MICHAEL RUBIN remembers how Duke President Richard Brodhead dealt with the murder of a Yale student in 1998, when Brodhead was Dean of Yale College.
The Kitchen Cabinet
cheered Brodhead's arrival at Duke in 2003. I had met him once in New Haven and spoken to him only briefly, but some of my YLS friends knew him and had glowing things to say. It seemed to me that Brodhead would be the kind of personable, student-focused leader Duke needed, after several years where fund-and-rankings-raising had seemed to be paramount.
I was therefore particularly reluctant to place much blame on Brodhead this spring when the lacrosse scandal broke. Faced with what looked at the very least like outrageously crass behavior on the part of the lacrosse team and a burgeoning town-gown crisis, he seemed to be doing a decent job.
Since I've been able to focus more on this story over the past few weeks, my opinion of Brodhead and Duke's handling of the situation has fallen precipitously. It started with
this lame Q&A posted on the Duke Alumni Association's web site, which patiently explains to us ignorant alumni that
of course people are innocent until proven guilty, but that, you see, the faculty have this thing called
freedom of speech.
The statement to alumni is insulting. Eighty-eight members of the Duke faculty this spring
published a "thank you" to students who had distributed a “wanted” poster of lacrosse players and publicly branded them “rapists.” But in the face of
well-documented unethical behavior on the part of the Durham authorities that threatens to deprive Duke students of at least their reputations and at most their very freedom, Duke's message to its alumni is a bunch of condescending blather about how the school can't really do anything but address the on-campus "issues" raised by the case. (My favorite quote: "Academics come first at Duke, although many Duke students also excel in athletics, science, the arts, community service and other fields." The
Arts and
Sciences faculty will no doubt be interested to learn that their disciplines take a backseat to "academics.")
I was also troubled last week to read that Duke administrators apparently shut down a voter registration drive put on in the parking lot during a Duke football game by a Duke student group advocating the defeat of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. According to
a letter written to The Chronicle:
The explanations for this interference have ranged from the students' alleged failure to give prior notice (even though such notice was apparently given two weeks in advance and resulted in a number of conversations about logistics) to objections to the "bias" of the participants. The most disturbing explanation is that objections were raised because of a public relations concern that the students involved were motivated by support for the men's lacrosse team.
Finally, this morning I read something I had apparently missed before: In the early hours of the crisis,
Duke told lacrosse players not to tell their parents about the potential criminal investigation:
[A]dministrators demanded from the captains a candid account of the evening’s events, allegedly citing a non-existent “student-faculty” privilege to encourage the captains to disclose any criminal activity. Multiple sources confirm that Coach Mike Pressler, apparently acting on orders from above, instructed the other players not to tell their parents about the police inquiry. Meanwhile, Dean Sue Wasiolek arranged for a local lawyer, Wes Covington, to act as a “facilitator” in arranging for a group meeting with police. The night before the meeting, one player broke down and told his father, who happened to be in Durham. Other parents then were informed, and—recognizing the need to obtain competent counsel—postponed the meeting.
If true, this is shocking behavior on the part of the university. As
one of KC Johnson's commenters said:
Trying to cut students off from the advice of their parents when they needed it more than at any other time in their lives is the lowest and the most vile thing I could ever imagine a university doing to its students.
And as other commenters noted, in ham-handedly trying to contain the damage, these administrators may have exposed the school to civil liability.
I understand that Duke's early response to the situation was not completely within Brodhead's control. I also understand that town-gown relations are important and that it would be unrealistic to expect Duke's president to mount an all-out attack on the Durham authorities, however outragous their conduct has been. I do not, however, believe that it is too much to ask that Brodhead and Duke drop the pretense that they are morally required to sit on their hands and let "the legal system" do its job, when it is clear that "the legal system" is threatening to grind up three Duke students who are almost certainly innocent. Again, I don't expect dramatic denunciations, but something more than silence and passivity is called for here.
Since I graduated from Duke — no, since I
matriculated at Duke — I have loved the school wholeheartedly. I've given it money; I've dreamed of one day being a "Duke parent." Both the money and the dream are on hold for now.