Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Group of 88 Rehab Tour

The second leg of what could be dubbed the “Group of 88 Rehabilitation Tour” is scheduled for next Monday night on the Duke campus.

The first leg—the so-called “clarifying” statement—backfired badly. Its defiant tone and non-clarifying language triggered critiques from Duke alum Dan Abrams, Charlotte Allen, and John Podhoretz, among others. Virtually no one seemed to speak up in support of the embattled ideologues.

How did the Group respond? By becoming even more defiant. A two-hour event entitled “Shut Up and Teach” features five Group of 88 members—Wahneema Lubiano, Maurice Wallace, Diane Nelson, Mark Anthony Neal, and Pedro Lasch—plus “clarifying” signatory Charles Piot.

Their event’s purpose: to counteract “the current of criticism and attempts at intimidation directed against faculty who comment on larger social and political issues, and following the events of last spring, this forum addresses connections between faculty interests and local, national, and international politics.”

Back in April, it’s worth remembering, the Group had no problem criticizing their own school’s students by issuing a statement asserting unequivocally that something “happened” to the accuser, while saying “thank you” for not waiting to protesters who flooded the campus with “wanted” posters and held signs saying things such as “Time to confess” and “Castrate.” Nor did some members of the Group appear to have any problem with intimidating their own school’s students.

What “attempts at intimidation” have Monday’s presenters (all but one of whom are tenured) experienced? Group members don’t say.

The Group, alas, seems trapped in the pre-internet era, when academics could say or do just about anything, and few off campus would notice. Academic freedom, as much as the Group members might wish it were so, does not entail the right of academics to be free from criticism, nor does criticism of the statements and behavior of academics constitute “intimidation.”

As far as I can tell, all 88 members of the Group are just as free as now as they were on April 5, the day before their ad appeared, to “comment on larger social and political issues.” Indeed, it seems likely that more people are paying attention to their utterances now than was the case before they decided to issue their statement.

For instance:

  • Diane Nelson can still respond to campus speakers whose views she doesn’t like by interrupting their remarks or urging women to take off their T-shirts—behavior that one Duke student (sympathetic, ironically, to her viewpoint) described as “immature . . . and making a mockery of the concept of free speech.”
  • Mark Anthony Neal can still talk about his “intellectual alter ego . . . thugniggaintellectual—one word . . . this figure that comes into intellectual spaces like a thug, who literally is fearful and menacing.” Neal told readers of Duke Magazine that he “wanted to use this idea of this intellectual persona to do some real kind of ‘gangster’ scholarship, if you will. All right, just hard, hard-core intellectual thuggery.”
  • Wahneema Lubiano can still oppose the war in Afghanistan, advocate reparations for African-Americans, run “around campus dressed from head to toe like drag queens” performing political skits, oppose increased campus security measures on campus, or demand that Duke divest from companies doing business in Israel.

Indeed, for Monday’s sextet, it’s not clear what adopting a “shut up and teach” approach would even look like. As Wallace explained in a 2003 interview with the Herald-Sun, “I have a responsibility to all of my students—every single one of them—to disabuse them of all of the national, racial, middle-class, gender and sexual myths they’ve been taught to comfort or flatter themselves and, of course, the people who, perhaps unknowingly, miseducated them.”

I doubt that line makes it into the section of Duke fundraising appeals in which the institution discusses how its professors behave in the classroom.

Lubiano likewise has seamlessly blended her political activism with her teaching—as is her “privilege,” she once wrote. This semester, she’s teaching two classes. Here’s the synopsis for “Teaching Race/Teaching Gender”:

Learning about traditional and continuing forms of social inequalities—including those of race, class, gender, and sexuality—can be one of the more valuable experiences students have in college; however, teaching those forms of inequalities effectively also presents special challenges to the instructor. This seminar offers prospective teachers a chance to think through some of these issues. What content do various student audiences need to complicate their thinking? How can that content best be taught? How do you get students of different backgrounds comfortable talking with one another? How do you overcome the reluctance of male undergraduates to avoid anything with “gender” in the title? How do you make class apparent in a social order that reduces it to consumer choices, or in which it is made invisible by the hyper-visibility of race and ethnicity? Within the terms of a heteronormative culture that has made individual aesthetics the bedrock of sexual relations, how do you introduce the idea of the social to questions of relationships? How do you help students make the connection between the specifics of their everyday lives and the theories that undergird analysis of those lives?

And here’s the synopsis of Lubiano’s “Teaching Critical U.S. Studies”:

The course provides students with a history of American / U.S. studies from the earliest moments of arguments for and resistance to the instantiation of American / U.S. studies in university and college curricula from the 1930s and surveys different disciplinary methods involved in U.S. studies. Readings and assignments address inter-disciplinary engagements with problems, questions, and perspectives that constitute Critical U.S. Studies’s contributions to knowledge and engage students in the different disciplinary methods involved in U.S. studies, including Humanities and Interpretive Social Sciences, Empirical Social Sciences, and Art and Performances Studies.

(Translation: “This course teaches students how to criticize U.S. government policies.”)

---------

Chapter Six of the Duke Faculty Handbook opens with the following passage:

Members of the faculty expect Duke students to meet high standards of performance and behavior. It is only appropriate, therefore, that the faculty adheres to comparably high standards in dealing with students . . . Students are fellow members of the university community, deserving of respect and consideration in their dealings with the faculty.

Stripped of all its verbiage, the central position of the Group of 88/87 is really quite simple: while all other professors at Duke must adhere to the provisions of the Faculty Handbook, these rules should not have to apply to the Group. Instead, Group members should have the right to forward their personal, pedagogical, or ideological agendas on the backs of Duke students, just as they did on April 6.

In the long term, this is an untenable position for any University.

156 comments:

Anonymous said...

The score at halftime: Professor Johnson of Brooklyn College 44, Group of 88/87 of Duke University 0.

wayne fontes said...

This event needs to be video taped in the worst way. Stephe Miller get on it.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

Certainly the 88 gangsters are on the run. If the pressure is kept up, Duke will be forced to reform.

They need to be careful and not throw the academic freedom baby out with the bathwater, but they need to reform hiring to make sure there are a diviersity of IDEAS at Duke.

Joey T said...

Those five speakers would probably look more appropriate wearing clown noses, as they talk about theories that aren't true, and which they thought were made concrete in an crime that never happened.

M. Simon said...

KC,

No links to pictures of Duke women protesting sans T-shirts?

I'm disappointed.

Anonymous said...

Wahneema Lubiano writes How do you overcome the reluctance of male undergraduates to avoid anything with “gender” in the title?

Hey, Wahneemaaaa...you sayin' the males are reluctant to avoid gender studies? I'm gonna guess that you really intended to write the opposite of that. Maybe the "reluctance of males to enrol in..." or "the eagerness of males to avoid". You know, just suggestin'.

Sheesh. Maybe it is possible the 88 actually meant the opposite of what they wrote in their listening ad. These bozos cannot express themselves at all.

M. Simon said...

How do you overcome the reluctance of male undergraduates to avoid anything with “gender” in the title? Pictures of naked men work under most circumstances.

And the gentlemen attracted would be mostly at home with Angry Studies.

Gary Packwood said...

Great Post KC

Apparently the leadership of Duke has never learned how to have a 'Come to Jesus' talk with errant faculty. Pity.

If this is going to be am all out faculty food fight right in front of those who donate funds, by all means ... Attend.

It will be better than TV.

Will be Concerned Mothers of Duke Students be allowed to attend? How about the Friends of Duke?

Come one, come all and watch the lack of administrative leadersip in action.

Think UTube.com offering for the day after.

Anonymous said...

Polanski

Lubiano's possessive of Studies is Studies's

KC, why didn't you [sic] that whopper?

The G88's strategy is obvious:
we're just outrageous, don't you know? We're consistent in our "pursuit of academic freedom." Last spring was just a little acacdemic freedom gone wild.

Don't worry, kiddies, we're just as stupid and racist as last year, so come on over and get an easy A with us mediocrities.

Anonymous said...

And that nights special guest speaker...cash michaels

Newyorkstateofmind said...

KC et al,

Looks like the usual PC blather, these the latest comments and behavior of the now mini-G88. As KC notes, the mini-G88 are truly in a time warp, one that even Internet bloggers cannot quite disturb--academic tenure is the utlimate bubble against realities of all kinds, only the twisted fantasies of a non-existent macabre world breaking through. Thus, nothwithstanding the blog-inspired exposing of maneuvers on the part of G88ers for the malicious bile they continue to spew forth, they have yet to meet any real accounting for their odious behavior.

wayne fontes said...

KC, could I suggest a list of sample questions for the good professors for your next post.

Anonymous said...

Polanski said

TO DUKE PARENTS, ALUMNI, AND DONORS

By quoting directly from Wahneema Lubiano's course descriptions, KC Johnson has detailed the cognitive and writing deficiencies of Lubiano. She is a typical black/women's studies "professor."

Her prose reads like a 10th-grader's.

IT'S TIME TO DEFUND THIS CRAP.

