Spring Break
Criticism of Brodhead, faculty disheartening
Issue date: 10/5/07 Section: Letters
Last update: 10/5/07 at 9:17 AM EST
Last update: 10/5/07 at 9:17 AM EST
- Page 1 of 1
We are impressed with President Richard Brodhead's continued attempts to reach out to all members of the Duke community to promote healing and reconciliation in the wake of last year's lacrosse incident, as evidenced by his recent remarks at the Duke School of Law. We are disheartened, however, by the continued drumbeat of destructive criticism of the administration and faculty by some within and outside the Duke community. More importantly, as chairs of two of the five committees that examined various issues brought to light by the lacrosse incident last spring, we take issue with the biased and inaccurate rhetoric espoused by some of these critics.
Firstly, we reject the characterization put forward by critics like Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson that the Lacrosse Committee report, that examined the past behavior of the lacrosse team, is a "stunning vindication" of the team (Washington Post, September 7, 2007). On the contrary, the report very carefully details a pattern of behavior that the committee characterized as "socially irresponsible" that should "have been a cause for alarm." Dismissing this finding as trivial is a biased and unjustified misrepresentation of the facts.
Secondly, there is a recurring theme advanced by critics like Taylor and Johnson that the faculty at Duke and at other universities are increasingly a bunch of ideologues who care less about the their students and more about promoting their own extremist agendas. Nothing could be further from the truth. Faculty at Duke, as at other universities and colleges, care deeply about students and are passionately committed to their personal and intellectual growth. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the daily life of a faculty member will quickly appreciate the time, effort and energy that faculty put into teaching, advising and mentoring students. To suggest otherwise, on the basis of isolated and selective incidents that occur over the course of complex events and are taken out of context, is nothing more than a tragic rush to judgment.
James Coleman
Professor of the Practice of Law
Duke School of Law
Prasad Kasibhatla
Associate Professor
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Firstly, we reject the characterization put forward by critics like Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson that the Lacrosse Committee report, that examined the past behavior of the lacrosse team, is a "stunning vindication" of the team (Washington Post, September 7, 2007). On the contrary, the report very carefully details a pattern of behavior that the committee characterized as "socially irresponsible" that should "have been a cause for alarm." Dismissing this finding as trivial is a biased and unjustified misrepresentation of the facts.
Secondly, there is a recurring theme advanced by critics like Taylor and Johnson that the faculty at Duke and at other universities are increasingly a bunch of ideologues who care less about the their students and more about promoting their own extremist agendas. Nothing could be further from the truth. Faculty at Duke, as at other universities and colleges, care deeply about students and are passionately committed to their personal and intellectual growth. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the daily life of a faculty member will quickly appreciate the time, effort and energy that faculty put into teaching, advising and mentoring students. To suggest otherwise, on the basis of isolated and selective incidents that occur over the course of complex events and are taken out of context, is nothing more than a tragic rush to judgment.
James Coleman
Professor of the Practice of Law
Duke School of Law
Prasad Kasibhatla
Associate Professor
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 138
Reader 63
posted 10/05/07 @ 9:43 AM EST
The criticism of Brodhead comes from many sources other than Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson. There are many alumni, for example, whose diverse voices are just now beginning put together. (Continued…)
eric ridder
posted 10/05/07 @ 9:55 AM EST
Kim Curtis is still employed
BSME '69
posted 10/05/07 @ 10:20 AM EST
Had the university administration done the right things at the right time, Brodhead would not need "continued attempts to reach out". The "attempts" would have been successes, and reaching out would not be necessary if the administration is "in touch" with its community. (Continued…)
A Reader
posted 10/05/07 @ 10:44 AM EST
Yesterday, posted in the comments section under the extremely unfortunate Holsti letter:
E. Roy Weintraub:
/ * The following letter was today submitted to the Chronicle for
publication:
Dear Editor: I was surprised to read Emeritus Professor Holsti's letter yesterday, and Chemistry Chairman Warren's e-letter of support. (Continued…)
Mike Lee
posted 10/05/07 @ 10:54 AM EST
Until there is some type of explanation given for refusing to meet with students and their families in a time of crisis President Broadhead deserves more than criticism. (Continued…)
Eng. Grad
posted 10/05/07 @ 10:56 AM EST
Well, Prof. Coleman, as ethical as you tried to be at the beginning of this debacle, it seems that the Brodhead administration has enough dirt on many of the professors (see Prof. (Continued…)
KC Johnson
posted 10/05/07 @ 11:02 AM EST
I quote from p. 209, of Until Proven Innocent, the book that Stuart Taylor and I co-authored on the case:
"The [Coleman] committee issued its twenty-five page report on May 1, the first day of final exams. (Continued…)
Anon
posted 10/05/07 @ 11:03 AM EST
If Duke Professors care so much for their students (and I agree that most do) then why do we keep seeing them bashing them in the Chronicle?
While I agree with the tenor of this letter, it's clear some professors have no problem stepping on their students necks given the right circumstances. (Continued…)
Trinity Alumna
posted 10/05/07 @ 11:15 AM EST
I can't believe this sham of a letter was co-authored by James Coleman. Perhaps signed, under pressure, yes. Written by him? I doubt it.
This is not about honest disagreement about the facts, which is a natural occurrence between civilized people. (Continued…)
A grad student
posted 10/05/07 @ 11:22 AM EST
Duke faculty not radical ideologues? HAHAHAHAHA.
What are they smoking. Seriously, defense attorneys wanted to change the trial location because the faculty were such radical morons. (Continued…)
Post a Comment