Sunday, January 14, 2007

The N&O's Verdict on Davidson

It appears as if few of the N&O’s readership were persuaded by Cathy Davidson’s recent apologia for the Group of 88’s rush to judgment. Today’s Sunday forum published six responses to the Davidson op-ed; five letter-writers were critical.

Chapel Hill’s John Chambers notes that the reasoning behind her op-ed, not the words of Davidson’s critics, “shows the hypocrisy and tunnel vision which many would say 'make(s) academics and liberals look ridiculous.' In fact, it is exactly the mirror equal of Rush Limbaugh at his one-sided worst.”

Chyambers detects a “social disaster” from this event—the fact that a false allegation of rape will make it harder for true victims to be taken seriously. “Will the 88 distinguished and anguished professors of the Duke Chronicle ad,” he wonders, “now provide a second one, denouncing the real disaster for all women? Any bets?”

Raleigh’s Mark Esposito notes that while “it’s comforting to know the faculty at Duke are concerned enough with the side effects of the controversy to write about it some 10 months later . . . one can’t help wonder why there was no such concern for the accused three players.”

Chapel Hill’s Diane Goldstein Block takes apart Davidson’s absurd claim that in the early days of the affair, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans “were being elevated to the status of martyrs.” Instead, Block correctly observes, “It is these young men who have had their names and faces splashed across the media, had their lives put on hold, lost careers that they had earned, not to mention the emotional and financial strain they and their families have been put through.”

For Block, “the social disaster is that Davidson and other faculty members who signed that ad still do not understand the harm they have done to the university itself and to society at large.”

Raleigh’s David Kelsey brings his own personal experience to bear: “Having once served as jury foreman in a volatile federal District Court case on sexual harassment, I witnessed first-hand what happens when people deliberately ignore facts—especially unpleasant ones—and stick to their personal agendas.” Group of 88 members, he notes, obviously are entitled to free speech, but he questions “their timing and their means of disseminating these views. An educator’s job is to help students learn how to think critically,” not engage in “sacrificing individuals”—in this case three of their own students—”for the sake of a debatable social good.”

Finally, a superb letter from Michael Gustafson, which I quote in full.

One problem with Duke professor Cathy N. Davidson’s Jan. 5 Point of View article was her statement that “I am positive I am not the only professor who was and continues to be adamant about the necessity for fair and impartial legal proceedings for David, Collin and Reade while also being dismayed by the glaring social disparities implicit in what we know happened on March 13.” Such adamance would require some form of public expression. To my knowledge, none has taken place.

When Durham police entered a dorm to “interview” lacrosse players without their legal representation present? Silence. When our students were threatened with taunts of “You’ll get yours, rapist” and “Dead man walking!” Silence. When the committee tasked to examine the lacrosse team’s behavior concluded that “The committee has not heard evidence that the cohesiveness of this group is either racist or sexist” and “The current as well as former African American members of the team have been extremely positive about the support the team provided them”? Silence.

When Professor James Coleman stated “the line-up ordered by the D.A. for the Duke lacrosse case violated local, state and federal guidelines”? Silence. When Moezeldin Elmostafa was arrested in connection with a crime he helped police to solve, shortly after coming forward with evidence of innocence for one of the students? Silence. When Mike Nifong refused to hear evidence from David, Collin, or Reade? Silence. When DNA evidence demonstrated just how fictional the district attorney’s story was? Silence. Adamant silence.

In the groupthink atmosphere in which Davidson operates, I have no doubt that colleagues are celebrating her op-ed. It seems as if most others continue to ask—now that the case upon which the ad was based has utterly collapsed—how not even one member of the Group of 88 could express any concerns about the timing or content of the ad, or make a definitive statement that three Duke students have been wronged.


Anonymous said...

The so-called Group of 88: a disaster for Duke University. Does Brodhead fail to see how damaging this is to Duke?

Anonymous said...

Please call this to the attention of Attorney General Gonzales and Congressman Jones:

AMac said...

Readers should know that Michael Gustafson is a Professor at Duke's Engineering School, and good writer on social issues as well.

Anonymous said...

The paper version of the NYT that I bought today buried the Duke story on the bottom of page A-20.


Anonymous said...

Perhaps there will also be silence from the Gang of 88 about this latest atrocity:

White man killed and burned, fiancee raped repeatedly over days and killed by three fine upstanding black men.

Anonymous said...

from a non-attorney/retired professor: I have stated this before about Professor Davidson, but I will repeat it again. She would have more credibility if she would have unequivocally endorsed the statement of the economists. It is not too late to do so.

KC Johnson said...

Agree completely with the 1.53:

The fact that none of the Group of 88 can endorse the Ec Department statement--or unequiovally condemn Nifong, or state that the three players have been badly treated--speaks volumes about their intent.

Anonymous said...

The paper version of the NYT that I bought today

Money well wasted.

Anonymous said...

Interesting post, especially the comments by Professor Gustafson. I also agree with Gustafson's comments taken from his blog, some of which I've copied below:


"There is no Group of 88.

There is no singular construction known as The Group of 88, there is not a single faculty member with a giant rubber stamp holding 88 names of people, and there is not a single hive-mind behind the signatures of the "Listening" ad placed in the Chronicle lo those many months ago.

Given that, I think it is wrong to cast them as such, in the same way it is unfair that some of those signers have cast The Lacrosse Team as The Group of 47. As we get more distance between ourselves and early March, we all have to make sure to demand individual accountability and responsibility for actions. (The rest of this post was going to be a plea not to lump them together. It went in a different direction. C'est la James Joyce (the literary style, not the bar). I'll see if I can reconstruct my initial direction later - summary is I personally like, professionally respect, and generally understand why many of the folks signed that ad. I personally dislike, professionally abhor, and generally understand why a few others did, too. I do not consider them all to be of one body.)"

For sure, there are some bad actors amongst those that signed the ad - what another commenter on another thread labelled "an incomprehensible manifesto". And I'm not sure what punishment can or will be meted out, if any, in addition to the excoriation they've received in many forums.

But to paint all 88 with the same brush seems to me to be guilty of that which we claim to abhor.

Anonymous said...

Don't waste your time watching "60 Minutes" tonight. Stahl will probably only concentrate on Nifong and Meehan--in other words, yesterday's news

Don't expect any coverage of Brodhead's fecklessness, or the G88's racism

It'll be a must-not-see--LOL


Anonymous said...

Slightly off topic, but while we're on the issue of individual choices and character (or lack thereof), Crystal Mess has an excellent post: Brad Bannon: Great Lawyer. Great Person.

jkhg said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...


"repeat it again"

Professor, place your head between your knees and scream, "Redundancy alert!"


Anonymous said...

Say it(1). Repeat it(2). Repeat it again (3+). False redundancy alert?