I will gladly make my editing talents available to the Friends of Duke in the event some group wants to construct a devastating critique of the "scholarship" of the Angry Studies departments.

Think of it as an antigrant proposal.

Funny how Lubiano fails to address cognitive inequalities.

Do the G88 sell cookies?

AMac said...

Duke Professors:

Many of you read this blog regularly, and a dozen or so have left thought-provoking comments here.

What do you think about the Group of 88's performance? These disciples of Antonio Gramsci call the tune. Your university's Administration has been dancing to it.

In your opinion, do the people who lead this movement care about free inquiry, or the ideals of the Academy? Do they respect your disciplines? Your work?

It must be cold comfort to know that Duke's trauma is the currently-visible tip of an iceberg of similar conduct.

Gramsci urged progressives to make The Long March Through The Institutions. This is cultural weaving. "The progressive cultural warrior... weaves into existing institutions, slowly exposing their members to progressive ideas and language... Eventually, the weaving in and out, with each re-weaving going deeper into the whole cloth, will mean that progressives will be so deeply entrenched in institutions that even if they announce their intentions to use those institutions to remake society totally, they could be removed from the cloth only by ripping it and leaving it incapable of being repaired."

Profs: What has inspired Duke's Hard Leftists and their fellow travelers to speak so forcefully and eloquently about the ramifications of the Lacrosse Rape Case? Why have the more-numerous members of the Decent Left and the Center been comparatively silent? With the facts of the Hoax having been plain for months, why haven't more campus voices been raised in defense of classical liberal values?

Your reflections would be appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Their strategy will be to portray themselves as victims of a right-wing witch hunt, therby hoping to gain the support of liberals (who they otherwise revile). But I don't think most liberals will buy this one, thereby showing how pathetic the 88(7) truly are.

Anti-Leftist Liberal

Marc said...

Prof Johnson, Posting at 0001h, while it may keep some Right Coast folks up past their wonted bedtimes, is perfect for us on the Other Coast. Many thanks for all your good work.

Anonymous said...

KC,

I applaud all you've done. Keep up the good work.

At the same time, my reading of the Group of 88 statement is that it's incoherent and doesn't say anything at all. I've read it carefully several times. It a curious melange of leftist victimspeak but it doesn't assert any facts or make any arguments. I don't see how they can repudiate the statement when the statement has no meaning. Many of the people attacking the statement are projecting coherent positions into a document that just can be treated that way.

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

The course info is certainly illuminating, but c'mon -- isn't the real story here that the Rumpers are reduced to taking cover behind the Dixie Chicks?

The Chicks are internationally renowned performers who incurred the wrath of their own fan base because they had the courage to stand up against a rush to war.

The Rumpers are securely ensconced overachievers who encouraged the wrath of their own "fan base" by because they lacked the courage to stand up against a rush to judgment.

You do the math.

Dave in CA

luke said...

Take a look at the mini-script at the bottom of the Group of 88 ad. It states in part: “We thank the following departments and programs for signing onto this ad with African & African American Studies: Romance Studies; Psychology; Social and Health Sciences; Franklin Humanities Institute; Critical U.S. Studies; Art, Art History, and Visual Studies; Classical Studies; Asian & African Languages & Literature; Women’s Studies; Latino/a Studies; Latin American and Caribbean Studies; Medieval and Renaissance Studies; European Studies; Program in Education; and the Center for Documentary Studies. Because of space limitations, the names of additional faculty and staff who signed on in support may be read at the AAAS website…” Does this mean these departments and programs approved of the ad? Was it the head of each department or program that gave assent? Was a vote taken among the faculty of each of these departments or programs approving of their support? Is the list simply reflective of the departments and programs of the 88 signatories? Have this ever been addressed? Let’s say I’m a member of the Post-Raphaelite Studies Department and strongly disapproved of a certain position. If I later saw an ad supporting that position and thanking the Post-Raphaelite Studies Department for signing onto it, I would have a thing or two to say about that.

Anonymous said...

In today's NY Times, there's an article about how NCLB drains funds from the gifted.

That's exactly what academic welfare does at Duke--drains funds from the worthy to subsidize the parasites.

Polanski

AMac said...

anon 1:06am --

If only what you are saying was so--that the statement "doesn't say anything at all."

The "Listening Statement," posted at a time of hysteria over the lacrosse rape, refers to "the police investigation."

What police investigation, then?

It talks about "what happened to this young woman."

What young woman?

"If it turns out these students are guilty, I want them expelled."

What students?

"If something like this happens to me..."

What something?

"No one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation, how to keep her humantity before us..."

"The students know that the disaster didn't begin on March 13th and won't end with what the police say or the court decides."

"to the protesters making collective noise, we say thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard."


"The protesters" were the pot-banging demonstrators on Buchanan Blvd., holding signs saying "CONFESS" and "CASTRATE."

So, anon 1:06am, he Listening Statement wasn't about the Lacrosse Rape Case? It wasn't meant to be about the Case?

Sorry. Those dogs don't hunt.

Worse, anyone can read the statement and make up their own mind.

Joe Bingham said...

Exceptional analysis, even for you. Kudos.

M. Simon said...

Dave 1:16AM,

The "rush to War" took over a year.

The G88 appear to be considerably more hasty.

Anonymous said...

So the purpose of this event is to counteract “the current of criticism and attempts at intimidation directed against faculty who comment on larger social and political issues...."

Don't these five know that Duke faculty have always commented on larger social and political issues--both in their teaching and in their research and writing. They have done so without being intimidated and have done so often in quiet voices (Do you listen, 88?), modestly, and brilliantly, and without the blinders of personal agendas. They have made great contributions in their fields of expertise, and they have inspired many students to think independently. You, the 88, make a mockery of academic freedom.

And speaking of intimidation, if I were a non-tenured faculty member in one of the departments that some of the 88 lord over, I would be intimidated to deviate from the agenda. I might even have to bang a pot and sign a statement to show solidarity and thus please my superiors so they might write recommendations, grant me raises, and maybe promote me. And I'm sure that the intimidated administration does not want to further victimize the 88. Did someone actually tell these 5 to "shut up and teach"? Oh dear, how intimidating.

Please, please, someone in Durham videotape the show for those of us who live too far away to attend.

Anonymous said...

Silly me, I thought Global warming would light them up.

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

It's time to do away with tenure! Let's let the market decide which ideas rate.

luke said...

Excellent observation 1:56. Juniors might fear a dissenting position would later be translated to "lack of collegiality" input during tenure or contract renewal considerations. Hmmm, where have I heard that term before? Anyone...anyone?

Anonymous said...

Why don't they link articles that have been published?

1. The articles can't stand criticism?

2. There are no articles.

3. We're all on the same elevator smelling the same bad gas and aknowledging how good it smells?

4. Let's soak these suckers for $46,000 per year or $184,000.00, give them a lap top, (oops that only the Fuqua School of Business), and implore them towards hate.

Anonymous said...

The Gang of 88's approach will be pathetically predicatable:

1. This has become a hostile work environment.
2. This is McCartyism.
3. These people are racist, homophobes, elitists, ______.

Who has the guts to stand up to these terrorists?

Anonymous said...

WOMENST 90-01 Gender and Everyday Life

"What is gender? Why does studying it matter? This course hopes to answer both of these questions by focusing on specific ways in which our daily lives are shaped by gender. Each section of the course asks us to think about the ways in which the everyday practices of our lives revolve around gendered assumptions about human bodies, human emotions, and human potentials. Issues we will focus on include gender and the body; gender and consumer culture; gender and the family; gender and work; and gender and space. Among the questions we will ask are: how do we shape our bodies to perform our gender identities? How does gender define the social spaces we move through and inhabit? How are various social institutions—law and government, education, the family—constructed through gender? How are gendered meanings and identities shaped by issues of race, class, and sexuality? How have these meanings changed over time, and in relation to what kinds of social, economic, or cultural factors?"

Dear God, what are what legacy have I left for my children?

Anonymous said...

Now this is rich...who pays for this pap?

BCS260 Suff, Evil, & Red in Black Theo.

"Explores the black Christian tradition with respect to the problem of suffering and evil in black life. Against the backdrop of the problem of evil in church history, the course provides a historic overview of perspectives on suffering and redemption articulated by African-American Christians such as Maria Stewart and Martin Luther King, Jr. Instructor: Williams"

What exactly does this mean. At $46k per year this, again is criminal. What is Duke teaching outside of the B School and Engineering?

Anonymous said...

Ethics 100S Living an Ethical Life

"Consent required".. what does this mean. Situational ethics for admission? Now this one may be useful...

"Familiar but fundamental ethical questions: What is a good, worthy or just life? How is it to be lived, toward what ends? Readings include dramas and philosophical analyses, parables and autobiographies, polemics and meditations, novels and political commentaries. Introductory course for the Certificate Program in the Study of Ethics. Consent of instructor required. Instructor: Euben"

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:12: That's why it's so important for non-leftist liberals of good will to speak out against them too.

Anonymous said...

