From one crisis to the next
Bob Steel, a heavyweight in the world of finance, was named last week to take over Wachovia, the Charlotte-based bank that waded too deeply into the subprime swamp and now lives (barely) to regret it.
You may know that Steel is also chairman of the Duke University board of trustees. In a lengthy piece in this weekend’s News & Observer about Steel’s deft touch for dealing with trouble, the article said this about his performance during the university’s lacrosse crisis:
Some praise Steel’s steady hand in the crisis, while others criticize him and other university officials for not standing behind the players accused of raping a dancer. They were later exonerated.
Steel said in such a situation many decisions are made, sometimes based on incorrect information. “There’s no way you can go through something like that and do everything perfectly.”
Those two paragraphs were all the detail the article offered about the incident. To read them is to conclude that Steel was the victim of “incorrect information” in the lacrosse case, and that as a result it was hard to “do everything perfectly.”
The book “Until Proven Innocent,” an exhaustive account of the case, puts Steel in a much different (and much less forgiving) light. In it, Steel is portrayed as a fellow whose primary concern was that Duke’s reputation not be sullied by the lacrosse scandal — which in practice meant throwing the accused students overboard. Even after Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong’s case against the three students who’d been charged with sexually assaulting a stripper was unraveling, Steel continued to promote the idea that the students were bad seeds, the books says:
While Nifong’s case was being exposed more and more as a monstrous hoax, lacrosse team supporters documented a number of instances in which both [Duke spokesman] John Burness and Bob Steel, Duke’s chairman, privately defended Duke’s actions in the face of mounting criticism by making disparaging comments about the still-beleaguered defendants and their teammates … Steel repeatedly — and without apparent factual foundation — told people that lacrosse players at the party had done “terrible” things that were not yet publicly known.
Nowhere in the book is Steel seen as a “steady hand.” In fact, knowing what the world now knows about the lacrosse case and Duke’s cynical neglect to insist on a presumption of innocence and due process for the accused students, it’s hard to imagine anyone invoking the phrase “steady hand” with a straight face.
It would have been nice if the writers of the newspaper story had drilled into this topic a bit deeper. After all, character is revealed in times of turmoil and tension — two things that plague the banking industry these days.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Dan, I truly feel this “outrage” will boil your blood until the day you die. And I suspect that left-leaning PC and reverse discrimination are the primary catalysts for your intense feelings.
I haven’t seen the Duke University Chairman of the Board of Trustee’s job description, but you gotta figure it lists duty to the institution as the top priority. Even superceding perhaps ensuring the comfort and welfare of that loveable group of lugs on the lacrosse team.
I took you up on your invitation to visit the Amazon.com link about UNTIL… There are quite a few passionate expressions of 1) praise for the book and 2) the reviewer’s expression of their personal perspective on this miscarriage of justice.
I can’t help but scoff slightly at how self-obsessed and myopic all of this misplaced outrage seems.
Incompetence and abuse is nothing new in the criminal justice system. On a far too regular basis in these United States, young men are wrongfully accused, convicted and incarcerated. Of course the victims are generally poor and often minority. This is a point eloquently made by one of the accused three in a public statement he offerred after his exhoneration. And lest we forget, on a far too regular basis, young men are wrongfully killed by police officers.
I make no effort to minimize the harm suffered by the innocent LAX players. I’m not indicting the criminal justice system or cops in general. I am however, taking exception to a level of outrage about “The Duke Lacrosse Case” that’s completely out of proportion to the offense that provoked it.
I can’t help but wonder if it’s based in large part on the social pedigree of the victims.
And here’s an excerpt from Chapter 1 of UNTIL…. It falls all over itself to characterize the LAX players in favorable terms. As much victims of PC and the insular world of the academic elite than their own boorish behavior and crappy judgement.
“Many of the other lacrosse players hung together off as well as on the field, acquiring a reputation for clannishness, in part because there were so many of them, and for going around in large, sometimes loud, often conspicuous groups, and for drunken revelry that stood out even at a legendary party school. In fact, aside from their visibility, their behavior was not atypical of many other Duke students, but it made the lacrosse players an unusually inviting target for those displeased with the Duke status quo.”
I’ve often heard in defense of the LAX players that engaging strippers for an evening’s entertainment was/is a common practice among Duke boys. No harm in that indeed. One question though: how often did the other evening’s revelry deteriorate to the level it did that night with the lacrosse team?
July 16th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
John,
It wasn’t merely “incompetence and abuse” from the Durham criminal justice system that keeps the level of outrage stoked in the Duke Lacrosse case. It was that the Durham cops, the DA’s office, the Duke administration, and the Durham socio/political power structure engaged in a cold-blooded frame. They tried, quite literally, to lynch three innocent men.