Anonymous said...

I would think, now that a lawsuit has been filed, Duke lawyers should be telling the Duke 88 not to make any comments, op-eds, or emails. All of their comments will be neatly filed and combed for future lawsuits. Admit no wrong make no statements.

Hide under their desks.

Anonymous said...

2:34 PM

Money before principles. Not a great long-term strategy.

Anonymous said...

"false redundancy alert," I agree, is a much funnier term, but not applicable here


Anonymous said...

It's off topic, but I'd like to respond to a poster who was singing David Horowitz's praises on another thread.

Horowitz's pet peeve is academic balance, and finding ways to enforce "balance" on most liberal-leaning university faculties.


It's the other side of the black studies coin.

I've spoken to Horowitz, and I found him to be an eager blowhard--LOL


Anonymous said...

But to paint all 88 with the same brush seems to me to be guilty of that which we claim to abhor.
2:10 PM

Well fine except I think you are forgetting the great advice that your momma gave you, that being :

You will be judged by the company that you keep.

And those that you want to understand, why have they not even at this late hour, publicly renounced their own rush to judgement? Silence as adamant as that, is quite damning.

Anonymous said...

I'd been meaning to this for a while. I picked up the phone, dialed, and had a quick, friendly conversation:

New Times Operator: (After verifying my identity, etc.) How can I help you today?

Me: I want to cancel my subscription.

NYT Op: Very well. Can I ask the reason?

Me: It's a lousy newspaper.

NYT Op: OK. Would you like to donate your subscription to someone else?

Me: I wouldn't give it to my dog.

NYT Op: I'm sorry. I just have to ask those questions.

Me: No problem. I understand.

There were probably a dozen specific reasons I could have given for dropping the paper. A more fruitful question for them, though, would have been "Why have you kept your subscription this long?" to which I would have answered, "One reason only--Will Shortz." But I can buy their crossword puzzles separately on line.

Anonymous said...


Please tell us what these individuals (members of the Duke 88)have done outside of signing the Ad in the face of this injustice.

Who among the Duke 88 has come out
and said with holding evidence is wrong?

Calling them and the whole Lax team names is wrong?

Not waiting for the facts to come out before demanding "innocent" people confess?

So what individual in the Duke 88 has spoken out against the most outragous case of injustice in years?

Anonymous said...

I want to thank someone who (to my knowledge) has _never_ gotten credit for being one of the first (and consistent) journalists to report accurately and see through the hoax

Aaron Beard of the AP

His article today,
Nifong career over, focuses on the most likely outcome of this case...a nationwide skepticism of the motives of all DAs.

For the last 10 months of accurate, straightforward reporting, well done Mr Beard.

Anonymous said...

Now that Nifong has been removed from the case, the level of competency and overall professionalism has a chance to rise in the Durham County Judiciary. I’d like the same to happen with a few of the posters to this blog. I’ve refrained from addressing two subjects in the past, but with a temporary respite in fast-breaking news perhaps now is the time.

Now is not the time for exhibitions of self-righteousness. Smugness is neither an attractive trait in public displays by the Durham DA nor is it welcome in some of the posts to this blog. Name-calling, character assassinations, off-subject rants, and the posting of deliberately inflammatory remarks are not unlike the tactics of the infamous pot-bangers on the streets of Durham. They directly impact the credibility of this blog and indirectly impact the credibility of its owner by giving ammunition to the very parties that are routinely criticized here. I request that everyone make a conscious effort to raise the level of comments by sticking to the facts and the related issues. And it is helpful to keep in mind that when Nifong goes down in flames, as he likely will, he takes his family with him. Some may believe that Cy has been giving him advice along the way and somehow “deserves” to be part in his fate. I have no knowledge of that, but I think it’s highly unlikely his son has been giving him legal advice, but the child will suffer nonetheless as a result of his father’s actions. A little rightly-placed compassion is a good substitute for self-righteousness.

Although I chose early on not to post information about the history of Karla Holloway’s son, the subject has been brought up in this blog on several occasions. Those who believe they can rightly infer that she played a major role in his outcome simply do not know what they are talking about. I knew BK – short for Bem Kayem; my family was the victim of the first of a series of crimes he committed as a juvenile. And I spent some time with his father after one of the court cases. While I am not a defender of Karla Holloway’s behavior or her beliefs as stated in her writings, I know that BK’s parents did not sit idly by while they watched their adopted child turn into a psychopath. And based on my personal interaction with him I believe he was a true psychopath. To suggest that his mother was somehow responsible for his turning into a brutal rapist and murderer is a step over the line of civility. No one really knows how some people become amoral in the true sense of the word, having no respect for property rights, basic human rights, or human life. I sincerely hope these comments will put an end to any further speculation on this subject.

Anonymous said...



Why do you insist on giving editorial direction?

Post and we'll riposte. Folly?


Anonymous said...

JLS says...

I did not like the Chamber letter much at all. It was uncalled for for him to criticize the much smarter, wittier, kinder, Rush Limbaugh in a letter about the pathetic 88. Limbaugh is hardly perfect, but that was a cheap shot.

Of course given the N&O editorial behavior including their error filled editorial of today, that cheap shot probably helped the letter get published.

Anonymous said...

to 322 from non-lawyer/retired professor: Thoughtful and reflective comments. Thanks for the reminder. Civility might be more effective in convincing those who do not share our perspective.

Anonymous said...

"But to paint all 88 with the same brush seems to me to be guilty of that which we claim to abhor."

Professor Gustaphson has made excellent posts. However, he is wrong on this issue.

The "88" are assailed for their "proxy-endorsement" of the potbangers and those who held "Castrate" signs - that was their individual and collective decision.

Its not a broad brush. EACH of the "88" are responsible for "EACH" of their signatures.

Seems simple to me -

Anonymous said...

3:32, et al

Please instruct me on how I can be civil when describing the joke that is Karla Holloway's employment at Dook.

IMO, posters should make their arguments--regardless of "feelings"

The infrastructure of the Dook rape hoax combines "ugly" taboos and hardcore scientific facts

Can you handle that?

Roman Polanski

Anonymous said...

With all due respect 3:22, because I agree with your assertions, Karla Holloway's son was Bem Kayin, not Bem Kayem.

Anonymous said...

tO 1:24pm Attorney General Gonzales is a waste of time. His office is a shell with no substance. The Department of Justice is incorrectly named. It should be the Department of Injustice or the Department of Look the Other Way. NC Attorney General Cooper took way too long. I hope these boys clean out the coffers of the state of NC that so deviously persecuted them.

Anonymous said...

agree with 3:38

Civil derives its meaning from citizen, and the Holloways of the world are not bona fide citizens, but welfare dependents. Her check, while not the burden of the government, is the burden of Duke parents and alumni. Mr. Polanski has contributed greatly to the argument by coining the term, "academic welfare."

