« Update to Is there a Conflict within Workaholic Behavior? | Main | MarketingMonger Podcast »
April 7, 2006
Disgrace at Duke; What Took So Long Anyway?
Disgrace at Duke; What Took So Long Anyway?
President Richard Brodhead of Duke University took strong action on Wednesday, April 5 to reclaim the moral high ground after his school has been battered by a burgeoning scandal, with three Duke Lacrosse players accused of raping a dancer from a predominately African-American college at a party at their fraternity house on March 13. As Mr. Brodhead noted in his communication to alumni, "This episode has touched off angers, fears, resentments...brought glaring visibility to underlying issues...concerns of women about sexual coercion and assault...concerns about the culture of certain student groups that regularly abuse alcohol and the attitudes these groups promote...concerns about the survival of the legacy of racism, the most hateful feature American history has produced."
This post does not seek to examine the underlying issues. Others will do so in a more eloquent manner. It suffices to say that as a father of three daughters, I am repulsed by the alleged violation of basic human dignity. There can be no excuse for this type of behavior. But let me focus instead on the communications issues in this crisis. In particular, let's examine the accusation that the University has been too slow to respond to the crisis.
The Context--The town of Durham has had a very "fragile relationship" with the University, according to the local newspaper News & Observer. According to the paper, "Fifteen players--about 1/3 of the (men's lacrosse) team--had previous criminal charges in Durham in the past three years, mostly related to drunken and disruptive behavior. Most of those charges were resolved in deals with prosecutors that allowed the players to escape criminal convictions." The paper goes on to quote faculty member Kathleen Smith as saying the faculty was unaware of the team members' legal record. President Brodhead's note to alumni acknowledges that "There have been reports of persistent problems involving the men's lacrosse team, including racist language and a pattern of alcohol abuse and disorderly behavior."
The Timeline--
March 14, early AM--Victim relates story to Durham police
March 15--Duke begins investigation, though University says nothing
March 18, 21--Duke mens' lacrosse team plays games against N. Carolina and Cornell
March 24--SVP for public affairs John Burness says in response to lacrosse team members going for DNA tests, "Duke University is monitoring the situation and cooperating with officials, as are the students."
March 25--In response to stories confirming the hiring of women from an escort service to dance at the party and that alcohol was served to underage lacrosse team players, Duke decides to forfeit games against Georgetown and Mount St. Mary's. President Brodhead said, "Physical coercion and sexual assault are unacceptable in any setting and have no place at Duke. There will be very serious penalties if the charges are verified but the facts are not yet established."
March 29--Duke decides to suspend all games of the men's lacrosse team until the rape allegations are resolved. The team captains acknowledged certain judgment lapses in holding the party, but denied the allegation of rape and said they did not want to play competitively until the DNA results are finalized. President Brodhead said, "While we await the results of the investigation, I remind everyone that under our system of law, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. One deep value the university is committed to is protecting us all from coercion and assault. An equally strong value is that we must not judge each other on the basis of opinion or strong feeling rather than evidence of actual conduct."
April 3--SVP for public affairs Burness confirms to News & Observer that there were frequent complaints to Durham police on rowdy behavior and charges against 15 players over the past two years for drunk and disorderly conduct.
April 5--Lacrosse coach resigns with no comment. Presidential council convened to scrutinize Duke's response to the situation, another will consider the lacrosse team's behavior and culture. President Brodhead's statement is noted above.
Conclusions
1) It took too long for the President of the University to lay out the context, which he did eloquently on March 25. There were eight days with no apparent comment by the university brass and ten days in which the only official statements came from the athletic director and the SVP of public affairs. What doesn't seem to be apparent in the coverage to date is whether Duke officials were led down this communications path by legal counsel. I believe that there are times when the court of public opinion needs heavier weighting than those applied in the legal courtroom. This could be one of those cases.
2) The best type of statement in the days just following the event would have established Brodhead's unequivocal support for due process but also a determination to understand the root causes of the problem and a restatement of his commitment to the rights of the accuser, not just the accused.
3) There had to be a separation of the interests of the accused and those of the university. In fact, the lawyers for the lacrosse players and the Durham District Attorney have been scrapping quite publicly for days about trying the case in the media.
4) The university community was relatively calm until March 27, when protestors chanted in front of the administration building. So there was a week of tolerance for the president, until enough details about the party were established to give credence to the accusations.
The general best practice in crisis communications is for the top person, the CEO or university president, to respond quickly to the problem, laying out a process for resolution then following up regularly with all stakeholders to assure full transparency. In this case, it became clear that the University would not control the release of information as it was a criminal inquiry. All the more reason why, at the outset, the University had to establish its position and its commitment to a thorough review of the incident and the environment that spawned it.
