3-18-2010 More on K-Ville

✔Fact Checker here.

Well... this wandering quixotic view of K-Ville is fine. But there are some very very serious issues with this Duke "tradition" that need to be addressed.

First, it may make good B-roll for television sports coverage, but how does this spectacle collide with objectives of Duke? Week after week after week. Is the diversion worth it? What happens to academics? What happens to other aspects of student life during this period, like engagement and service.

We may experience, as the columnist found, spirit and friendships in tents, but it is at the great expense of what happens in dorms and dining halls. Is the balance appropriate?

Plus the nitty gritty. Student health. Did anyone get sick? And how about alcohol abuse?

In addition to essays off the top of one's head, and a light rewrite from page 85 of Professor King's book "If Gargoyles Could Talk" telling about the wartime Blue Devils, this newspaper -- and its columnists -- have a responsibility to dig and inform and present solid facts. How many people got ill? How many people needed medical attention because of alcohol abuse?

We had in one story during this year's tenting mention of "ambulances" and then hush!! As I documented ten days ago, the history of K-Ville is a chain of stories in the Chronicle -- curiously absent this year -- embracing words like "drunk," "drunken" and "alcohol abuse."

Remember when you see these body counts, they are not just numbers: they are the story of K-Ville and its tilted impact upon our community.

Finally, viewed from the official side of the University, I am left wondering why there is no evaluation or other comment from any Brodhead Administration official.

Did Dean Steve visit? Day or night? What do you think of the university enabling a weeks-long bacchanalia with unfettered under-aged drinking?

To be honest with you, I am surprised our insurers tolerate this at all, because some day, when something goes wrong, Duke will be zonked with liability claims from the victim or his and her family.

Did President Brodhead visit? Day or night? Did he hear the noise, smell the booze, wallow in the mud? Did he think students roused at 4 AM for a bed-check got proper rest -- not to mention students asleep in nearby quads not participating in K-Ville who hear line monitors blare their wake up call.

Chronicle, did you chase our president to ask if he went to the single most important "tradition" on our campus?

Did Brodhead see, as Deputy Fact Checkers did, fellatio in public between the tents, and urination when no one was thought to be watching.

Mr. Brodhead, are you satisfied with K-Ville? Do you endorse it? I hear only your silence. As a Chronicle editorial put it a few weeks back, where is the leadership?

✔Sorry, Cameron Crazies, some days Fact Checker must tell you what you do not want to hear.

3/15/2010 Brodhead builds financial aid -- but he also creates the need for it.

✔Fact Checker here. Hope spring break was all you hoped it would be and more.

This is a very good column. And your calculation about the cost of Duke projected from official figures is hereby certified by Fact Checker to be correct.

Here's the problem. We hear President Brodhead extoll that the happen-stance of one's birth and socio-economic status must not become a new barrier to higher education, like race and gender once were. He has focused on need-blind admissions to let students who are not born into wealth squeak through Duke.

The problem with all that is: Brodhead himself and other administrators are the ones erecting the new barrier, letting costs go through the roof and tolerating tuition hikes year after year far in excess of inflation.

Before the financial meltdown robbed us of much of our endowment and gifts, did anyone ever hear the President address how we can control costs? In fact he pooh-poohed the idea, saying there would not be a market for a lower cost generic Duke.

It's essential that we look at both sides of the equation. Build financial aid, yes, but also cut costs to get this thing into better balance.

✔Since the Trustee announcement of a 3.9 percent hike in the cost of attending Duke next year (small point: the tuition component actually went up 4 percent) many Loyal Readers have challenged official figures showing that the cost of Duke next year will be $51,865, up from $49,895 at present. Source: press releases covering last year's and this year's increases.

Indeed, other official Duke figures contradict this low-ball calculation. The very same people who put out the press releases also post "Quick Facts about Duke" showing current costs -- excluding books, supplies and personal expenses -- are $50,245 this year, not $49,895.

I have also received meticulous documentation that I am still studying showing that the news releases are further contradicted by official calculations of financial aid packages.

In one instance, the current year's package -- taking out books and personal expenses to keep it consistent with the above -- is based on costs of $52,660. A far cry from the press release's $49,895.

Thank you everybody for sending along a wealth of material and tips about Duke!

Duke.Fact.Checker@gmail.com

3-13-2010 Man shot dead on campus. Administrators give us the runaround.

✔Fact Checker here.

Mr. Trask, you have said there is little need at Duke for professional, fully trained, armed police officers. You advocated that officers be replaced with cheaper security guards hired by the day from a private contractor.

You said this well before the financial crisis struck. Now that saving money is important, with the meltdown of our endowment and with a 62 percent decline in gifts, are you even stronger in this view?

Or has the Durham on Duke violence now come close enough to Allen Building for you to wake up. What is your view at this time?

Has the fatal shooting this morning -- plus the injury (wounding?) of a Duke Police Officer with no details yet available -- changed your mind? You never responded to this question 18 months ago when more blood flowed and less than a half mile away, a graduate student at Duke was murdered at his own home by a posse of Durham thugs.

Or won't we find out because you do not answer questions from the public?

Mr. Trask, campus police were among those offered early retirement. President Brodhead went to a retirement ceremony this fall at the Nasher where officers with combined service and experience of 372 years left; he was all smiles then. How about giving us specifics now to reassure us that the force is back up to full strength and par.

Mr Trask, you have direct responsibility for campus police. One of your officers is right now accused of a felony -- the S and M rape of a woman. Are you for some reason not sensitive to the seriousness of this charge?

This officer had his Duke Police uniform, Duke handcuffs and Duke gun. Along with a whip, a giant enema bag and over-sized butt plug. You supervised an inquiry into this man's career at Duke, starting with the question of why he left a higher paid job and vesting pension benefits after nearly ten years as a Master Patrolman (love that title) in Raleigh. At Duke, where did he patrol? Did he have access to sensitive student records? To victims of sex crimes in the hospital? Fact Checker believes this community is entitled to know.

The last time The Chronicle raised these questions, the police chief, under your direct supervision in the neatly drawn organizational charts you so love, dodged by saying the inquiry was not done. That was five months ago.

Do you have the decency to answer now?

✔Fact Checker. On duty even during Spring Break.

5:46 PM
March 13, 2010
Fact Checker

• edit
• reply

✔Thank you Chronicle for your excellent work on this important story. And an extra ✔✔ from Fact Checker for informing us of the disgraceful runaround you are receiving from the Duke PR people.

You mention Mr. Stokke, bouncing to Mr Jarmul, who bounced to Mr. Stokke, who then made himself unavailable.

This is the same Stokke, associate (correction) vice president for PR, who appeared in a December 7 Chronicle story on the closing of the student pharmacy. Careful readers will recall how Outpatient Pharmacy Manager Stefanadis referred all questions to his boss, Chief Pharmacy Officer Bush. Bush, after agreeing to an interview, canceled and never could be reached again.

Back to Stefanadis. He told the Chronicle that Duke PR had stopped all interviews. Finally the Chronicle reached Stokke again, who referred questions regarding the pharmacy transition to Bush.

Readers, you deserve to know that Duke PR is increasingly using this tactic: bouncing like a loose basketball from official to official.

