Duke Supporters: Suspend Your Duke Support Until Duke's Wrongful Suspensions Are Reversed
Duke University should apologize and reinstate Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann immediately , and Duke University's financial supporters should SUSPEND their financial support until it does!
Duke University should apologize and reinstate Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann immediately , and Duke University's financial supporters should SUSPEND their financial support until it does!
What is Duke University's excuse for not reinstating Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann by now? Pride? Or stupidity? Or a desire to offer them up as sacrificial lambs.
The lacrosse player who wrote that vile email was reinstated. If Duke University monitors all of its students' email and suspends those who write vile ones (including the ones with sophomoric judgment as to what is funny), then the original suspension was fair. After all, there was no doubt about who wrote it. And, the attempted humor explanation notwithstanding, it was vile.
What also was vile, that is, morally despicable or abhorrent, was suspending then sophomores Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. There was plenty of doubt that they kidnapped, raped or sexually assaulted anyone. And, if attendance at an off-campus parties featuring strippers is grounds for suspension (instead of proof that secular extremism is corrupting the youth of America), all Duke students at the party should have been suspended.
What is Duke's attitude toward the presumption of innocence? In criminal proceedings, it applies both before and after indictment. At Duke, it was presumed that the accuser was telling the truth and whomever she accused was guilty.
The races of the accuser and the accused should be irrelevant, and the Duke Administration should respect that, even when the Durham County District Attorney, for political gain, chooses to be blind to reality instead of colorblind, and wickedly obtains unwarranted indictments.
To be sure, there are some who like what Mr. Nifong did. In the May 1, 2006 issue of Newsweek, it was reported that Collin Hall, a 22-year old attending the same college as the accuser (North Carolina Central State), wanted prosecution "whether it happened or not," as "justice for things that happened in the past."
God help the students at NCCS if they are taught that such a thing is "justice."
While District Attorney Nifong, the Duke administration and Mr. Hall were behaving shamefully, Randall Drain wrote a letter, published in the Duke Chronicle on or about June 16, 2006, rejecting the revolting race-baiting and rightly reviling the Duke Administration:
Apologies Necessary
As an African American, an alumnus and a member of the 2005 Duke men's lacrosse program, I am revolted by my alma mater's handling of the rape allegations directed toward members of the lacrosse team.
Richard Brodhead, Larry Moneta, other administrators and certain faculty members have flagrantly and wrongfully hung members of the Duke men's lacrosse team out to dry.
This mistake has not gone unnoticed and will no longer be tolerated by the alumni community. I call on all of Duke University's alumni and donors to end contributions to the University pending a formal apology issued by President Brodhead on behalf of the faculty and administration for failing to appropriately support members of the Duke community.
If Duke University and its current leadership plan to allow TV personalities, sundry activists and District Attorney Mike Nifong run my alma mater, the school is not headed in the right direction, and I declare it unfit for support-financial or otherwise.
This issue of a commitment to one another transcends the lacrosse team, athletics and the many generations of Duke graduates. Therefore, it deserves the utmost attention. My former teammates were assaulted and harassed while Duke's administrative leaders avoided 'the arena,' scheduled meetings and distanced themselves from their own students.
Since the third of several versions of the alleged victim's story was reported, the conduct of three individuals has been called into question. Even if I agreed with the shallow attempt to sit the fence in reference to those three individuals, what about the treatment of the rest of the team? The other 44 members? The persecution of numerous members of the lacrosse team, under the administration's watch, is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
President Brodhead, your time on the sidelines is up; Dukies don't cower when faced with tough situations, and they certainly do not take cues from the rogue, the misinformed or the fickle masses. Duke University was, is and will continue to be a great institution because it promotes leadership; once we let others outside of our community dictate to us what is best for Duke out of fear or a desire to appease, we lose what makes Duke special. Failing to stand up for students at Duke University is the most egregious offense that an administrator-pledged to serve his students fairly and equally-can commit.
A cloud of uncertainty has surrounded the case since its inception. America can keep Nancy Grace and the constant and nauseating spin of the 'no spin zone,' but the lack of clarity in the case demands that the leaders of Duke University fully support their students throughout the processes necessary for a resolution. Yet the members of the lacrosse team did not get that support from the professional educators and administrators on campus.
Instead, players had to rely on an exemplary group of friends to overcome the constant abuse perpetrated by other Duke students, as well as outsiders who were irresponsibly allowed on campus despite their lack of a constructive purpose.
I am sure that soon, when they creep back into their respective corners of cowardice, no one will be able to find these gullible supporters of rash Jim-Crow-esque behavior, which is ironically and sadly endemic at a school in the South that is comprised of what the alumni network would like me to believe are educated and thoughtful students.
Athletes devote up to half of their time at school representing Duke in competition, and therefore they deserve at least as much support as any other student until we know the truth. I would suggest the school's leaders (not a committee) clearly and publicly articulate support for a remarkable group of student athletes-and yes, one can have a beer before he is 21 or forget to use 'inside voices' after 11 p.m., and still be a commendable student-athlete and person-as they continue to tell an unchanged story that implies their innocence.
