Friday, February 09, 2007

Friends of Duke Confronts the Group of 88

Friends of Duke University continues its important work, with a full-page ad in yesterday’s Chronicle presenting some questions for the Group of 88.

FODU spokesperson Jason Trumpbour explains:

These professors who became known as the “Group of 88” were widely criticized for prejudging the guilt of members of the men’s lacrosse team and for attempting to advance whatever agenda they had at the expense of these students and their reputations. Their ad was also cited by defense attorneys in their motion for a change in venue as evidence of extremely prejudicial pretrial publicity.

Nine months later, on January 16, 2007, a group containing most of the same members and now calling itself the “Concerned Faculty” posted an open letter on their website defending their original ad. Claiming that the original ad had been “broadly, and often intentionally, misread . . . as rendering a judgment in the case,” the group rejected calls to retract or apologize for it.

Yet, as Trumpbour correctly notes, the clarifying faculty’s “open letter begs more questions than it answers about the purposes of the ‘Listening’ ad and the sort of conversation being sought given the peculiar language used to express its points and communicate its premises.” Accordingly, FODU put together a list of questions for the “clarifying” faculty based on comments from the FODU site and from Durham-in-Wonderland.

Why did FODU pursue such a high-profile listing of questions? Unfortunately, previous outreach attempts to the Group of 88 have been, Trumpbour laments, “ignored or rebuffed.” In a July open letter, FODU expressed its hope that Group of 88 members would “count themselves among those victimized by this spring’s false accusations” and “realize now that our enemies are not each other, but those who would profit from the unfair denigration of our university and its members.” Alas, no Group member did so.

More recently, FODU “attempted to find common ground with [the Group of 88] by asking if they would join the University in calling for due process for Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, an issue on which we hoped everyone could agree.” Not even one Group member responded positively.

As Trumpbour notes,

We are dismayed that, not only would they chose to ignore our efforts, but that they would instead respond with a defiant refusal to admit mistake either in judgment or expression and that they would insult the motives and/or intelligence of their critics. We do not begrudge members of the Group of 88/Concerned Faculty their right to call attention to social issues of concern to them. We instead condemn the unfair public vilification of members of the lacrosse team done in the course of expressing their concerns.
Below is the full text of the FODU ad, published yesterday in The Chronicle.

Some Things to Consider from the Friends of Duke University
In a recent Duke Chronicle article, Group of 88 member Ronen Plesser maintained that the new statement of a group calling itself “Concerned Duke Faculty” would form a “basis for a conversation on campus . . . a conversation that will eventually lead to some understanding.”

Friends of Duke University endorses this conversation. But we also believe that the basis for one aspect of this conversation—the meaning of the Group of 88’s April 6 ad—needs more clarification. In that light, we would like to offer some questions for the “Concerned Duke Faculty.”
Principles of Due Process

  • The April 6 ad explicitly thanked “students speaking individually” and “protestors making collective noise” for not waiting. The fundamental question is what was not worthy of being awaited. Time for reason to assist emotion? Time for evidence to be gathered and assessed? Time for a defense to be made? If you were so attuned to due process, why did you fail to mention it in your April 6 ad?
  • In your recent statement, you stated “We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time. We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence.” Do you or do you not endorse the “potbanging” protest that was widely covered in the media? Could you explain to the University community what criteria you used in the April 6 ad to determine which protests were worthy of your endorsement and which protests merited your disapproval?
  • In your recent statement, you claim to “stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence.” What, then, should readers of the April 6 ad have inferred from your reference to “what happened to this young woman”? Given that she had accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape, isn’t that the obvious inference, carrying with it implied guilt of some members of the lacrosse team?
  • Do you believe that Mike Nifong acted properly when he went to the grand jury on April 17 to seek indictments against Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty?

Statements of Your Fellow Signatories

  • Do you agree with the March 31 Chronicle op-ed of your colleague and fellow signatory, Bill Chafe, who suggested that the whites who lynched Emmett Till provided an appropriate historical context through which to interpret the actions of the lacrosse players?
  • Do you agree with the claim of your colleague and fellow signatory, Karla Holloway, that innocence and guilt have been “assessed through a metric of race and gender. White innocence means black guilt”? If so, which pieces of evidence cited by defenders of the players relate to race and gender?
  • Your colleague and fellow signatory, Alex Rosenberg, told the New York Sun on October 27 that he signed the ad because he was bothered by “affluent kids violating the law to get exploited women to take their clothes off when they could get as much hookup as they wanted from rich and attractive Duke coeds.” Was raising this issue one of the ad’s purposes?

The University and Its Students

  • Will you document the methodology used to obtain a representative cross section of campus opinion for the “listening” statement?
  • The April 6 ad contains the following anonymous quote from an alleged Duke student: “Being a big, black man, it’s hard to walk anywhere at night, and not have a campus police car slowly drive by me.” Have any of you approached the Duke police force to ask if it has a policy of slowing down when officers see a Black man on campus? Have any of you experienced or observed this phenomenon?
  • In your recent statement, you criticized those who read the April 6 ad “as rendering a judgment in the case.” That ad quoted an anonymous student, who allegedly said, “no one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation” another anonymous student allegedly said, “If something like this happens to me . . . what would be used against me—my clothing?” Would you agree that these anonymous students appeared to have rendered a judgment in the case?

Looking Ahead

  • Given that in your new statement you criticized an atmosphere that allowed “sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus,” would you recommend that female students accepted to the Class of 2011 attend Duke? If so, how could you support their entering an environment that you have publicly described as so dangerous?
  • Would you be willing to sign a statement, such as that of the Economics Professors, saying that all students, including lacrosse players and other student-athletes, are welcome in your classes?

Perhaps these questions would be useful to raise at Monday night’s edition of the Group of 88 rehab tour?

118 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh, Waneema, let us hear your mighty word.

Anonymous said...

Excellent, Smithers, excellent!

Anonymous said...

Fair questions, all. If the Concerned Faculty are indeed interested in a "conversation" they can respond to the Friends of Duke questions.

Otherwise, they're just having a monologue.

MP

Anonymous said...

The single most used line at mondays group of 88 rehab tour,"Hum,the Hum,the Hum..."

Anonymous said...

12:05,

Does your entreaty seek Waneema's deconstruction of her former postulation of race-based consciousness?

Anonymous said...

I don't know why anyone would want an apology from the 88, Best to ignore them. FODU are the Dukies. so good luck with your goals.r

Anonymous said...

Interesting turn of events, isn't it? The gang of 88 argues that the lacrosse case should occasion a discussion of wider societal issues. And what do they get? An ongoing discussion of the wider issue of rogue professors and their outrageous anti-student diatribes and the appropriateness of those actions. Of course the gang is horrified that they find themselves involved in such a wider discussion and claims they're "victims" in the process.

Pour it on! Bang pots outside their homes and inside their classrooms; it's exactly the kind of thing they want, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re: 12:22

It is an ironic turn of events that the 88 gangsters are getting a discussion of social issues they did not count on or framed in a context they did not count on when they called for discussion.