Posted by Edelman at April 7, 2006 5:06 PM |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edelman.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/148
Comments
In corporate America, there is a five-step process in crisis "manaqement". With apologies to Jack Welch, they go something like this:
The first stage is denial. The problem isn?t that bad, the thinking usually goes, it can?t be, because bad things don?t happen here, to us. The second is containment, wherein leaders try to make the problem disappear by giving it to someone else to solve. The third stage is shame-mongering, in which all parties with a stake in the problem assign blame and claim credit. Stage four: blood on the floor. In just about every crisis, a high profile person pays with his job, and sometimes he takes a crowd with him. In the fifth and final stage, the crisis gets fixed and, despite prophesies of permanent doom, life goes on, usually for the better. Which stage describes Duke/Brodhead at the moment?
Posted by: Stan DeVaughn at April 7, 2006 8:05 PM
Hi Richard:
Communicating quickly and accurately is indeed a cornerstone of crisis communication planning. During a crisis, your focus should be to deal with the situation, gather accurate information and communicate quickly. Your goal should be to "speak with a clear voice."
Yet my biggest concern as a Duke alumni was the acute absence of women as spokespersons during this particular gender/race violence incident. Why were there no women academic spokespersons or alumni leaders speaking on behalf of Duke? Where were the women? Any women?
This incident could irrepairably damage Duke's reputation among women students and alumni. Issues like this can cascade across colleges and create a halo effect if improperly tended. During this crisis, a woman's voice would have helped to deliver a strong and positive leadership message of assurance to women.
As a woman and Duke MBA alumni -- and Chicago YWCA Junior Board Chair -- I wish Duke's administration had handled it differently.
Should Duke's President have been the sole spokesperson? I respectfully disagree. One of Duke's Women's Initiative leaders (Susan Roth, Judith White, or Donna Lisker) should have been at his side. Too bad Nannerl Keohane was not available.
Alas, women are still marginalized in news media. Women are far less likely than men to be considered experts in media coverage. They are more often relegated to voices expressing personal experience or popular opinion.
kindly,
kirsten
Posted by: kirsten at April 8, 2006 2:36 AM
Mr. Edelman,
I read your new blog post before leaving for the evening, and I have another possible answer to your question of why it took Duke so long to respond. I agree that a wiser move would have been to come forward early with transparency. As you noted, the fundamental problem has been more about timing and less about content. President Broadhead’s response in recent days has been appropriate for the most part. It just took a week too long to say it.
So what took so long? While instinctually, the logical conclusion is that legal and fundraising concerns drove Duke’s decision to keep the investigation under wraps, I think there is another cause that has gone largely neglected. I have a sister currently at Duke and a cousin who was just accepted, and after speaking to both of them this past week, it occurred to me there was another primary driver of this decision to stall: admissions yield.
As I’m sure you’re aware, all colleges and universities recently mailed out their admissions decisions to high school seniors. I don’t think there is any doubt that these allegations will in some cases make accepted high school seniors choose another school over Duke. With fewer students accepting offers, Duke will need to dig deep into its less-qualified wait-list to fill its freshman class. As a result, not only will Duke’s incoming class be less accomplished, but also, the lower yield and higher admissions rate will damage its position in the annual U.S. News & World Report ranking. It’s reasonable to believe their hope was if this investigation could be kept quiet into April, there would be less impact to yield, requiring fewer acceptances from the wait-list (both of which factors into the U.S. News ranking). So aside from legal and fundraising concerns for containing this to the extent possible, the timing of admissions decisions was also a likely factor in their choice of tactics.
Have a great weekend.
Best,
Phil Walotsky
Posted by: Phil Walotsky at April 10, 2006 9:31 AM
Kirsten
I don't believe in president of Duke as single spokesperson But I do believe that the president has to set the context initially as does a CEO in a crisis That was the key missing piece here--you are right to suggest a woman as one of the spokespeople in next communications
Posted by: Richard Edelman at April 10, 2006 9:46 AM
Stan, I would like not to think that you are correct I believe the President of Duke has now regained the initiative But it took far too long to get here and has cost the university in reputational sense
Posted by: Richard Edelman at April 10, 2006 9:48 AM
Hello Mr. Edelman:
I am curious to know if you have any thoughts on how the other institution, North Carolina Central University, has done in handling this situation? The accuser is a student there, and thus far the university community has tried to support her through press conferences and demonstrations.
I am a former employee of NCCU's public relations department, so I know first-hand that their small staff must have their hands full with such national attention and constant media requests for the university's response. I have seen news clips of NCCU students reprimanding the media for unfair portrayals of the victim as far away as Miami, FL. In your opinion, could such coverage have a negative impact on this university as well?
Best,
Alonda
Posted by: Alonda at April 26, 2006 1:39 PM