<Phone Call from Elliott
(12:56 PM)>
Elliott’s notes from this
conversation are here: http://www.duke.edu/~egw4/kenny_notes.pdf
They seem fairly accurate, though I notice some notable omissions. I’m not sure whether he posted all of it or not. I should note that all of this was preceding my ability to take a close look at the passages with which he had a problem; hence my responses were frequently “I might have misspoke,” and “that might be from source x or y”. There was further difficulty in speaking with him because as I have mentioned, I was curious from the beginning about the reason for his call. When I asked him, he was fairly shifty and took long pauses before responding, which to me confirmed that my doubts were warranted. Therefore, we agreed that it would be a lot simpler and more productive for him to simply send me all of the passages on which he wanted clarification by email and I would respond and provide appropriate substantiation. What surprises me so much about Elliott’s eventual article is that he quotes from the initial responses before I ever really looked at any of the passages in question and when I was especially hesitant to respond. I find that incredibly disingenuous especially the way he presents it, for example, in this quote:
"I'm not sure if I can exactly tell you where I'm coming up with that"
A) He presents it as though I meant that I have no sources or forgot them rather than meaning I am unwilling to share said sources with him, which was the case.
B) I DID provide him with publicly available sources after that and ample explanation upon request, but what he quotes me for is the initial hesitation to answer. He did that with all of the quotes from this awkward conversation, for example when I said things like that might have been “sloppy writing” when he knows full well that was simply a short-term answer before I actually took a thoughtful look at his complaint and the relevant passage, and though I responded definitively later on.
Elliott’s deadline for submission passes (9:00 PM)
Elliott calls Dr. Gustafson for comment (sometime late
Tuesday night)
Elliott writes to KC Johnson [unclear when KC responds]
(10:24 PM)
Wednesday 11/14/07
Elliott Wolf wrote (3:09
AM):
Kenny,
Sorry for the delay in
sending this. At issue is the justification for
the following:
“administrators handed over
troves of players’ confidential information
that was later used to frame
suspects and obtain indictments…[and]
Nifong went out of his way
to do favors such as his attempted cover up
[sic] for this illegally
leaked information.” [couldn't find in UPI]
“the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review
Committee, the Campus Culture Initiative and so on were planned several days
before the McFadyen email became public and coach Pressler was fired. Brodhead
was simply waiting for the right opportunity.” [couldn't find in UPI -- one
statement from the academic concil talked about the review committee before the
email, but not the cci]
“it was Duke that
collaborated with police and [Alcohol Law Enforcement] to illegally raid
student off campus houses without warrants—well in excess of 100 instances—so
that Judicial Affairs could subject them to Duke justice.” [flat out disagree]
Thanks,
-Elliott
Kenneth Larrey wrote (9:05
AM):
No problem, though it may
take me a bit to respond fully. Give me
a few days.
-ken
Elliott Wolf wrote (9:14
AM):
Ain't happening. This should
be readily available and whatever's running runs tomorrow.
-E
Kenneth Larrey wrote (9:26
AM):
well what is running
tomorrow then?
Elliott Wolf wrote (9:29
AM):
Still not certain yet, as
much of it isn't written. But having confirmed with KC that much of what you
wrote has no basis in UPI, unless you can provide damn good source
documentation, it'll likely be about DSED's rush to judgment on the basis of
unsound/incomplete information.
Kenneth Larrey wrote (9:48
AM):
can I give you a call or
meet with you this afternoon? I'm
around from 1 to 2:30 and after 4
Kenneth Larrey wrote (9:49
AM):
and the reason I was hoping
for a couple days was so that I can ask certain anonymous sources whether I may
disclose them or not.
Elliott Wolf wrote (9:49
AM):
Give me sources.
Kenneth Larrey wrote (9:15
AM):
I'm not allowed to refer to
anonymous sources?
Elliott Wolf wrote (1:23
PM):
Whether you're
"allowed" to is a matter of the rules of the publication. The
Chronicle permits it under certain circumstances, but the editor has to know
who it is, it has to be a direct quote/paraphrazing and the person has to have
direct knowledge of that they're talking about. It can't be hearsay.
By not attributing it to
anyone and by collecting information from whomever you can, you've effectively
played a giant game of telephone, without much regard for what's really going
on. Usually, anonymous
sources are used as guidance
to probe people on the record and get what you're trying to get in a direct
quote.
But specific journalistic
rules are irrelevant -- you're making statements that are at worse demonstrably
false and at best questionable in an attempt to go after various individuals at
Duke. Sound familiar?