Anonymous said...

How could you keep from rolling on the floor if you listened to Waneema, Karla, and Anne "Hook-Up" Allison have a conversation?

Anonymous said...

Anyone attending the Group of 88 rehab tour can conduct an ethnographic study of ding-dong culture at Duke.

hman said...

I have trouble imagining a more craven and transparent form of evasiveness than saying, "Thank you for saying that they are bad-guys" and then pretending "We did not actually say they were guilty!"
What is the point of this? In various debates on and off the internet I have encountered this weird (to me) tendency of left/fem/radicals to fashion arguuments that are no more or less than word games. Cheapo sleigh of hand flim-flam acts.
The best proof that these sort of people are stoopid is that they keep doing this sh-t past the 9th grade. As if nobody caught on.
The strangest thing, to this cowboy, is that college TEACHERS are the ones pulling this.

Anonymous said...

Domain Name:CONCERNEDDUKEFACULTY.ORG
Created On:13-Jan-2007 16:44:26 UTC
Registrant Name:rodrigo dorfman

Anonymous said...

Off Topic - Michael Gaynor has written a new article on Judge Orlando F. Hudson's (the same judge who swore in Nifong in January) prejudicial public statements about the grand jurors:
Duke case: Judge Hudson, how dare you!

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

So I assume Trumpbour attended Duke? Wow, he's intelligent, restrained and uses spell check.

Who knew?

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re: 1:01

Judge Hudson sure isn't very smart is he? I did not see the interview with the grand jurors, but the articles I read said fairly clearly they did not discuss on camera at least what went on in the grand jury. They only discussed how their opinions on the case have evolved.

Of course Hudson is lucky in this. The fact that he is WRONG means there is not an on going legal issue here and his public comments then I guess dont violate the ethics cannons. Of course if he foolishly brought the grand jurors in to try to ID who talked to ABC, he would then turn his nonviolation into a violation. I guess then he and Nifong could share an attorney?

M. Simon said...

I believe the proper term is Cornered Faculty.

M. Simon said...

12:22 AM,

The meta-narrative met the meta-meta-narritive.

Uh, you know. No fair looking behind the curtain.

Anonymous said...

Add another bad actor to the list - Patricia Zohn's remarks on the Huffington Post regarding this case are consistent with the 88 - something happened!

Incredibly, the Duke 3 are compared to Bush. I was expecting this...

Anonymous said...

What a great ad with great questions. Hopefully, they'll publish a similar ad with questions for President Broadhead whose inactivity fostered these activities and others.

Anonymous said...

This is from Jay Nordlinger's latest and for some reason reminds me of the Gang of 88...

"A reader sent me the following, from the Sacramento Bee TV columnist Rick Kushman:

Marc Cherry, the creator of ABC’s “Desperate Housewives,” and a man who put in plenty of time in the mills of show business before hitting it big, told TV critics how the network censors can get, shall we say, lost in the small things.

He talked about an episode in which Eva Longoria was in bed after a tryst with her 17-year-old gardener. He got a request from the network.

“The censor looked,” Cherry told critics, “and said, ‘Does she have to smoke?’

“And I went, ‘So you’re good with the statutory rape thing?’”

Anonymous said...

Variation on a theme:

Durham2010

So, Durham appears to be once removed from Jordan...

"A Jordanian man fatally shot his 17-year-old daughter whom he suspected of having sex despite a medical exam that proved her chastity, an official said Thursday. The man surrendered to police hours after the killing, saying he had done it for family honor...

...In response, the government has abolished a section in the penal code that allowed for "honor" killers to get sentences as lenient as six months in prison. Instead, the government has told judges to consider honor killings on a par with other homicides, which in Jordan are punishable by up to 15 years in jail.

But attempts to introduce harsher sentences have been blocked by conservative lawmakers who argue that tougher penalties would lead to promiscuity."

Lawmakers = Gang of 88
Nifong = father
Mehaan = Pathologist

Anonymous said...

Weighing in for the "victim"- CNN's Paula Zahn, Essence's Kristal Zook, now Patricia Zohn of Huffington Post;complete the series:
1. Zahn
2. Zook
3. Zohn
4. ____?

a) Zaak b) Zaon c) Zaok d)Zahk

Anonymous said...

DU75 says:
Keep at this...the total failure of the G88/87 to make any attempt to reconcile their actions, clearly endorsing the pot-bangers' campaign for a rush to judgment, with their absurd ex post facto statements of neutrality on the hoax, stands as clear testament to their insincerity. That not one member of the group has had the moral courage to come out and apologize, let alone disavow the collective statements, continues to be a stain on the Duke academic community.
FODU and the other dedicated hoax bloggers need to keep up the pressure on Duke's tenured hypocrites.

Anonymous said...

6:37 -

Keep an eye out for Zoch, Zoll, Zott, and Zull.

;-)

Anonymous said...

"Fair questions, all. If the "Concerned Faculty are indeed interested in a 'conversation' they can respond to the Friends of Duke questions.

Otherwise, they're just having a monologue."

Completely agreed. They also could go back and pick up some of the question KC Johnson threw out there not long ago.

Observer

Anonymous said...

People like the 88 mob live in a world of delusion, denial and contradictions which they are very adept at rationalizing and/or ignoring. Questions that more generally sane people consider relevant will simply bounce off the armor the gang wear as part of their mental attire.

It's important to keep in mind, I think, that these perpetually angry, professional exploiters of race/class/gender and their ilk wherever found experience life through such distorted, carefully maintained filters that most who post here would not recognize the output as being from the same reality.

If you encountered them in a mental, rather than an academic, institution and were told you were dealing with a seriously delusional person, would you attempt to engage them in meaningful conversation? Probably not, as you would recognize the inherent futility. Yet well-meaning people will continue to make the attempt just because the same delusional person is walking around in society. And the fact that many are intelligent merely augments their ability to construct and maintain more complex delusions. Reality is no less absent.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, K.C., and thank you, Jason. May your lights of reason and decency continue to shine against the darkness of ignorance and Stalinist group-think. sic semper tyrannis

Anonymous said...

7:30

Quite well said.

I'd ignore them as I would my daft Aunt Chloe, but the problem is they're indoctrinating our children; we cannot afford to let that happen.

Kilgore said...

Great stuff! Let the backpedaling begin!

This is so important to publically address this group and not let them slither away Gollum fashion. Let the general public get a good look at how these people think. The more people understand the underlying misandry the more likely it will be that the angry victim studies will be defunded.

Anonymous said...

The Concerned Duke Faculty want no "conversation". As always, they will want to "lecture".

As pointed out by FODU, there has not been one iota or recognition by any member of the Group of 88 that criticism of their actions has even the smallest degree of legitimacy.

How do you have a conversation with a group that takes the position that their meaning was "intentionally" misinterpreted. Would the Group of 88 please provide any evidence that someone knew the "true" meaning of the Listening Ad, but then "intentionally" misinterpreted that meaning to smear the Group.

Personally, I doubt we will hear anything but defiance from faculty members accustomed to accountability to no one but their own small group of academic associates.

