Duke LAX case discussion continued.....;)

[beprepn]

<p>

The Bassett Affair

</p>

<p>Trinity college protecting academic freedom in the 19th century - no more recent examples?</p>

<p>And one that ended up being in the schools self-interest.</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>

@beprepn

And one that ended up being in the schools self-interest.

Academic freedom is decidedly always in a school’s self-interest. After all, the school is generally made up of academics!</p>

[JEM]

<p>As several posters have noticed, the moderators removed a number of posts yesterday. Some posts were commenting about moderating actions. Please note that the TOS specifically forbids posts concerning moderating actions. Any questions regarding moderation should be handled via PM or a post alert. If you have an issue with a post of another poster, please use the “report post” function. </p>

<p>Also, we are concerned that there has been an inappropriate focus on belittling/criticizing other posters on the thread, and that this has resulted in some slippage in the generally cordial tone we try to achieve on the forum. </p>

<p>We certainly expect differing opinions, but ask that courtesy be used at all times. Criticizing other posters crosses the boundary of polite behavior. Please allow for the expression of all opinions, including unpopular ones, by not attacking any poster. Please keep in mind that posts should be focused on the topic of the thread, not characteristics of other posters. Different points of view are fine and are expected; CC would be a boring community without them. However, it is never acceptable to turn a disagreement about facts or opinions into a critique of another member, i.e., to question the intelligence, experience, motivation, writing style, etc. of another member.</p>

<p>Finally, please be considerate of the volunteer moderating team’s time by “self-moderating” and staying well within the guidelines of the Terms of Service when posting.</p>

<p>Posters whose posts require repeated intervention from the moderating team will be at risk of losing posting privileges. </p>

<p>Thank you all for your cooperation,
The Moderating Team </p>

[epistrophy]

<p>xiggi,</p>

<p>Thank you so much for the clarification (post #1520) of your previous post (#1517), which had seemed, until you clarified it, self-explanatory.</p>

<p>Your clarification sets a new standard of pellucidity to which the rest of us, alas, can only aspire.</p>

[epistrophy]

<p>If anyone should care, I just want to say that I now regret my last post regarding xiggi and would retract it if I could.</p>

<p>Obviously, I was being sarcastic. And while I’m usually able to avoid this kind of snarkiness, on occasion I’m my own worst editor.</p>

<p>Xiggi has been a valuable and provocative participant on many CC threads and, if I believed that he missed the mark badly here (as I did), I should have expressed that view differently.</p>

<p>Oh, well . . . .</p>

[1sokkermom]

<p>Not only is Duke a plantation, but it now has its own Oasis. :eek: </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-09-16-sleep-deprivation_N.htm?csp=34[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-09-16-sleep-deprivation_N.htm?csp=34&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>From above USA artcile:</p>

<p>“• Duke University in North Carolina offers a stress-free haven known as The Oasis. Students enjoy the citrus-colored room for its floor-to-ceiling windows, water fountain and electric massage chairs. “We’re trying to create environments where students can go to get away from stress so that they can work more productively … and (maybe) get to sleep earlier,” says Duke’s director of health promotion, Franca Alphin.”</p>

<p>No wonder the tuition is so high! I’ve never heard of the Oasis before this article.</p>

<p>Is this one of the things the kids don’t mention to their parents? Xiggi may be on to something after all…</p>

[richs73cas]

<p>Bet Dan doesn’t think $30 million is too much :):)
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-TV-Rather-Lawsuit.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-TV-Rather-Lawsuit.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[ellemenope]

<p>Oh honestly, what is Dan Rather thinking?!</p>

[StickerShock]

<p>Saw a really funny headline on Dan’s lawsuit: THEY SHOULD GIVE HIM 70 MILLION PHOTOCOPIES OF A DOLLAR BILL… IT’S NOT LIKE HE COULD TELL THE DIFFERENCE – Jim Treacher</p>

[richs73cas]

<p>ABC News reports: Duke Lacrosse Players, Families Consider Lawsuit Against University</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=3650722[/url]”>http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=3650722&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

A group of current and former Duke University lacrosse players and their families may sue the school over its treatment of the team in the aftermath of the Duke rape scandal, some of the families and their lawyer told ABC News.</p>

<p>Charles Cooper, a prominent Washington, D.C., attorney, confirmed that “a large majority” of the players and their families have hired him to explore the possibility of suing the university. Cooper would not comment on the basis of any potential lawsuit or whether or when one might be filed.</p>

<p>But, several families who have retained Cooper, most of whom spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said that they expected a decision to be made soon and that a suit probably would be filed. They said they were angry about the way the university; its president, Richard Brodhead; and some of the faculty treated the entire team after a black woman accused several white players of raping her at a team party.</p>

<p>The parents said many of Duke’s professors and administrators acted as if they assumed that the players were guilty of the accusation and failed to assure their safety on campus.