Polanski's right: there's no mellifluous way of delivering that message!

Anonymous said...

The entire bunch of Duke 88 are cowards, sniveling cowards hiding behind their hate words and personal agendas. They are not intelligent, they do not have dignity or character. A person who can admit they made a mistake with no excuses attached has strength of character. A person who hides behind their lies and distorted truths is a waste of human life. Each and every member who signed the Duke 88, each and every Duke employee who took part of the witch hunt, wanted poster will be held accountable for their actions. These families will not rest until each and every person who made their son's and families lives hell for 10 plus monthes will be repaid ten times over. I look forward to that day.

Joe T. said...

It's very heartening to read those letters. Just when one starts to feel most of society has gone insane, we can realize there are fellow sensible people out there.

Anonymous said...

to 338 and 354 from a non-lawyer/retired professor: I am not trying to persuade Holloway at this point. She is a lost cause. But there are many who are not knowledgeable as you regarding the case, and I am convinced that they cannot be converted by imitating the tactics of those whom we condemn. So maybe we have to agee to disagree on tactics to be used.

Anonymous said...


The thing is, when someone chooses to blame problem behaviors on racial taunting and willfully sets aside genetics and everything else in the environment to do so, it says something. I don't think this can be proven either way -- so drawing such a conclusion reveals prejudice (of the sort that reasonably could contribute to anti-social behavior, no less).

Yes, the Holloway's son was a tragedy (particularly to the victims) -- but hypocrites in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I think this was originally raised in the context of a comment that Holloway should be more sensitive to the pain of others, particuarly families of young men accused of violent crime.

I agree with your overall points but actually thought the comments were pretty restrained, considering. In particular, it seems unlikely that this would be reciprocated, were the roles reversed.

Bill said...

Though I agree with Gustafason that there really "is" no distinct monolithic Group of 88. The cohort of 88 were amazingly naive to believe that the misconduct of a few of them would not reflect on all of them. All the while I'd safely bet that a goodly number of the 88 had an 180 degree take on the Lacrosse team. We know that groups are judged (often unfairly) by the behavior of their worse members. They expected the Laxers to know that, but the faculty to an individual are to be innocent until proven guilty of undue bias? (Strange how the children "should know better" and not the adults.)

A agree with other posters that Davidson's column as such is too little too late. She's a prof. She's educated. She wasn't born yesterday. She should have known better... And now she knows that students at Duke have not-unreasonable cause to distrust 88 of their profs -- of which she is one -- and their president.

And she has no one to blame but herself.

WannabeAnglican said...

The next time the Duke Annual Fund contacts me, I will respond that they need not bother until a good number of the Group of 88 are fired.

Anonymous said...

I actually believe it is good to have these hate filled stupid people exposed to the American public - particularly white ones. We have been blinded to long with PCism. Victoria, Cash, Joyner and NBBPs on one show together = could not buy this publicity on the hate and stupidity of black racist.

westernblot said...

I wonder if some of these apologias for the 88 are written by them under the nom d'anom. Perhaps they should come out as individuals and face the music.

Richard Riley said...

3:02 -

A while back I canceled my NYT subscription after 12 years. I got the same question, I answered "because I can't accept the agenda driven slanting of news stories to fit a political agenda."

She said "OK, I'll check that off."

I said "There's a box for that?"

She said "Yeah, it's number 3, just after I'm moving and the subscriber is dead."

Anonymous said...

I emailed CNN and PZ - I think once you check negative, it is in the trashcan.

Anonymous said...

It is probably safe to assume the 88 duke profs have consulted lawyers and will not make any further statements that could jeapordize them in upcoming lawsuits.

Teresita said...

Anon said, "And it is helpful to keep in mind that when Nifong goes down in flames, as he likely will, he takes his family with him."

You don't think the Gang of 88 will take care of their own, after Nifong's performance fighting the "good fight" ? They need to send a message of total support to the next DA who thinks about picking three random SOBs to become race war scapegoats.

Ed from the Wine Country said...

Mr. Chambers' letter to the N & O was well-intentioned, but I fear it misses the real point.

Frequently, in cases like this one where a man or a white or a white man is injured, someone advances the argument that the most important fallout of a false claim is that it could boomerang and hurt minorities (or women).

I think this is a fearful position. It ostensibly makes it "OK" to argue for a white/male/white male, while insulating oneself from charges of racism or insensitivity. This argument posits that unless the white male's position is upheld IN THIS CASE, the real losers systemically could be minorities, and THAT is the real sin.

Look, I don't want anyone brutalized. But let us be clear: the real victims in THIS case are the lacrosse players, who have had their lives put on hold; been required (through their families, presumably) to spend untold thousands on excellent legal representation; and been tarred, probably for life, as men who were accused of rape.

(Notwithstanding the likely implosion of the criminal case, no court will affirmatively find them innocent. The criminal charges will simply be dismissed. Even if, contrary to all expectation, the case does go to trial and they are acquitted, the acquittal would merely signify that the state did not satisfy its heavy burden of proof to demonstrate criminal culpability).

Whether and to what extent future, presently unidentified and merely hypothetical rape victims might be treated as less credible because of Mr. Nifong's and Ms. Mangum's antics is a problem for another day. If and when that problem arises, there will be no shortage of "Group of 88"/Al "the Nubian Queen, Tawana Brawley" Sharpton/Jesse Jackson types to raise a hue and a cry. I'm going out on a limb here, but I venture that even the New York Times will enter that fight, braying righteously. :- )

The problem today is what has happened to these lacrosse players. Their situation does not require legitimation by reference to what might happen in the future to some presently unknown and unidentified women.

AMac said...

anon 3:22pm --

You wrote on the desirability of commenters demonstrating civility by avoiding name-calling, character assassinations, off-subject rants, and the posting of deliberately inflammatory remarks.

Well said.

As D-i-W's visibility in the 'blogosphere' has risen, so has the number of worthwhile comments. The best are truly thought provoking. Alas, though, the worst are... as you describe.

I sometimes wonder, "Was this comment written by a person driven to anger by the outrageousness of the Hoax? Or was it contributed by a Group of 88 supporter in an effort to make KC Johnson's readers look bad?"

I expect that both kinds of writers have contributed to this blog's comments.

Anonymous said...

3:22 The main point regarding bringing up the fact that Bem was a rapist, was to question why his mother wasn't more sensitive to the suffering that the families of the lacrosse players were experiencing. For someone who had not been in those shoes it could be said that they did not understand what it felt like to be in that situation. For someone who had been in those shoes, it was strange that she had so little empathy for the boys and their families. It seemed odd to me to find out that she could make the public statements she made after knowing what it felt like to have your child charged with a serious felony. To thank students for the protests, some of which included going to 3 students home with a sign that said "castrate", knowing what it felt like to be in their families' shoes, is difficult for me to understand.

bill anderson said...