They are also stopping officials with direct responsibility and knowledge from speaking. For example, the VP and University Secretary was prevented from discussing something as routine as the date when a Trustee's term expired.

This is the same Stokke who has failed to respond to respond to three recent requests from a Deputy Fact Checker -- the first contact ever made with Stokke -- for a full biography of Chancellor Dzau as part of a continuing investigation.

Schoenfeld has also failed to respond to this request.

✔Readers, you are entitled to know about the performance of Duke officials.

3/5/2010 Major post - the disaster we call K-Ville

Fact Checker here.
✔
The post above, from Justin Time, says "Hopefully, tomorrow night people will be able to control themselves."

That is not enough. Not at all. This is a situation with far greater dimensions, one that has been building for a long long time, one that at the very least has the capacity to develop into a public relations nightmare for Duke, if not claim the lives of one or more participants in this unbridled Bacchanalia.

It is a situation that demands response from President Brodhead and his administration, and also from our basketball coach.

✔
Yes Coach K too. Please read from this semester's K-Ville blog by Chris:

"While the general campus belief that Duke is home to the country’s only set of line monitors is patently false, ours is the most intimately involved with its school’s team. Many coaches are either unwilling or uninterested in collaborating with the heads of their respective fan groups, other than dropping off some snacks the night before the big game. In contrast, head coach Mike Krzyzewski and his staff work closely with the line monitors to help keep tenting safe, healthy (generally) and enjoyable for the students involved."

And finally with respect to Coach K, please read the following words quoted in the Chronicle last June 24th, in the third of a four part exclusive interview:

"What is Krzyewskiville. Is it a plus? Is it a minus? It's probably a little of both."

Well Coach, you were prophetic.

And now this pathetic spectacle that some call a tradition must be front and center, even stealing some precious focus and minutes from your preparation for the game against u-n-c.

✔
As for President Brodhead, on February 10th, in response to a Chronicle editorial with withering criticism of his leadership, Fact Checker posted a special 4,000 word report. Please read:

"Oh yes, there's the drinking issue. The Allen Building team came down hard on Tailgating. It has skirted around Last Day of Classes. And it has been totally silent on the most abusive situation of all, the week after week bacchanalia we call K-Ville. Mr Brodhead, why are you so pusillanimous that you cannot speak out at this total disruption of the atmosphere and purpose of Duke? Have you ever visited the place at night? Heard the noise. Smelled the booze. Wallowed in the mud? How rested would you be if at 4 AM each day you had to stand outside Hart House to be counted?"

Loyal readers, I spent a few minutes looking into the Chronicle archive this morning. Since the on-line version began, there has been story after story after story about the conditions that reached a zenith last night.

February 1, 2008. This story mentions the word drunk or drunken five times. Not counting the times it mentions heavy drinking.

"To outsiders, it may look like a segment of fraternity hazing, or worse, a far-flung attempt to get on reality TV. But to the most dedicated Cameron Crazies, tenting for the men's home basketball game against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill March 8 is a lifestyle that often takes precedence over health."

The story continues, with administrators very candid about their knowledge of what is happening:

"Jean Hanson, administrative director of the Student Health Center, said students in Krzyzewskiville face a number of potential health concerns...

"She noted that consuming alcohol is one of the most dangerous practices students can partake in if they are tenting because alcohol dilates blood vessels and increases the amount of blood flow to the surface of the skin, which ultimately results in heat loss.

"'Heavy drinking will often make you sleepy or pass out altogether,' Hanson said. 'If you pass out and fall asleep while you are exposed to the cold, then it is just going to make it worse. You can end up with hypothermia....

"Hypothermia or not, many of the tenters said one of the biggest problem they face in K-ville is falling asleep surrounded by loud conversation or drunken banter.

"'I went back [to my room] at 7 this morning, set my alarm at 8 to get up for class and woke up at noon because I couldn't get to sleep until 5 last night because of sounds from across the walkway,' freshman (I omit the name) said.

"In addition to drunken noises, having to be alert for late tent checks does not allow students to get a healthy amount of uninterrupted sleep, Hanson said."

Read enough? Well there's more.

Desperate for rest, some students said they have resorted to extreme measures.

"'You either get drunk and pass out or use your iPod,' freshman (name omitted) said. 'Tenting should be fun'

"But for others the drunken chatters add amusement to their experiences at K-ville.

"'It's [funny] when [the drunk students] think that the big smiley face chair in front of our tent is the most fascinating thing in the world and want to sit in it and take pictures in it,' sophomore (name omitted) said."

Read, please, a Chronicle article last September 24, about the tenting a year earlier, when flu was not a major factor:

"Last year, 60 students tenting in K-ville sought help from Student Health, Hanson wrote in an email. She added that she expects the number to be even higher this year."

And last year right before the big game, this blog:

"January 15: Had a party last night. Some stupid line monitor cut my shotgun hole too big and it spilled everywhere. It looked like I pissed myself. Jenny giggled."

For those readers who are not cool, a shotgun hole is one punched into a can of beer, with the drinker now catching the full stream.

Year after year, the same condition. Columnist Greg Czaja on April 5, 2006 recounting his experiences: "I saw several students being taken away from K-Ville in an ambulance."

And finally March 4, 1996 by someone only identified as B:

"Welcome to Krzyzewskiville, (official motto "Chug! Chug! Chug!") sponsored by Natural Light beer. Here in K-ville, we drink more beer by 9 a.m. than most people drink all day. Camping out-be all you can be. The atmosphere here is like Auschwitz meets Mardi Gras.

"Basketball? There's none of that here, but we've got music, fire, and drunk people-and a lot of all of them. You couldn't ask for anything more. We're the largest yuppie ghetto this side of Greenwich village, complete with cell phones and microbrewed beer.

"...it's the drinks that define a tent. Those with kegs make friends very quickly. Those without a keg befriend those with. Speaking of drinking, was it me, or was it like pre-prohibition era Duke out there? Freshmen: This is what you missed out on in years past!"

✔
Mr. Brodhead, the Campus Culture Initiative you began after the lacrosse hoax ducked K-Ville. Dean Nowicki, you are properly concerned with the entire undergraduate experience, not just the classroom.

Tonight, the situation can only grow worse because more frequent tent checks will have to make up for the ones lost last night. In fact, a Deputy Fact Checker who understands the rules better than I, says tent checks requiring physical presence might even be held during class hours.

Dean Steve, this annual disruption involving fully 20 percent of undergraduates living in tents week after week is your greatest imperative. So is the illegality of it all, flagrant violation of minimum drinking age with the tacit approval of administrators.

Mr. President, two weeks ago you seemed to begin a new phase of your tenure, with greater involvement on campus. A major test has come along quite soon.

✔✔Thank you for reading Fact Checker even on days when things you did not want to hear must be said.

3/3/2010 Brodhead: the evaluation continues

✔Fact Checker here. This is a very good editorial, very nicely presented.

I would add to your list of duties of the President: the responsibility of becoming highly visible beyond the borders of the campus, in order to exert a leadership role in the educational world and society.

In some respects, Brodhead does this more than he is generally given credit for, particularly through his quiet service on the board of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, quite possibly one of the most influential and distinguished positions that a university president can achieve.