-E
Kenneth Larrey wrote (2:38
PM):
again I'd prefer at this
point to speak to you off the record.
This is off the record.
Though I still have
questions, whether warranted or not, regarding the real purpose of your
inquiries that have given me pause from the beginning yesterday, I am further
disconcerted that you have essentially made it clear (as it seems to me anyway)
at this point that you will be writing an editorial rather forcefully
discrediting my group and me regardless of what I tell you. That gives me further pause to speak with
you candidly.
Yes I am referring to facts
offered by anonymous sources, and if as you said yesterday your beef is that I
did not precede them with "according to anonymous sources with [insert
credentials]," or "according to [insert source name]", then
fine, I will correct that on our blog.
I doubt you intend to write a 700-800 page editorial criticizing my
citation technique or my knowledge of journalistic standards (I'm not sure
whether all of them apply to me anyway).
If as you said yesterday your beef is the clarity of some of my
arguments (and thus the veracity of them as written), then I will correct that
as well if necessary. If, as I gather
from your the last paragraph, your beef is that you doubt that I actually have
legitimate sources (though I trust those sources, I don't think I could ever
vouch for anyone 100%), then I'm not sure what you expect me to tell you. I'm not revealing anonymous sources who wish
to remain anonymous. Period. With the exception of a couple perhaps
questionably worded statements, I believe that writing what I have written was
merited, though I may not have cited properly or attributed certain
statements/allegations/what-have-you to anonymous or identifiable sources.
For reasons detailed above,
I am very hesitant to further discuss this with you as you have given me the
strong impression that unless I reveal anonymous sources to you, you will write
an editorial condemning and/or strongly calling into question Duke Students for
an Ethical Duke. I will then be forced
to respond (on topic, but a response nonetheless) if I feel that your column is
unnecessarily or unfairly critical of DSEDuke.
Please do not force me to
respond. I do not want to get into a
spitting contest with you; I would like to think that as you said yesterday, we
are more or less on the same side.
-ken
Kenneth Larrey wrote (5:47
PM):
I'm working on a blog post
now that will address, at least partially, the three quotations you
offered. Here's one citation though in
advance from KC's blog:
the only time when the
regular Durham judiciary (Judges Stephens and Titus) stood up to Mike Nifong
was last July, when Judge Kenneth Titus rejected Nifong’s request for keycard
records of the non-indicted players. Titus cited the Family Educational Right
to Privacy Act (FERPA). [...] the material released by the Bar suggests that
“Duke University had already turned these records over to police months earlier
in March evidently in violation of FERPA.”
Those are the records I am
referring to, as well as any other records that may have been turned over in
violation of federal law. Obviously
calling it a "favor," whether it was intended as a favor or not, is a
judgment call on my part and part of the argument. Because there seems to be nothing for Nifong to gain by doing so,
and only the university stands to gain, I think it is appropriate and
fair. Gottleib revealed in his
deposition for the bar trial that this information was used in the grand jury
trial to obtain indictments.
Kenneth Larrey wrote (8:29 PM):
http://ethicalduke.blogspot.com/
done, though I might make a
few minor edits
Elliott Wolf wrote (10:24
PM) [KC email exchange attached]:
straight from the horse's
mouth.
-E
Elliott Wolf wrote (10:27
PM):
Clarifies some stuff, but
the huge problem is here:
"I figure it is implied
that unless I state otherwise, I am making an
educated intimation."
That is NOT the way to relay
statements of fact. This strikes to the
heart as to what went wrong
during the lacrosse case; educated intimations turned into statements of fact
that were used to crucify the players.
Regarding the second
passage: "Upon second glance I realize that there are other
interpretations to the emboldened text, but it was my interpretation that it
applied to all of the plans in this paragraph."
Come on, dude. As you told Prasad, read the damn book. And
if all else
fails, ask KC (I
did--incoming).
And regarding the third
passage, what you wrote is just plain wrong. You say: "they were at the
least mutually involved in the process of
creating and approving these
policies. Legally I understand that there
is a difference in who
approached whom, but is one really much more
disturbing that the other?
" At issue is whether Duke
collaborated with ALE and Durham to pursue an *illegal* course of action. The
answer, as far as your clarification goes and as far as all of the evidence I
have goes, is no....
-E
<Long Phone Call to
Elliott (10:29)>
Kenneth Larrey wrote (10:42
PM):
<Same Phone Conversation
Continues>