The Broadhead Apology and the Duke 88

"Guilty!"


Duke President, Richard Broadhead issued a public apology this week to the three Duke lacrosse players who had been accused in the spring of 2006 of raping a black exotic dancer and were subsequently exonerated in a case that made national headlines and led to the disgrace of Durham prosecutor, Mike Nifong. In his remarks, Broadhead acknowledged that the university community had not treated the young men fairly. Broadhead's remarks were certainly appropriate in the wake of an incident that caused so much racial division in Durham and embarrassed the university as a whole. What is still missing is an apology from the 88 Duke professors who issued a statement in the campus newspaper in the wake of the alleged rape incident, a statement that many feel poured gasoline on the flames and implied that the players were guilty.


In the wake of the incident, 88 Duke professors took out an ad in the campus newspaper that featured statements from various black Duke students alleging an atmosphere of racism at Duke. ("What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?") While the ad did not make any explicit claims as to the defendants' guilt, it clearly tied the case to what they believed was overall racism on the campus. It was an indictment of white students in general, who were characterized as racists. The implication was clear that what happened to the alleged victim was all part of an atmosphere of racism and fear at Duke.


This statement was only part of the volatile reaction to the charges that occurred in Durham. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton got involved-predictably. Jackson offered to pay the girl's tuition at neighboring North Carolina Central University, a pretty clear indication he believed in the charges. The New Black Party for Self Defense, under the leadership of hate-monger, Malik Zulu Shabazz, came to Durham and demonstrated their outrage at the "clear guilt" of the accused. The prosecutor, Mike Nifong, at the time running for re-election, made public statements referring to the defendants as "thugs", clearly an unprofessional comment.


Not surprisingly, the three students were driven from Duke, the lacrosse team was suspended for a year and the coach forced to resign. The accused and their families had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to eventually clear their names. Along the way, they had to overcome Nifong's unethical handling of the case including hiding of exculpatory evidence.


So now, we know that the rape never occurred. Now Duke (at least Mr Broadhead) is sorry for what happened. What about the 88 professors who signed that ad? Are they sorry for their contribution to a lynch mob mentality at Duke? Have they apologized? Did Mr Broadhead apologize for them? The answer to all of those questions is no.


In January, 2007, "The Group of 88" posted a one-page "Letter to the Duke Community" online, in which they defended their action and rejected calls for an apology. They claimed that they had received vicious and threatening emails and denied that they had passed judgement on the three students. Here are a couple of excerpts:


"(We) thank the students speaking individually and ....the protestors making collective noise. We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time. We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence."


"There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it, as well as calls for action against them and attacks on their character. We reject all of these. We think the ad's authors were right to give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real. We also acknowledge the pain that has been generated by what we believe is a misperception that the authors of the ad prejudged the rape case."


"We stand by the claim that issues of race and sexual violence on campus are real, and we join the ad's call to all of us at Duke to do something about this."


So much for apologies. Could they not have at least acknowledged that their ad was feeding into a rush to judgement, as well as an already volatile situation at Duke and the surrounding Durham community? And why did Broadhead, in his own mea culpa, not directly single them out for criticism? (He did refer to "ill-advised and divisive statements by some faculty that were not expressions of the university as a whole.")

In my opinion, an apology from the 88 would mean discrediting their agenda, which at the very least, was promoting the notion that Duke was a place where White Racism ruled the day. That was the central theme of the original ad. In my view, Broadhead should have addressed that charge in his remarks as well. If he feels there is truth to that charge, he should have addressed it. If he doesn't feel there is truth to that charge, he should have addressed it as well in defense of the institution he runs.

In recent years, Duke students and backers have liked to refer to their school as: "The Real University of North Carolina", a slap at their rival, UNC. I wonder if they are still doing that now. On the other hand, what has happened at Duke could have happened at any one of most American universities. In fact, they are pretty much all afflicted with the disease of left-wing activism, political correctness and contempt for mainstream American values. It is good that when a university like Duke gets involved in transgressions like the false rape case and the "Group of 88", that the spotlight shines brightly upon them for all the public to see.