He also wins plaudits for what he has not done -- not becoming a paid director at a profit making corporation. I think his predecessor, Nan Koehane, was sometimes distracted by her membership on the board and executive committee of IBM.

And witness the current turmoil at Brown University, that has just resulted in its president giving up her directorship at the Wall Street vulture Goldman Sachs. That was a part time gig that paid her a nifty $350,000 last year, not to mention a nest egg approaching $4 million for ten years of service. And it was just one of three major directorships. But I digress.

Brodhead has wonderful priorities. He has stated that while our nation has gone far in knocking down barriers, at least the legal barriers, based on race and sex, there is danger from a growing barrier based upon socio-economic status and the happenstance of one's birth. Thus his firm commitment to need-blind admissions even in this era of tight budgets.

In the medical area, frequently hidden from undergraduates, he has helped spawn Duke's role in addressing health care inequities throughout the world. As he has championed efforts to bring Duke research forward through a translational process to serve society.

What he has not done, alas, is to capitalize on these priorities, and to build his profile to truly stand out from -- and stand above -- 25 or 30 or 50 other university presidents. Keohane, perhaps because she was one of the first female presidents of a major research university, did this very well.

No one should be surprised that this profile is expected. Every day Dukies pass a bronze tablet on the main quad. Some of it gibberish, and some of it with great meaning today, words from James B. Duke:

"I request that this institution secure for its officers, trustees, and faculty men of such outstanding character, ability, and vision as will insure its attaining and maintaining a place of real leadership in the educational world..."

There is one element of the editorial that I disagree with. It's where the editors write "Students, faculty, staff and alumni do not need to know all of the financial details, but they must be reassured that the administration is up to the challenge."

The best reassurance is in the details. It is access to the nitty gritty that allows for broad conclusions. There is no reason other than a mindset of secrecy that prevents far far more information about Duke's governance from being posted on the internet.

✔The other day Fact Checker was privileged to be the guest of an alumnus of Duke who is about to enter the Half Century Club -- meaning graduation 50 years ago in case that is not apparent. Dinner at WaDuke, boy oh boy that place surely is expensive and I am glad that the alum not only paid, but figured out a way to get a 50 percent discount (hint: executive membership).

The point under discussion at dinner: during this alum's years as a Dukie, the school has had eight presidents. (This includes as one the three co-presidents who were installed after Douglas Knight was ushered out of town.)

Moreover, its current administration boasts only two top officers who have been in place more than five years. And only one alum in the top ranks.

Yes, current Trustees and administrators hold the keys at the moment. But Duke does not belong to them. It belongs to all of us who have a greater continuity, thus the word "stakeholders."

And all of us hold a great institutional responsibility that the administration cannot deny -- to stay informed, to keep this place on track, to insure its greatness in perpetuity.

✔For those of you who like your Fact Checker in depth, continue reading. Everybody else is dismissed for the day.

Today's editorial is the first since President Brodhead appeared before the employees in the format of the PrimeTime program, and the editors properly conclude that it introduced us to a new phase of the Brodhead presidency, for he had not communicated substantially on the money crisis since an e-mail on March 1, 2009.

Under the ground rules, this editorial marks the first opportunity readers have had to post on both Mr. Brodhead's annual address to the faculty and to employees. Fact Checker capitalizes on the moment!!

✔For more than a year, as Duke grappled with what our Trustee chair called "this dire strait," we focused on only one side of the budget: what we spend.

In his two appearances, President Brodhead was able to report we have implemented and identified as much as $60 million in cuts.

But the big news was that the target is no longer $125 million, it's $100 million. The difference -- as best as Fact Checker can determine -- comes from greater income than anticipated.

Brodhead needs to explain this.

With only sketchy information available, the increased revenue seems to be coming from four sources -- each with a great big caveat.

✔1 ) More masters programs. We make no bones about it: they are profitable and we want to milk them.

We are loading up on masters students because unlike undergraduates and Ph.D candidates, they are expected to pay full freight. Warning: people who can pay full freight come from one socio-economic class.

And we are creating these masters programs on the cheap: Dr. Brodhead cited with pride faculty members in Fuqua who are taking on extra burden to teach and mentor the masters students. Earlier, the Dean of Fuqua had been quoted as saying each professor holding a chair had agreed to teach one extra course.

Let's not kid ourselves. The extra workload the faculty is assuming is temporary. And some of the masters programs are so shaky that the Academic Council has appointed a special committee to monitor them to insure that they merit a Duke degree. I hope the committee also monitors diversity in admissions to these programs.

Take the profits now and run.

✔2) The second element of increasing income for Duke is the tuition hike. I thank the Loyal Readers who have written me in the past few days, since the headlines told of Duke's cost going above $50,000 next year.

Fellow Dukies, we went over that psychological meridian three years ago!!! Watch future Fact Checker reports.

Nationwide administrators at many private schools are trying to justify the failure to curtail the tuition explosion by saying only wealthy students pay full freight, so it doesn't matter how high tuition goes.

This is irresponsibility at its height.

Tuition at the most selective universities drives the charge at other schools as well, right on down to community colleges. And higher and higher tuition encourages cherry-picking among candidates for admissions. .

✔3) Take more money out of the endowment. Dr. Trask said Trustees were considering abandoning the formula that controls how much we consume each year and how much we leave to future generations. This would yield more for the annual budget now -- a rather shortsighted solution.

Hopefully, one day we will learn what the Trustees did!!!

I guess this is one of the details that the Chronicle thinks everyone does not have to know!!! Trust me, any further tampering with the endowment payout formula (we had a clandestine assault a year ago on endowment funds reserved for student financial aid, taking out 28 percent more than we would have if we had left the formula intact) will lead to disaster.

✔4) President Obama's stimulus plan has pumped more than $160 million into Duke this year and next. Surprising no one, the academic world is starting to stir with desire to keep the trough filled even after the stimulus program ends.

There is no doubt that much of the research is valuable. Stronger word invaluable. That's not the issue: our federal government is borrowing 40 cents every time it spends $1, almost enough to dig a Black Hole and provide for a new Big Bang.

How is all this reflected in future Duke budgets? What are we counting on?

✔
Fact Checker solution embracing all of the above: Dr. Brodhead should post full details -- line by line -- of his budgets.

OK loyal readers, all of us together, let's take the pledge to reassure our administration we are True Blue: "I promise not to reveal to the Taliban any numbers from Duke's budget."

At the start of the fiscal crisis, Duke created a special website to keep us informed: www.Duke.edu/economy. This was an excellent idea -- truly reflecting administrators responsibilities to keep us informed.

It is now pathetically out of date. For example the first link I clicked brought me to the 2007-08 financial report. The 2008-09 report (our fiscal year starts on July 1) has been available for almost six months.

I had hopes this website would also give us a running total of the savings we have achieved, but alas, nyet.

And to be honest, I am very uncomfortable with some of Dr. Trask's numbers, for example savings that he touts from early retirements. Has he factored in higher pension payments over the span of more years for people who accepted incentives?

While these boosted pension checks do not impact upon the annual budget, they sure do eat at other Duke money, our pension reserves. We cannot just look at one pocket which is saving money, when another pocket is being bled.