Have the Group of 88 received moral support in the media from their counterparts at other universities, or is there hope that race/class/gender professors at other institutions of higher education realize that the Listening Statement was so egregious in content and timing that they don't want to get involved?

Because no one is taking up their cause, some of the 88 need this Monday event, "Shut Up and Teach," as a forum to place themselves not only in the context of local but "national and international politics" as well. What brave crusaders (victims) they are, doing battle on a campus that not only tolerates them but gives them tenure. And as Anonymous 2:12 a.m notes, they will claim hostile work environment and racism/elitism/etc. if their actions and muddled ideas are criticized.

james conrad said...

doesnt see how DUKE or any college gets a handle on the hiring process without first addressing the issue of tenure, its gotta go posner on tenure

Anonymous said...

The group of 88 and their administrative enablers are the heart of the problem. They fanned the flame of the mobs demonizing the lacrosse team and demanding they be punished for a crime that never happened.

If the university had taken an honest look at the evidence and had given the students a reasonable opportunity to present their side of the story it is very unlikely that there ever would have been indictments. I think Nifong was wrong to push the grand jury to indict the students but it would have taken a courageous DA to have resisted the pressures from both the Duke community and the Durham community to do so.

If there had been a few brave faculty who had publicy stated

"the students have consistently denied the accusations of the accuser and and until there is strong evidence to the contrary, we stand by our students' claims of innocence",

it is a lot less likely that the DA would have been so quick to stage a phony line-up, ignore DNA evidence that cleared the students and refuse to look at irrefutable evidence that one of the indicted was at a different location at the time of alleged rape.

Context is very important in how people view events. With hindsight the rush to judgment seems almost incomprehensible. It is only understandable if you believe that the campus culture of Duke is one of violent white male sexual privilege in which spoiled rich white boys are standing around waiting for the opportunity to rape vulnerable black women.

There is of course no reason to believe any of this. As far as I can tell the only evidence of this was the claims of the accuser in this case. But if you look at the curriculum taught by the gang of 88, read their statements about the events, and look at what they are saying even now about the "larger issues", they have shown absolutely no evidence of any recognition of their own complicity in this travesty.

Most elite colleges and universities have core groups similar to the gang of 88 at Duke. They consist of faculty in the various identity studies programs, and in identity groupings within departments in the social sciences and the humanities. Within this group there is an activist core that aligns with symnpathetic administrators from the offices of multiculturalism or diversity to dictate the terms of debate over a whole range of issues, including hiring, curriculum, admissions, financial aid, funding for outside speakers, benefits, choice of graduation speakers, etc. They have created an intimidating atmosphere in which opposition to their personal and ideological agendas is stigmatized as bigotry and people who object to their agenda are bullied into silence.

The Duke case is a particularly egregious example of this behavior, but it is not an isolated phenomenon. The gang of 88 stepped way over the line on this one and their pathetic whines about how they are victimized will probably be scorned by most people at Duke. But the wider threat that the group and their clones on other campuses pose towards education and even to common decency will remain until people have the courage to stand up to their bullying.

One thing is for sure. The group is not going down without a fight. They have based their institutional position on forcing their claims of perpetual victimhood on mainstream academic culture. Their claims for such institutional advancement as hiring, promotion, tenure, merit pay, departmental support, etc. are based on the perception that they are victims and not aggressors.

Appeasement of such claims doesn't work. The more preferential treatment that is given, the more outrageous the claims have to be to justify it. It doesn't get better and it will only change when people are prepared to stand up and tell their colleagues who are like those in the gang of 88, that their views are self-serving bigoted nonsense. Nothing short of that is going to change the prevailing academic culture at too many of of our colleges and universities.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 2:34--In addition to engineering and B-school, there is medical school and law school and divinity school, and pre-med, physics, math, foreign languages, art and art history, dance, music, economics, philosophy, theater, marine science, geology, and on and on and on. Unforutnately, only the race/class/gender classes are getting publicity, which is unfortunate for the University and its many students who never knew Karla Holloway or Houston Baker until the media made them household names. Once great departments, like English, have been damaged by the race/class/gender professors, but most of the university has been immune to their agendadizing, which upsets them, I'm sure. I would love for Reynolds Price, an English professor of mine in the 1960's, to write a novel on this episode in Duke's history.

Anonymous said...

Well stated, 5:18. It's a problem that permeates more than higher education.

Anonymous said...

No links to pictures of Duke women protesting sans T-shirts?

I'm disappointed.


I saw the pictures at the time. It was mostly middle-aged faculty. Let's just say that if you saw them your disappointment would be unabated.

Anonymous said...

It is a mystery why Brodhead does not have the judgment or courage to deliver to many of the Group of 88 the same verdict he delivered to Coach Pressler...

"I'm not saying you're to blame... but we need a fresh start... so you'll have to go."

The same line of reasoning should apply to many of the Group of 88/87, who, in my judgment, are much less qualified to teach, and to be a part of Duke University, than was Coach Pressler.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Neal describes his "thugniggaintellectual" as "fearful and menacing"? Hmmm. A "fearful" thug? Wouldn't it make more sense if this thug were "fearsome" and menacing? Or is this "thug" quivering in fear at his own menacing behavior? Apparently this "intellectual" doesn't know the difference (and it's a big one) between the words "fearful" and "fearsome." Perhaps instead of "shut up and teach" the 88 should spend more of their time shutting up and learning. Their own education seems to be sadly lacking.

Anonymous said...

Good morning.

Is it just me or is there something intriguing about the title "Shut up and Teach"? It is presumably not a self admonition for the G88/87- therefore it must be an injunction addressed outward. Could it be... could it be they are specifically (if perhaps subconsciously) addressing our beloved KC?

I wish I was able to attend. As horrible and fascinating as the legal/media issues are, it was the Duke faculty and administration's initial (and ongoing) response to the LAX hoax that sucked me into my persistent obsession.

There was an episode of Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man" where he plays a guy beseeching mercy from England's Cromwell who is about to execute someone: "Please, by the bowels of Christ, can't you admit that it's possible that you *might* be wrong?"

I feel a similar angst when observing the positions of the G88/87 and the Duke administration.

RL,Baltimore alum '75

(the 'quote' is a 30 year old memory and not exact. I'm no Gottleib).

Anonymous said...

Never mind- so much for my flash of insight.

The actual title of Monday's program is: Shut up and Teach? (with a question mark).

The explanation for the title is given on the campus poster announcing the event and is linked in KC's post.

It is apparently a take off on the Dixie Chick's "Shut up and Sing" answer to the criticism they received after their remarks about the president's Iraq policy.

I *might* have been wrong (again).

RL

Anonymous said...

Wow.

They are definitely feeling the heat. Their angst is
oozing through the internet with every response.

Seeing them squirm is comedy gold.

Anonymous said...

Their event’s purpose: to counteract “the current of criticism and attempts at intimidation directed against faculty who comment on larger social and political issues...

The criticism of G88 is based on the specific issues relating to their endorsement of the treatment of the LAX players, not the "larger social and political issues." Last spring they rushed to the $2 window and bet on the wrong horse, but they are still trying to cash in the losing ticket. Their intimidated-tenured-prof-as-victim ploy is laughable.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear. Have they not figured out that this is not "all about them" yet? Despicable.

The boys are still at risk of 30 years in prison for things that they did not do, yet these faculty are whining about the silly mess that they created themselves? What a bunch of self centered, pseudo intellectuals. Dreadful.

This event speaks yet again to Brodhead's inability to manage Duke University. He cannot control his wayward faculty. The 88 should not have written the first letter- it presumed guilt. The 88 should not have written the second letter- at that point, it was apparent that there was a frame of innocent young men. Instead of apologizing, the 88 continued to harp on their off topic points. Shameful.

To have yet another forum with these dolts speaking in public and further embarrassing my alma mater puts me over the top. I cannot wait until Brodhead is gone and these faculty have been dismissed. Terrible.

Will they be speaking for the freedom of innocent people charged with crimes they did not commit, and how devasting this has been to have had their names broadcast around the world? Their families held hostage? A DA who directs the witholding of exculpatory evidence? If not, then they should have the courtesy to remain quiet if they cannot support their own students. Perhaps they like the controversy that their inane drivel creates? They claim to be misunderstood. I understand them well. These faculty do not seem to be able to grasp the understanding that if the Constitution does not represent all of us, regardless of color, class or gender, then it does not represent one of us. This is the larger issue, and they have missed this critical point entirely to have their self centered little rants. This narrow minded oversight of the real issue is despicable, shameful and terrible.

David Brennan said...

If anybody's digging for something positive to say about the Group, praise them for at least being smart enough to speak in euphemisms rather than risk a slander/libel suit the way some equally corrupt - but slightly dumber - loudmouths have done. (Wendy Murphy, obviously.)

bill anderson said...

None of this surprises me. The entire act that these faculty members put on is based around their alleged "victimhood." They always try to portray themselves as victims of America, victims of whites, victims of capitalism, victims of whatever.

