The president of Duke University publically apologized for the university's lack of support for former lacrosse players falsely accused of crimes.
Which stakeholders is he communicating with, and will this message be enough to re-shape their perceptions and behaviors?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/29/AR2007092901538.html?sub=AR
11 comments:
The Duke University President did the right thing to publicly apologize for his failure as part of this widely publicized case. There are many stakeholders involved, but I think those that he was speaking to most directly were future students, and those that influence students decisions. This case was widely publicized, and the university’s reputation was highly impacted because of their lackluster response, both in the community and the country at large.
I do think a forceful apology, one that clearly spells out what he believes he did wrong, what he believes the university could have done better, and what is being implemented or changed to make sure what happened doesn’t happen again, could go a long way to making students feel comfortable attending Duke again. And I think he did a good job of getting that ball rolling in his speech, at least according to the report, which said he received a standing ovation from those in the crowd.
I think beyond the general public and future students, he was speaking to current students, alumni, his own board of trustees, faculty, and the media. All of those stakeholders who call, or have called Duke home need to have confidence in their leaders, and the President of the university should be leading the way in moving on past this issue that has tarred the schools reputation. I’m sure with time peoples minds will change, and the expectations of current students, the board, alumni and faculty will be met if the President can move the university past this issue, and handle any other investigations or media inquiries with a forward looking attitude.
The media’s expectations have been met, and they are more focused on the disgraced District Attorney then the original actions taken by the University.
Brodhead was placed in a very difficult situation in April 2006. His administration had to weigh their defense mechanisms, decide which position to take and develop their messages to support it. In April 2006, the campus was swarmed by legal teams, investigators and the news media as the case became more about socioeconomic status and race than an assault charge. By applying a SWOT analysis of sorts, Brodhead and his administration took the less risky road by questioning rather than defending the actions of four wealthy Caucasian males. Unfortunately for Brodhead, his lack of support was encouraged by Nifong and gave the news media a field day. However, it would have been more detrimental to Duke University’s reputation and student body to have stood by the students. Can you imagine the public scrutiny Duke would have faced if they had supported the lacrosse team and the students were found guilty of their accused actions? Their record would be tarnished.
By issuing a public apology, Brodhead is speaking more to Duke’s application pool than to the four families alone. I believe his message will be able to reshape perceptions and behavior. Still today, many people would rather claim an education from a university that was perceived as listening to the facts and removing itself from a delicate situation than a school that questioned the accusations of a less privileged, African American woman. I believe Duke has regained its reputation. The university continues to be in the top 20; they have seen a slight increase of applications; and they haven’t had a serious public backlash from the students. Given the circumstances, I would say job well done by Brodhead’s administration. A public apology (year later) was needed to set the record straight.
What is interesting about this story is how little coverage the New York Times and Washington Post provided. There was minimal space given to this story.
This of course is a real tragedy. The President of Duke University jumped to conclusions, depriving the four students of the basic right of presumtion of innocence. The mob mentality that engulfed so many people, including the Duke President, was spurred on by a reckless, arrogant and clearly unstable DA, Mike Nifong. It was because of the resolve and financial resources of the four accused that this situation did not deteriorate further until their innocence could be proven.
The Duke President knows he made a huge mistake. The reputation of Duke university is tarnished.
The stakeholders he is trying to communicate with are the alumni, the wealthy and successful alumni who are certainly disgusted with what happened. He wants their financial and other support to continue.
Future applicants. Those who have the financial resources to attend Duke or are bright enough to receive scholarships. These individuals will think twice about applying to Duke. If this happened to the four accused, it could happen to anyone.
Corporations and philanthropists who can send their charitable contributions to hundreds of other institutions of higher learning. They will think twice about Duke University as a beneficiary.
I do not believe that this message, the apology, is enough. I believe there is a private disgust with the way the situation was handled. The Duke President should have provided a calming, considered voice at the time. Instead he succumbed to the mob mentality, adding to the mental pain and suffering of the four accused. What if the four accused had been poor and not been able to pay for the best legal representation they could get? it was because of these personal resources that the four accused were able to push back against the lunacy until the truth was revealed.
If the President of Duke University had any personal integrity, he would resign. If the Board of Governors had any backbone, they would demand his resignation or dismiss him. I suspect there are others who feel the same way.
The reputational damage to Duke University is permanent. The only issue is to what degree.
I don't think anyone can defend the way President Brodhead responded to the incident last year, but it is unfair to play Monday-morning quarterback. The President did what he believed was right at the time and now has the courage to take responsibility for making a mistake. I don't think this incident will do anything but improve his credibility and close expectation gaps.
If I remember correctly, news reports in the aftermath of the incident highlighted inappropriate, threatening e-mails sent between the accused lacrosse players. The alleged victim gave graphic details about her ordeal that the media could not help but report. In the face of this public scrutiny, President Brodhead would have been seen as aiding and abetting these "privileged" students. As Arden points out, imagine what we would be saying today if the players were found guilty. No one knew at the time that the DA was an "unstable," overly ambitious person. The president, the media and most of the general public believed the allegations or at least believed they were plausible, considering the e-mails that were leaked to the press.
The stakeholders that have been mentioned already--students (former, current and future), the parents of those students, the faculty of the university, the board of directors and other potential donors to the university--all expect that the university administration will act more cautiously if an incident like this occurs again. However, all of these stakeholders need to understand the repercussions of appearing "out-of-touch" or "above the law," which would certainly have more of a lasting negative impact than the president's mea culpa.
Brodhead has done the right thing, albeit a little late. He's right to apologize for his actions in this case.
He is attempting to apologize to various stakeholders in this situation: the Duke lacrosse team, their friends and family members, the rest of the student body and professors who may have been involved as consultants to the lacrosse players after the story first broke.
The fact that the audience gave him a standing ovation after his speech is a good sign that he is well on his way to amending relations with all of the above stakeholders.
The Board of Regents is an obvious stakeholder, as they are the governing body of the University and ultimately the employer of the president. They need to know that he is going to take steps to make sure he is better prepared to deal with any future situations.
Current/prospective students are also important stakeholders. Both of these groups need to know that Duke is still a great university and not feel like they will be unjustly accused of anything. I also think it's important for prospective students to know that Duke will be a postivie atmosphere. I believe the school may be suffering from a bit of an image problem, and students with a more liberal lifestyle may not feel like the atmosphere of the university will be conducive to their life style. Bottom line, college students need to know that they can behave as college students.
The faculty are also stakeholders here. They too need to be reassured that their students feel comfortable in their classrooms, and also that enrollment will continue to increase, or at least not go down.
The parents of incoming/current students are definite stakeholders. After all, they cut the checks for, I would assume, most of the students. If they are going to make that kind of investment in their kids future, they need to feel comfortable doing that. Also, they need assurance that their child is going to school in a positive environment, and not in an environment where the school will simply abandon you if you are accused.
I think the less obvious stakeholders inlcude the community, both residential and businesses. We need to remember that Durham is not necessarily squeeky clean when it comes to race relations. When the story first broke it seemed to open a can of worms, and the media portrayed Durham as a city with a large minority contingent that happened to have a very expensive university within it that house very wealthy caucasians. The people of Durham need to know that with Nifong gone, the university will take steps to re-establish positive relations with the community.
I think an apology was the right thing, though I believe the timing was a bit odd. Nifong, the chief antagonist in this case, had already been found guilty of wrongdoing months earlier. It just seems a bit strange that NOW he apologizes. I would think that perhaps it would have been more effective if he had apologized soon after Nifong had been found gulity (though this would have detracted from the public criticism that Nifong so deserved).
Having read Brodhead's full statement, I believe he addressed everything that needed to be addressed. He spoke of the importance of the presumption of innocence, and most importantly, that this whole matter should have been entrusted to the criminal justice system from the beginning to the end. He also addresses the families sense of feeling abandoned, which was vitally important to say to the parents of incoming students.
I think his message will definitely help with the perception of the university. I don't think it's the "cure all," but I think it's a very positive step forward. I think people are generally sympathetic to someone who admits fault, and are hostile to people who do not. I think it would have been easy to skip the apology and rip into the DA, but people would have percieved this as the president shedding any responsibility from himself.
This is a classical case of how many universities have lost control over its primary responsibility to educate and protect the students they are responsible for. These kids were no angels, and rather than taking a moderate subdued approach many in the school became hostile towards the team. The school could have easily said "they are only accused so far, if so this was a terrible act and that the school will not tolerate such behavior if they are found guilty." That said it was the responsibility of the school to preserve not only its name, but protect the students they are entrusted with. Many professors lashed out at the accused, and it quickly became clear that the school assumed they were guilty. Many students started to protest in front of the accused home, and the university did nothing to control the message. It lost all control of the situation; it was never aggressive in getting its message out. It was never aggressive because it never had a message. There is little evidence that the school did anything to control press access or give instructions to the students and faculty on how to behave. Duke is a private university, and it has the ability to control its message much better than a public school could have. Rather the President, hid, and allowed it to occur with little intervention. Now it is trying to rebuild its image. It is too late for that, this is the "regulation" stage; they should have been out front during the formative stage. The school is now trying to reassure its donors, alumni, and the parents of students that the school can be trusted. I doubt that this statement will do little to restore the faith of those that lost it. There are clearly much deeper problems at the school involving race and how the administration, professors, and students view one another. It will take major organizational reforms, and work by all the stake holders to move away from this event. There has been serious damage to the reputation of Duke, and it could be decades before its name is intact again.
Well I guess better late than never with the apology. Although waiting about six months after all charges were dropped is bit of a stretch. Given what I’m sure is school policy regarding the suspension, the university did the right thing from a policy standpoint. However, they seriously dropped the ball when it came to a public relations standpoint, and they were no doubt helped by an eager news media looking for a good story.
Brodhead is speaking to many stakeholders here including current students, alumni, future students and applicants, families, Durham, future and current faculty, attorneys, the board of governors, and most importantly the accused lacrosse players. For some, the apology and its timing were probably not a big issue, the crowd’s reaction was positive. However, for others you are left wondering. The article does not give us any reaction from the accused players, and I get the feeling they weren’t even contacted for a reaction by the newspaper. For current students, alumni, and family, this apology may be plenty because they weren’t the ones accused and likely believe that such a thing could never happen to them.
Brodhead should have issued an apology shortly after all charges were dropped. Duke is lucky that it’s Duke and not some other university without a big brand name. No matter what happened, Duke was going to continue to attract top rate faculty and students. Although some of them might now be a little more cautious, to them it’s still Duke. If this happened at a small no name college trying to build a reputation as an academic and athletic leader among all other colleges, the impact there might have been devastating.
Well, the stakeholders that the President is speaking to are the students, the alumni, the community, and potential students. I believe he is speaking to alumni more than anyone, because they are the ones writing the checks. The hope is that they will view him as someone who was concerned with the reputation of the school when it was being tarnished by the accusations haunting the lacrosse players, and as someone who is willing to admit his mistake when one has been made. Unfortunately for him, I think it is too little, too late. He should have been right out in front of this issue as it was happening, not cowering in the background waiting to see what public opinion would be before he gave his. This half-hearted attempt is more likely to only serve as a reminder of the events surrounding the case than improve the school's afflicted reputation. His apology is not an apology to the students whose season was ruined, whose reputations were dragged through the mud, but it is to appease donors and future students, the two groups who have the largest influence on the future of Duke University. And his late-coming apology was a feeble attempt at that.
In addition to the many stakeholders that have been discussed already, we must not forget the young student-athletes who were without a doubt the ones most directly affected by this entire ordeal. I think it would be foolish to overlook the importance of Brodhead's statements as an attempt to not only ease the minds of students, faculty, alumni, and prospective applicants, but to formally reconcile with the individuals whose lives we so drastically changed.
At the same time, we have yet to discuss the unique role of student-athletes in Duke's culture. Starting in the 1980s, Duke rose to national prominence on the back of its hugely successful Men's Basketball program. In the past two decades, Duke has become a top-tier academic University, thanks in large part to the revenue and applicant pool generated by it's athletic programs. With this in mind, I think Brodhead's statement should also be viewed as an attempt to publicly put to rest a controversy that was inextricably linked to Duke Athletics.
Furthermore, I think that President Brodhead was sending a message to potential Duke student-athletes that they could count on the full support of the University Administration. This is particularly important, given the Administration's rush to judgement - which contrasts sharply with the leniency often extended by other major college athletic programs and administrations toward student-athletes in legal trouble.
There is a stakeholder group that no one has yet to mention. Generally it is survivors of sexual assault, and specifically the woman in the Duke case.
The biggest problem in this case affecting survivors was the information. There were conflicting opinions coming from University faculty, students and Administrators, the District Attorney, the Survivor, and the Accused Lacrosse players. And I agree that the university could have done a better job managing its message, and that the apology was the right thing to do.
However, the apology and the news coverage of the story have been inaccurate in a way that are inexcusable in one respect. The criminal trial was not dismissed because there was new evidence that the Lacrosse players did not sexually assault the woman, but because there was insufficient evidence to go to trial. But the news coverage and the President’s apology all used language that the Lacrosse players are innocent and/or falsely accused. This led to accusations and criticisms of the woman for making a false report which is not how the case was dismissed. This may seem like a superfluous distinction, but to survivors of Sexual Assault and Rape it is extremely damaging. What a survivor sees is that when a woman reported being sexually assaulted and there ended up not being enough evidence to prosecute, which is what unfortunately is the truth in an overwhelming majority of cases, she was then accused of being a opportunistic prostitute making a false report.
So what does this have to do with Duke? Sexual assault is one of the most under reported crimes in the US. Studies have shown that only 1 in 8 female survivors report being sexually assaulted, and only 1 in 12 male survivors report, while according to the FBI between 2002 and 2006 the percentage of false sexual assault or rape reports was between 2 and 8%. But on Duke’s campus students, particularly women who represent 98% of victims, will be even more hesitant to report being assaulted because of the way the university has reacted.
I do not disagree that Duke had an obligation to the Lacrosse players and helping them through the difficult time, but it all has a responsibility to survivors. Consider some of these finding: 1 in 4 college aged women have survived rape or attempted rape since their 14th birthday. The most dangerous time for a woman on a college campus is the first 6 weeks of her freshman year. Alcohol is involved in over 70% of sexual assaults. 4 out 5 sexual assaults are committed by an acquaintance that the survivor has known, on average, for over a year.
I think the greater issue that Duke has an opportunity to take the lead on is safety on college campuses, and not safety from the perspective of discouraging violent and destructive behavior through judicial sanctions, but safety through the creation of a healthier, more responsible approach to alcohol, partying, sports, sex, drugs, racism, homophobia and hetrosexism, etc. Taking the lead in such a manner would not only benefit the hidden stakeholders (victims of crime) but would also benefit the general student body giving them a sense of pride from going to a school that does not sweep the difficult issues under the rug; for alumni who can brag that their alma mater is a leader in protecting students and forming the future leaders of this country and the world; for the University because a reputation as a safe school is never a bad thing; for the parents because they do not need to worry about sending their “baby” off to college; and for the community who can boast it is the home to a top tier University pushing the horizon of understanding.
Post a Comment