Why do I want to know these specifics and do my own calculations? Ronald Reagan answered that question when dealing with the Soviets, quoting an old Russian proverb: "Trust, yet verify."

And one other point: I want to double check to see if we are all singing from the same hymnbook. On March 1, 2009 in his Email to all stakeholders, President Brodhead talked of a "smaller Duke" explaining we would experience three years of cuts so that by the 2011-2012 school year, the budget would be $125 million less than it was in 2008-2009. In other words, down from $1.85 billion -- excluding Duke Health which has its own revenue stream from patients. Is this still his thinking? I have heard too much fuzzy talk.

✔Yes President Brodhead had exceptional appearances before both the faculty and employees. But two weeks do not make a season, much less a career.

Hopefully he will adopt transparency and accountability as two of his deep values.

Fact Checker's menu:

-- post the Trustee agenda along with a reasonable description of what is going on.

-- post the results of any Trustee vote, with the issue fully described and each Trustee's ballot listed individually.

-- post the full minutes. Honest, I do not represent the Taliban. I am not going to subvert you.

-- provide for open meetings -- if not of the full board then of committees. Notice I did not say that anyone who shows up should be able to speak. Just listen. It's been said that Trustees feel if their remarks are privileged, they can be more open; my response is that if current Trustees do not want to stand and be counted, that we find people with backbones.

✔ As for student contact, as the Chronicle suggested, Brodhead need look no further than Coach Cut. No matter how pressed during the season, this great man goes into the Union weekly and discusses XX and OO with anyone who wants to attend. Dr. Brodhead should emulate, so that his appearances on campus -- like the faculty meeting and session with employees -- are not unusual, not great big events but just part of an ongoing process.

✔✔Thank you for reading and supporting Fact Checker.

10:45 AM
March 3, 2010
Fact Checker

• edit
• reply

✔ More Fact Checker.

I want to return to the paragraph in the editorial that I said I disagree with: "Students, faculty, staff and alumni do not need to know all of the financial details, but they must be reassured that the administration is up to the challenge."

Chronicle, can you give us some examples of "financial details" that we do not need to know?

Student pharmacy? This seems to be rather small in the grand sweep of things. But the Chronicle itself had a couple articles about its closure, explaining how the newspaper was unable to get its questions answered, an element that should appear in every story when questions go unanswered. So I would assume the amount of money saved by closing student pharmacy is not a detail that administrators are entitled to withhold, since you asked about it?

The paper has had stories about the salary of various officials, including the President and basketball coach. I would assume this is not a detail we are not entitled to know? What difference does it make what Brodhead or K make?

I know that the paper is currently trying to find out about the third retirement incentive plan, and has not been able to. I would assume your enterprise is not in pursuit of details we are not entitled to know? How much was deposited into the retirement account of the professor who walked off with the biggest incentive package.

Yes I believe the administration owes us ALL the numbers. How much was saved by the student pharmacy closure. How much was larded into professors' retirement accounts to get them to leave. Not naming individuals, but precise information about amounts given, including the max amount.

Is the following a detail that we are not entitled to know? The IRS requires a tax exempt institution like Duke to state how many of its employees earn more than $50,000. A Deputy Fact Checker has tried to find out the demographic breakdown of that number -- how many males, how many females. How many whites, how many blacks, how many Asians and so forth. The administration won't budge. Is this a number we are not entitled to know? (The IRS requirements are changing. Fact Checker will win!)

Are the editors of this newspaper satisfied to learn from Fact Checker rather than the administration, how the formula to distribute endowment money for student aid was tampered with so that last year we withdraw 28 percent more money than the formula allowed? Is this an arcane detail that we need not know about? I will tell you what this is: this is greed. It is the inability of our administrators to live within today's means, at the expense of future generations who are rightfully entitled to the money we spent.

I would like to see your list, Chronicle. And then I hope you will realize how wrong you are about any stakeholder's not being able to obtain FULL information.

✔

3/2/2010 Demographis of student body

Fact Checker here. Thank you for this story, even if you buried the most interesting part.
✔
I was rather surprised... no, let's use a stronger word.... astounded to learn that a self-study showed "21.6 percent of (Duke) students come from families that make more than $300,000 a year."

Consider, please, the latest Census Bureau statistic: "In 2006, there were approximately 116,011,000 households in the United States. 1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000..."

That's enough to raise the question of whether we are cherry picking based upon financial ability. A really serious indictment.

Dean Nowicki's long-range study is important. So is immediate action. Duke should forthwith stop asking on its applications if you need financial aid. That information should be requested only after you decide to attend.

Mr. Brodhead, order this today! That would be leadership.

Another step: open up the admissions office and let us see the self studies that have already been done there. Fact Checker is aware of only one statistic, from a big sheaf of statistics, in one study that shows that 70 percent of white students come from homes with incomes above $100,000 a year.

A Deputy Fact Checker, frustrated at being unable to obtain the full study cited in the last paragraph, asked for a list of studies undertaken... a list with no data. Answer: nyet!! nyet!!

Draw your own conclusions why the admissions office is so secretive. No.... let's use another word there... defensive.

✔Beware: some clown has started to post on the Chronicle board using the name THE Fact Checker. Accept no substitute or generic version! Look for the symbol you can trust: ✔Fact Checker. No THE.

3/1/2010 Surprise: Trustees up tuition

Fact Checker headlines:

✔Cost of Duke leaps over $50,000 a year.

✔Trustees hit undergraduates, grad students with increases far beyond inflation

✔No word on 2nd year of employee pay freeze. No new word on layoffs.

✔Official press release marginalizes Brodhead, offers extensive quotes from Nowicki and Moneta.

✔Magic in Allen Building. Trustee chair said "dire financial strait" five months ago. Now "The University is in a sound position financially.."

Fellow Dukies, boy oh boy, do you need the Fact Checker analysis today!

✔
For undergraduates, the cost of a year at Duke has crossed the $50,000 line!!!!

Not only that, but we are a leap ahead of some schools that we like to talk about in the same breath as Duke. Example: Yale.

President Brodhead, call your old buddy Levin up there in New Haven and boast that you won!!! A graph in the February 24th Yale Daily News shows Yalies will pay only $49,800 next year; by resolution of our Trustees this weekend, Dukies will get soaked for $51,865.

The Yale cocktail all around: dry vermouth, gin, blue curaçao and bitters.

✔
Not so long ago, when the Chronicle's news pages, editorials and particularly its columns focused on campus news, a substantial tuition hike would have meant a bulletin: large type with a red background updating the web page plus an e-mail blast to everyone who had signed up. But alas, today's dudes are too busy filling the paper with Washington Post by-lines, comics, crosswords and gee-whiz travel stories from ecstatic DukeEngage participants to give us the news until Monday; even then the editors' judgment features a dorm that will house 150 students in the future above a tuition and fees hike that slams into 13,000 students immediately.

K-Ville goes up every winter, so does tuition!

The first word came mid-morning on Saturday, when the PR office posted a carefully crafted, pre-written news release as the Trustee quarterly meeting continued. The official announcement did not even have the decency to include the hike in the first paragraph, which was reserved for the Brodhead administration's congratulating itself over Trustee approval of its pet project, a new dorm.