These are people with six-figure salaries who do not have to engage in the same kind of rigorous scholarship that others on the Duke faculty must do in order to gain tenure, promotion, and raises. Their perceived "scholarship" mostly consists of their little meta-narratives with their articles and books being about themselves and their alleged victimhood.

These are people who not only act like children seeking attention, but are expected to act like children and encouraged to act like children. Houston Baker sends out emails to parents of lacrosse players calling their sons "farm animals," and that is somehow acceptable. But Karla Holloway receives an email from someone outside Duke who doesn't care for her work, and that is "proof" that American society is unalterably racist, and Holloway then can revel in her "victim" status.

So, expect more of the same kind of self-pity at the meeting that we have seen so far. These are faculty members who "thanked" activists for demanding castration of the lacrosse players, who openly -- yes, openly -- made false accusations of rape, and then they insist that they should be above criticism.

I think that "Identity Studies" should be changed to "Demanding Adults Act Like Little Children" studies. That better fits this bunch of spoiled babies.

Anonymous said...

RE: Anon @ 6:19
In virtually every written and spoken comment from the G88/87 one finds tortured syntax, non sequitirs, misplaced modifiers, and just plain sorry-@$$ communication skills. This gibberish isn't unique to those bozos, but is, unfortunately, a common characteristic of today's overeducated and undertaught university grads. In my 35-year career I supervised numerous intelligence analysts who had letters after their names (many from Ivy League schools); the ones who were able to write consistently cogent sentences were few and far between. We have lost sight of the necessity of teaching the basic skill of communicating thoughts; having a valid idea but being unable to clearly communicate it is no different from having no ideas at all. Duke's situation today is not unique.
Outerbanx Phantom

Anonymous said...

Yes, K.C. Untenable for Duke, and hopefully, untenurable for the Despicable 88.

Brodhead doesn't speak against them because he is their creature; he has made his career stroking and managing the egos of idiots such as Holloway and Lubiano and Chafe, so what else is new?

It wouldn't occur to him to attempt to rein these folks in-- that just isn't how to win the popularity contest up to this point.

I do hope the paradigm has shifted-- at least at Duke, and that there will be a time of reckoning with the mediocre haters who are doing such damage to a once great institution.

sic semper tyrannis

Anonymous said...

"As Wallace explained in a 2003 interview with the Herald-Sun, 'I have a responsibility to all of my students—every single one of them—to disabuse them of all of the national, racial, middle-class, gender and sexual myths they’ve been taught to comfort or flatter themselves and, of course, the people who, perhaps unknowingly, miseducated them.'

I doubt that line makes it into the section of Duke fundraising appeals in which the institution discusses how its professors behave in the classroom."

You can bet on that.

Anonymous said...

6:12
"I'm not saying you're to blame... but we need a fresh start... so you'll have to go."

As a Clinton centrist, I agree Duke should be considering this. This group/individuals has had plenty of time to simply say they were wrong to get so far ahead of the facts and were wrong not to correct their actions.

I find if hard to read the postings of their work. How do I say this, I am amazed that such courses are offered for credit. I could see some of them better offered as part of a lecture series.

When I was in college in the 80's I looked up with envy and respect for fellow students going to Duke. I hope there is more to Duke and that there is not an academic enron inside the campus.

Bob said...

The worst thing to me is this. Suppose you give them the maximum benefit of the doubt. Assume (as they now claim) they presumed innocence of the criminal charges but were concerned about the admitted behavior (underage drinking, hiring strippers, etc.). They are still in the position of someone who insists that the "real social disaster" of the Rodney King incident was his driving under the influence.

Anonymous said...

7:33 AM Bill Anderson
"So, expect more of the same kind of self-pity at the meeting that we have seen so far. These are faculty members who "thanked" activists for demanding castration of the lacrosse players, who openly -- yes, openly -- made false accusations of rape, and then they insist that they should be above criticism."

I doubt the current behavior is extraordinary, as people's behavior overall tends to be linear. Expect similar thuggish behavior to show up from many in this group when investigating their past, and of the future...?

Hmm...what if...just what if insider Mike Nifong had actually gotten this to trial by being slightly less stupid? What if the G88 had gotten what they had hoped for?

Everyone kows the answer to this, and that answer is chilling.

teach1975 said...

At John Hopkins University Justin Park was found guilty of failing to respect the rights of others, harassment, and intimidation, among other charges for placing an add on the facebook website for his frat about a "Halloween in the Hood" party- it instructed ppl. to dress up thugish (since the school is in Baltimore). He is out a semester, 300 hrs comm service and has to write a bunch of essays on race. The idea behind the party (playing up the image that B-more is gangsta was (according to some) an offense to the city of Baltimore and minority students.

We all know that the gang of 88 would be on the front lines initially protesting and then applauding the suspension. Lets hear their arguements about free speech in this case. They can't have it both ways.

Anonymous said...

"Shut up an Teach" isn't even origianl. Ironically it's taken from conservative radio hostess, Laura Ingraham's book, "Shut up and Sing", which, I believe, refers to her opinion of the Dixie Chicks foriegn policy credentials.

Anonymous said...

Every time "Saturday Night Live" and "South Park" start to run out of material, Duke gives them something new!

Anonymous said...

Their whining about intimidation is a joke, right. They know they can put on this performance with no fear of being physically attacked as many conservative speakers have been on US campuses. They don't have to fear what occurred when that border watcher group tried to speak at Columbia and was set upon by a mob.

My guess is they will try to fill up the room with the sympathetic, sycophantic, and psychopathic to not only get a supportive mob but also to intimidate anyone from asking tough questions. Look for heavy recruitment of emerging Angry Studies scholars. Extra credit anyone?

SAVANT

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of bull. Thank goodness my Duke daughter and Carolina daughter survived their 4 years at these univerisities. They are back in the real world, doing well and are not confused about their gender or sexuality. They seem to have a strong world view and feel good about their role in society. It appears that they have fallen back on the values their parents and inlaws have demonstrated to them. I always wonder about the backgrounds of those in these "angry" studies. How in the world to they come to their viewpoints.

Anonymous said...

My apologies for not mentioning the other fine Schools within Duke earlier, (Medical, Law, etc.)

I would challenge, however, that the race,gender, class nonsense is not present in other Departments such as Art History and English. For example, and as posted before, Duke's own Art History expert Peter Wood has writen meta-narratives (read - making up nonsense) about art.

Roger Kimbal has a wonderful book, "The Rape of the Masters" which details how loopy/destructive these people are with their race/gender/class meta-narratives. For example:

Regarding the painting, "The Gulf Stream", by Winslow Homer...
Winslow Homer’s own words:
“You ask me for a full description of my Picture of the “Gulf Stream” – I regret very much that I have painted a picture that requires any description – The subject of this picture is comprised in its title…I have crossed the Gulf Stream ten times & I should know something about it. The boat & shark are outside matters of little consequence. They have been blown out to sea by a hurricane…” – Winslow Homer, a reply to a request to explain the painting “Gulf Stream”
Duke Professor’s book reviewed (Amazon):

“In “Waiting in Limbo; A Reconsideration of Winslow Homer’s The Gulf Steam” Peter Woods, ties the painting to race and slavery and colonialism. “Perhaps no other American painting is at once so familiar and so little understood as Winslow Homer’s The Gulf Stream (1899). For more than a century, scholars have praised the artist and yet puzzled over this harrowing scene of a black man adrift in the open sea, in a derelict boat surrounded by sharks. Critical commentary, when it has departed at all from the painting’s composition and coloring, has generally viewed The Gulf Stream as a universal parable on the human condition or as an anecdotal image of a coastal storm.
There is more to this stark masterpiece, says Peter Wood, a historian and an authority on images of blacks in Homer’s work. To understand the painting in less noticed but more meaningful ways, says Wood, we must dive more deeply into Homer’s past as an artist and our own past as a nation. Looking at The Gulf Stream and the development of Homer’s social conscience in ways that traditional art history and criticism do not allow, Wood places the picture within the tumultuous legacy of slavery and colonialism at the end of the nineteenth century.

Kimball, Roger, “The RAPE of the MASTERS, How Political Correctness Sabotages Art”
Peter Wood, "Waiting in Limbo: A Reconsideration of Winslow Homer's 'The Gulf Stream'," in The Southern Enigma: Essays in Race, Class, and Folk Culture, ed. Walter J. Fraser Jr. and Winfred B. Moore Jr. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983): 75-94.

Anonymous said...

In the name of civility and denouncing intimidation tactics, perhaps the G88 can say something special regarding the New Black Panthers' efforts to interview the students on campus.

Anonymous said...

2:41--
I'm not exactly sure why you have posted the ethics class--but to answer your question, "consent of instructor required" means students need to e-mail the instructor for a permission number to register for the class. There are a number of reasons why a class might be set up this way. In this case, I suspect that, because the class is the gateway class for a certificate program, the consent device is used to give priority to students who plan to pursue that program, and let other students in only after people in the program have a chance to enroll. I doubt that the screening is intended to sort out the ethical biases of the students in the class, if that's what you are suggesting.