:):):)</p>

[LakeWashington]

<p>Presumably the lone Black lacrosse player could sue, since his season was cancelled. I guess those are damages for which compensation can be calculated.</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>With respect to the actions of the University, there are in my mind five groups of players:

1. The three who were indicted and thus suspended (who have settled)
2. The one who was not indicted but was suspended (McFadyen)
3. The one who has already sued and settled (Dowd)
4. Scholarship / recruited athletes neither indicted nor suspended
5. Walk-on athletes neither indicted nor suspended</p>

<p>I think the difference between groups 4 and 5 involve any kind of “breach of contract” statement regarding cancellation of the season. I think the folks “contracted” to play here would have a stronger case.</p>

<p>However, in matters regarding creation of a hostile learning environment, violation of FERPA regulations, libelous portrayals, and any kind of neglect that may have led to unsafe situations, all the 4 and 5 folks were in the same boat.</p>

<p>With respect to Devon Sherwood, I would say the main difference for him would be with respect to suits against the city since he was not a part of the NTO requiring DNA and photographs. For the school, I’d think he’d be in category 5 along with anyone else who walked onto the team. It’d be a little different if people went after individuals - [Houston</a> Baker](<a href=“http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/lange_baker.html]Houston”>http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/lange_baker.html) for instance wrote specifically about, “white, male, athletic violence…” “Young, white, violent, drunken men among us…” and “white, male, athletic privilege…” Generally, everyone else concocted an abstract called The Lacrosse Team that eliminated any sense of individuality of the plyaers.</p>

[epistrophy]

<p>Hmmmmm . . . talk of yet another lawsuit emerging from this morass reminds me of an old saying: </p>

<p>Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered.</p>

[richs73cas]

<p>From the News Observer:
Duke, lacrosse players in talks over suit
<a href=“http://www.newsobserver.com/news/durham/story/718040.html[/url]”>http://www.newsobserver.com/news/durham/story/718040.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>From WRAL:
<a href=“http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1868594[/url]”>http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1868594&lt;/a&gt;

Durham — Duke University said Wednesday it hopes to reach a fair resolution with unindicted members of its 2006 men’s lacrosse team who are reportedly considering filing a lawsuit.</p>

<p>“Duke University has been in discussions with representatives of the families for many months and is happy to continue discussions with their new representatives,” according to a university statement.

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):) (Can’t put up all 46 Players - Posts are limited to 20 smilies)</p>

[NewAtThis2]

<p>Duke officials have insisted that Brodhead couldn’t and shouldn’t have spoken out more forcefully early on, a point Bilas said the president repeated during their August meeting.</p>

<p>“The president feels and told me personally that he believed any statement that he made would have provided the prosecutor with an opportunity to drop the charges, critics of the university the opportunity to suggest that somehow the university used undue influence in the process, and denied the student-athletes the opportunity to prove their innocence in court,” Bilas said.</p>

<p>Bilas added that he disagreed with those arguments across the board. “Acting out of fear of an unreasonable response is not leadership,” he said.</p>

[StickerShock]

<p>

“Acting out of fear of an unreasonable response is not leadership,”

Exactly. Brodhead is spineless.</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>[Duke</a> President Shares Lessons Learned, Regrets About Lacrosse Case](<a href=“http://dukenews.duke.edu/2007/09/rhb_lawconf.html"]Duke”>http://dukenews.duke.edu/2007/09/rhb_lawconf.html)</p>

<p>interesting read.</p>

[NewAtThis2]

<p>Isn’t there a spot open over there at UNC-CH?
:)</p>

[1sokkermom]

<p>DUKE PRESIDENT APOLOGIZES</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/29/duke.lacrosse.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/29/duke.lacrosse.ap/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>““Duke needed to be clear that it demanded fair treatment for its students,” he said. “I took that completely for granted. If anyone doubted it, then I should have been more explicit, especially as the evidence mounted that the prosecutor was not acting in accordance with the standards of his profession.””</p>

[richs73cas]

<p>John F. Burness, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations had previously stated Duke’s position being that no apology was necessary.</p>

<p>In a column by Long Island’s Newsday Columnist Steven Marcus in April 2007
Burness said on the record

“We’re expecting that there’s probably going to be civil suits from folks trying to get money out of us, that comes with the turf.” Burness said there is a segment of the population that has asked him if Duke will apologize to the players if their legal problems disappear. “I said,” Burness replied, “for what?”

Off the record an “Unnamed Duke Administrator” is quoted:

None of the three have attempted to return to Duke, where as one administrator said, they are “no choirboys,” regardless of the outcome of the legal matters.

So even as late as April 2007 an “Unnamed Duke Administrator” is trying to slime their own students in the Press.</p>

<p>A reasonable assumption is that the “Unnamed Duke Administrator” is Burness. Burness prior job was at Stony Brook University on Long Island where he was deputy to the president at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. So Burness would be acquainted with Marcus and be able to call on Marcus to plant this story in an attempt by Duke to discredit the students on their home turf, as a warning on how tough Duke will be in defending civil suits. </p>

<p>As the Official spokesperson for Duke, Burness would never say anything to the press that did not have President Brodhead’s blessing.</p>

<p><a href=“http://pubaffairs.duke.edu/about_pubaffairs.html[/url]”>http://pubaffairs.duke.edu/about_pubaffairs.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Wonder what changed Brodhead’s mind about an appology???
:):):)</p>