In my tenure as a junior fellow here at First Things , I’ve done a few things that have made my editors and co-workers scratch their heads. But my biggest argument, at present, is with our editor Joseph Bottum, who suggested last week that Duke University is a "cruise ship for pampered young profligates . . . staffed by angry anarchist professors and captained by an administration that will throw its student-passengers overboard at the least hint of a storm." For $46,000 a year, he said, Duke will grant you not an education but "hot-and-cold-running strippers" and "teachers who hate you." The upshot of all this, for him, is that no one in their right mind would go there.
Of course you guessed it. I was admitted to Duke Divinity School last spring, and I’ll start class there in the fall. And I did not choose Duke for its strippers or its promising new interdisciplinary program in Sex and Anarchy. Actually, I chose to attend Duke for the quality of its scholarship, its commitment to training ministers for the Church, and the generally positive atmosphere at Duke for young conservatives such as myself.
In fact, as I’ve learned more about the school and corresponded with a few of the students, I’ve become only more excited to attend. Although some of Jody’s criticisms are legitimate, they ought to be tempered by several factors. The facts of the matter simply do not justify a blanket condemnation of the school. What’s more, I believe that even his legitimate criticisms do not outweigh Duke’s unique strengths, many of which ought to make it a top destination for young conservatives and Christians.
I’ll start with Jody’s treatment of the lacrosse case. First off, I think he and I both agree that Mike Nifong, Durham’s power-hungry D.A., ought to be run out of town on a rail. Nifong likely knew from an early date that he did not have a case, yet he chose to put three young men through anguish for months, most probably in order to gain the black vote he needed for his re-election bid . Much of the blame for the entire episode’s confusion and racial tension can be laid at his feet. In his frequent media appearances in the case’s early weeks, he said in no uncertain terms that Duke lacrosse players were guilty of rape, and he made sure to play up the case’s race-and-privilege aspect for maximum effect. The narrative that was splashed across front covers nationwide during the case’s first weeks¯evil white males of privilege preying upon virtuous black females of poverty¯was created in large part by Nifong. Other people share the blame (notably, the media), but it was Nifong who fanned the fire.
But that wasn’t the main thrust of Jody’s argument, which focused instead on the Duke administration and faculty. He accuses Duke not only of throwing its students overboard at the least sign of a storm but also of trying to "tie them up first" by "actively assisting the state" in its prosecution.
The New York history professor K.C. Johnson was one of the first to accuse Duke administrators of unduly helping the police. A popular blogger on the lacrosse scandal , he has done much to make the public aware of the students’ innocence, but in this particular instance he allowed his enthusiasm to get the best of his better judgment. Johnson contends this unwarranted assistance took place during the first week of the scandal, March 16 to 23.
But crucially, at this point there was no scandal, for it was prior to the fateful weekend of March 23 to 26, during which teamwide DNA testing caught the attention of the media and turned what had been a small dustup into a nationwide brouhaha. The universal view among administrators before this point was that it would all come to nothing¯it was a simple investigation into unfortunate but routine complaints about a rowdy party, and in response, the Duke administrators reasonably enough asked players to tell the truth and cooperate with the police. The later scandal mentality shouldn’t color our view of what really were pre-scandal events. Duke at this point actually had it right¯the adminstrators saw the incident for what it really was rather than for what Nifong and the media soon made it out to be.
Sadly, that was soon to change. On Thursday, March 23, the scandal began. A local judge, in response to a request from the Durham police department, ordered the entire team (minus its sole black player) to provide DNA samples. It was an unusual step, and signaled to the Duke administration that the matter was more serious than they had previously supposed.
It also signaled to the local media that they had a juicy story on their hands. Television footage of the lacrosse team filing into the Durham police station looked like nothing so much as a perp walk, and it was treated as such by reporters. Immediately, news vans and cameras descended upon the Duke campus. The local newspaper published a front-page story painting the lacrosse team as guilty and noted that two players had made racist comments the night of the party. Activists from Duke and Durham sprang into action, holding pot-banging protests and all-night vigils , and filling faculty meetings with angry accusations. Things were made immeasurably worse when Nifong decided to take formal control of the case. That Monday, he made the first of countless television appearances, stating clearly that he was certain a rape had occurred and that there was "deep racial motivation" behind it.