5:18--I question one point you make in passing in your interesting analysis. Of course it's impossible to know for sure at this point, but I doubt that open support for the lacrosse defendants from Duke faculty members would have made much difference in how the prosecution proceeded. Instead, it might just have amplified the theme of noble, oppressed Durham rising up to challenge big, bad Duke. Since Mike Nifong seems to have imagined himself a crusader for the downtrodden, I suspect more institutional support for the lacrosse team would only have fed his fantasy. That being said, for many other reasons we might well wish that there had been faculty members willing to support the lacrosse players early on.

Anonymous said...

9:11 It's not extra credit, they have not one, but two Independent Studies courses built around your idea...

WOMENST192 Independent Studies: "Maternal Health Care; Costa Rica", and "Sexuality Studies"

WOMENST195 Independent Studies: "The Hybrid Immigrant Woman", "Fashion, Free Trade, and Feminism", and "Perspectives on Birth Control"

I'm quite certain a meta-narratives can be manufactured around the "Shut up and Teach" program...

$46k per year, indirectly subsidized by us through Federally funded grants and student loans...sickening.

For the legal beagles, would this pap be considered negligence or gross negligence?

Anonymous said...

I2:41 Thanks for the clarifiction regardingn regards to Instructor consent. That actually appears in a number of class synopsis.

One does wonder, given how the one young man was flunked out, due to apparent bigotry if similar bigotry keeps students out.

Regarding the Ethics class...to me it's comical, much like Enron having an Ethics Department. Does having a sticker on the door annoucing it is against federal law to carry a handgun on the premises deter the thug who is about to rob the store?

If a teacher

Anonymous said...

The G88/87 flyer for the event (linked by KC) compares themselves to the Dixie Chicks. "…their response to a campaign of intimidation directed at them for criticizing George Bush."

This gives amazing insight into the arrogance and entitlement of their leftist world view.

Most critics of the Chicks don't deny them the right to criticize or have a view... but disagree with the how, when and where of it. Same for the 88/87.

The Chicks are not victims of 'intimidation'. Rather, fans have decided not to attend concerts, buy their CD's, or play their music. The G88/87 scream intimidation, racism or fascism to all who object to their vile message. This is not intimidation, but what one should expect when using their privileged soapbox to spew.

Arrogant victimhood is alive a well.

MGM

AMac said...

anon 9:34am --

Good observations; it sounds as though you have direct experience of events on campus or in Durham.

On the point you make to anon 5:18am:

I doubt that open support for the lacrosse defendants from Duke faculty members would have made much difference in how the prosecution proceeded. Instead, it might just have amplified the theme of noble, oppressed Durham rising up to challenge big, bad Duke.

Is there some point at which that dynamic lost its relevance? After the NYT's deceptive, pro-prosecution article in August? The November election? The December revelation of the Meehan-Nifong conspiracy?

Because today--11 months after the Hoax began--about 25 Duke faculty have taken a public stand that in one way or another favors the application of Due Process to this case (a small subset has weighed in on the factual innocence of the partygoers).

In contrast, over a hundred faculty have participated in the rush-to-judgment and in condemning the lacrosse players. Despite the clarity with which the facts are now known, only one (Crowley) has retracted or apologized.

In your opinion, what accounts for this continuing disparity?

Anonymous said...

Here's the unsanitized text found in the .pdf poster. I told you they were going to play the McCartyism card...

Isn't there something about yelling fire in crowded theatres?

"Academic Freedom
The legal system offers strong protection for academic freedom ause Shut has never directly th meaning treated aae of extent up acadmic freedo protections lower anid andha teach? interpret the Constitution narrowly.
Most legal decisions conflict between institutional academic freedom individual academic freedom. Institutional academic freedom is the belief that colleges and universities should be free to judicial scrutiny for their. Faculty and students Individual academic freedom is the belief that courts must intervene to protect the academic freedom of individual from institutional encroachments decisions.
During the early McCarthy Era cases when the upreme Court first recognized the right of academic freedom as a part of the First Amendment, politicians sought to impose restrictions on colleges and …
237
Faculty and Public Issues2
Monday 12 February 2007
6:30pm - 8:30pm
Mary Lou Williams Center
Speakers:
Pedro Lasch
Wahneema Lubiano
Mark Anthony Neal
Diane Nelson
Charlie Piot
Maurice Wallace

Anonymous said...

Nelson et al are simply pathetic beyond words. And the Duke administration runs a close second. What a travesty these fools are attempting to make of an institution of "higher learning." If I were instructing in another, actual academic, department, I would be sick at the damage and peripheral effects to the university. The only reason Duke will not suffer the effects it should is that most if not all other prestigious universities are as bad - cozy havens for angry idiots and craven enablers.

Anonymous said...

Every time I read a synopsis of one of these "Studies" courses, I think about how much money students could save if they'd skip the class and just watch Oprah and Dr. Phil for a week.

Anonymous said...

***Every time I read a synopsis of one of these "Studies" courses, I think about how much money students could save if they'd skip the class and just watch Oprah and Dr. Phil for a week.***

I dind't attend Duke, but I'd imagine that the students do NOT receive a refund for a portion of their tuition, simply because they decide to skip class and watch tv.

That is, however, a great idea and I wish my college employed such a scheme!

Gary Packwood said...

Re: Luke 1:21 AM - Post Raphaelite Studies

Great Post

Since I tend to view students as customers, I would call you on the telephone and ask to meet with you to discuss the possibility that this group of faculty may have a 'toe-hold' across the campus with students and staff. Our teaching evaluation might take a 'nose dive' if we don't get with their program, as it were...no matter how much you and I disagree with their position.

Even the hint that we are 'insensitive/dictating males' ...who don't offer 'support' for women and minorities who are oppressed could very well hang a bulls eye on our teaching evaluations and our future departmental budget.

You might argue that the Duke administration would not allow that to happen however based on past history with this administration since last March, I would not agree with you.

Clearly the concept of undergraduate students as customers doesn't count for much at Duke.

GP

I love Post Raphaelite Studies :-)

Anonymous said...

This Confederation of Cretins (catchier than Group of 88/87, Rumps, etc. don't you think?) have lived for far too long in a parallel universe from ours where their scholarship is brilliant, never questioned, and has redeeming social value. It's hilarious and predictable watching their thin-skinned reactions to criticism. They've been exposed for their true character.

dl

Anonymous said...

It does appear that what the Group of 88 want is free speech for its members and no speech for its detractors. What ever happened to entering a dialogue? Of course, what is the point in having a dialogue if one side is intellectually dishonest?

Vivian Thomas said...

In response to Ms. Lubiano's synopsis...

Learning about traditional and continuing forms of social inequalities—including those of race, class, gender, and sexuality—can be one of the more valuable experiences students have in college; however, teaching those forms of inequalities effectively also presents special challenges to the instructor.
Ah! It seems we agree, Ms. Lubiano, that you seem to be truly challenged.

This seminar offers prospective teachers a chance to think through some of these issues.
Let's see. The issues are that you are challenged and give F's to all white males? Sounds very complicated. Good thing that you organized a class at a top-10 university for this important task.

What content do various student audiences need to complicate their thinking?
Well, my normal thinking process would be complicated if I were worried that my teacher and classmates were indicting me for a crime I didn't commit and/or that they were going to castrate me. So, you seem to have already answered your own question.

How can that content best be taught?
I would suggest that the content would best be served by removing irrational, agenda-driven extremists from its teaching. So, when will you be discontinuing the class?

How do you get students of different backgrounds comfortable talking with one another?
Step 1: Don't threaten or promote castration of any of them. Step 2: Make sure that their teacher isn't a racist. When will you be discontinuing this class? Step 3: Oh, wait, most every student is already comfortable doing this.

How do you overcome the reluctance of male undergraduates to avoid anything with “gender” in the title?
Step 1: Stop failing male undergraduates just because they are male. Step 2: Repeat step 1.

How do you make class apparent in a social order that reduces it to consumer choices, or in which it is made invisible by the hyper-visibility of race and ethnicity?
Stop promoting castration? Teach a class that actually tackles real issues? When I was at Duke, I got along with pretty much everyone. Didn't know any drugged-out prostitutes. Can't say if I'd have gotten along with them. Tell me, Ms Lubiano, what's your feeling on drugged-out prostitutes?

Within the terms of a heteronormative culture that has made individual aesthetics the bedrock of sexual relations, how do you introduce the idea of the social to questions of relationships?
So, this is a dating class? Sorry, match.com is free for the first 6 months.

How do you help students make the connection between the specifics of their everyday lives and the theories that undergird analysis of those lives?
So, you're going to tell us the theory behind promoting castration? Boy, I gotta hear this.

At any rate, Ms. Lubiano, it doesn't feel good to have people pointing at you and shouting "racist" or "moron", does it? Maybe you'll think about this period in your life the next time that you have an incident that gets those race-baiting, agenda-driven, bigoted juices flowing.

Anonymous said...