The headline: "New Residence Hall To Serve as Housing Model" was hardly news, since Dean "Call me Steve" Nowicki has been explaining this for a year. The lead paragraph said the dorm had just gotten final approval, as if there were some chance the Board of Lemmings would turn it down!

Alas we are insured the outside of the dorm will look like the others in Keohane Quad. Huh? Was there any other option before the Trustees? Show is the pictures?

In following paragraphs of the news release, as the subject moved on to the cost of attending Duke, the official news release did not even have the decency to nod to students and their families struggling to make ends meet, offering no cogent explanation whatsoever for big increases in tuition and other costs. Yes Brodhead and Chair Blue mouthed a few words on this to the Chronicle, general words without specific clue on where the new money will go.

✔
Just eight days after the federal government reported inflation at 2.6 percent in the last year (source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm), our Trustees zonked undergraduates with a 3.9 percent increase. That's compounded atop increase after increase, year after year above the inflation rate.

Moreover, anyone reading down to the 12th paragraph in the news release finds out that tuition is going up more than 3.9 percent, that is, fully 4 percent for undergraduates, with slightly lower hikes for room and general and fees (but a surprising bump for board) averaging it all out to 3.9 percent.

I would surmise from the Chronicle article that the increase allocated to food is just going to vanish in air, and that the $2.2 million deficit that Duke Dining is running will remain intact. Notice to those who feast in the Marketplace and other captive university-run eateries: federal cost of living statistics showed the cost of food going down in the last year. If anyone noticed that on East or West, contact a Deputy Fact Checker forthwith.

By the way, the federal inflation statistics show the cost of medical care -- both commodities and services -- went up 3.5 percent. Maybe universities should face Congressional hearings too, sharing some of the spotlight with health care costs.

Congratulations Trustees!!!! Congratulations Team Brodhead!! $49,895 this year. $51,865 next year. If anyone is really spending that little to attend Duke, please contact a Deputy Fact Checker forthwith. For perfectionists, $49,895 is from last year's press release announcing tuition hikes for the 2009-10 academic year; Duke has also issued other figures about the total cost in the current year.

You have to wonder if all the Trustees consented to this, or if some voted no. Presumably we can find out on February 27, 2060, after the 50 year secrecy rule expires and with permission of the Archivist, future Fact Checkers can scour official papers.

✔
Exactly a decade ago, on February 28, 2000, the Chronicle reported tuition, fees, room and board for the coming academic year would be $33,017 in Trinity College. While on-line inflation calculators yield slightly different results, the one favored by your Fact Checker shows that if Duke had increased its costs at the inflation rate -- rather than gouging -- the new cost would not be $51,865 but rather approximately $41,500. What an outrage!!!!

Duke's carefully crafted news release did not mention -- as previous releases in other years consistently did -- how much additional money the Trustees would earmark for financial aid. There was vague talk about a need-blind commitment, properly noting this time that our "guarantee" includes loans and student work as well as a family contribution.

The Chronicle says "financial aid will not be increased this year" -- which I guess refers to the structure of an individual's package? or the total amount for all Dukies? Aren't little details like that important to people on this campus?

The paper goes on to quote Trustee chair Blue saying 30 to 40 percent of new money from the increase in tuition will go to financial aid. Why couldn't he simply say, "we are increasing tuition. I want everyone receiving financial aid to know their grants will increase; they will not have to take out bigger loans or work more. Families will not have to scrape to come up with more money." Right, Fact Checker, what you smoking this morning?

And of course the official news release paid homage to the Financial Aid Initiative, accompanied by the adjective "successful" which is mandatory anytime any flack writes about the Initiative. There was no discussion of the fact that while $308.9 million was achieved, some of the pledges were never forked over (there is a surprising default rate, even before the Wall Street meltdown) and fully 24.5 percent of what we did collect was immediately lost by Duke Management Company.

And no mention of the fact that the loss puts Initiative money "under water," that is, the current value is less than originally contributed. Thus, under policy and law, we cannot spend earnings on Initiative money until the investments once again return to the same value they held on the day Duke received them.

Fact Check, source Quick Facts Duke University http://news.duke.edu/resources/quickfacts.html. Counting the educational division and Duke Health (most budget statistics we see exclude Duke Health) the general administration of Duke is eating up 16 percent of our budget. Scholarships, fellowships and grants 1 percent. Official Duke figures, not mine.

✔
A Fact Checker apology to graduate and professional students, for leaving you out until now. Unlike the undergraduate totals above, these numbers are only for tuition:

Pratt graduate students - up 5.9 percent to $38,440.

School of Nursing - up 5.8 percent to $42,660

Law students - up 5.5 percent to $46,926

Fuqua daytime MBA - up 4.6 percent to $47,960

School of Medicine - up 4 percent to $44,482

Divinity - up 3.5 percent to $17,750

Graduate School Ph.D. - up 4 percent to $39,150

Sanford (graduate) up 4 percent to $35,360

Nicholas School of Environment (graduate level) up 2.8 percent $29,000

✔
I just re-read the press release. There is not one word in the news release indicating any Lemming even spoke up at the board meeting about this outrage. Not one word expressing solidarity with students and their families facing this upward spiral of costs, though in interviews afterward, we got some pap.

Not one word saying that Duke is going to take the lead and control its galloping tuition, and set a new national role model.

Fact Checker, what planet do you live on to even suggest that historic move? Actually it was thoughtfully proposed by another person who posted on the Chronicle website.

✔
Saturday's news release continues a pattern that Fact Checker has previously noted: President Brodhead is marginalized. He appears in just one paragraph deep in the release, with 17 words of direct quote in one paragraph that is 21 words long. Compare please with Dean Steve, 114 words of direct quote in four paragraphs, and Vice President Moneta, 100 words of direct quote in three paragraphs.

Please note: not just in this one press release. Marginalized repeatedly.

Steve and El-Mo discussed the new dorm. I become a chucklehead every time I think of this: a dorm designed so that people interact with each other; you know, bump into each other while being channeled thru limited doorways so their intellectual juices spurt. This is a dorm planned by people who park their cars in spaces on the main quad that were formerly grass, so they never bump into students as they duck 20 feet into Allen Building, where their offices branch out along a corridor closed to students. Lunch time? Do they eat in the Great Hall with all those sophomores, where you might bump into someone and start conversation/ No no, try upstairs in the Faculty Commons, students allowed to choose to eat there only after professors have left campus for the night. Such hypocrites.

There is no mention of how the dorm will be paid for. Presumably no donor is in sight, so I suggest calling it Rich Dorm. No no, not after the infamous alumnus K. Thaddeus Rich '17, Sigma Chi. Since a great portion of the rooms will be high priced singles or suites, all with air conditioning surcharge, K4 dorm has the potential to become the least diverse place on campus! Thus Rich Dorm.

You watch.

Presumably the Trustees okayed borrowing to construct this, $133,333 per bed at the latest estimate. As Fact Checker has noted, this does not include the price of land which we already own; it would be vastly cheaper to build $500,000 houses for four students all over Durham, thereby meshing us with our beloved community.

