At Duke, Denials
Posted on March 31st, 2006 in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
The Duke Chronicle reports that attorneys representing the lacrosse players says that their clients categorically deny that “any sexual act occurred with the dancer.”
Interestingâyou would think that if something had happened, they would have argued that it was consensual.
Local DA Mike Nifong is unconvinced. “The statements that [the team] makes are inconsistent with the physical evidence in this case,” he said Wednesday.
This is only getting to be more complicated…and meanwhile, there’s more student protest, and the Duke campus has turned into a media zoo.
I don’t mean to be flip, but all this negative attention at another campus is actually good news for Harvard, which has finally gotten some good pressâwhich it deservesâfor its plan to exempt families with incomes of less than $60,000 from paying tuition.
And by the way, a little media aside: Last week, when the University of Pennsylvania announced that it was going tuition-free for families with incomes up to 50k (at that point, a higher exemption than any other university), the New York Times said not a word. But Harvard makes an announcement, and predictably, a major story (see the link above). If I were Amy Gutmann, I’d be deeply irritated.
3 Responses
3/31/2006 6:37 pm
Behind the NYT firewall-here is the correction that the NYT wrote in re Andrei Shleifer:
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
July 11, 2024 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 3; Column 1; SundayBusiness; Editors’ Note; Pg. 2
LENGTH: 157 words
BODY:
The Economic View column last Sunday described the role of competition in
spreading unethical corporate behavior. It quoted Andrei Shleifer, an economics
professor at Harvard, as saying that if unethical behavior drove down a company
‘s costs, rivals would be compelled to behave similarly to stay in business.
”I really don’t believe the saints-and-crooks theory,” Mr. Shleifer said of
the tendency to demonize business executives who engage in creative accounting.
”Evidence tells us very clearly, even the most saintly C.E.O.’s were involved”
in such accounting because of market pressure.
The columnist was unaware of relevant background information about Mr.
Shleifer. On June 29, a judge in United States District Court in Boston found in
a civil suit that he conspired to defraud the federal government in the 1990’s
by investing in Russia while working on a federally financed project to help
develop Russian economic institutions.
4/1/2024 6:30 pm
Interesting. I’d missed that—thanks for posting.
4/1/2024 6:31 pm
It really is a pretty embarrassing correction, isn’t it? (I mean, how could you not have known that about Shleifer?)