As some of you know, I had some back-and-forth with Cathy Davidson, and I defended her to a point, which raised some hackles. (One of my good friends told me I deserved all the criticism that I received -- and I told him he probably was right.)

The problem as I see it is that some of them want to believe that their intentions were so good that what they did could not have been wrong. Furthermore, they contend that the language of the ad did not condemn the lacrosse players specifically.

To me, that is an explanation that I cannot buy. First, the ad pointedly thanked the protesters precisely FOR their rush to judgment, and we know what the protesters were doing. Second, the ad was aimed at telling people that Duke is permeated with racism, and that the blacks on campus face terrible oppression. That simply is not true.

At the present time, I am working on an article that deals with race on elite campuses such as Duke and the Ivies. There is a very visible dynamic here, and one of the tactics that people like Karla Holloway and Houston Baker use is to constantly keep the "racism" pot stirring in order to create an atmosphere of constant crisis. By appealing to white liberal guilt, they are able to solidify their positions by shouting down everyone else.

Anonymous said...

She said "Yeah, it's number 3, just after I'm moving and the subscriber is dead."

This is the funniest thing I've read all day!

Anonymous said...

Coleman is a hero

Anonymous said...

Bill A... Before this case, would you have believed an injustice could go so far and for so long? Did Nifong believe he could skate through the discovery and trial? What finally prompted him to throw in the towel? Thank for your time.

bill anderson said...

What drove this case as far as it did were the politics of race and rape. Look at those who still defend Nifong and the bringing of the charges: they always make their arugments on ABSTRACT grounds.

For example, a recent article by Yolanda Carrington in a communist paper spoke of rape being the mechanism by which the capitalists hold female workers in check. Now, that in itself is nonsense, but her argument was that the three young men were guilty of rape because political theory demanded it to be so.

Or take the "Bodies of Evidence" piece by Karla Holloway. The entire piece was abstract, and its insistence upon guilt of the young men did not depend upon whether or not they actually raped someone, but rather that they were white and the accuser is black, so any attempt to say that Reade, Collin, and David were innocent automatically meant that whoever said such a thing was a racist.

Look at all of the writings from the G88. Everything is in abstract, and not one of them actually dealt with the fact that the three young men were human beings. They were symbols of evil, and it never occurred to those faculty members to think otherwise.

Cedarford said...

The cabal-like nature of the Gang of 88 and the apparant Stalinist group solidarity the ringleaders insist on of the signers - don't break ranks belies their current defense.

It's bad in it's own right, because the public and those within a larger organization aware of a secretive, closed ranks cabal in their midst tend to distrust cabals and not like them.

But being seen as an unapologetic Gang out to attack and harm others not only repels non-Gang members, but makes members less able to argue their case persuasively.
For this Stalinist-like love of solidarity not only damages them publicly as a true ideological Gang, but colors their perception of others to bizarre levels.

(Why so much import on solidarity? Because it is a long-time behavior of revolutionaries they love and seek to emulate behaviors of or at least pose as. Traditionally, backsteppers, counter-revolutionaries, betrayers of the cause of progress who violated solidarity were imprisoned or executed).

When you are a player in victim identity politics, a proud warrior against the "wrong races", the "bad gender", the "oppressor classes" - you know what lines must not be crossed, what loyalty is demanded.

Which makes it absolutely impossible for such ideologues to fathom any other social groups not having such iron committment.
Thus it made perfect sense to the idiots of the 88 that "male jock identity" would mean 46 lacrosse players, a 2nd black stripper, 2 non-player friends would all naturally gather and in under an hour, work out all the details and stories needed to conspire and lie - and risk massive jail time if caught. By Hard Left thinking, since such solidarity and conspiracy is totally plausable -- the only credible one must be the victim of the white male jock oppressor class.
It made perfect sense to the 88 and sadly, much of the media and the conspiracy-loving part of the black community that 46 young men of outstanding background, hard work, and no criminal record would risk the rest of their lives for a "wall of silence" after an ad hoc gang rape none of them tried to stop.

To the general public, it was thought absolutely insane that 48 men and one other black stripper would all lie about something like that and the word of a criminal stripper would somehow be judged "more credible" than the 49 other people.
Not even military squads in that have trained together for years, fought together for years, have that sort of solidarity if major crimes happen in combat. Only Marxists, organized criminals, and facists are able to condition followers to have a cohesive code of silence in large numbers in the face of wrongdoing.
But to a pack of ideologues, a "wall of silence" and "massive conspiratorial coverup" made perfect sense.

Davidson - "I am positive I am not the only professor who was and continues to be adamant about the necessity for fair and impartial legal proceedings for David, Collin and Reade while also being dismayed by the glaring social disparities implicit in what we know happened on March 13"

There was no fairness from moment one. Davidson assumed the word of the accuser because of her race, gender, and class was worth more than the word of 4 dozen other witnesses.
Nothing shook her faith in "the victim" enough to break her or the others. No facts. No doubt that what was happening was "fair", and achieving "social justice".
If she is "so dismayed" about glaring social inequities "implicit" in a strip club or an athletic group party hiring lower-earning strippers, magicians, struggling musicians in a band, or pizza delivery guy....then surely Davidson is conscious of the "glaring social inequities" in her own life she fosters or perpetuates.

Does Professor Davidson scream with indignation about the lowly black office cleaner coming in to clean her Department offices getting 1/14 her pay and 1/50th of her "prestige"??
Does the professor demand revolution for improving the pay Gang of 88 members give their housemaids?
Their pizza delivery guy, or more appropos caterers at their swank upscale parties and 4 chamber music or jazz players helping with the entertaining??

No, the more you think about what Prof Davidson expresses she really thinks, all you can credit her for is having the guts to defend the indefensible.

Anonymous said...

3:22 You are right on. Of course, no one sat by while the boy's personality was desolving. No one should be posting about anyones personal life - including CYs. We want to be better than those that wallow in the mud.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:22,

I request that everyone make a conscious effort to raise the level of comments by sticking to the facts and the related issues.

Certainly. The facts and related issues of this case are as follows in importance:

1) Race and racism of the black on white variety in NC, university campuses thanks to anti-white leftism, in the MSM and across the nation as a whole.

2) Extreme Marxist ideology in the university setting thanks to an infiltration of closet Marxists in the social sciences as well as the creation of substandard departments filled with subpar professors as well.

3) Opportunism of a DA who knew his constituents all too well and using the biases, bigotry, and racism of Durham Blacks to attempt the falsely imprison 3 innocent men into a long prison term for personal gain.

4) The utter corruption of NC from top to bottom.

5) Rape shield laws and false accusers. Time to tweak that monstrosity.