✔
The press release does not mention Trustee chair Dan Blue at all. And the Chronicle slips this into today's story: "The University is in a sound position financially." Did the reporter say, "Excuse me Sir, but just five months ago in early October you said we were in "dire financial strait."

This would be one of the biggest turnarounds in financial history. Chronicle, did it ever occur to you that it is your job to recall what the man said five months ago and try to pin him down?

It's not unusual when there is bad news like a tuition hike for the big man in any organization to duck from the official news release. Ask Rick Wagoner, Trustee vice chair and heir apparent, erstwhile chair of General Motors, how many times he personally announced the unraveling of that enterprise under his leadership before he was fired, and how many times he let subordinates twist in the foul wind.

While the press release does say that the Trustees discussed much of long-term impact, it lacks all meat:

-- did the Board take up changing the endowment payout? A January 25th Chronicle news story sourced to Executive VP Trask mentioned this deep down, the editors missing its tremendous significance for the future of Duke. If approved, this folly would give us more to spend today, at the expense of future generations of Dukies. It means we would be consuming more than our fair share of the endowment, cheating our successors, rather than living within our current means.

Is this one reason the budget gap narrowed from $125 million to $100 million? This gimmick?? This place needs leadership and resolve to live within its current means, not gimmicks.

-- will the free on employee wages continue into a second year, or is there some money left after paying for fringe benefits? No word. Did the Trustees consider cutting the lavish benefits?

Loyal readers, last year Brodhead was able to send out an e-mail on March 1st announcing the freeze; this would indicate to me that all the budget numbers are lined up for the next academic year starting July 1, and an announcement should have been made for anxious employees and their families.

-- there was also no comfort for employees worried about layoffs. No word in the official release, regurgitation in the Chronicle. And for sure no word at all extending Trustee feelings to the people who have been canned so far. Has anyone ever heard one peep from the Board of Trustees directed to these poor people?

The latest revelation of the ax falling came late last week from the Dean of Fuqua, who sat down for one of the public conversations conducted by the Dean of the Chapel. Fuqua has had layoffs in one of its divisions, dealing with continuing education programs for executives. Hithertofore unknown fact. Never revealed before.

-- there was no indication the Trustees ever took up anything on the student agenda. Did they even discuss the overall dining situation, coupling the deficit with the higher fee they announced? Did they praise the so called student involvement in planning the new dorm -- assuming there was some -- and thank the participants? No mention of Durham on Duke crime.

-- and despite our big push into China -- and its being central to the future of Duke as Team Brodhead sees it -- there is only word that "international strategy" was discussed. What the hell does that mean?

How about Inchon? Careful readers of Fact Checker will recall the news that this South Korean city may be dangling money in front of us, and we may bite. The strategy, it seems, is opportunistic. Show us the money, we are en route!

-- there was also no word on the two new Trustees "elected" at the last meeting in December to fill partial terms. It beats me why we cannot find out after an election who "winners" are, so I assume we will have to wait for next fall's meeting (the first after the fiscal year starts) and watch for new faces going in. Fact Checker bet: corporate bond king Bill Gross.

So the Trustees have had their winter meeting, sequestered behind closed doors, eating in the WaDuke and avoiding the Marketplace, taking pride in a new dorm proclaimed to be a leader in protecting the environment and making Duke green. Afterward the clump of private jets idling at RDU airport took off for the four corners of the nation, spewing carbon the entire way, a trail of unnecessary pollution contradicting the vote just taken.

Trustees will return for Commencement, once again in the service of Dear Old Duke.

✔✔✔✔✔ Thank you for reading and supporting Fact Checker. The lemmings deserve this rant.

2/26/2010 Major post : Duke's financial crisis

Fact Checker here
✔
For more than a year, as Duke grappled with what our Trustee chair called "this dire strait," we focused on only one side of the budget: what we spend.

In his recent appearance before employees, President Brodhead was able to report we have implemented and identified as much as $60 million in cuts. Not bad, although I wish there were greater transparency and accountability so we could all understand this total.

Properly, Brodhead is leading us to phase in the cuts over three years, to avoid major disruption as these impact on the campus.

But the big news from Brodhead was that the target is no longer to save $125 million, it's $100 million. The difference -- as best as Fact Checker can determine -- comes from the side of the budget equation that we have not focused on: greater income than anticipated.

With only sketchy information available, the increased revenue seems to be coming from four sources -- each with a great big caveat.

✔1 ) More masters programs. We make no bones about it: they are profitable and we want to milk them.

We are loading up on masters students because unlike undergraduates and Ph.D candidates, they are expected to pay full freight. And we are creating these programs on the cheap: Dr. Brodhead cited with pride faculty members in Fuqua who are taking on extra burden to teach and mentor the masters students. Earlier, the Dean of Fuqua had been quoted as saying each professor holding a chair had agreed to teach one extra course. Or more accurately, repeat a course that he or she had previously taught.

Let's not kid ourselves. The extra workload that a very few in the faculty are assuming is temporary. And some of the masters programs are so shaky that the Academic Council has appointed a special committee to monitor them to insure that they merit a Duke degree.

Take the profits now and run.

✔2) Another source of new revenue is a tuition hike. That's a Duke tradition more deeply embedded than K-Ville or any other.

Earlier there were whispers in Allen Building that the administration was going to push the Trustees at this weekend's meeting not only for a tuition hike, but for an emergency (fiscal meltdown) increment to yield extra income for a couple of years. Let's hope this idea is dead, because the regular tuition hikes will be more than enough burden.

✔3) Take more money out of the endowment. My fellow Dukies, this is one of the most dangerous ideas that has been discussed on this campus.

Trustees are considering abandoning the formula that controls how much we consume and how much we leave to future generations. This would yield more for the annual budget now -- a rather shortsighted solution.

Last year, the Trustees modified the formula, forgetting to tell anyone what they were doing. The result: Duke withdrew from that portion of its endowment devoted to student financial aid 28 percent more than the original formula allowed. There is no free lunch: we are eating thru money which we hold in trust for future generations.

Careful readers will note that many responsible philanthropic organizations are responding to the fiscal crisis in precisely the opposite way: taking less out of their endowments in order to fulfill obligations to future generations. One good example of this is The Duke Endowment -- separate from Duke U but often confused because of common heritage. The Duke Endowment has trimmed its withdrawals from its nest egg substantially, at the same time that university trustees are considering dipping deeper into our hoard. Folly. Folly.

Don't say the Fact Checker didn't sound the alarm. It is a major failing of the Chronicle that it mentioned brief mention of this in one news story, and never returned to it.

✔4) President Obama's stimulus plan has pumped more than $160 million into Duke this year and next. Duke did an excellent job completing and gobbling all it could from the federal trough.

Surprising no one, the academic world is starting to stir with desire to keep the trough filled even after the stimulus program expires.

There is no doubt that much of the research is valuable. Stronger word: invaluable. That's not the issue: our federal government is borrowing 40 cents every time it spends $1, almost enough to dig a Black Hole and provide for a new Big Bang.

✔✔
Fact Checker solution embracing all of the above: Dr. Brodhead should post full details -- line by line -- of his budgets.

