading the redundant arguments. It is kind of like discussing Women's basketball.

[-jk]

I think this one has about run its course...

-jk

[Stray Gator]

I don't understand the rehashing of this matter. Agreement about the Administrations actions will never be reached. I think I'll retire from this thread to avoid reading the redundant arguments. It is kind of like discussing Women's basketball.

I agree. My purpose for weighing in on these issues again was simply to offer a different perspective that might provide a measure of balance in response to some of the views that were expressed after the ESPN documentary was aired. As I said earlier, I never expected to change anyone's mind. But I also didn't expect to see this discussion devolve into a renewal of the trench warfare that once afflicted this forum, in which advocates of one position would resort to such tactics as twisting the words of other posters in an attempt to to miscast their position and make it the object of ridicule by extending its premises to an absurd extreme. I don't post here as often as I once did; when I do, I try to express myself as clearly as possible. But when others misconstrue my messages, whether the fault is theirs or mine, I take that as a signal that I should withdraw from the conversation rather than continue and risk saying something that might be interpreted as offensive. So like Indoor66, I'll retire from this thread and encourage others to resist becoming embroiled in redundant arguments that can serve no purpose except to disturb the customarily cordial atmosphere of this forum.