Anonymous said...

"The abscence of light is darkness."

1. Biblical
2. Scientific
3. Criminal

The light must continue to be shown on the Gang of 88, and the balance of the gender, race, and Marxist frauds, the long term damage they foment, and the near term damage to the young men and Duke they continue to deny.

The apparent McCarthyistic control they have over the leadership is equally chilling.

It is somewhat amazing that students, and not the University leadership, local, state, national (especially Edwards), will speak up for these guys.

I cannot understand why Edwards has not been pressed on this issue. What he thinks about this hoax and his decision-making relative to same are quite relevant in any campaign, much less one for the presidency.

Anonymous said...

8:01 said:

"Personally, I doubt we will hear anything but defiance from faculty members accustomed to accountability to no one but their own small group of academic associates."

But what happens when they have to take the stand in a court of law?

Bailiff: Please place your hand on the Bible.
Lubiano: Judaeo-Christian textual constructs are misapplied and are derived from a semiotic, fascist theory and have epistemological implications which transcend my existence.

Judge: Fine, but we must know if you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Lubiano: Truth is nothing more than a phenomenologic praxis whose diasporic cultural critique sublimes the feminist aesthetic and subalternity conceptualization.

Judge: I find for the complainant in the amount of…..

Anonymous said...

RE: Observer @ 7:26
The G88 isn't having a monologue, it's really a soliloquy--"addressed to oneself rather than to a listener...." They're quite simply running their collective mouths to justify their stupidity, bias, elitism, and racism. If they had a modicum of intelligence or moral fibre, they would own up and apologize. Their refusal to do so simply confirms my analysis.
Staunch Libertarian

Anonymous said...

How does one carry a thoughtful conversation with those that teach mush? Note that one need not have any experience in woodworking or music...

I bet the lab does indeed "formulate unique renditions", with a room full of people that may have no musical or wood carving expertise.

SPRING MUSIC 133S-01 African Mbira Music

"Learn to build and perform one of Africa’s most popular musical instruments,
the mbira (known also as kalimba or ‘finger piano’). Ethnomusicological
readings introduce students to the instrument’s history, role in society, and
meaning for musicians. Class periods devoted to discussing readings,
analyzing musical examples, and learning the mbira’s repertory. Students
master skills common to many forms of African music, including performance
of polyrhythms, responsive integration of instrumental and vocal patterns,
and formulation of unique renditions of pieces through improvisation. Weekly
class labs (TBA) teach instrument-building skills. Course requires no prior
experience with music or woodworking."

OR,

One may consider the enrolling in the same for $165, (see link below). It offends the senses to realize we are indirectly subsidizing this mush.

You make the call

Anonymous said...

Duke Financial Aid

The right frame indicates that around $28,000 of the tuition comes from grants and deferred loans. That is from you and I, brothers and sisters.

While Duke hasn't got the exclusive license on these b.s. courses, they are at the rare cross-road that enables them to be the first to reverse the free-fall into mediocrity and begin raising the standard of care.

Anonymous said...

WTF?

Faber College is suddenly looking like a much better option for my son than Duke.

Anonymous said...

Apologies to those who do not want to hear another word about Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, but the NYT has a front page article this morning on the tempest. Interesting reading regarding the role of the blogosphere in public life. Very funny effort by NYT to find a comparable right-wing scandal for comparison and balance, no doubt, in the McCain camp.

Observer

Nifong's hat trick said...

Looking Ahead
Given that in your new statement you criticized an atmosphere that allowed “sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus,” would you recommend that female students accepted to the Class of 2011 attend Duke?

Great question Friends of Duke!
The 88 need to look at Duke Universities Crime Stats...20,000 employees, 13,000 students and 2 million visitors/year and yet in 2004,according to Duke University Crime Statistics, there were 7 forcible sex offenses. Not to make little of this number because no rape is just a statistic, but this percentage does not support "...sexual violence to be so prevelant on campus."

Unfortuately the $$ being spent at Duke University for rape awareness and prevention programs would be better spent on those truly at risk, women in poorer areas.

Available statistics show that on a national level there are 32 rapes/100,000 people, in Durham it is 43.4/100,000 people. Considering the amount of people working, schooling and visiting Duke University/year (2,033,000 approx)it would seem that Duke University has EXTREMELY LOW rape stats (7/2,033,000). These numbers just don't support a prevelance of sexual violence on campus.

Anonymous said...

8:50 As well all know, "Knowledge is good".

Anonymous said...

Why haven't audio recordings of some of these classes, whether obtained openly or surreptitiously, been posted on the net?

duke09kparent said...

Jason just released a Tasmanian Devil in the room where the Group will have its discussion on Monday. Video tape anyone?

Anonymous said...

9:03 For the same reason I don't go into those XXX trailers along the highway...

Someone might see me leaving the class room.

Anonymous said...

The "Gang of 88's" Listening Ad brings to mind a petition I regretfully signed in third grade. In essence, it suggested we believed third grade girls were "the devil", and we believed they should all be banned from the school. All the boys in my class were anxious to sign on to such a noble cause.

That's when the adults stepped in and educated us on the importance of gender diversity in our school. Every third grade boy who signed the petition had to write "I appreciate all the girls in my class" 300 times by hand. And then, once a letter went home to my parents explaining the petition I signed, I got a spanking from my Dad.

Unfortunately, it appears there are no "adults" in the Duke administration to educate the Gang of 88 on the importance of not attaching your name to something stupid.

So here's my suggestion...if you're a Gang of 88 member, I suggest you write by hand "I am sorry that I prejudged the Duke lacrosse players" 300 times. Post it outside your classroom. And be sorry you didn't learn your lesson when you were in third grade.

AMac said...

There's a historical analogy to the problem of faculty hacks that I'd like to learn more about.

We could think of three Subgroups to the 88:

1) Distinguished scholars who are Hard Left or dopey in their personal politics;

2) Capable if mediocre profs, similarly lefty or trendy;

3) Underperformers and incompetents whose careers depend on pursuing Identity Politics.

Members of these groups have goals in common:

A) Professional and financial success--prestige, promotions, pay raises;

B) Advancing the hard-left grievance agenda of the Listening Statement.

The FODU statement is likely to get an icy response from the G87/88 because of the possible consequences of civil, reasoned debate. From their points of view, there are no upsides. The downsides are:

-- Sunlight could expose the corruption of the Leftist agenda. Rejection of Enlightenment values, the primacy of group over individual rights, continual demands for blank-check handouts, the corrupt backscratching practices of the self-described Vanguard.

-- Sunlight raises issues that threaten the personal well-being of many of the Group of 88. It seems possible that their membership includes full professors without the talent that the job demands. Some can't express thoughts clearly; others lack a record of scholarly accomplishment. Awkward questions: Who recruited each of them to Duke? Who served on the Committess that granted them tenure and promoted them to Associate or Full Professor? What social disaster allowed these representatives of the Academy to bestow its honors on these poseurs?