OK loyal readers, all of us together, let's take the pledge to reassure our administration we are True Blue: "I promise not to reveal to the Taliban any numbers from Duke's budget."

At the start of the fiscal crisis, Duke created a special website to keep us informed: www.Duke.edu/economy. It is now pathetically out of date. For example the first link I clicked brought me to the 2007-08 financial report. The 2008-09 report (our fiscal year starts on July 1) has been available for almost six months.

I had hopes this website would also give us a running total of the savings we have achieved, but alas, nyet. I am very uncomfortable with some of Dr. Trask's numbers, for example savings that he touts from early retirements. Has he factored in higher pension payments over the span of more years for people who accepted incentives?

While these boosted pension checks do not impact upon the annual budget, they sure do eat at other Duke money, namely our pension reserves. We cannot just look at one pocket which is saving money, when another pocket is being bled.

Why do I want to know these specifics and do my own calculations? Ronald Reagan answered that question when he dealt with the Soviets, quoting an old Russian proverb: "Trust, yet verify."

And one other point: I want to double check to see if we are all singing from the same hymnbook. On March 1, 2009 in his Email to all stakeholders, President Brodhead talked of a "smaller Duke" explaining we would experience three years of cuts so that by the 2011-2012 school year, the budget would be $125 million less than it was in 2008-2009. In other words, down from $1.85 billion -- excluding Duke Health which has its own revenue stream from patients. Is this still his thinking? I have heard too much fuzzy talk.
✔
Back to this weekend's Trustee meeting. If I am correct in reading a new spirit of transparency and accountability into Dr. Brodhead's annual address to the faculty and to his belated appearance before employees, there is the potential for this to end with a thud. The President must carry the new spirit to Trustees and help them adopt it.

Fact Checker's menu:

-- post the agenda along with a reasonable description of what is going on.

-- post the results of any vote, with the issue fully described and each Trustee's ballot listed individually.

-- post the full minutes. Honest, I do not represent the Taliban. I am not going to subvert you.

-- provide for open meetings -- if not of the full board then of committees. Notice I did not say that anyone who shows up should be able to speak. Just listen. It's been said that Trustees know their remarks are secret, then they will be more open. My response is that if current Trustees do not want to stand and be counted, then we find people with backbones.

Trustees, please note our Academic Council functions very effectively, posting its agenda and posting its full minutes. I have not heard one person say debate was stifled by letting some light in.
✔
Finally, let us not interpret the rosy pictured painted by Mr. Brodhead -- the budget gap is now down to $100 million, we have so far implemented or identified $60 million cuts -- to lull us into believing our crisis is over.

Not by a long shot. Please consider:

-- Last year Duke's investments lost 24.5 percent. That's not only endowment, but the pension plan and massive Health System reserves as well.

This only tells part of the story: Duke's net assets -- all the wealth accumulated through all the Trinity College years and more than eight decades of Duke University -- fell by 30 percent. 30 percent, poof in one year. Kaboom!!!!!

We were told not to worry about this. On average over the past decade, our investments returned 10.1 percent which is the 2nd highest of any major university.

AH hah. Fact Checker reminds you that the first year of that ten year average was the dot-com era, when our investments went up an amazing 58.8 percent.

On July 1 of this year, that amazing number disappears from the average.

The new average will be closer to 6 percent.

Duke plans on 8.5 percent sustained earnings year after year. So you do not need Fact Checker to point out the big big gulf.

-- Duke likes to boast of its gifts. Yes 100,000 people gave. But since we reached the 100,000 level, Duke has graduated more than 20,000 new alumni and lost an estimated 4 thousand through deaths and address changes. Net gain: 16,000 potential donors, not counting their parents and their employers, whom we also hit up. Net contributors none.

And yes Duke collected $301.6 million. A slide of 22 percent from the year before.

Fact Checker Truth in Reporting: that total comes from a rather unique accounting method used by fund-raisers. Every other number in Duke's financial reports is derived from the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). By this measure, as Dr. Trask pointed out in the fine print of a sub-note in his annual report, using the GAAP, Duke received and had pledges of only $136.9 million last year, off 61 percent from the year before. No decimal point is missing. Off 61 percent.

I should point out that our trouble with donations began well before the fiscal meltdown. The Annual Fund started to low-ball its targets and failed one year even to meet that. The Annual Fund's totals have barely crept up, have not kept pace with inflation and certainly have not kept pace with the university budget which is exploding at a faster than inflation pace.

✔Thank you for reading and supporting Fact Checker.

2/26/2010 New Keohane Quad dorm

The Chronicle always seems to bury the news that I consider most important: the administration has woken up on the issue of the 7A to 7P seven day a week construction schedule and has modified it in some way which we are not told. Great, there will be significantly less disruption and less costly overtime for construction workers. Perhaps, perhaps were administrators listening at last?

That seems more interesting than the rubber stamp approval by the Board of Lemmings which is in the lead of today's Chronicle story.

On finance: Fact Checker shakes his head no no no at borrowing for this project.

2-26-2010 Up up and away. Tuition goes out of sight.

Fact Checker here.
✔
Welcome home. It's good to see the Editorial Board addressing an issue central to Duke.

There is a new school of thought among some in Allen Building and in higher education: it really doesn't matter what the great universities cost, because only the rich pay full freight and need blind admissions covers the rest.

The editorial properly points out that there are many people who are crimped by the need blind aid formulas. And others who are able to afford Duke only by making loans an important part of their financial package.

President Brodhead approaches the "don't worry about the cost of tuition school," so far as I can determine from his limited comments. He has said that he does not think people want a generic version of Duke, costing less.

I shake my head: we cannot have increases in tuition and fees far far in excess of inflation compounded year after year.

And we need transparency and accountability from the admissions office of just how need-blind Duke indeed is. Fact Checker has seen a secret study showing that fully 70 percent of white students are from families earning $100,000 or more a year. I am a long way from declaring that just happens year after year, that we do not cherry pick.
✔✔

Note: Do not post here.

Notice: This blog is for historical purposes only at this time. I do not read the comments posted here. Readers should post their thoughts on the Chronicle website.

At this time (may change in the future) all the entries on this blog have graced the boards designed for comments on the news and editorial pages of the Chronicle. These posts are in the Chronicle archives and best viewed there, for they often are in response to articles in the newspaper that do not appear in this blog.

Thank you. Duke.Fact.Checker@gmail.com

2/25/2010 Administrators love secrecy

✔What do you suppose the reason is... that the Chronicle ran into a wall of refusal when it asked for more data?

✔I suppose it is the same reason the Chronicle ran into a wall of refusal when asking for information about student pharmacy. Do you recall this from a few days back: "Duke Medicine Office of News and Communications failed to return numerous requests from The Chronicle to speak with Stefanadis, Chief Pharmacy Officer Paul Bush and other Outpatient Pharmacy employees."

✔Or this from Dec 7: "Sue Wasiolek, dean of students and assistant vice president for student affairs.... declined to comment, however, on the size of the losses.“I don’t think that’s something neither [Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta] nor I would share with you,” she said.

Why is that Dean Sue?

✔Readers, how about this, also from Dec 7: Chief Pharmacy Officer Paul Bush canceled a scheduled interview and subsequently could not be reached for comment.