Others may add to the list if so inclined.

Anonymous said...

As former Medical Dean of a major Northeastern Medical School, I have much experience with postmodern Marxists in whose lives the greateat tragedy was the fall of the Berlin Wall. I have no doubt that most, if not all, of the racist posts were done by Group of 88 allies to discredit KC by association. And given Holloway's high profile in an alleged rape case, bringing up her son is absolutely fair game. We can ask her how she would feel if we praised those who came to her home and held up signs "castrate" after her son was arrested.

Do not be intimidated by the Group of 88.

Anonymous said...

the best way to overcome racism is to see beyond seems to me members of the Group of 88 have a vested interest in its continuence

Anonymous said...

>>>Bill: If she is "so dismayed" about glaring social inequities "implicit" in a strip club or an athletic group party hiring lower-earning strippers, magicians, struggling musicians in a band, or pizza delivery guy....

I would have to guess that Precious earned a lot more as a stripper than the other those other folks who don't get $400 o five minutes of work. Furthermore, I would hazard to guess that her disposable income far exceeded that of most Duke students.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Gustafson's letter is not only well-written and factual, it also shows considerable professional courage on his part.

Davidson is, like it or not, still a force (or a farce?) to be reckoned with at Duke; whereas Gustafson, as far as I understand it, is on a limited contract, no tenure.

Gustafson's personal courage lends even more weight to his words, and stands in contrast to the cowardly gang-think that he has dared to oppose.

Setonhallmom said...

I plan to watch 60 minutes. The players' mothers will be speaking. I am really interested in their feelings.

Anonymous said...

6:15 and others;

I believe it is folly to expect any empathy out of Ms. Holloway regarding the Duke Lacrosse hoax. The situations are not comparable. Remember, her son was NOT falsely accused. He actually did do the things for which he was incarcerated.

Anonymous said...

Most of the anti-black posters on this site are probably legit. Seems like a stretch to think the Gang of 88 are writing the racist stuff that pops up here every so often. This issue is a pretty good test of one's feelings about other races, after all.

Still, it's good to see that those entries make up relatively few of the postings.

Anonymous said...

Returning to the civility issue.

For purposes of intellectual debate, "civility" is always subordinate to well-argued, creative analysis. It's also a pseudoconcept with distinct fascist undertones--eg, "OH NO, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!"

Why are people worried about G88 posters "sabotaging" the blog? I welcome them. 6:15--as to your "racism" concerns: what are you talking about? Racism is another pseudoconcept that gets thrown around all the time--it does not mean anything.

I suggest citing examples of this purported "racism," so we may have a discussion.

Am I the only person to find irony in the Holloway story? Here's an unintelligent, untalented, uncreative cipher sucking her nourishment at whitey's breast all the while calling whitey an evil bastard and attempting to railroad whitey's children--SSWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTT

BA--I'm excited to hear about your article. Please keep us up to date.

Cedarford: Right on. How obsolete is Stalinism? It makes black studies appear relevant.

Amac, what are you afraid of? Has it ever occurred to you that your fear is part of the problem?

Whites and Asians aren't guilty about black failure--they are fearful of being called meaningless words like "racist" by academic welfare recipients.

Masterpiece recommendation: "The Castle" by Franz Kafka--just reread it, and it's still amazing


Anonymous said...

to 706 from a non-lawyer/retired professor: Good comment. I couldn't with you more about the contrast between the two professors, Davidson and Gustafson. Davidson is an idealogue with an agenda where the facts are not relevant. Gustafson was one of the few public voices among the Duke faculty concerned with the rights of these Duke students.

Anonymous said...

This whole case is absurd.

Hormonal young men hired an intoxicated stripper and that has led to graduate-level discourse on the very nature of contemporary American society.

Only in Durham.

Anonymous said...

Actually- I'd like to add some punctuation to that.

"Only in Durham?"

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Durham, the hoax is a symptom about major problems in American society.

I've always argued that this case is not about lacrosse or strippers.

I'm sure Professor Johnson agrees with me.


Anonymous said...

Where does Brodhead stand?

Anonymous said...

It has BECOME a debate about major problems in American society, but at its epicenter is still "hormonal young men hiring an intoxicated stripper."

AMac said...

RP 7:29pm --

"For purposes of intellectual debate, "civility" is always subordinate to well-argued, creative analysis. It's also a pseudoconcept with distinct fascist undertones--eg, 'OH NO, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!'"

By writing a cogent and controversial post without claiming that somebody's mother wears Army boots, you undercut your own point.

"Amac, what are you afraid of?"

I "fear" a comments section where insults and ad hominem crowd out intelligent debate. 'kay?

"Has it ever occurred to you that your fear is part of the problem?"


Anonymous said...

Where does Brodhead stand?

With stalinists, feminists, racists and subpar professors.
eh, and by the way, you ugly rich male whitey, send your huge donation check to Duke immediately and send you kids here so we can "teach" them a lesson!!

Mr. Brodhead

Anonymous said...

2:10pm Given that, I think it is wrong to cast them as such, in the same way it is unfair that some of those signers have cast The Lacrosse Team as The Group of 47.

All of the professors in the Group of 88 have signed onto an ad which indicated that they stood as a group, "listening". People here are regarding them as a group because they voluntarily represented themselves as a group.

Had the ad gone largely unnoticed, the professors could not necessarily be faulted for failing to repudiate their former group statement. Sometimes such a renunciation would do more harm by calling attention to the earlier, wrong statement, than it would do good.

In this case, however, the ad was clearly widely noticed, and the professors' association with it widely recognized. Consequently, a failure to publicly repudiate earlier statements represents a continuing endorsement of them. The professors signed on as a group, and continue to stand together as a group. Why, then, should they not be judged as a group?

Teresita said...

C4 said, "It's bad in it's own right, because the public and those within a larger organization aware of a secretive, closed ranks cabal in their midst tend to distrust cabals and not like them."

I guess you're an equal-opportunity cabal-hater, Cedarford, having written volumes on other forums about the neocons protecting "America's Special Middle Eastern Friend(tm)". The difference is that for every Duke boy whose life was ruined there's a thousand soldier boys who are dead.

Anonymous said...

RP Said
"Sorry, Durham, the hoax is a symptom about major problems in American society.

I've always argued that this case is not about lacrosse or strippers."

Making this case about larger societal issues...sounds like G88 thinking to me

Teresita said...

Anonymous said, "Whites and Asians aren't guilty about black failure--they are fearful of being called meaningless words like 'racist' by academic welfare recipients."

Whites maybe, Asians are too busy filling up the math courses and getting the engineering degrees.

Anonymous said...

Off topic b4 60 Minutes:

AG interviews FA she tells them she wants to drop charges AG agrees case dismissed before Feb 5th. It was all pre-arranged! DPD and Liefong & Co avoid AGO exposing them.