Looked at that way, turning up the volume and playing the Victim, Hostile-Workplace, and McCarthyite-Bloggosphere cards are the obvious strategies for handling the challenge of the FODU statement.

A possibly instructive historical analogy might be the approaches taken by East Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic after the fall of the Berlin Wall. These countries were saddled with Communist-era universities that included entire departments staffed with time-servers and Marxist-Leninist hacks. In the 1990s, they were challenged with shedding parasitic teachers and administrators while protecting qualified faculty, and while honoring concepts like Academic Freedom.

That was a tall order. Surely, there were different choices made by the countries in this situation; looking back, some outcomes were presumably better than others.

Can any commenters point to worthwhile reviews of this subject, or speculate on how the lessons might apply to the wounded universities of the U.S.? Obviously, Duke isn't unique. In the Listening Statement, its Angry Marxists stupidly jumped into the limelight by ignoring Michael Kinsley's warning about saying what you really think: A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.

Jim said...

One more thing:

"If you had been accused of multiple felonies and 88 of your colleagues banded together to publicly congratulate those who condemned you and exhibited aggressive behavior towards you, would you feel abandoned by your colleagues, or resentful of them?"

Anonymous said...

hmmmm Is it possible the group of 88 has set back sex, race and gender issues by decades? hmmmm pre judge? pre vent? what about just being fair? I bet a few of the 88 are already padding their resumes with future titles of books they will never write.

Gary Packwood said...

8:56 AM

Re: Crime on Campus

Good post.

I have one correction please. The Duke University crime report on their Campus Security web site reports that there were 7 REPORTED or alleged forcible sex offenses on campus.

Anonymous said...

The lack of response from the 88 is an indication that they have really stepped in it. One would think that, if there is so much to their "scholarship," that they would want to share it as much as possible. They don't want exposure because they plan to dismantle society under cover of darkness. Why enter the crucible of public scrutiny when you can be surrounded with sycophants and sympathizers?

A poster on another thread suggested that it was a good thing that this pseudo-intellectual lunacy was limited to second-rate departments. That poster was seriously mistaken. Their cancer has metastasized throughout Western society.

It is time for debate, but it needs to go far beyond the lacrosse issue. The root issue is that the 88 represent the same totalitarian yearnings of Marx and Hitler. They are disciples of Herbert Marcuse, Catharine MacKinnon, and Stanley Fish who had/have a naked and explicit disdain for universal free speech as most Americans perceive it.

Under this totalitarianism, "victims" get all the free speech they want and "oppressors" can have their speech proscribed. Your value is a function of whether you are born into a victim or oppressor group and you cease to have any individual identity or worth.

There is a misunderstanding among some that the 88 believe the woman because they just don't want to utilize the wealth of evidence that points to innocence. Not true. They all know for a fact that the players are innocent of the rape (or of everything else except drinking too much and peeing on lawns). The issue is that the players' real guilt is congenital and they will always be stained as "oppressors."

In a sense, these people are worse than Stalin. If Stalin liked you, you might live whether you were Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Estonian, or Georgian. This new variant of totalitarianism, being group based, is more exclusive and leads to intergroup and intragroup (witness what happens to groups members who think for themselves) totalitarianism.

Marcuse and his disciples believe that the assignment of group guilt or victimhood and who got to speak could be an objective process that would not be abused. It never seemed to occur to him that giving people the kind of power that the 88 wants (or has) could lead to social disasters. It is a sad irony as this man lived through the Third Reich.

Bottom line, the 88 are soldiers in a totalitarian war against reason and freedom. The lacrosse case is a small battle which will be won (after roiling the community, tremendous expense, and damage to the lives of innocent young men). However, the war is much larger and ongoing. And, the stakes for our society are even greater.

bill anderson said...

Keep in mind that Houston Baker was accused by a student of sexual assault, and there were no demonstrations by the G88 or Sam Hummell or anyone else. Karla Holloway "investigated" the incident, but all of it was hushed.

You see, Baker being a bad guy could not fit into the G88 metanarrative, so he whatever happened (or if nothing happened) was kept a big secret. These are people who not only play by their own rules, but they continue to shift the ground so they always can plan the role of the intellectual victim.

You see, if a woman made a claim of sexual assault against a man, then the usual metanarrative -- as we saw clearly at Duke -- is that the woman never makes a false claim. Obviously, the G88 would be in a quandary here, so it was "resolved" in a manner much different than the "resolution" that these people were demanding from the administration when lacrosse players were being pilloried.

The problem not only is with their nonsense, but also the university which enables this childish and pathetic behavior. It seems that the adults at Duke are concentrated in other academic disciplines, and seem to be in very short supply in the administration.

Gary Packwood said...

8:30 AM
8:30 AM

Re: Indirectly subsidizing this mush.

Good Post.

The issue of donors indirectly subsidizing this 'mush' is the issue that is drawing national attention to this Blog from many faculty members across the nation who can only DREAM of the day when their college has such a huge endowment to fund good work on campus.

It never occurred to most of us that all those dollars would purchase 'mush' and at the same time, create a hostile work environment for white male athletes.

The Duke budget this year is $1.7Billion and that does not include the hospital budget.

I seriously doubt that the City of Durham has a budget that large.

There is need for much more oversight from those who makes those cash gifts.

Rejoice over the available financial resources but be cautious about fluff and hostility.

The IRS may take a close look at those tax sheltered dollars...someday soon.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant analysis, 10:11 AM. Thank you -- and give us more!

Stanley Fish was one of the key players in the destruction of Duke University (and especially Duke U. Press). Yet he is actually politically moderate (and certainly independently minded) compared to most of the 88. The mind boggles.

Anti-Leftist Liberal

Anonymous said...

The Duke 88 are only doing this talk to appease the legal team for Duke. It's called "damage control". But the problem is there are no apologies for what they did, they are defiant and will not budge in their agenda driven drivel. So this is a sham, they are not sorry for what they did and said. But they will put on a show for the PR firm that tells them this will limit Duke's civil liability. And continue to spew evil, lies and hate. The public is not stupid and that is what they had counted on as they think they are superior to everyone else. They have proven to be illiterate, unintelligent and racist

Gary Packwood said...

Duke Student Athletes Can Help Return The Campus to Prominence

Don't rent an ewe.

Please Duke athletes, if one of the Angry Studies professors charges your group with cavorting with sheep, do NOT schedule a party and rent a ewe as a statement of irony ...and more importantly ... do not run around campus the next week and tell everyone you did that.

Young women athletes on campus need to tell the guys to cut the crap. Irony is not an effective tool to communicate with stupid people! Consciousness Ph.D's. don't get it.

Chill!

Anonymous said...

The picture of Wahneema in her N&O article was down right creepy. The pose made her look like a Boo Radley variant.

Wahneema

Meme chose said...

10.11 said:

"Bottom line, the 88 are soldiers in a totalitarian war against reason and freedom."

This is completely wrong, because it accepts at face value the absurd pose the G88 like to present.

Soldiers have to sacrifice a lot of things for their cause. The G88 sacrifice nothing.