Stefanadis wrote in an e-mail that according to the Hospital media policy—sent out in an e-mail Nov. 20—all requests for information must be directed to Duke Medicine News and Communications to ensure that appropriate protocols are followed.

Doug Stokke, assistant vice president of communications for the Duke University Health System, referred questions regarding the pharmacy transition to Bush."

✔✔This is the same Stokke who is treating a current request by a Deputy Fact Checker for information on another very sensitive topic with silence: unprofessional, discourteous silence.

Administrators -- stop treating everyone like Taliban ready to subvert the place.
✔

2/25/2010 Duke in China - it smells

Fact Checker here.
✔
Please get your maps out. Kunshan is almost as far from Shanghai as Winston-Salem is from Durham. You bite the Duke administration's line by saying it is "just outside" of Shanghai. You also neglect nine -- count them -- nine other cities between Shanghai and Kunshan with one million or more people.

It is difficult for Fact Checker to see how a 200 acre Duke campus in a backwater will foster the "educational and cultural exchange" you envision. That would be true if all this were in Beijing or Shanghai or some other truly great city, but this place has no university, no airport, and only one hotel within its borders (check this out via Hotel.Com) that has any stars at all. Kunshan offers Duke one thing: an open checkbook!

It isn't even Chinese as we know the word; the town owes its place on the map to sharks from Taiwan who have put up many factories to seize cheap labor. One example: the jobs Dell Computer promised for Winston Salem, taking tax dollars to put up a plant, are going to Kunshan. As that city thrives and its cost of labor rises (as is happening) the Taiwanese will dump Kunshan for one other place to exploit.

Fact Checker asks again: aren't we just following the buck? Or as President Brodhead put it before he saw the big bucks dangling, aren't we just being "opportunistic?" What strategic plan led us to Kunshan, and to a scattering of other cities. What strategic plan has left us out of all of Latin America, all of Africa, most of Western Europe, and all of Mexico with whom we have the greatest misunderstandings, and Canada with whom we have the greatest trade?

Also, Chronicle, what is your source for the information that Duke's mistaken adventure into Kunshan is the "boldest step for any American university expanding into China." Bold is an cheap, easy word to use: Fact Checker is the boldest journalistic force on any campus in America!!!

Lastly, fellow Dukies. Don't just assume that we can put our brand name out there and it will be instant success. Fuqua tumbled reaching into Frankfurt, fumbled with the London School of Economics, bumbled in Moscow and crumbled with the Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad. You don't hear those cities mentioned anymore.
✔

2/24/2010 Duke distorts admission stats

Fact Checker here. We have to be very careful when viewing the percentage of candidates that Duke admits.

Duke counts people who did not complete their applications -- for whatever reason you can imagine -- in its pool. The number you see reported as the number who "applied" to Duke is quite different from the number of applications that our admissions Dean and his staff actually had to consider.

Thus the percentage of those admitted also becomes distorted, which is to say lower. I respectfully disagree with administrators in their calculation.

Fact Checker.

2/24/2010 Chronicle lacked perspective on Haganah

Fact Checker does not believe Haganah merits the explanatory phrase, "the Israeli freedom fighters." Nor the unmodified jubilation of Scott Gorlick at her presence.

Over time Haganah morphed and I have no knowledge of precisely when Dr Ruth, whom I admire greatly for her candor and humor on sex, actively participated and when she merely acquiesced.

Let's make clear: the organization supported and enabled secret immigration in violation of British law. In one flip, the organization worked with the British to kidnap, interrogate, torture and in some cases deport Jews with whom it politically disagreed, specifically members of the Irgun. In other words, Haganah participated in renditions just like our CIA.

And in another flip flop, Haganah, Irgun, which sponsored mass terror, and Lehi, which sponsored individual terror, merged. One result was the terrorist bombing of the British HQ, the south wing of the King David Hotel, killing 91 including hotel guests who were citizens of many countries and innocent people walking by on the street.

It is a disservice to history to simply identify Haganah as "Israeli freedom fighters."

2/24/2010 Chronicle challenged for its choice of editorials

✔Why did the editorial board pick this topic? Do you feel it has any particular resonance in the Duke community?

Are you guys sputtering out of ideas?

Where's the follow up on President Brodhead? A week ago he did precisely what you had called for in two stinging editorials. He got out of his office, showed leadership and held a meeting with one segment of the stakeholders and dealt with the financial crisis. After landing a one-two punch on him for the lack of such connection, how did he do? Only Fact Checker has offered commentary so far; the entire editorial page with its stable of columnists (four times as many people as either the NY Times or Wall Street Journal) has only had blather.

Why Binghamton? I am much more interested in Crystal Gail Mangum, for the second time facing charges of attempted murder. You never mentioned how a string of felony charges -- including trying to ram a cop with a taxi cab she stole -- were plea bargained down to three weekends in jail. And more importantly, why haven't you discussed why her children remain in her custody, particularly after the state attorney general determined she was too crazy to stand trial for her lacrosse crimes, including filing false police reports.

Why Binghamton? You guys not worried about the tuition hike the Trustees will adopt later this week? You don't want to weigh in on the balance between the needs of Duke and the needs of families who send their children here? And how about that idea that's been circulating that it doesn't matter what Duke's tuition is, because only the wealthy pay full freight and everyone else falls under the need blind admissions guarantee anyhow? You don't want to comment on that?

Why Binghamton? You have never commented on whether you think the administration was inclusive of students at each stage of the planning for the Keohane K4 dorm. In the decision to make this our #1 priority. In the design decisions. And in the decision to incur vast overtime expenses and have construction 7AM to 7PM seven days a week. Administrators should give out a block of rooms to Chronicle editors overlooking this mess, and maybe you will wake up. Is the editorial board satisfied with the student place at the table? Fact Checker thinks students were rolled over by a huge bulldozer.

Why Binghamton? I bet it is easier than writing an editorial about borrowing and more borrowing and borrowing some more, this time to pay for the Keohane dorm. Did you see the report from the credit rating agency (Fitch) yesterday about Duke Health's borrowing: the revelation that Duke Health had to trim its borrowing on the new hospital addition from $700 million to $300 million because we were getting in over our heads? Or did you see how the Health System is moving (or should I say how lenders are forcing Duke Health to move) its endowment money out of the risky pool with its swinging hedge funds and private equity, the precise shaky place that Duke Management keeps billions designed for the educational side of Duke. And you write about Binghamton?

Binghamton!! Open up your comments section so that people can talk about ideas relevant to Dukies, rather than being restricted to posting only in response to Chronicle articles. Who knows? An idea better than Binghamton might lurk.

✔Time for coffee.

4/22/2010 Brodhead won't talk about China because he doesn't have facts

Quoting from the Chronicle

“The truth is that we’re concerned to understand this matter better,” Brodhead said Sunday. “We’re not going to leap to any conclusions when the facts are so ambiguous.”
.....
“Something has been reported and the reporters made clear that no one really understands what the truth really is,” Brodhead said. “It wouldn’t be correct to change the relationship when the facts of the situation are so ambiguous.”

Nice to know a university in China gets more consideration than our three lax players did.

-- Fact Checker.