I suggest you read the lawsuits now pending against the perpetrators. This was no “aw shucks, we goofed” deal. It was on purpose.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
(For a look at another side of Robert K. Steel, you might want to examine the allegations made against him in the current lawsuits about the Duke lacrosse case–some of which, if true, cross the line into felony territory : )
http://download.yousendit.com/E657D2DA0331FE65 (486 pages)
(excerpt)
ALLEGED :
XVII. THE CHAIRMAN’S DIRECTIVE
(Robert Steel–chairman of the Duke Board of Trustees)
451. The Chairman knew Plaintiffs were innocent, and, to the extent he was not certain, he ensured that neither he nor any senior University officials saw the evidence of innocence that he knew was offered.
452. To the Chairman, Plaintiffs’ innocence was irrelevant: what was “best for Duke” turned upon perception.
453. Aware of these things, the Chairman announced that it would be “best for Duke” if Plaintiffs were tried and convicted on Mangum’s false accusations.
454. In response to a plea for Duke to show some measure of support for the students who were being framed in plain view of the University’s leadership, the Chairman explained, “sometimes individuals have to be sacrificed for the good of the Organization.”
455. The Chairman’s Directive, as it was understood by one who received it, was straightforward: “Steel is going to f**k those lacrosse players.”
XVIII. THE CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THE DUKE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE AND INVESTIGATE
456. To that end, the Chairman directed the Duke Police Department to act in furtherance of that objective. For example, the Chairman, through Brodhead, Trask, Burness, and Graves, directed the Duke Police Department:
A. To cease all efforts to find evidence of the truth, particularly evidence that contradicted the accuser’s account;
B. To conceal evidence of Duke Police Officers’ prior investigative role in the investigation;
C. To conceal all evidence of the Duke Police Department’s primary jurisdictional authority to control the investigation and its power to intervene to prevent the wrongs conspired to be done;
D. To fabricate false and misleading police reports, disguise them as bystander
“witness” statements, that covered-up the Duke Police witnesses’ personal knowledge of Mangum’s psychosis, her radically changing story, the overwhelming consensus among her doctors and nurses at DUMC that she was lying, and the inability of any doctor, nurse, or police officer to find even a spider-web of evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted; and
E. To direct those who were at the hospital on March 14th to give “not-for attribution” false reports about Mangum’s appearance at DUMC in order to lend credibility to Mangum’s false claims in the eyes of the public.
457. At all times subsequent to the Chairman’s Directive to force a trial and convictions, the Duke Police Department had the power to revoke its delegated authority and/or to intervene to prevent or aid in preventing the unlawful conspiracies and violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights as alleged herein, and, yet, refused to do so.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I’m in a bit over my head here, but hell, that’s never stopped me from running my mouth before.
Walter, I believe mudlark has provided excerpts from the lawsuit you suggest I read.
These allegations are interesting stuff. All skillfully crafted by able legal representation for the plaintiffs; with no obligation to present truth or objectivity. In fact, they’re obliged to do just the opposite if it serves their client’s best interests, aren’t they?
The allegations listed under THE CHAIRMAN’S DIRECTIVE paint a picture of Steel as a guy who values his duty to the institution over the welfare of the individual (to put it mildly).
Allegation 451 seems the most egregious offense among this group (451-455) and if proven true, certainly supports the contention that a lynch mob mentality not only existed but was nurtured by Steel. The remaining allegations are probably added for their cummulative impact. I guess during trial they get tossed on the wall to see if any of them stick.
It seems to me the CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THE DUKE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE AND INVESTIGATE stuff is more serious.
So if I read these allegations correctly, Steel and others are accused of conspiring to keep the University police from participating in the investigation. I guess in hopes of preventing them from finding the exculpatory evidence they (Steel and company) fear (or know) exists.
The verbs “conceal” and “fabricate” often appear in these allegations. As mudlark said, some may cross over into felony territory. Is there sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges for these allegations?
I have new-found respect the feelings of those who still feel outrage at the treatment of the Duke Lacrosse team. And certainly, Nifong and Magnum, just to name two, are absolutely guilty (morally if not legally) of causing great harm to further their selfish or twisted individual aims. But do their actions stain everybody associated with this sorry affair? Is any action that didn’t advocate innocence for the plaintiffs fall into a conspiracy to harm them? I guess that’s a matter for the civil court to decide. And perhaps criminal court at some point.
But it’s hard to believe that Steel would knowingly and willfully commit serious crimes to protect the image of his employer. That’s a motive that might be hard to sell.
I’ve been told that I harbor social biases that prevent me from seeing the Duke Lacross Case objectively. I’m too much of a self-appointed working-class hero. I guess there’s some truth to that statement.
But at the same time, this whole sorry affair ain’t over ’til it’s over. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.