They are instead running a pathetically convenient scam which allows them to get paid by the University for blathering, for their entire careers. The fact that this phenomenon is repeated across many teaching institutions across the US doesn't grant it any higher status than this.

Would-be parasites like this are a potential problem in every profession. The real guilty parties, the ones who ought to be getting more attention, are the people who allowed the hiring of these deadbeats in the first place, and then allowed them to cover for each other and keep hiring more. The failure is a failure of University governance.

Anonymous said...

9:10 AM

I'm all for your suggestion, but disappointed you didn't mention anything about them also receiving a spanking.

Jen in Durham said...

Like Amanda Marcotte, if the Concerned Faculty senses any "whiff of an accusatory tone," they immediately shut down.

I have no doubt that they are in fact the victims of vicious emails, etc, and that is unfortunate. It's terrible to feel you're under personal attack.

But plenty of their critics have been extremely reasoned and polite, and the faculty has been unable or unwilling to filter those critics out to engage in any kind of genuine conversation--the conversation they themselves asked for.

Meme chose said...

The only soldier the G88 remind me of is Sgt. Bilko!

Anonymous said...

Mike Lee said:

I cannot for the life of me understand why this group of 88 professors cannot simply apologize for the harm their "Listening Statement" caused, regardless of their intent. It's clear the ad caused harm to the very students these professors are supposed to help educate. Why can't they simply say they are sorry about the damage they caused whether intended or not?

M. Simon said...

11:21AM,

Bilko had a heart. Something the gang of 88 will never be accused of.

M. Simon said...

11:43AM,

"Mistakes were made" lets a lot of people off the hook.

To pull off the Angry Studies scam the scammers have to be beyond reproach.

bill anderson said...

Like Amanda Marcotte, if the Concerned Faculty senses any "whiff of an accusatory tone," they immediately shut down.

I have no doubt that they are in fact the victims of vicious emails, etc, and that is unfortunate. It's terrible to feel you're under personal attack.

But plenty of their critics have been extremely reasoned and polite, and the faculty has been unable or unwilling to filter those critics out to engage in any kind of genuine conversation--the conversation they themselves asked for.

11:19 AM


Jen,

You are correct. Furthermore, it seems that the G88/87 believe that while we always should be utterly deferential and respectful to them, they have the Unalterable Right to say whatever they want about others. Furthermore, when they launch their attacks on people not deserving of those attacks, no one is permitted to answer back or fight back.

No, it is submit, submit, submit.

Nifong's hat trick said...

gary packwood
I stand corrected and understand that a Report or an allegation of rape does not mean that of those 7 there will actually be a conviction. Just the same the stats just don't show a prevelance of sexual violence on campus...how can the 88 make such a claim?

Gregory said...

I would suggest the following as a more precise advertisement for the "Shut Up and Teach" forum:

--------SHUT---------------------
----------------UP---------------
-----POT-BANGERS-----------------
---------------------------------
Pro-Reverse-Discrimination Forum
---------------------------------
---------------illogical---------
---consistently silly------------
-----------------------Rush------
-------------------to------------
-------Judgment------------------

Speakers:

Whaneema "pLAYer H8ter" Lubiano
Mark "Get the Man" Neal
Diane "Rush2Judgment" Nelson

__________________________


Go K.C. Johnson! Ferret out the the weasels!!!!

PhDin IB said...

The gang of 88 will never relent however, the benefit of this ad is to set the agenda and keep focus on the real issue - the miscarriage of justice.

Smart move!!

Chicago said...

I would also like to hear Waneema defend her statement to ESPN that the original ad "drove a collective fork through the heart of the lax team" or whatever it was that she said.

Anonymous said...

11:17

I have to disagree. I will still assert that the war is on.

You might be suggesting that these are not particularly competent "soldiers" and you are right. But, they are on a mission nonetheless.

I also agree that they, in reality, sacrifice nothing. But they don't see it that way. Do not forget, they are victims but should be our lords. Their moral and intellectual superiority is self-evident to them but they have not been given the leadership, wealth, prestige, and glory that is their due.

That they look like pathetic masters of infinitesimal universes is deceiving because they have had a pernicious impact on critical components of society including our legal system, K-12 education (in addition to higher education), media, and government. We live with their "superior wisdom" every day whether we are part of elite university communities or not.

The dollar tab for the lacrosse players' defense is supposedly in the millions -- the emotional toll will be incalculable. The 88 were not the whole problem, but were significant enablers. All this trouble was no more than the day's work of some angry doo-dahs. Imagine what goes on over years or decades. Imagine the impact of the similarly deluded in other places. As Madge said about the Palmolive, "you're soaking in it." (I betray my age, here.)

The war is real. They deserve the right of free speech that they and their philosophical role models would deny you. But, their freedom of speech does not offer them freedom from vigorous scrutiny and denunciation of their totalitarian impulses and goals.

Anonymous said...

duke has about 5,500 undergrads not 12,000. of these about 2,500 to 3,000 are resident on west at any one time. the rest are on study abroad etc.,grad students,or or freshmen on east who are very unlikely to pay attention to this matter. obviously getting 200+ signatories prior to publication is quite significant.

M said...

"Angry Studies"

...also called "Anecdotal Studies."

jim2 said...

IMHO, I think the 88/87 do not favor totalitarianism as one commenter suggested but rather rule by the elite ... with them as the elite, of course.

Also, I think their seeming fascination with Islam - even militant Islam - is bound up in their not-so-secret desire to be Imams themselves within US society. Was not that ad a "fatwa"?

(jim2 - I noted another "jim" or two here. I'm the one who said Nifong hoped for "he-said-she-said" cover)

Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson at 12:06 wrote: "You are correct. Furthermore, it seems that the G88/87 believe that while we always should be utterly deferential and respectful to them, they have the Unalterable Right to say whatever they want about others. Furthermore, when they launch their attacks on people not deserving of those attacks, no one is permitted to answer back or fight back. No, it is submit, submit, submit."

Yes indeed. I woud only add that their (hard-right, hyper-conservative) Islamists allies follow exactly the same model -- and do so quite effectively. It's Hitler-Stalin all over again.

Anti-Leftist Liberal

12:06 PM

Anonymous said...

Most people who made a statement that others found offensive (even if it was misunderstood) would apologize for their statement--even if they said they did not intend the statement the way others interpreted it. An example is Prof. Baldwin, who issued an apology for a statement that was clearly misunderstood (and perhaps deliberately.) Most people would say, "I never intended my statement to suggest........and I am sorry if some interpreted it that way." If the group of 88 truly believe their statement was misinterpreted, they would issue a real clarifying statement, and, as jason has requested, tell us what they really think (rather than just telling us we are wrong to interpret their statement as we did.)

Nifong's hat trick said...

anon 12:22pm as per Duke University Police Department:
20,000 employees, 13,000 students, and an estimated 2 million visitors
http://www.duke.edu/web/police/cleryreport/cleryreport.pdf

Anonymous said...