To 5:35: sorry to burst your bubble, but "foreign languages, art and art history" at Duke are all dominated by the hard left. The rot goes all the way through the humanities (which should include cultural anthropology). The true social science (economics, political science, sociology) are relatively (but not completely) immune.

Anti-Leftist Liberal

Gary Packwood said...

Re: 9:09 AM Post

The Simpson's

You suppose the undergraduate students at Duke are wondering if their university has surly become the test market for content of next years episodes of The Simpson's?

Dude!?

Anonymous said...

10:18

Please accept my apology for my imprecise sentence structure and allow me to clarify ...

By "skipping" I didn't mean that students enrolled in the class should not attend (and instead watch TV). I meant they should not waste money (and time) to enroll in the class in the first place.

If there were less demand for "Studies" classes, the market would dictate less supply. Unfortunately, I fear there are too many out there who find the combination of Victimhood and an Easy "A" (unless you play LAX) too delicious to resist.

Anonymous said...

It's tragic and all, but Mark Anthony Neal's "intellectual alter ego" is still hilarious. Laugh hard every time I read it.

thugniggaintellectual "doin' some real kind of ‘gangster’ scholarship, if you will. All right, just hard, hard-core intellectual thuggery.”

Haha! No Marky, much better than all right!

If you get fired, you could definitely sell that intellectual alter ego thing to Dave Chappelle.

Gayle Miller said...

"Their event’s purpose: to counteract “the current of criticism and attempts at intimidation directed against faculty who comment on larger social and political issues, and following the events of last spring, this forum addresses connections between faculty interests and local, national, and international politics.”"

No attempts at intimidation? You mean like the ones they started at the outset and continue to this day?

Do these sheltered cosseted infants not understand that the attack on academic freedom is coming FROM them? That from the outset these pampered babies attacked one of the core values of our nation: innocent until PROVEN guilty - which the 3 lacrosse players will never be because they did nothing wrong!

I am a woman. I state this only because I am so FED UP with these unkempt, unwashed, semi-illiterate females who reflexively defend anything a person of the female gland does regardless of whether or not that behavior is defensible.

Anonymous said...

How do you overcome the reluctance of male undergraduates to avoid anything with “gender” in the title? How do you make class apparent in a social order that reduces it to consumer choices, or in which it is made invisible by the hyper-visibility of race and ethnicity? Within the terms of a heteronormative culture that has made individual aesthetics the bedrock of sexual relations, how do you introduce the idea of the social to questions of relationships? How do you help students make the connection between the specifics of their everyday lives and the theories that undergird analysis of those lives?
everything this woman said runs counter to the bedrock of liberalism.men were taught not to think in terms of "boys do this_girls are like that".maybe these male students don't respond to the term gender because they don't think in those terms anymore.are class system is based on economic means(consumerism)as opposed to birth(social status).and the whole sexual revolution/gay rights movement is based on aesthetic preference not social context.this woman's views are only radical because she's preaching about things the world stopped thinking about 30 years ago.

Anonymous said...

10:26 Very nice. Though I read the following a bit differently, "Within the terms of a heteronormative culture that has made individual aesthetics the bedrock of sexual relations, how do you introduce the idea of the social to questions of relationships?"

How do we make Marxists attractive?

RogerA said...

The behavior of the G88 seems to parallel that of the esteemed Wm Arkin, the military writer of the WaPo, who recently opinioned some things about the US military. After being castigated in his blog, he then played the victim card. Is this something endemic among progressives? wanting to escape the consequences of their speech? It sure seems like it to me.

Anonymous said...

The behavior of the G88 seems to parallel that of the esteemed Wm Arkin, the military writer of the WaPo, who recently opinioned some things about the US military. After being castigated in his blog, he then played the victim card. Is this something endemic among progressives? wanting to escape the consequences of their speech? It sure seems like it to me.***

Yeah, this shows something "endemic" among progressives. A similar phenomenon has been observed among conservatives. To wit: the actions of Mark Foley and Ted Haggard, conservative icons and staunch supporters of conservative causes, are representative of a larger phenomenon among conservatives.

You simply cannot separate them from conservatives generally. I mean, Ted Haggard is like a cultural icon to the far right. He is clearly powerful, and has special access to another bright-light whom he helped elect, George Bush.

I'll take the G88 as a reflection of myself (a progressive), in return for your taking Haggard and Mark Foley as your own. DEAL!

*Let us also not forget that unlike Haggard and Foley, the G88 aren't even elected/don't hold any real power (other than giving lil' Johnny a C- for being a guy in their womyn's studies class). On the other hand, you follow the Ted Haggards of the world and elect the Mark Foleys of the world. You are morally bankrupt.

Anonymous said...

10:52 "Progressive(s)" suggest advancement of society, culture, etc.

They are attempting to deconstruct.

Anonymous said...

What happened to Foley and Haggard once discovered?

Anonymous said...

Rehab tour??? Very mature, KC. How did you get your PhD? I'll bet your professors at Harvard are very proud that their student has become such an anti-intellectual wacko.

Anonymous said...

***What happened to Foley and Haggard once discovered?***

Once discovered, Foley's actions were ignored... that is, of course, until much, much later when someone ruined all the fun and exposed him. But that fat crap who used to be majority leader tried his best not to let his "discover" become public information. Part of the reason the CC's (crazy conservatives) lost the election, due to their clearly FAKE moral superiority. Clearly it is window dressing when their elected officials who purport to draft legislation to protect children are trying their best to end up on "To Catch a Predator" with Chris Hansen.

As for Haggard, he shows something that runs rampant among conservatives -- fake value systems, and non-adherence thereto. Sure, you dumped the guy... but when prostitution in New York City (or, more properly put, "escort services) went through the roof during the RNC... lets just say that Haggard isn't so far off the general moral core of most conservatives.

Anonymous said...

But in all seriousness, you should really rally around conservative icons like Bill O'Reilly, who would never -- and I mean never -- sexually harass an assistant, asking her if she'd like a nice rub-down with a loofah in the shower.

But these are nothing more than small inconveniences... $2 Million will shut anyone up. And clearly, Bill just paid out $2MILL because he wanted her to go away, not because Bill actually did that stuff and tapes existed. You know?

Loofah values, all of you!

Anonymous said...

Just kidding about Bill O'Reilly. What you need to do is rally around strong "War on Drugs" conservatives like Rush Limbaugh.

Hey, at least you are all consistent about your inconsistency!

RogerA said...

anon @ 10:58; fair enough. I plead guilty to the sin of lumping all progressives together. There is certainly hypocricy enough to go around.

Anonymous said...

This event is invisible on the Duke campus.

Anonymous said...

Rogera: Didn't mean to be so abrasive, just trying to point out how unfair it is to liberals and progressives generally to lump them in with idiots like the group of 88 and the Jane Fondas/ Michael Moores of the world. Allow each person individually to set forth what they believe... its really unfair and illogical to ask me to justify the G88 actions, or for me to ask you to justify Ted Haggard's hypocrisy.

RogerA said...

anon: not a problem, and I didnt think you were abrasive! you were just right!!

Anonymous said...

So Foley and Haggard are no longer part of the debate? They're dishonored and out of the system? Though not familiar with Haggard, I assume what he did was criminal?

If what you are suggesting is that they are "frauds" as well. Then we in agreement.

It is time to pull the plug on the race/gender/class warfare hatemonger frauds as well. Overdue, but never too late.

I also do not disagree one iota about Hastert. In fact his lack of leadership may be compared to Dr. Brodhead. Defending the indefensible as it were. What happened to Hastert?

Anonymous said...

11:16 it would be much easier if the foundation were based upon individualism, however it is not and instead built upon collectivism.

Anonymous said...

***What happened to Hastert?***

The American people spoke and sent his party a huge message. He himself got reelected.

Anonymous said...

Ted Haggard was the LEADER, the most important guy, to the most powerful portion of the Evangelical right-wingers. I am not a member of their church, so I don't know what he is called... but he had special access to the President.

What Haggard did was a crime. Though he claims not to have used the crystal meth, he did admit to buying some from... a gay prostitute. Although the gay prostitute said on national tv that they had PAID SEX together, Haggard said he only called for the meth (which, of course, he did NOT use), and that he only got a massage from said gay prostitute.

When the gay prostitute saw Ted Haggard on tv, ranting and raving about homosexual immorality and the need to vote Republican to prevent gay marriage, that was the FIRST TIME the gay prostitate actually found out who his paid lover was. He went public with the story after finding out.

Denials were especially hilarious in this case... the whole "I bought the meth, but I wasn't going to use it", and the "massage" thing.

Anonymous said...

