The American Spectator

p>The Nifong decision was the right one and a good one. Let’s balance it with a slap to the other side. br> — Annette Cwik /p>

Thank you, Jay Homnick for being the only person I have heard suggest that the “boys will be boisterous” line does not let the Duke lacrosse players off the hook for what precipitated this whole sordid affair. They planned a party, planned the entertainment and hired the entertainer.

They were fortunate to have parents bail them out of the mess they created for themselves. They were fortunate not to have been a son of mine, squandering the opportunity I had afforded them of an expensive education.

p>And oh, darn, now their reputations are besmirched! “Where do I go to get my reputation back?” can be answered with “What reputation?” br> — Diane Smith br> South San Francisco, California /p>

I’m not sure I get Mr. Homnick’s “nuanced” point, as he appears to proclaim a pox on all parties concerned in the Duke case, except one. As the facts have finally established, all these young college men did was to throw an off campus party with alcohol and a stripper. Oh my!, quickly, the smelling salts!! Apparently, it was a question of money that precipitated the chain of events that was to follow. No, really?

p>So please, spare me your moralization about these young men. If you wish to ponder nuances that “elude conventional wisdom,” may I suggest you concentrate on the faculty of Duke and that mensch of a president, Richard Brodhead, for their craven and politically motivated actions. Their reactions exhibited a classic example of insulated, leftist, elitist group-think, dangerously unchecked. Just where exactly were the “adults” at Duke? Nifong has at least been disbarred: A most proper disposition for his actions. Duke University has quietly paid out a settlement to the students and their families, while the MSM concentrates on Nifong. But what of Brodhead and the infamous “88”? Will they go unpunished? Apparently so. br> — A. DiPentima