Good job everyone standing by these boys. What I find particularly heartening is that the Republicans/conservatives here have shown a remarkable ability in this case to support the rights of the accused. Whereas normally when a sex crime is alleged, they want people to be instantly locked up and have the key thrown away, they've been incredibly open-minded in this case.

I have to admit, even Bill O'Reilly has impressed me. In nearly every other case of alleged child molestation or any kind of rape, Bill would rant and rave if the accused were ever let off on bond/bail. But here, Bill has shown a fair-mindedness about the accused, giving them the benefit of the doubt that the Constitution demands, at least with regards to the standard of proof in Court, if not in the realm of public opinion.

Not sure what it is about this particular case that has people acting this way, but its great to see.

Locomotive Breath said...

I would also like to hear Waneema defend her statement to ESPN that the original ad "drove a collective fork through the heart of the lax team" or whatever it was that she said.

She claims she didn't say that

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/02/big-black-man-and-faculty-duty.html

But as you and I both point out, she hasn't said what she did say.

Anonymous said...

I don't know how one engages a group of "community members" who assumed (and some hoped, dare I say) that the Lax playrs were 'guilty as alleged'.

Why should they even be at the table ?

Anonymous said...

"Not sure what it is about this particular case that has people acting this way, but its great to see."

Whatever people's motiviations are, working to prevent innocent people from being framed for rape is laudable in itself.

As for for everyody "standing by these boys", in actual fact the early press converage in organs such as the NYT indicated a level of interest in this case, and a presumption of guilt, that would probably not have been present were the races of the accused and accuser swapped.

Anonymous said...

1:39...

I agree 100% that it is hard for white males to get a fair shake in the justice system. The income disparity between blacks and whites is extreme, with blacks having much more access to adequate representation.

Plus, whites get railroaded much more often by law enforcement and the Courts.

At the very least, this tragedy has exposed some fundamental unfairness in society.

Granted, every once in a while a black man in New York will be completely exonerated after serving 18 years for rape (it actually happened during the Duke hoax), but it happens to whites much more often.

Plus, the media has a well-documented history of portraying whites in a threatening fashion. We always hear about white men on the loose... and when cops get the description of a white male suspect, all of a sudden all white males -- regardless of height, weight, eye color, hair, etc. -- become suspects.

Let us work together to end this.

AMac said...

anon 1:50pm, you are too clever by half. As Amanda Marcotte claims to have discovered the other day, satire is often hard for people to recognize in the web-log format.

I'm sure you have something pointed to contribute. Why not do so directly? You can leave a link to your blog if it's not relevant to this discussion.

[sarcasm]
Because nobody would want to to see it derailed.
[/sarcasm]

Anonymous said...

Forgive the sarcasm... but the implication keeps being made that the particular race issues involved in this ONE case, and positions of academia in general, are somehow indicative of larger disparities in the way whites and blacks are treated by the criminal justice system -- with whites getting the short end of the stick.

Please realize that this one case was the "perfect storm" with these three boys as the victims thereof. They were treated horribly by the media, their own school and classmates, etc. The biggest reason/villain would be Nifong, as if he were to take a "Let us see how this plays out, they are entitled to due process" stance from the beginning, it is likely that the media wouldn't have been so cavalier in thinking and speaking about the guilt of these men. Either way, the media failed. And the race relations of the area with Duke helped finish off the perfect storm.

But to think that this is a reflection of something greater (other than your probably true points about academia) is ill-informed. This is not endemic in the criminal justice system and blacks do NOT have it better than whites do in that regard!

Anonymous said...

A little off subject, but I went to the "conversation with Duke" meeting last night in CLT. KC they come to NYC on March 1st, you must GO. To preregister, go to website.

Brodhead was very good, I have posted a complete run down of meeting on Lie Stoppers Board.

Bottom Line now it is "Nifungu made us do it". Everything is now Mikey's fault. He mislead the poor dears. Mikey has no friends now, he is the scapegoat. The Triad meeting is March 6th. KC you need to go to the NYC one!!

Kemp

AMac said...

anon 1:50pm/2:05pm --

> the implication keeps being made that the particular race issues involved in this ONE case, and positions of academia in general, are somehow indicative of larger disparities in the way whites and blacks are treated by the criminal justice system.

Citations for this implication? I think you are making it up. Or if some dopey anon is making that point, I suggest you ignore it rather than painting with this broad brush.

> Please realize that this one case was the "perfect storm"...

You have now explained (contra your earlier racialist-commenters sarcasm) why so many people beyond Duke are interested in the railroading of the three men. We know there is a lot of injustice (duh), but it is very unusual to have it so blatantly and unambigously on display from such an early point in a case. And it is unusual to see the dishonorable motives of so many actors (DA, faculty, administrators, local paper, NYT, shrill feminists) being featured so openly and unapologetically.

So, no, I would not agree that It's All About Mikey.

Anonymous said...

I think in many respects Nifong DID cause most of the problems for these boys.

Look, even if Nifong is the least competent person ever to hold that position, the position itself is held in high regard. It is a position of public trust. No one expects to hear those comments about 3 men who are actually innocent. No one who knows the law expects those comments to be made at all (it has been well-documented by KC for those who don't know the ethical code that you are NOT supposed to say things like Nifong did). He violated their rights with his procedures, making it seem even more plausible to the casual observer.

While the press and the university are NOT supposed to be "casual" observers, I do have to say that Nifong really did cause most of the problems of the boys. Not excusing the behavior of others at all in saying that. Is there really any doubt that Nifong's behavior caused much of the media hype and emboldened idiots like the G88?

Anonymous said...

***We know there is a lot of injustice (duh), but it is very unusual to have it so blatantly and unambigously on display from such an early point in a case.***

The only real reason it is so "unambiguously on display" in this case is the amount of press coverage it has received. I can tell you with 100% certainty that if you take out the race of these 3 men and the media scrutiny, this type of railroading happens all the time. Ironically, all the media attention, including such things as this blog (after the media initially screwed them over) has helped uncover the dirt and lead to the demise of Nifong. Think of how little scrutiny most prosecutors in the criminal justice system get.

Without the media attention and the pimp defense attorneys, a prosecutor might very well get away with doing EVERYTHING Nifong did in this case (aside from the public condemnation of the accused, as in the "run of the mill", non-hyped case, there is no media coverage). No?

Anonymous said...

2:20PM

Re Nifong/G88/MSM:

I think that they are all part of the same bloated carcass. They were all rotting on the inside. The Nifong part just reeked more in the beginning.

Anonymous said...

Re Duke:


20,000 employees, 13,000 students


What? An almost 2-1 employee to customer ratio?

No sane business runs with that sort of ratio!

Gary Packwood said...

12:09 PM Nifong's hat trick said...

It was not my intention to be harsh about the issue of crime on campus. Your comment about crime was right on the mark.

This has been a huge issue since Student Affairs employees at universities anointed themselves as professionals some twenty or so years ago.

Student affairs professionals need rape as a justification for their existence. They talk insistently about victims, rape victims and the need to build a 'sense of community' or just 'community building' on a campus.
Victims are thought to be appreciative of any attempt to build a new community.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has been studying rape for many years because of all of these claims of rape that are made annually by universities. There are many web sites dedicated to such discussions. Try ..Goggle: College+Campus+Rape ...or... College+Campus+Sexual+Assault.

