How should the student body regard the two ongoing lawsuits by the men's lacrosse team? Given that the vast majority of us have been relatively unaffected, should we care? In this column, I will attempt to examine the different sides in this case and how the case will impact Duke going forward.
When judging these lawsuits without regard to their moral worth, Duke students must weigh two competing claims: 1) the damage to the University's prestige as a result of airing our dirty laundry, and 2) the benefit of learning how and when decisions were made, and by whom. This enables the Duke community to hold actors accountable for their misdeeds.
Should this lawsuit go to trial, the threat of our university's damaged reputation should not be taken lightly. Admitting this threat assumes that some administrators acted in a manner embarrassing to the University. Yes, it is possible that the evidence will show that Duke administrators acted admirably, resulting in a possible PR boost for our University. However, given the current facts available, our administrators' secretive attitude regarding this scandal and Duke's previous out-of-court settlements, I find it unlikely that a legal investigation would uncover commendable behavior from our administrators.
If my assessment is correct, then should this case go to trial, any officer acting on behalf of Duke has the potential to stain our reputation. Duke's name will be dragged through the mud in the national media, yet again. This threat must be taken seriously. Humans do judge guilt by association. In an economy where it's hard enough to get a job, Dukies do not want to be competing with a chip on their shoulder.
However, these lawsuits present the wider Duke community with the opportunity to finally get to the bottom of the administration's response to the lacrosse scandal. Without accurate information, the Duke community has been reduced to mere speculation. Some people may claim that those who support the lawsuit only want to dispose of President Richard Brodhead or Board of Trustees Chair Bob Steel. I think that is a grossly unfair claim. I simply want to know if the Duke community has anything to hold them accountable for. Have they done anything wrong? If so, then we can punish them accordingly. But until then, we are left uncertain of the merit of those we are paying to guide our institution.
At this point, the University has the option of settling out of court or allowing the case to go to trial. If Duke decides to settle, these would be the third and fourth cases that it settles as a result of its actions in the lacrosse scandal. Although I would assume that any settlement would not admit legal fault on the part of the University, in my eyes, it implies that the University at the very least is scared of what might be uncovered in a civil case. If Duke settles, it will have to decide its marginal willingness to pay a "premium for silence."
I empathize with the argument that Duke should "move on" from this scandal in order to focus attention on more pressing matters. However, these lawsuits are not trapping Duke in the past nor disabling our University from looking towards the future. In fact, these lawsuits could have a profound positive effect on Duke's prospects. The massive uncovering of evidence that will occur if these cases go to trial can serve as an impetus to fix what are quite possibly fundamentally flawed institutional practices. These trials can help Duke restore its respect for and protection of students' rights.
An open trial justifies the costs of a drawn-out process by providing a simple yet so far elusive good: the truth. Administrators can be cross-examined and presented with any contradictory statements in a forum where they are compelled to respond. A jury of their peers will then determine the facts of the case, finally giving Duke a much-needed opportunity for introspection. The question at this point will be whether administrators took reasonable actions given the information they had at the time. I hope the answer is yes.
An open trial would have another benefit. In a blatant attempt at self-preservation, Duke has disbanded the judicial affairs review committee. It is a legitimate concern that anything the committee uncovers could be used against Duke in the lawsuits. Unfortunately, this means that Duke students won't benefit from their investigation. The discovery process of a trial could replicate this process.
On a moral plane, I also support the lawsuit going to trial. I think it is the height of hypocrisy that an institution of higher learning, whose motto sanctifies the search for knowledge, would so callously hamper students' attempts to discover the truth. I am simply morally appalled at the lengths a university would go to obscure the truth.
After considering the costs and benefits of a trial, I firmly support the lacrosse players in their lawsuits, on one condition: Do not accept any University settlement. I do not pretend to know the details of the case nor will I accuse any individual of poor judgment or malicious actions. I simply think the Duke community deserves the truth.
Adam Zell is a Trinity senior. His column runs every other Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.