Anonymous said...


I's innocent (and I'm not home right now).LOL


Anonymous said...

I wonder when the New Black Panther Party will show up in Knoxville and demand guilty verdicts - where is Ms. Davidson and the other 87 accomplished professors’ racial and gender outrage for another crime. Oh yes…now is a good time for the “presumption of innocence”. How I loathe these hypercritical, self serving cowards.

Teresita said...

Anonymous said, "The professors signed on as a group, and continue to stand together as a group. Why, then, should they not be judged as a group?"

Don't forget the Group of 13 Different Stories About What Happened That Night

Anonymous said...

If I was still at the age of decding between colleges as a white male (which I am)...I think I would scratch Duke off the list...seeing how they throw us folk under the bus so easily...

Anonymous said...

Sorry 8:31p
You're not a candidate for admission to Duke

Anonymous said...

I wanted Nifong to bring this to would have been like watching a munchkin taking on The Hulk.

I can just see the judge saying someinthing like "And you indicted these three because..."

Anonymous said...

or I should have stated you would not have been a candidate

Anonymous said...

Excuse me have no idea about where I went to college...believe me...I had my point was that I can understand why requests are down

Anonymous said...

Going way back to poster 1:47...I thought you were making a point by joking...sadly, it was the truth

Anonymous said...

8:37 your spelling sucks in initial post

Anonymous said...

Who is "us" folk ?

Anonymous said...

In a perfect world, Nifong would be disgraced (well, that's happened) and be in would the accuser...and even though I am not a big fan of lawsuits, I think these guys ought to sue anyone they can...this whole thing is ridiculous

Sadly...I am thinking about the baby the accuser recently had...I cry for that child

Anonymous said... spelling sucks...I made a typo! You are the one who had to send a post restating what you meant! Geeesh...was just making a point.

Anonymous said...

Why would any sane white person interact in any way with a black person after this whole incident? Its not worth the risk of being falsely accused of something only to have a chance of it being made legit in the mind of a potential jury because of the continued cry for justice based solely on a persons color that if made over and over will be believed by those in power who so desperately want to keep it or those looking to get it causing innocent whites to pay for things that they could have avoided by choosing their interactions more wisely.

The next time I order a white stripper or hooker and they send a black one, Im getting out my video recorder and taping everything until she is off my premises.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it may not be a typo when you skip a letter. I still can't believe you would judge someone by a mistake in a quickly written post!

bill anderson said...

One interesting thing to me is how the G88 and their allies condemned the "solidarity" of the lacrosse players, yet we see the G88 standing together in solidarity in order to rewrite what happened.

Anonymous said...

To: 3:22 PM

To quote J.S. Mill:

"With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation."

Ms Holloway and the 88 accepted the use of "intemperate discussion" very early on in the incident both with their words, actions and condoning of some actions by others to intimidate those on the LAX team.

Should they now be treated as children or mentally disabled ("they don't know any better, but we do")?

I would not be surprised to learn (and I never will) that Ms Holloway suffers from envy (the destructive kind) of the LAX players' parents, as their sons are innocent and hers was not.

Anonymous said...

Define "us people" . You sound like Ross Perot adressing NACCP years ago as "you people".

Anonymous said...

8:46 good points

This damages race relations. I think this result is worse than when people at OJ's trial cheered like they had just kicked that field goal to beat the Chargers a few minutes ago.

I am mad thinking that women will be more hesitant to come forward.

Just (as I believe) crying racism often is met with skepticism as in crying wolf, crying rape may now be met with more doubt...

Anonymous said...

Nifong - "Indifferent to justice." Prof. Coleman

Steven Horwitz said...

904 anon:

You beat me to it. Great sound bite.

Anonymous said...

8:48 - if you want to find racism everywhere, so be it.

Michael said...

Leslie Stahl is doing a great job. Best in the MSM that I've seen so far.

bill anderson said...

I don't think this will make it more difficult to deal with rape in the future. This case has demonstrated that the issue of DNA is important. Also, it was obvious that Crystal was lying from the start.

A person who tells the truth, to paraphrase Nifong, has nothing to worry about. If anything, this might encourage women to go to the police immediately so DNA CAN be found.

For example, I have a close friend whose daughter was raped, but she did not go to the police or report the rape to any authorities. Now, if she wanted to bring a criminal case, it would be difficult to do so. Thus, the issue is not whether people should come forward, but rather WHEN they should come forward.

Crystal's problems were not that the defendants fought back. It was that she was lying, which made it possible for the defendants and their attorneys to fight back.

Michael said...

I'm glad that they addressed the "something happened" issue. Mrs. Seligmann did a great job answering this question.

These parents did a great show on the program, but especially the women. Which is probably the better way to go as they can present the emotions along with the reasoning that appeals to anyone with kids. Well almost everyone.

Steven Horwitz said...

Nice story. But do note that the "story" is the same one that was invoked back in March - sympathy for the underdog. Then it was the AV, now it's the accused. THIS is the real problem with the MSM: every story is always about the injustice to the underdog. It just so happens that NOW, in this case, they have the facts on their side.

Anonymous said...

WOW! Just watched 60 mins and broadhead stuttered more than porky pig.

too bad he didn't have porky's backbone.


dl said...

I think 60 minutes did a good job. Like the show or not it carries a great deal of weight with a lot of people. At this point, the more exposure this case gets the better for the defendants and the more pressure that will be brought to bear on the NC AG to do the right thing and drop the charges.

Anonymous said...

60 minutes hit the highlights, missed some important details. Wished they exposed Duke, the 88 and Durham more, but overall they did get Nifong. The families did a better job of restraining themselves and giving measured responses than I could have, but they got their point accross in a reasonable and non-inflamatory manner. Stick a fork in Nifong, he's done !!!

hman said...

Just watched 60 minutes. Granted, I have never had an un-emotional relationship with this case. But darn; that was the most moving and evocative 15 minutes of television I can remember seeing. The last 5 minutes just nailed it, I think for anyone watching. The mention of the consequences of being one of those guys when googled - for the rest of their lives - could not have been made more clear.
If the civil case is handled right, I see a long string of zeroes behind the dollar sign.

Anonymous said...

Duke, Nifong and the group of 88 have to be quaking in their booties. These Mom's are going to tear them a new one. This one is going to Federal court X 10. Everyone is going to end up in court and it's going to cost the 88, Nifong, the media, Durham and Duke. I have a feeling 60 minutes is just the beginning, these families will hit the news show circuit and keep this in front of the public and put pressure on the NC AG.

Anonymous said...

i would like to start a blog that will document a real social disaster and a legitimate social fear: black on white crime.

it is totally ignored in the MSM, but that is the real threat. the white on black threat is nonexistant.

i'll keep you posted. if such a site exists, please post it.


Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer/retired professor: All hope is not lost when one thinks of the Duke faculty when one sees Professor Coleman in action on 60 minutes. I must admit that I have given up on 88 of them.

Anonymous said...

"Every day for the rest of his life."

Let's hope they can deliver on this!

Anonymous said...

Didn't like the show, especially the attempt to exonerate Precious.

I'm bipolar. Depakote is a harmless mood stabilizer, with no adverse reactions of note. More coddling of black criminals by MSM



Anonymous said...

windbag - 9:33

how dare you bring up reality - you racist!

Anonymous said...

The mental history stuff was new, at least to me. Lets see its been reported that she was taking prescription muscle relaxers ( Flexerol ) which does not react well with alcohol which she took at the party. Now we know she has at least in the past taken several anti depressants or anti psycotics ( someone help me out with the drugs named ). I wonder how these react with alcohol and muscle relaxants. Maybe we have a cornucopia of the pharmacy flowing through her which is why she is passed out nonresponsive in the grocery store parking lot.

Anonymous said...

The families were extremely accomodating of the accuser, endorsing what might be considered a radical feminist perspective, especially since CGM has created considerable mayhem in her young life.

The North Carolina arrest record of Crystal Gail Mangum:

Simple assault,

Driving while impaired,

Larceny of a motor vehicle,

felony larceny,

possession of stolen goods,

Flee/elude arrest (2 counts);

driving while impaired,

driving while license revoked

Reckless driving (wanton disregard for safety),

failure to heed light or siren,

Open container, consuming alcohol

driving wrong way,

Assault with a deadly weapon government official (2 counts),

Injury to personal property,

Resisting public officer.

And fishing without a license.

Anonymous said...

fishing without a license?

maybe in Al Gore's world

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure Rae should have said what she did, though they make sense in this case. The new prosecution may try to trade dismissal in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims. That would tempt me as a parent under these circumstances.

Just a thought.


Anonymous said...

In Canada, could not trade dismissal of criminal charges for release of civil claims. That is extortion.

Anonymous said...


Rae? meaning?

Anonymous said...

10:09 - Yes, it is, but they can still try.

Do you trust them by what you have seen here? Remember, they "look out for their own."

I can see it happening here.


Anonymous said...

10:10 - Mrs. Evans saying she would like to tell Nifong he will pay ever day the rest of his life.

Don't think this fact doesn't keep this case alive. The State wants something, against all odds, to save itself from civil liability.


Anonymous said...

Was Mrs. Seligman on some sort of anti-depressant?

Is divorce/separation the reason the two Finnerty's were not sitting together?

Does anyone doubt Mrs. Evans will exact monstrous and painful revenge on Mr. Nifong?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Broadhead has been described on several blogs as weak and vacillating.

His brief appearance tonight on 60 Minutes did nothing to dispel that notion.

Perhaps he just doesn't tape well?

hman said...

To 9:53
The combination of Depakote and Seroquel is standard for a diagnosis of Bipolar disorder.
Every psychotrophic drug has a package insert that says not to drink alcohol with it. It is assumed by everyone that alcohol will be drunk along with them. Part of the syndrome of BPD is a predeliction for alcohol abuse. Besides, people drink...
So, as a practical matter, psych drugs are rarely if ever dispensed in doses that would cause a fatal over dose if mixed with a couple of beers. In the same way, anti-depressive meds are never handed out in a form that could be used as a reliable suicide method. Kinda obvious if you think about it.
The fact is, the type of legal presciptions in her purse tell us nothing except that someone labelled her BPD. Everything else is speculation.

Cedarford said...

Teresita said...
C4 said, "It's bad in it's own right, because the public and those within a larger organization aware of a secretive, closed ranks cabal in their midst tend to distrust cabals and not like them."

I guess you're an equal-opportunity cabal-hater, Cedarford, having written volumes on other forums about the neocons protecting "America's Special Middle Eastern Friend(tm)". The difference is that for every Duke boy whose life was ruined there's a thousand soldier boys who are dead.

A stupid analogy. War kills in the thousands or millions.
Injustice is single victim by victim. But law just as important as war, because once the scales shift to unduly burder any gender, race, or class the freedoms and behaviors of 100's of millions are affected.

So don't play the classic liberal sophistry of claiming a case that affects 3 is less legitimate than a case that affects 3,000 or how global warming should wipe any discussion of Duke because that "is more important". I'm not stupid, you're not stupid, Teresita.

And as for cabals, they exist. You don't have to believe in CIA bombing the WTC to be able to discern existence of real, actual cabals. The Gang of 88 are one, the neocons are a (loosely) set up one, the folks who lined up multibillion dollar Iraq contracts or who ensure America keeps Open Borders are others.
As for the foreign lobby cabals, they are particularly insidious because they induce Americans in a position of trust given them by the People to place another nation's interests above America's - treason-lite.

Besides "Our Special Friend", the Cuban exile cabal, the China trade cabal are notorious. Add in the Saudis, of course...targets of an inadvertently hilarious tirade by Alan Dershowitz. About how after all the money Jews gave Jimmy Carter to be both pro-Israel and pursue hard Left global strategy the transnational secular Jewish progressives want, he ditched both factions of well-renumerating Jews in recent years for even better pay by the Saudi Lobby and betrayed Zionists and work towards certain "International laws" Jewish progressives wanted trumping the US Constitution.

That any foreign lobby has it's hooks in Congress, current or ex-Presidents should be cause for concern.

Dershowitz's "we bought you fair and square, then you went with a richer suiter" snit on Carter says a lot.

Anonymous said...

I asked in an earlier post if the defense costs for the three young men could be covered by a homeowners/umbrella policy? I also have a question for a PI attorney; at what point does an attorney stop the hourly billing and wait for the civil settlement(s) that I believe, as a lay person, is due from multiple parties? Note I said settlement bc I don't believe several of the prospective defendants will not want to go through the pain and humiliation of a trial.

Michael said...

9:37 Depakote is not recommended for those that are pregnant.

I also saw Seroquel mentioned which is an atypical antipsychotic. Given the highly stressful incidents in her life, I'd guess that it's safe to say that she's had at least one episode.

Side effects do include memory problems and dizzyness. Atypicals can make you incredibly sleepy too. And most of them have weight gain as a side effect.

For those that don't know, the big three that can result in psychotic episodes are schizophrenia, bipolar and depression. Just because you have these doesn't mean that you've had an episode or that you will necessarily experience one. The drugs can be used to treat psychosis or as a preventative. They can also be used to treat other things.

Cedarford said...

Esquire - The new prosecution may try to trade dismissal in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims. That would tempt me as a parent under these circumstances.