Essentially, the DOJ research on rape and sexual assault is fairly straightforward. Most rape and sexual assault victims are poor. Half are poor people under the age of 18 who have been harmed by other poor people and the majority of the other half are poor people who have been harmed by other poor people in their neighborhoods .. which is poor.

Young white males from upper income homes with college educated parents and who attend world class universities just don't fit the profile of a sexual criminal.

The DOJ is especially interested in studying rape in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (The CDC) in these times of ultra concern about HIV.

If Duke really had 40 instances of rape and sexual assault in one year on campus as many have said...the CDC would be on campus with mobile clinics interviewing students trying to get at the truth and create an intervention.

giles said...

"the implication keeps being made that the particular race issues involved in this ONE case, and positions of academia in general, are somehow indicative of larger disparities in the way whites and blacks are treated by the criminal justice system -- with whites getting the short end of the stick."

No I think the implication is that in this specific case prosecutorial misconduct combined with the racial politics of Durham led to the persecution of these specific boys.

I think most people recognize that generally black people are more often the targets of unjust prosecution, which makes it particularly perverse for black leaders to support this charade, when their own constituents would be the greatest beneficiaries if the system were cleaned up.

Anonymous said...

***I think most people recognize that generally black people are more often the targets of unjust prosecution, which makes it particularly perverse for black leaders to support this charade, when their own constituents would be the greatest beneficiaries if the system were cleaned up.***

It also might make it particularly perverse that white people seem to care much more about the fate of these 3 men than they do about everyone else, no? Doesn't that also tell us something?

In my opinion, more than just the bad actions of Nifong, the ridiculous stance of academia, and the harsh racial atmosphere in Durham has been exposed.

Gary Packwood said...

Group of 88 posting on this blog since midnight?

wider societal issues
framed in a context
ex post facto
ethnographic
ironic turn of events

Most mere mortals don't use such phrases or terms.

Who are these people?

loki on the run said...


It also might make it particularly perverse that white people seem to care much more about the fate of these 3 men than they do about everyone else, no? Doesn't that also tell us something?

In my opinion, more than just the bad actions of Nifong, the ridiculous stance of academia, and the harsh racial atmosphere in Durham has been exposed.


Well, there are a couple of things that can be said here.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Until someone with sufficient resources was railroaded, it is hard for lots of people to hear about these things.

However, perhaps more importantly, it was the racist attitude by the Gang of 88 that singled out a case of white male athletes being falsely accused of a viscious gang rape, and ignoring other false and not-so-false cases where black male athletes had also been accused that brought so much attention to this case.

This, perhaps more than anything else, says so much about the author of the above remarks and the Gang of 88.

Anonymous said...

2:31 PM wrote: "20,000 employees, 13,000 students
What? An almost 2-1 employee to customer ratio?
No sane business runs with that sort of ratio!"

It is important to understand that Duke is far more than just a university. It is also a major medical center, and its "customers" include many, many non-Duke patients.

Anti-Leftist Liberal

giles said...

"It also might make it particularly perverse that white people seem to care much more about the fate of these 3 men than they do about everyone else, no? Doesn't that also tell us something?"

In this specific case the 3 men are the most obviously victimized people, so it makes sense that people should care most about them.

Had an actual rape occurred, most people's sympathies would have been with the accuser, which in fact was generally the case (it was for me, anyway) before it became obvious that her account was untrue.

AMac said...

anon 2:24pm/2:41pm --

> The only real reason it is so "unambiguously on display" in this case is the amount of press coverage it has received.

In comments at this blog, Bill Anderson has referenced his writings about the child-care witchhunt cases and the Allan Gell murder.

Even with those examples--you pointedly haven't provided any--No, media coverage is not the biggest barrier to clarity. While most criminal cases are developing, Party A claims X and Party B (the State) claims Y. Most of us have no sure way of knowing whether the truth is X, Y, or somewhere in between.

That rather than "press coverage"--which was against the accused, anyway--is the distinguishing mark of this case.

By the way, since you're still harping on your racialist motives metanarrative (2:41pm comment), how about a citation for those anti-black commenters you alluded to earlier?

Anonymous said...

***This, perhaps more than anything else, says so much about the author of the above remarks and the Gang of 88. ***

Perhaps the author of the above post (myself) and the Group of 88 (love them or hate them) had always been attuned and proactive about inequalities in the justice system.

Perhaps the Group of 88 went nuts and was wrong in this case, but all the same, to say they do nothing for blacks in similar situations is probably a statement that is made without knowing the truth. I don't know the truth either, but I'd guess many of them are activists regardless of this case.

I'm certainly glad I didn't run around proclaiming the guilt of these men, but rather stood up for their due process rights. As for the Group of 88, I can't explain their actions for them.

But one thing I do know, I am a member of the criminal defense bar and I care about these things all the time, unlike most of the posters here. Further, you are claiming that I paid special attention to this case, implying that I wanted to see these three men pay for inequalities in society... whereas in reality, I've been standing up for these men and their rights.

So does that change anything?

Gary Packwood said...

There is a page missing in this new article about women at Duke

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/s...gepublisher.com

The paragraphs I have been reading for months about white, bright, athletic, upper incomes Duke male athletes with great parents who are ...bad boy criminals... is missing?

Wassup?

Anonymous said...

A citation for society in general and the way blacks and whites are treated by the criminal justice system?

Thats a big task. I suggest maybe opening your eyes.

Gary Packwood said...

Chicago 12:21 PM

RE: Drove a collective fork through the heart of the lax team.

Those are the words of a person who believes that they are a victim. Victims don't change. If you confront her with those words she will say that 'the fork through the heart' was for un-specified sins committed previous to the events we are talking about...here.

On another note, during your years living in Durham, what did you learn that can help us understand more about the felony charges brought against the Duke students as a result of their off-campus party? You say that you are not surprised.

AMac said...

anon 3:06pm --

My last comment addressed to you.

You repeatedly cast aspersions as to the motives of people you can't know (other commenters here). When asked to back up your charges, you offer a straw man:

"A citation for society in general and the way blacks and whites are treated by the criminal justice system? Thats a big task."

No, what I asked (see 3:02pm) is a small task, if there is merit to your charges.

Regarding:
"Further, you are claiming that I paid special attention to this case, implying that I wanted to see these three men pay for inequalities in society..."

Address that to "Loki on the Run". Note that s/he uses a handle, so we can figure out which remarks are his/hers. You don't.

"...whereas in reality, I've been standing up for these men and their rights.

How could anyone here judge that, anon? I suggest maybe opening your eyes.

Kilgore said...

What most don't realize is that gender is a larger biasing factor in our judicial system than race. Here's a quote and a link:

"All the research clearly demonstrates that gender is the most significant biasing factor in determining whether or not someone will be charged, prosecuted, indicted and sentenced, as well as determining the severity of the sentence."