Mr. Brodhead, you have helped to create an audience of hypocrites that may now choose to ignore the facts or 'yeah but…' their way out of their past impudence. If you do not address Duke University's abandonment and abuse of the lacrosse team, you implicitly condone such behavior and send the message that only the lacrosse team need show remorse for their transgressions.
Most alarming for alumni is the fact that the failure to correct the rest of the community's mistake will further divide a campus and hinder Duke's ability to move forward. Is this the education you plan to provide at Duke University, an education where if you are wrong with 'the group,' you need not revisit your actions?
Mr. Brodhead, the fact is that many, if not most, married men in America have been to a party with a stripper. Some white, some black, whatever; if you truly find stripping to be inappropriate, take your stand against a nation that condones the practice.
Transference is a serious problem for a leader; do not transfer blame solely onto the shoulders of my former teammates. Duke has irreversibly and in error taken something from quality young men.
You, Mr. Brodhead, and your staff have taken their youth, you have taken their pride and you have taken their innocence in the worst way possible. The indirect way. The passive way. The deniable way. The underhanded way.
This is not and will not be the Duke Way. The safety of the middle ground was never appropriate for Duke or its administrators and it grows less and less so each day. Take the opportunity to correct your mistake instead of sweeping it under the rug and waving yet another red flag of bad leadership.
In one, a long time North Carolina resident and Duke graduate who has served in federal and North Carolina Superior courts as an expert witness succinctly summarized his view of "this entire disgusting mess":
Durham is the laughing stock of the country due to the caustic actions of the DA and others. And I think my alma mater has done an abysmally poor job of taking care of its students.
In another, the writer poignantly focused on the suffering of "the falsely accused players and their families":
How are the falsely accused players and their families able to handle the injustices being served them at every turn?
DA Mike Nifong has destroyed the lives of their sons and now they are trying to keep them out of jail for charges that are only based on the accuser's inconsistent statements (i.e. no physical evidence corroborating any of her multiple stories).
The Duke administration has abandoned the falsely accused players and their families. I believe President Brodhead's current position is that we need to allow the justice system to take its course now that no other players are under a cloud of suspicion.
In my opinion it is totally unfair (and somewhat revealing) for the falsely accused players and their families to be fighting this battle without the support of the Duke administration.
I graduated from Duke and for the first time in my life I am embarrassed to be a Duke graduate. This embarrassment emanates from how the Duke administration has totally abandoned the falsely accused players despite the fact that the Office of Student Affairs and Dean Sue Wasiolek had the opportunity to come forth with critical information very early-on that would have changed the course of this entire case.
In my opinion (and in the opinion of other lawyers that I have consulted) the falsely accused players and their families have solid grounds for a lawsuit against Duke University based on this fact alone.
Although the Duke administration has failed the falsely accused players and their families I hope that the Duke alumni and friends of Duke University can demonstrate their support of these fellow members of the Duke family. The legal bills must be staggering and there is a link from this blog that describes how donations can me made to help support the pursuit of truth and fairness in this case. Please consider making a contribution.
The third thoughtful letter, by another Friend of Duke, excused the Duke Administration for its "initial reaction to the lacrosse situation" and expressed the hope that the suspended students will be reinstated:
I do not blame, as some do, the Duke Administration for their initial reaction to the lacrosse situation. The media frenzy, largely fueled by Nifong's unprofessional and prejudicial conduct, created a situation in which it would have been impossible for the lacrosse season to continue and probably unsafe for the indicted players to remain at Duke. However at this point, and especially in the face overwhelming evidence that the charges are false, the administration should reconsider its position on the suspension of the indicted students. If Duke has a policy of suspending those charged with a felony, it is a policy that has not been strictly enforced in recent years, and clearly there is administrative discretion allowed. Besides 'innocent until proven guilty,' basic human decency demands that the university allow these boys to regain at least some sense of normalcy in their lives, unless doing so could endanger the rest of the student body. They should at least be offered the opportunity to continue their studies at Duke in some way next semester. This will be such a difficult year for all three and their families--and I think most parents realize any of our children could have been in a similar situation. While I know many of us are extremely disillusioned with our legal system, I hope our university will find a way to do the right thing.
I am among those who blame the Duke Administration for suspending Messrs. Finnerty and Seligmann without just cause. In doing so, the Duke Administration suddenly and severely prejudiced them, by appearing to judge them guilty of the charges against them. As the letter writer acknowledged, the evidence that the charges are false is "overwhelming." Yes, the despicable Durham County District Attorney bears responsibility for obtaining unwarranted indictments, but the Duke Administration is to blame for imposing unwarranted suspensions. The least it can do is finally "do the right thing": acknowledge it acted precipitously and prejudicially and reinstate the students with a refund of whatever they paid to Duke for their horrific second half of their sophomore years at Duke.
To those who financially support Duke University (ordinarily a worthy deed), I say: write to Duke President Richard H. Brodhead, urge him to do exactly what I suggested, and let him know that YOU will be SUSPENDING your financial support of Duke University until that egregious wrong is rectified AT LEAST to the extent I suggested.
Mr. Richard H. Brodhead
President
Duke University
P.O. Box 90001
Durham, NC 27708
If you want to add that Mr. Brodhead is unfit to be President of Duke University and should resign, that would be appropriate.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