In sharp contrast to the line taken by Nifong, the media , and some faculty members, the initial response of the Duke administration was circumspect and measured. The athletic director, Joe Alleva, suspended the lacrosse games on Saturday . Notably, this action was not taken until the very last minute¯when the announcement was made, the opposing team was already on the field¯signaling that the decision was likely made by administrators caught off-guard by the rapid escalation of events.
Critics have since questioned this action, but as Duke trustee Robert Steel later pointed out , the intent was to stop the endless fiddling-while-Rome-burns television footage of the lacrosse team continuing play as if nothing had happened. "We had to stop those pictures," Steel said. "It doesn’t mean that it’s fair, but . . . it just had to be done."
President Brodhead issued his first statement on March 25, taking the line he has kept to (with one notable exception) ever since: that "the criminal allegations, if verified, will warrant very serious penalties," but that "in our system of law, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty." In a letter to parents written March 30, Brodhead again took a measured stance, stating that the allegations, "if verified, will justify all of our outrage and call for very severe penalties," but that "on the other hand, we need to remember that allegation is not the same thing as conviction, and that we must not prejudge until the facts are established."
Some students and faculty members ignored Brodhead’s warning against prejudgment, issuing statements and publishing op-eds denouncing the "drunken white male privilege loosed among us." Wanted posters featuring photographs of Duke lacrosse players were hung up around campus, and shouts of "Rapist!" were directed at players as they walked to class. Clearly, by this point, many people at Duke had already made up their minds about what had happened and weren’t shy about saying so. The rush to judgment at Duke had begun.
But it must also be remembered that at the time, the lacrosse players’ case did not look good. From today’s vantage, it seems obvious the players are innocent, but thanks in large part to Nifong’s posturing, it seemed clear at the time to many observers that a crime had been committed. That sentiment, wrong as it turned out to be, was reinforced by a disturbing email sent by one of the players on the night of the party. Made public on April 5, the email makes reference to "killing the bi¯es," "cutting their skin off," and other gross sexual acts.
It was read by Brodhead as he was preparing to issue another circumspect letter to the Duke community. Brodhead reportedly was sickened and infuriated, and he proceeded to rewrite his statement using much stronger language than he had previously intended. He suspended the email’s author, fired the lacrosse coach, and canceled the remaining games in the lacrosse season. He filled his public statement with condemnations of "inequalities of wealth, privilege, and opportunity . . . and the attitudes of superiority those inequalities breed," along with the "culture of certain student groups and the attitudes these groups promote," which he saw as the "legacy of racism" and "sexual coercion and assault." Brodhead’s initial line, which stressed the "presumption of innocence" and cautioned against "prejudgment," was almost entirely gone.
Critics have pounced on Brodhead’s actions that day as the clearest example of Duke’s rush to judgment, and to a certain extent they are right. Brodhead himself now refers to April 5 as a "day of great hysteria," and his actions were indeed overwrought. But when placed in context¯a D.A. confidently declaring on television that a rape had occurred, a twisted email from a Duke lacrosse player; and the entire atmosphere of outrage and racial tension¯Brodhead’s actions that day become understandable, though not completely defensible.
Of course, even if Brodhead’s actions are understandable in context, other actions taken by Duke faculty members are not. The very next day, 88 faculty members published a signed advertisement in the school newspaper, "What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?" The advertisement asserted none-too-subtly that something terrible had "happened" to the accuser, and that it was not surprising given the many "racist" and "sexist" students at Duke. Rather than caution students against the extremist responses of some on campus (such as, for instance, the wanted posters), the so-called "Group of 88" faculty thanked students for "turning up the volume" of protest and directly condemned the lacrosse players. One professor even published an op-ed in the school newspaper comparing the lacrosse team to a lynch mob from the Jim Crow South. Several members of the lacrosse team complained of unfair treatment by their professors , including one apparent instance of grade-retaliation.
