After reading the letter on April 21 by a former Duke Student Government president, I too am disappointed, not by the actions of Joshua Jean-Baptiste (since I don't know what they were, much less whether he "whupped the tar" out of someone) but by C.J. Walsh's apparent presumption of his guilt.
I don't have any idea what happened that night and my guess is that Walsh doesn't, either. I think it would be difficult to be any more irresponsible than Walsh has chosen to be, and the writer makes the case for me by stating that "even the accusation of his involvement in such an event" is a reason for the president to resign. Yes, "accusation," not "proof," and all before any kind of due process.
I should state that I am a member of Alpha Phi Alpha (although I do not know the young men being accused), but I hope that I would have been moved to write a response regardless of my greek affiliation or lack thereof. Not only does Walsh want Jean-Baptiste to take "responsibility regarding this alleged involvement in a senseless use of raw violence against another human being" (very dramatic; apparently one of those rare instances where it is appropriate to take responsibility for allegations), but without even knowing what happened the writer questions the ability of Jean-Baptiste to represent the student body and accuses him of violating a code of conduct. At best, the writer is misguided; at worst a poor representative himself of the Duke student body.
I don't presume to know anything about the events of that night except that, well, I don't know anything, and I suspect the same is true for Walsh. I certainly favor holding people accountable for their actions, it's just that I don't see anything wrong with taking the time to figure out which people are to be held accountable for which actions before doing so.
Craig McKinney
Trinity '90
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.