MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 259

Additional Attachments to Main Document. Re #254 RESPONSE, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit)(EKSTRAND, ROBERT)

April 7, 2006

Plaintiffs'

EXHIBIT No. 7

« Update to Is there a Conflict within Workaholic
Behavior? | Main| MarketingMonger Podcast »

Disgrace at Duke; What Took So Long Anyway?
Disgrace at Duke; What Took So Long Anyway?
President Richard Brodhead of Duke University took strong
action on Wednesday, April 5 to reclaim the moral high ground
after his school has been battered by a burgeoning scandal, with
three Duke Lacrosse players accused of raping a dancer from a
predominately African-American college at a party at their
fraternity house on March 13. As Mr. Brodhead noted in his
communication to alumni, "This episode has touched off angers,
fears, resentments...brought glaring visibility to underlying
issues...concerns of women about sexual coercion and
assault...concerns about the culture of certain student groups that
regularly abuse alcohol and the attitudes these groups
promote...concerns about the survival of the legacy of racism, the
most hateful feature American history has produced."
This post does not seek to examine the underlying issues. Others
will do so in a more eloquent manner. It suffices to say that as a
father of three daughters, I am repulsed by the alleged violation
of basic human dignity. There can be no excuse for this type of

behavior. But let me focus instead on the communications issues
in this crisis. In particular, let's examine the accusation that the
University has been too slow to respond to the crisis.
The Context--The town of Durham has had a very "fragile
relationship" with the University, according to the local
newspaper News & Observer. According to the paper, "Fifteen
players--about 1/3 of the (men's lacrosse) team--had previous
criminal charges in Durham in the past three years, mostly related
to drunken and disruptive behavior. Most of those charges were
resolved in deals with prosecutors that allowed the players to
escape criminal convictions." The paper goes on to quote faculty
member Kathleen Smith as saying the faculty was unaware of the
team members' legal record. President Brodhead's note to alumni
acknowledges that "There have been reports of persistent
problems involving the men's lacrosse team, including racist
language and a pattern of alcohol abuse and disorderly behavior."
The Timeline-March 14, early AM--Victim relates story to Durham police
March 15--Duke begins investigation, though University says
nothing
March 18, 21--Duke mens' lacrosse team plays games against N.
Carolina and Cornell
March 24--SVP for public affairs John Burness says in response to
lacrosse team members going for DNA tests, "Duke University is
monitoring the situation and cooperating with officials, as are the

students."
March 25--In response to stories confirming the hiring of women
from an escort service to dance at the party and that alcohol was
served to underage lacrosse team players, Duke decides to forfeit
games against Georgetown and Mount St. Mary's. President
Brodhead said, "Physical coercion and sexual assault are
unacceptable in any setting and have no place at Duke. There will
be very serious penalties if the charges are verified but the facts
are not yet established."
March 29--Duke decides to suspend all games of the men's
lacrosse team until the rape allegations are resolved. The team
captains acknowledged certain judgment lapses in holding the
party, but denied the allegation of rape and said they did not
want to play competitively until the DNA results are finalized.
President Brodhead said, "While we await the results of the
investigation, I remind everyone that under our system of law,
people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. One deep
value the university is committed to is protecting us all from
coercion and assault. An equally strong value is that we must not
judge each other on the basis of opinion or strong feeling rather
than evidence of actual conduct."
April 3--SVP for public affairs Burness confirms to News &
Observer that there were frequent complaints to Durham police
on rowdy behavior and charges against 15 players over the past
two years for drunk and disorderly conduct.
April 5--Lacrosse coach resigns with no comment. Presidential
council convened to scrutinize Duke's response to the situation,

another will consider the lacrosse team's behavior and culture.
President Brodhead's statement is noted above.
Conclusions
1) It took too long for the President of the University to lay out the
context, which he did eloquently on March 25. There were eight
days with no apparent comment by the university brass and ten
days in which the only official statements came from the athletic
director and the SVP of public affairs. What doesn't seem to be
apparent in the coverage to date is whether Duke officials were
led down this communications path by legal counsel. I believe
that there are times when the court of public opinion needs
heavier weighting than those applied in the legal courtroom. This
could be one of those cases.
2) The best type of statement in the days just following the event
would have established Brodhead's unequivocal support for due
process but also a determination to understand the root causes of
the problem and a restatement of his commitment to the rights of
the accuser, not just the accused.
3) There had to be a separation of the interests of the accused and
those of the university. In fact, the lawyers for the lacrosse players
and the Durham District Attorney have been scrapping quite
publicly for days about trying the case in the media.
4) The university community was relatively calm until March 27,
when protestors chanted in front of the administration building.

So there was a week of tolerance for the president, until enough
details about the party were established to give credence to the
accusations.
The general best practice in crisis communications is for the top
person, the CEO or university president, to respond quickly to the
problem, laying out a process for resolution then following up
regularly with all stakeholders to assure full transparency. In this
case, it became clear that the University would not control the
release of information as it was a criminal inquiry. All the more
reason why, at the outset, the University had to establish its
position and its commitment to a thorough review of the incident
and the environment that spawned it.
Posted by Edelman at April 7, 2006 5:06 PM |

Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edelman.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/148