In any reckoning of Duke’s actions during the lacrosse scandal, the actions of the Group of 88 must rank as particularly egregious. Rather than wait for the evidence, these professors took their all-purpose epistemology of racism, classism, and sexism and turned on their own students. Most of them defend themselves even now . Insofar as criticisms of Duke are directed at these faculty members, they are perfectly legitimate.
Thankfully, the Group of 88 does not represent the majority of professors at Duke. And as is the case in many universities, the loopy left at Duke represented by the statement was heavily concentrated in a few humanities departments. Recently, 26 members of the economics department signed a public letter in support of the lacrosse team, expressing regret for the actions of the Group of 88. Duke law professor James Coleman has publicly and frequently criticized Nifong and defended the lacrosse players. Any criticisms of Duke faculty members should be limited to the Group of 88 rather than the other 1,500 Duke professors who likely care very much about the students whom they teach daily.
Fairly quickly the collective hysteria that enveloped Duke that first week of April began to die down. On April 10, the DNA testing results were reported , showing that none of the players’ DNA had been discovered on or near the accuser. It was a serious blow to Nifong’s case, but unfortunately, this did not seem to slow him down. A week later, Nifong ordered the arrest of two lacrosse players, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. A third, Dave Evans, was indicted on May 15. All three students were suspended by Duke.
But despite Nifong’s efforts, the public narrative began to shift in the direction of the players’ innocence. Questions began to arise about Nifong’s conduct and about the consistency of the accuser’s story, and the defense presented hard evidence that appeared to give Seligmann an alibi.
Crucially, the committee appointed by President Brodhead to investigate Duke’s "lacrosse culture" found no evidence of either racism or sexism. Instead, the lacrosse players were described as hardworking, disciplined, respectful, and academically successful. It was clear that they had a long history of overuse of alcohol, along with the general rowdiness that goes along with it. But this was a far cry from rape or racism.
The evidence simply did not exist to mandate the indefinite suspension of the entire Duke lacrosse team, especially since Nifong’s three indictments had exonerated the remainder of the team from all charges. On June 5, Brodhead announced that the lacrosse team was to be reinstated. In sharp contrast to his statement of April 5, Brodhead’s June statement returned to a balanced form, stressing that while rape is a heinous act deserving severe punishment if proved, it was also the case that the allegations, if false, would be a "serious injustice" to the players, deserving its own "stern condemnation." The present uncertainty, Brodhead wrote, ought to cause everyone to "suspend final judgment" until the legal process met its end.
From that time through last month, Duke’s official line was unswerving. In a 60 Minutes segment about the lacrosse scandal aired on October 15, Brodhead again articulated his measured stance. The public, Brodhead stated, has "a legitimate interest in knowing whether this is a real case . . . that was brought in an honest and straightforward fashion." If the lacrosse players, he said, had been made known all around the country "for something they didn’t do because of a false accusation, that’s a pretty serious injustice." Duke’s position, he explained, is that "We have to wait for the legal system to grind on to its conclusion, but when this thing goes before a judge and a jury, my view is that the DA’s case will be on trial as much as our players will be on trial."
Some critics have faulted Brodhead and the administration for failing to defend the accused students, but these and other statements do not support that criticism. And although perhaps Duke ought to have welcomed the accused students back to campus sooner, it remains the case that all three students had been charged with felonies. While Nifong’s case clearly had holes, the possibility remained that he possessed evidence which had not been made public.
Last month, in mid-December, everything changed again. In a December 15 court hearing, it became clear that Nifong had participated in a cover-up of DNA evidence , which (unfortunately for his case) showed that the accuser was not only bereft of DNA from any of the lacrosse players but also that she had on her person DNA from several other males. Compouding Nifong’s problems, the accuser also changed her story, now claiming not to remember having any intercourse at the party that night. Nifong was forced to drop the rape charges , and within days his case had gone from highly questionable to non-existent.
According to reports, Brodhead was outraged by the news¯"as furious as I’ve ever seen him," one source said. Immediately, he issued a statement calling for Nifong to be replaced by a special prosecutor and publicly questioned the validity of the remaining charges. (Reportedly, the first draft of his statement did more than question the validity of Nifong’s charges but was toned down by the Communications department.) The next week, Seligmann and Finnerty were invited to resume their studies at Duke for the spring semester. Their ordeal is not yet over, but thanks to Nifong’s long-overdue recusal from the case, the end for them seems finally to be in sight.
A fair consideration of the evidence reveals legitimate criticisms of Duke faculty and administrators, but not at the level of those made by our editor, Joseph Bottum. While it is no doubt correct to criticize the Group of 88 for their overblown rhetoric and unfair pre-judgment of Duke lacrosse players, it is also not appropriate to extend that criticism to the vast majority of Duke faculty. And while it is legitimate to criticize President Brodhead and his administration for overreacting at times, their overall conduct can be read as a measured response to an extremely difficult crisis. Certainly, it did not resemble anything like "throwing its own students overboard."
That’s my judgment, and I certainly hope it to be true. After all, as I said, I’ll be a Duke graduate student next fall, and I certainly don’t want to run into teachers who hate me or administrators trying to run me out of town. Which brings me to my final point. Given that I don’t think the lacrosse scandal should keep me away from Duke, what is it that drew me there in the first place? Why do I think that Duke should be a top destination for young conservatives and Christians?
Unlike Nifong’s case, I think my case for Duke actually has a lot going for it. First, among the nation’s top universities , Duke by far has the strongest Christian presence. I’d challenge anyone to find a university of similar prominence with a Divinity School where Christ is openly proclaimed as Savior and Lord, and where the authority of Scripture is taken seriously by all. Or a university of Duke’s stature with anything like Duke Chapel , home to a thriving Christian congregation that hasn’t traded the cross for leftist politics. Or, for that matter, a top-tier university with as many serious Christian students. Of the nation’s most highly regarded universities, only Duke and Notre Dame can honestly be said to provide students with an environment supporting Christian faith rather than attacking it. For concerned Christian parents and students, this should be a big reason to consider choosing Duke instead of Harvard or Princeton.
That’s probably the best argument in Duke’s favor, but there are others. For one, Duke (again, like Notre Dame) is one of the only schools of its stature to maintain a strong Division I athletics program . Conservatives often complain, and rightly so, that most elite universities denigrate sports as too masculine, too aggressive, and as not in keeping with academic values. They rightly see that this is often part of a larger war on masculinity, resulting in schools such as Columbia that proudly boast of their wimpiness. But at Duke, athletics is proudly valued as a crucial part of the school’s mission, and a thriving fraternity culture is very much a part of student life. For young conservatives who care about these issues, Duke should again be propelled to the top of the list of schools to consider.
Finally, what about those "hot-and-cold-running-strippers" that Jody promised me? Well, I highly doubt that they’ll be there, either, although he does raise a very important point. Duke has in the past few years become something of a symbol for the libidinous, drunken social life that is supposed to characterize American universities. Tom Wolfe’s novel I Am Charlotte Simmons 
But the problem with these criticisms is that none of this is particular to Duke. From what I learned at Harvard, and from what I hear from my friends at other schools, I can personally testify that this is a nationwide problem, not a Duke problem. Jody’s criticisms, like Wolfe’s, ought to raise questions for serious Christians about sending their children to any major U.S. university, not just Duke. Many parents, rightly seeing this as a serious question, will opt instead for a school like Wheaton or Steubenville. I can’t argue with that choice¯making the right decision here has a lot to do with a student’s maturity level. But if one nevertheless decides to opt for a major national university, Duke again ought to stand out as a top choice due to its strong Christian presence, both in the faculty and in the student body, which acts as a significant counterweight to the mainstream student culture.
I don’t even think that the university has been damaged by the scandal as much as Jody makes out, as this year’s application pool was the second highest in Duke’s history, and fundraising in 2006 was up , rather than down. Duke may well have to shell out some cash in civil lawsuits, but Mike Nifong and the city of Durham will probably (and rightly) take the biggest hit.
I’ll be a Blue Devil come this fall, and I can’t wait to paint my face blue and cheer myself hoarse at a basketball game. Jody said that "No parents I know will be sending their children to Duke for a long, long, while." Maybe the next time my folks are in town, I’ll bring them by the office and introduce them.
Jordan Hylden is a junior fellow at First Things .
