From a proud lacrosse grandparent

In his April 11 statement on the lacrosse case, President Richard Brodhead said he was not afraid to learn from this difficult experience. There is no better place to begin that education than with his own actions at the outset.

Brodhead has defended those actions on the flawed premise that he was "forced to act upon radically imperfect information" or that "action has been required in the face of deep uncertainty." In fact, once he had justifiably suspended part of the lacrosse season, there was no immediate compelling need for further action. He could have, and should have, deliberately preserved his options until there was more certainty. A safe haven was readily available to him-the presumption-of-innocence principle.

At a time when skepticism was in order, he instead bought into Nifong's self-serving story and yielded to the exaggerated cry of a strident minority of the faculty. In a knee-jerk rush to judgment, he suspended a player, canceled the rest of the season and fired former men's lacrosse head coach Mike Pressler.

Those condemning actions by the Duke administration gave credence to Nifong's media blitz in the court of public opinion and intensified the avalanche of publicity. Brodhead was clearly an accessory to the damage to Duke's image that still lingers.

Brodhead now seeks to avoid accountability for those actions by blaming everything on Nifong. Deserving of scorn as Nifong may be, this is both irresponsible and inaccurate.

Earlier, Brodhead urged those concerned to ignore the past and move forward to healing. In my experience, healing occurs only when the offending parties candidly admit and accept responsibility for their harmful actions. As the facts became known, some of us hoped Brodhead would eventually accept responsibility for that part of the anguish he caused. It is telling that he has not.

It is time for the Brodhead administration to own up to the consequences of its misguided actions.

G. Holman King