LINK

I couldn't believe this so I looked around for some data and came across this piece:

Sentencing disparity in Maryland and read some of the data and realized that gender was a big factor though it was not mentioned as such. Look at the charts and tables and decide for yourself.

I emailed the author of this article and he verified my suspicians.

loki on the run said...

Anon 3:02PM says:


Further, you are claiming that I paid special attention to this case, implying that I wanted to see these three men pay for inequalities in society... whereas in reality, I've been standing up for these men and their rights.


Actually, I didn't say that. What I said was:


However, perhaps more importantly, it was the racist attitude by the Gang of 88 that singled out a case of white male athletes being falsely accused of a viscious gang rape, and ignoring other false and not-so-false cases where black male athletes had also been accused that brought so much attention to this case.

This, perhaps more than anything else, says so much about the author of the above remarks and the Gang of 88.


Now, while it is possible to think that I was implying what you claimed I said, I was doing little more than saying what you said.

I applaud your activities on behalf of those who have been railroaded by the CJS. However, I must say that I grew up in a working class family in another, majority white country, with a step-father who abused my mother until she died and who subsequently abused myself and my brother. I went on to get a degree at a university and now work in Silicon Valley. Throughout my life I have worked hard to stay out of the CJS in all countries I have lived in as has my brother.

I tend to have the view that people who are caught up in the CJS tend to belong there. The Duke lacrosse rape hoax is the first clear example I am aware of of people who were clearly railroaded by the system.

Moreover, there seem to be plenty of examples in Durham where people got off with less than they deserved. CGM is definitely one of those.

Anonymous said...

4:01PM
"Throughout my life I have worked hard to stay out of the CJS in all countries I have lived in as has my brother."

Which makes the false accusation all the more evil. It is beyond your control. Once the false accusation is made, you are a suspect, you are in the CJS, and you have done nothing wrong to get there. Oh, btw, most everyone now assumes that you are guilty: "I tend to have the view that people who are caught up in the CJS tend to belong there." Evil.

Nifong's hat trick said...

gary packwood 12:09pm
I didn't take your comment in a bad light, I was glad that you caught some points that needed clarifying...thanks

loki on the run said...


4:01PM
"Throughout my life I have worked hard to stay out of the CJS in all countries I have lived in as has my brother."

Which makes the false accusation all the more evil. It is beyond your control. Once the false accusation is made, you are a suspect, you are in the CJS, and you have done nothing wrong to get there. Oh, btw, most everyone now assumes that you are guilty: "I tend to have the view that people who are caught up in the CJS tend to belong there." Evil.


Please estimate the number of people in the CJS who are there as a result of false allegations. Then convert that to the percentage of the population at large who are there because of false allegations.

Anonymous said...

I can tell you that a hell of a lot more than 3 black men have been falsely accused and sent to prison. I can also tell you without even knowing you that you've never written on a blog about those men.

Anonymous said...

4:24 PM

You got me there. False allegations occur too infrequently to be a problem. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Sigh. Anonymous @ 4:26

From the very beginning, KC Johnson (and others) have used the Duke Hoax to point out the dangers of who (lacking the money these families have been able to spend) gets railroaded.

And, of course, you ignore those who have written about innocent black men who were railroaded. Bill Anderson, for instance, and others.

Your beef is that not every single person who comments on this case blogged obsessively about others? That is really rather silly.

Anonymous said...

***You got me there. False allegations occur too infrequently to be a problem. Thanks!***

If it is not a problem, why do you waste your time worrying about the fate of 3 kids? Couldn't you spend your time on causes that occur more frequently in society? This involves 3 guys. Spend your time more wisely and find a more useful cause.

Anonymous said...

4:34pm

That was heavy sarcasm (and I should not use that here.) False accusations are truly evil. You can plot the downfall of a society with the acceptance of false accusations.

Anonymous said...

1:09 You sir have a point. It's not that I hastily passed judgement(s), rather, I just haven't paid attention...

I will never look the same at the criminal prosecution system, a number of friends who are defense lawyers, and my white male children the same. And, my father, rest his soul, was an Asst. DA several eons ago.

Having said that, I doubt neither my feelings for victims will change, nor my hang'em cure for those that are properly convicted of violent crimes, rape or otherwise.

Anonymous said...

2:14 Kemp,

"Brodhead was very good, I have posted a complete run down of meeting on Lie Stoppers Board.

Bottom Line now it is "Nifungu made us do it". Everything is now Mikey's fault. He mislead the poor dears. Mikey has no friends now, he is the scapegoat. The Triad meeting is March 6th. KC you need to go to the NYC one!!"
__________________________

Well done on the update, thanks. Was the environment as such that one could ask him about:

1. Advising the young men to not contact a lawyer and cooperate with the police, and,

2. Whose idea was it to let the police into the dorms to search the young men's rooms?

Many thanks.

Anonymous said...

2:56 Well said, and...the fact that they young men still have charges pending...almost one year after the hoax began.

Anonymous said...

Five will get you ten someone from this class will show up Monday night...

DOCST164S - Socail Activism Motivations

"Documentary fieldwork based research on the lives of people who have committed themselves to changing society. Life history interviews exploring personal and societal transformations with special attention to the antecedents to personal change leading to examined lives of commitment. Attention to various areas of social change, including human rights, civil rights, international activism, labor rights, and environmental activism. Focus on societal and personal questions regarding motivations for, and the effectiveness of, good works in several cultural settings."

They certainly won't need to walk very far.

OR

You could go to Randwick Girls' High School, pay $144.00 and not get the dogma...

You make the call v2.0

Anonymous said...

3:02 As a member of the criminal defense bar, you are being paid big bucks to care. Most of us are volunteers in this gig. You don't know what or how much we care about justice.

Anonymous said...

7:22 "You could go to Randwick Girls' High School, pay $144.00 and not get the dogma..."

As point of clarification, I must note that the class is held a the Girls' School, but the acredited teaching is from the Eastern Suburbs Community College. My apologies to ESCS for the slight.

Anonymous said...

the fundamental driver for nifongs behavior was the racial composition of the durham electorate. like many DAs he is a political animal.The lax boys are "the great white defendents " as Tom Wolf put it in Bonfire of the Vanities .Nifong was going for votes not justice Unfortunately that sort of behavior by DAs and US attornies is quite common. BTW about 15,000 of Duke`s employs work at the medical center which is one of the largest and best in the world.

Anonymous said...

In a new memoir, Sheldon Hackney gives his interpetation of the "water buffalo" case at UofP in 1993. He calls it Spring of Hell. Like Karla Halloway, he sees himself as the victum in the event. Sees himself victimized by the lawyer Kos who defended the student and the media.He can only be grateful the blogosphere was not around then, Like Lax case, they were trying to crucify eden J.r.

Laika's Last Woof said...

"The gang of 88 argues that the lacrosse case should occasion a discussion of wider societal issues."

Imagine if people take them at their word and start actually teasing out the wider societal implications of this case ...

The Go88 is banging pots and pans for attention like Timothy Treadwell flagging down a bear.