10:28 I agree with you.
From my daughter's experience at Duke, she experienced hard left professors in arts, lit, and foreign language. Her first couple years at Duke have not been pleasant because of the general requirement classes. While many of these classes sound great in theory, she was unprepared for the hard left view of many (not all) professors. Unlike some of her friends, she found it impossible to go against her core values and principles and just "write what the professor wanted to hear" to achieve a good grade.
Many of these professors are only "in demand", because they are so difficult to avoid. The general requirements include foreign language, arts, lit, performance, cross cultural inquiry, ethical inquiry, etc. In other words, in order to graduate, you must take a substantial number of these type classes. These professors have a captured audience.
Fortunately, this semester is much better. She switched her major from history to one of the sciences and it has made an amazing difference. She loves her professors and is now enjoying her time at Duke. Thank goodness, she has completed most of the gen. ed. requirements!
Thanks, KC, for another great article. I was amused by the Michael Corey article in the Blue Devil Weekly I received yesterday. Did you read the "Act II" portion? Evidently, KC is having his effect on the Group of 88. Unbelievable how they can turn their reprehensible behavior around and attempt to cast THEMSELVES as the victim. Why is it so difficult for these people to apologize? Is it because they have lived in such isolation so no one has every questioned them? In their world, evidently "free speech" means they speak and everyone nods their head in compliance. Sorry, but the box has been opened and now Duke parents/alums are aware of the kind of nonsense their children are being spoon fed. No wonder my daughter dreaded attending some of these classes.

Anonymous said...

Re: Ted Haggard:

I apologize, for some new developments have occurred in his life. In the interest of academic honesty, let me inform you all of the following, from Wikipedia:

***"According to one of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard, Rev. Tim Ralph, Haggard has been pronounced "completely heterosexual" as of February 6, 2007."***

Anonymous said...

10:58..

You state..I'll take the G88 as a reflection of myself (a progressive), in return for your taking Haggard and Mark Foley as your own.

Not a very good analogy, Spud. Foley and Haggard have been totally discredited while the 88 miscreants are still drawing salary and throwing their weight around, without nary a consequence.

Imean, this is typical of "progressives, isn't it? Never, ever, having to say you're sorry? You're not sorry, are you ?

Anonymous said...

***You state..I'll take the G88 as a reflection of myself (a progressive), in return for your taking Haggard and Mark Foley as your own.

Not a very good analogy, Spud. Foley and Haggard have been totally discredited while the 88 miscreants are still drawing salary and throwing their weight around, without nary a consequence.

Imean, this is typical of "progressives, isn't it? Never, ever, having to say you're sorry? You're not sorry, are you ?***

No, I'm not sorry for what these professors have done. Though I disagree with what they've done, I find it kind of useless to apologize for actions over which I have no control. I mean, technically I could apologize for Pearl Harbor too, if that would make you feel better about it.

Also, are you sure Mark Foley isn't still collecting pension checks? I'll tell you what... if he isn't, its merely because he wasn't a member of Congress long enough. Hence, he'd still be "drawing salary". Also, as bad as the group of 88 are, Denny Hassert covered up Foley's acts... and Hassert got reelected by fine Republicans and conservatives (they are NOT the same thing in this day and age) in his home state. He is still in power and collecting a paycheck... a "salary" if you will.

Anonymous said...

11:05
You must be the same person who posts on the Chronicle board. Your favorite word appears to be "wacko".
Anyway, KC, I loved the title of your article. Unlike the rantings of the 88, your articles provide quotes, links, and well articulated arguments. Thanks for all the outstanding work!

AMac said...

Progessive Foley-Haggard anon 10:58am / 11:39am --

Thanks for your thoughts on Congressman Mark Foley and Rev. Haggard. Many of us who are appalled by the Group of 88's rush-to-judgment and their subsequent elision of truth are also aware of the antics of those two creeps.

In each case, their exposure was properly followed by public disgrace. In Foley's case, the taint spread to those who hadn't acted early enough.

You say you won't tar me with their actions, since I had no association with them? And that you expect similar consideration in return? Fair enough!

Back on topic: You say at 11:39am that you're "not sorry for what these professors have done" and that you "disagree with what they've done."

As far as "not sorry," we're only responsible for our own actions (different rules for Marxists of course; see 'de-Kulakization').

As far as "disagree": if you were a Progressive Duke professor and if you made that disagreement public, you would be in a very, very lonely situation.

What, in your opinion, is the reason that the diversity of Progressive opinion at Duke only encompasses Agreement and Silence? Why is your Disagreement, grudging though it may be, missing in action? Which ranks higher in the Progressive pantheon, Solidarity or Truth-Telling?

(It would help readers figure out which anon is you, if you'd use a pseudonym.)

Anonymous said...

Too bad this event will not be televised nationally. I am certain it would be far more interesting and educational than almost any regular television programming. This is part of such an important national conversation, and the more these folks publicly reveal of their reasoning, the better.

Anti-Left Liberal,
How's the philosophy department? Is there an institution where the teaching of humanities is not rotten to the core? What about the programs, like St. Johns in Maryland and New Mexico or Columbia or Chicago, that are all about classical education. These questions are of great practical importance to me.

This is a little OT, but is there an eastern equivalent of the Western Canon, and who are the patriarchs or matriarchs of that tradition? I brought this topic up with an extremely intelligent woman who grew up in China and remembers the Cultural Revolution, and, to my great amazement, she had NO idea. When asked this question about the Western Canon, even the most uneducated among us Westerners would come up with Shakespeare at a minimum.

Observer

Anonymous said...

11:31 Thanks. Inre: Haggard. How in the world I missed all of that is a question for the ages. Too damn funny.

Anonymous said...

11:08 O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Franken, et al are entertainers...

Anonymous said...

12:06 And of course if you don't like the entertainer, you turn off the program. Sorry Al.

Unlike the Gang of 88, the patients running the asylum, who appear to be the voice of Duke. No one else is filling the gap. Or very few and they were late to the party, but at least they've stood up to the intolerant, oppressors in the race/gender/class warfare industry.

Anonymous said...

Observer: Philosophy has also generally avoided the trap of the far left. American philosophy tends to be highly technical, which has been both its bane and its salvation.

Back to the 88: Do they really think that we want them to "shut up and teach?" I'd prefer if they would shut up altogether (respecting, of course, their right to say whatever they want -- short of inciting violence). Actually, I'd prefer if they would leave this American cesspool of racism and sexism and move to a truly progressive place, such as Malmo, Sweden (all those reports about the epidemic of rape in Malmo? -- don't believe such noxious Islamophobic propaganda!). Or better yet, what about North Korea? That way, they would be able to live out their lives in a socialist worker's paradise, while the workers themselves might get some much-needed protein. (sorry if that joke is a over-the-top -- but humor is the only way I can maintain my sanity!)

Anti-Leftist Liberal

Jon Ham said...

I will definitely be there, video camera in hand.

Anonymous said...

To amac:

***What, in your opinion, is the reason that the diversity of Progressive opinion at Duke only encompasses Agreement and Silence? Why is your Disagreement, grudging though it may be, missing in action? Which ranks higher in the Progressive pantheon, Solidarity or Truth-Telling?***

To be honest with you, I can't explain the far left phenomenon on college campuses. Certainly, it would be idiotic to deny that the perspective of the vast, vast majority is far to the left.

However, I'm not so sure that there is this steel wall preventing conservative professors from teaching on college campuses. The few economics classes I took were taught by conservatives. The few religious studies classes I took (for easy good grades) were typically taught by religious conservatives... but the vast majority of my classes were taught by liberals.

I think the best explanation might be that academia and the accompanying lifestyle generally attracts liberals far more than conservatives (with the exception of prestigious jobs like teaching economics, etc.).

I don't really think there are that many conservatives just dying to teach poli sci (my major). I had about 2 of 10 total in poli sci who were conservatives, and they didn't seem to have a horrible time interacting with their liberal counterparts. Neither the liberals or conservatives shouted down dissenting opinions.

Anonymous said...

While the comments on Foley/Haggert were interesing, please keep this thread straight on topic. I want to print it and send it to the trustees. It might awaken some who are not aware of how the 88's groupthink has devalued liberal education.

AMac said...

anon 12:21pm *** --

Thanks... you didn't answer my question, but I guess you can't (I can't either).

One of the ongoing disappointments of this case is that the honorable, decent stands of people like Prof. Coleman, Coach Kimel, and Prof Baldwin have been met by... campus-wide Silence.

Is this due to indifference, to shunning of controversy, to professional and personal priorities? Is there schadenfreude in seeing Privileged White Athletes getting their come-uppance, notwithstanding the specifics of the case? Does the spectre of intimidation figure into the decisions of Liberal and Centrist profs to hold their tongues? Is the much-vaunted "collegiality" factor at work?

Whatever the cause, the contrast with the trail of emissions of the Group of 88, the Rump of 87, and the assorted freelance campus Gramscians is striking.

Anonymous said...

"Stripped of all its verbiage, the central position of the Group of 88/87 is really quite simple: while all other professors at Duke must adhere to the provisions of the Faculty Handbook, these rules should not have to apply to the Group. Instead, Group members should have the right to forward their personal, pedagogical, or ideological agendas on the backs of Duke students, just as they did on April 6.

"In the long term, this is an untenable position for any University." - KC


As if this were not bad enough, it turns out (in hindsight for those that needed it,) that this position was exploiting the criminal actions of the FA and possibly the DA and others.