Unfortunately, with permanent damage to the reputations of the 3 young men, the family trauma, betrayal by Duke, and millions in legal bills this is not something the parents or lawyers will agree to now make go away without agreement to a colossal settlement, 1st. Nifong's head is secondary, but I have no doubt that a number of people are indeed going to exact vengence on Mikey the rest of his life.

Esquire - Mrs. Evans saying she would like to tell Nifong he will pay ever day the rest of his life.

Don't think this fact doesn't keep this case alive. The State wants something, against all odds, to save itself from civil liability.

Whoever Easley appoints will be given marching orders to make this mess go away if there is no case, not prolong it and dig an even deeper hole. And as part of that, to already have acknowledged in a few little old meetings with the Governor and other high-powered folks that the State and Durham may have to bite the bullet both on the money and a cleanup of Nifongs ADAs, and Gottliebs and Himan's happy little home.

Evan's Mom is a lawyer and I presume not stupid, and certainly not stupid with the defense and civil tort attorneys now advising her on every public statement the Evan's family makes.

Moms fury has been vetted.

As a good thing to show the media, the public, and all the parties with criminal or civil exposure.

One can speculate why. Perhaps knowledge that if the special prosecutor foot-drags or tries to subvert justice by extorting a quitclaim in return for charges being dropped the Feds will come pouring in. Or by making it clear that money and pounds of flesh will be sought rather than 3 families groveling to NC's tender mercies - that certain parties might want to call the defense attorneys up and get a deal like ummmm, getting to keep the 'ol police pension...or not join Nifong in bar proceedings...or not be named as party to 5-10 years of tort litigation that will consume their life and bank account...

No, I think Evan's move is calculated. They kept a lot of this bottled up for several months on attorney's advice and are now opening up to push some chips in the legal poker game - saying they want the draw cards, implying they have a good hand right now.

Watching the 3 families, if I was on the other side, I'd be pretty nervous that the Big Ugly is coming back around to me...Including Duke, with Mr. Finnerty saying actions by Duke and the community made his son's being able to continue his Duke education problematic, given the damage they have done to his ability to enjoy a normal life..

Anonymous said...

Cedar: Rae is a lobbyist by trade (and a golf lover), but David, Sr. is an attorney (great sailor as well) who is well respected in the DC area.

As for cleaning up the mess, true, but the temptation to save one of their own is also present. They will definitely have to tread carefully, though, because any such offer would immediately make it out into the public realm.

Maybe you're right, but my own guarded experience with prosecutors of showing nothing is coming out.


Anonymous said...

The only way to "fix" the problem as Dook is to make donations contingent on application towards studies other than the academic welfare that employs Holloway/like.

In most cases, civil settlement agreements have confidentiality/mutuality of non-disparagement clauses. F-that. No way Dook gets off the hook with 88 of their agents slandering me in the paper, and then gets to quietly walk away like nothing happend. If I were one of the Three, I would demand (along with pecuniary amounts to pay for my 2006 Spring tuition, multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, damages to account for the effect on my character, good name and reduced earning potential) an apology signed by all 88 run in the Dook paper in an ad of like size/prominence.

The only way to "fix" Crystal is to sue her civilly. I don't care if you get it in ones, you have to get your pound of flesh, and I think getting her name out there to 1/17th the extent that Evans/Finnerty/Seligman have been exposed is the way to do it. She obviously needs to be criminally charged. Spare me the nonsense about her mental conditions: she was lucid enough to point her premeditated finger at people with deep pockets, and even if she fired the golden accusation through a mental fog, she's been clear-headed sometime in the last 10 months to repudiate her accusations.

The Three need to nail Dook and the local government unit together. I would show all the mercy that they afforded them last Spring, which is to say, they would get a close up view of the underside of the bus. Are DA's elected by judicial district or County? It seems unfair to stick the State (rather than the County) with the civil liability if they are unable to remove the D.A. on their own. If I am a Forsyth County resident, and I have no vote that can unseat Mike Nifong, and the vote I do have (Atty General/Governor) cannot override Nifong, why should my tax base be depleted to pay for Durham's idiocy?

Anonymous said...

"But to paint all 88 with the same brush seems to me to be guilty of that which we claim to abhor."

Professor Gustaphson makes a good theoretical point but in practice I am not sure of that.

The group of 88 has put their signature on a paper that reflected their beleifs and ideology about the case or according to them about society. Surely they can be put in the same basket when discussing these beliefs, they are the ones that put themselves in that basket by puting their signature on the ad, not us.

I unfortunately dont know all the stats but from what I remember 80% of tha Afro American study department and about 70% of the Women's study department signed the ad. I am not sure what proportion of 88 that is, but it seems to me that we are dealing here with very homogeneous group and set of ideology (e.g. I wonder how many of them are pro life, are republican, etc.., less diversity than we think ). We would actually have to be pretty naive to ignore that this group shares many common values.

IMHO its those common values that allowed this group of 88 people to survive in academia. To shine, they only have to preach to their own group and keep referencing each other, that's why their critical skills are so weak.

To not paint them with the same brush is to forget they act as a group and in this case not accounting for this fact is dangerous. Again, I don't rember the details, but KC explained in a previous post that member of the group of 88 while representing a small percentage of the total faculty make a large percentage of members and chairs of Duke association in charge of student life.

Not painting them with the same brush means not realizing that more and more of them are getting in position of power and in positions to apply their illocgical thinking.

To me unless they come out and say that their rush to judgement was wrong, I will still consider as a group of dangerous idologues.


M. Simon said...


A lot of doctors are coming to the conclusion that bi-polar is just another name for PTSD.

The symptoms are just about identical.

We will have a genetic test for PTSD in a year or 3 so look for more definitive research on this after the test comes out.

Anonymous said...

I think one thing that this mess has made crystal clear (no pun intended) is that we need to reassess the rape-shield laws that have been passed in the last 40 years.

Clearly, the efforts of bloggers have contributed to a fuller understanding of this case. When you have a he-said she-said situation, the issue is credibility, and no one can seriously argue that the past behavior of a person is not an indicator of their credibility. A person has a RIGHT and justice REQUIRES that an accused be confronted by their accuser, and if the press is going to be publish the names of the accused it is only fair that they also publish the names of the accuser.

Simple justice requires no less.

Anonymous said...

It seems unfair to stick the State (rather than the County) with the civil liability if they are unable to remove the D.A. on their own

If the state legislators are unwilling to provide a state mechanism for correcting problems in legal subdivisions of the state that they have authorized, they've bought the liability.

If I were a store owner and someone slipped and hurt themselves in a puddle of water on the floor, saying that I hadn't gotten around to buying a mop wouldn't protect me from liability.

It's YOUR state, insist that they come up with a mechanism to handle cases like this. Then you won't have the time.

momoftwo said...

Previously, this was considered a social disaster: