In the staff editorial in last Friday's paper, The Chronicle demonized various Duke employees for having a reception in support of Elizabeth Dole for U.S. Senate candidacy. The characterization that these people are trying to somehow hijack the University's support are ludicrous.
The statement, "With Coach K's name on the reception, the impression is immediately given that the University itself sponsored the event" is founded in pure political bias. Coach Krzyzewski puts his name on events he feels are important, and he should have the right to do so. No one at The Chronicle called him out for supporting the Rory David Deutsch Foundation in Chicago. But when Coach K's support differs with The Chronicle is, you paint him as taking advantage of Duke.
The staff also had the gall to say "Senior administrators such as President Nan Keohane and Provost Peter Lange make it a policy not to publicly endorse candidates or donate money to campaigns." While this may be the policy, the Keohanes have done nothing to adhere to it, nor have many other Duke officials.
A quick search revealed 203 campaign contributions by Duke employees including John Hope Franklin and other professors in the current election cycle. Of those, 15 were from either Nan or her husband, totaling over $9,000 to progressive organizations or Democrats. This appears to me like a systematic endorsement of the Democratic Party by the Keohanes via their checkbook.
The staff then ended the column with "The appearance of this Dole banquet reflects poorly on the University." I ask why? Why would prominent members of Duke's community, coming together to support a Duke alumna, former president of the Red Cross, the first female Secretary of Transportation, former Secretary of Labor and one of the most influential women in modern politics reflect poorly on the University? The fact that the editorial staff can't see past their own bias reflects poorly on The Chronicle.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.