Anonymous said...

amac:

Re: the silence of non-Group of 88 professors...

They're probably doing the right thing by remaining silent... if nothing else, ALL of them, including the Group of 88, should say the boys are entitled to the presumption of innocence and that these things are decided in a Court of law.

At the very beginning, it was horribly innappropriate to defend either the boys or the accuser. As time went on, clearly the case fell to pieces. That is why you should always go with "They're entitled to the presumption of innocence but we really don't know enough right now, nor is it appropriate, for us to comment on a criminal case involving one of our students".

Thats my take.

Anonymous said...

WILL THE DOOFUSES PLEASE SHUT UP ABOUT "LIBERAL" PROFESSORS AT DUKE. LIBERALISM IS NOT THE ISSUE.

Duke, like other elite institutions, has been corrupted not by liberalism but principally by affirmative action. I challenge any poster on this board to point out an Asian or white professor at Duke REMOTELY as stupid as Wahneema Lubiano and Karla Holloway.

Dumbed-down black studies is the engine that drives the other crap, especially women's studies.

Everyone knows these courses are wasteful and a joke. Install a new president with an academic vision for Duke.

Know this Dukies: you get rid of student and faculty affirmative action (a k a race norming), you will have your school back in 15 years.

Polanski

Locomotive Breath said...

Jon Ham-

I was thinking about going too. In that crowd we should watch each other's back. To get the best product we really need a sound guy and a video guy. If you want to collaborate PM me at either FreeRepublic or Liestoppers.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Polanski, but you are off-base. A sizable majority of the 88 are White. Same goes for their gaduate student minions.

Anti-Leftist Liberal

Anonymous said...

"I challenge any poster on this board to point out an Asian or white professor at Duke REMOTELY as stupid as Wahneema Lubiano and Karla Holloway."

How about Alex "Rich Co-eds" Rosenberg?

Anonymous said...

If anon 11:32's daughter's experience is typical, then something has to be done immediately with the course requirements and distributions in the humanities. I had thought that the race/gender/class courses could be easily avoided and were taken either by disciples or by students who wanted a gut course or a titillating course. (And to think that Chaucer's "The Miller's Tale" was titillation in my days at Duke--oh, did I miss out by not having race/class/gender offerings.) Students in humanities should be able to easily avoid classes of proselityzing professors. They and their families certainly pay enough in tuition to not have to be subjected to 88 groupthink in class. Come on, Brodhead and you many high-paid provosts, deans, and committee heads, create yet another committee to restructure curriculum again so that those majoring in humanities can avoid politically trendy courses and professors whose politics and ideology are the content of their courses. Academic freedom for all!

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

anon 12:55pm --

For argument's sake, I'll assume that you are a Duke prof, because you offer an explanation for the majority's silence.

You think your colleagues should have remained silent, or at most said, "[The accused students are] entitled to the presumption of innocence but [it is not] appropriate for us to comment on a criminal case involving one of our students."

In this view, what should faculty do when a sizable number of peers weigh in on the side of abrogating Due Process and rushing-to-judgment to declare the guilt of the students? (Recall, if the three men were rapists, then many of the other partiers were necessarily guilty of accessory charges.)

Should the Decent Profs have taken out counter ad, saying "To The Group of 88, Retract Your Damaging Statement!"?

Apparently not--it didn't happen. So then, the Right thing to do was Nothing, ceding the field to the potbangers' and the District Attorney's enablers.

By your standards, Coach Kimel and Profs. Baldwin, Gustafson, and Munger were just as wrong as the Group of 88--they just happened to take a different side.

Sorry, anon 12:55pm, your analysis seems very deficient. It sounds like an ad hoc justification for Duke's decent professors to avoid contemplating their responsibilities under the aegis of Academic Freedom.

I guess you guys don't have a dog in this fight.

Gramsci's disciples do.

Anonymous said...

g88 behavior remindes me of stalin and his communist party servents.in 1933 they were anti-fashist,in 1939 they were anti;-anti-fashchist,in 1941 they were anti-fashist.

Anonymous said...

1:33

Of course, they are opportunists, not idealists. Look at the history of most political agendas masquerading as idealism and you will find...surprise! Opportunists.

Anonymous said...

1:33... Communists were never pro-Facists (notice the spelling please). They sided with Germany when convenient, and with the US when convenient... in pursuit of their own national interest. See, for comparison, US support of the Taliban regime to fight the Soviets and supporting Saddam in the fight against Iran.
*Not making judgments here about the policy, simply pointing out that it would be odd to call the US government at that time "pro-Taliban", even though they were uncomfortable allies.*

Anonymous said...

amac:

Re: Professor's comments...

I simply don't think it is appropriate for professors to step in on either side of a criminal investigation. It is very unprofessional in my opinion. I look at my own experience with this case as for the best reason why. It is as follows:

*I was very surprised to hear about the original allegations;
*Although I didn't instantly jump to conclusions, with the way it was covered in the press, if I HAD to at the beginning, I can't say it would have been pro-players at that time with the info the public had;
*I was very happy I dind't jump to a conclusion, because I'd have looked like an idiot as more and more it became clear that nothing along the lines of what was accused happened;
*It became almost certain nothing happened.

Consider, if you will, that the exact OPPOSITE of what happened in this case (facts looking bad for the accused at first, then things change RADICALLY as more and more information is released) is possible... and clearly it is possible to imagine the reverse happening (appearance of innocence at first, etc.). Either way, you aren't really helping anyone by jumping to conclusions.

Its not professional, IMO, for professors to take EITHER side. I think its inappropriate.

So, in summary, perhaps your point is valid; maybe another group of professors should have condoned -- not the opinions of the G88 -- but their behavior in saying anything at all.

Anonymous said...

Of course, I meant to say "condemned" in that last paragraph.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 11:31 a.m., you wrote

Ted Haggard was the LEADER, the most important guy, to the most powerful portion of the Evangelical right-wingers. I am not a member of their church, so I don't know what he is called... but he had special access to the President.

Interesting characterization of a person I'd never heard of in the course of vigorous debate with evangelicals, fundamentalists, charismatics and four-square Bible types. I had never heard this person quoted, named or cited until this scandal broke.

It's like people who get excited about Fred Phelps attending Clinton's inauguration and try to make something of that.

Anonymous said...

amac--
I'm anon 9:34, and I wish I could answer your question about the disparity in numbers of faculty to speak out the two sides of this controversy (though I see at least one other poster has taken a crack at it). Unfortunately, my connection to the situation is not direct enough to give me any special insight into this aspect--I'm the parent of a Duke graduate and a current junior. But if I were going to speculate, I might come up with something like the following. On the anti-lax player side, people felt free to speak up, and see no need to apologize now, because to most of them it has never really been about whether specific lacrosse players were guilty or innocent of a specific crime. Even though the Group of 88's ad clearly suggests that a crime occurred and the the lax players were guilty, in their view it's not the important part of the ad and any negative consequences that might have resulted from their prejudgment are thus also not really important. They seem, at least from a distance, genuinely puzzled to have provoked such opposition because for them it's still all about the meta-narratives and the fate of three individuals (and the counter meta-narrative that some of the rest of us find compelling--the implications of that fate for the administration of justice and the preservation of due process) doesn't seem relevant. In case there is any doubt, this speculation is NOT intended as a defense of the Group of 88 and their fellow travelers.

On the other side, I guess I'd speculate that it may just be a case of that old excuse, "It's not my problem." People are busy and stressed, they don't want to invite new problems and controversies by speaking out when they don't see a clear obligation to, it's easier to let someone else do it. I would agree that the risk of speaking out in support of the defendants should be much lower now, and thus it's odd that more people haven't jumped on the bandwagon--but now they may feel, well, the tide has turned, it's not necessary to say anything. This certainly isn't behavior we'd uphold as exemplary, but in fairness, I can think of plenty of times when I've failed to stop and offer help at a highway breakdown, or held my tongue instead of challenging a remark or position I thought was wrong, or otherwise decided to mind my own business when I could have made another choice, because I was in a hurry or because I just didn't have the energy or the will to do the right thing. So I'm probably not the right person to heap criticism on the silent. (And, yes, it wouldn't be completely surprising to find out the schadenfreude did have something to do with this for some people as well--the lacrosse players don't have any obvious natural support base among faculty or staff (leaving aside coaches, who don't get tenure and probably try pretty hard to avoid controversy when they can).)

On another matter, I'm sorry that 11:32 AM's daughter had a bad experience with general education requirements, but based on my own children's experiences, it's actually not that hard for Duke students to fill their requirements without running into doctrinaire lefties. I know my daughter who is a junior (a psych major) has never taken a class with a group of 88 member, nor a class where she felt constrained to parrot back specific views held by an instructor, and I'm pretty sure my older daughter (an English major) never did either, though she did learn to be an astute reader of course synopses, choosing English courses that were focused primarily on the texts rather than on specific critical theories that would be imposed on the texts. Perhaps this is a particular problem in the history department, which she mentioned; my kids have taken very few history courses.

Gary Packwood said...

We need the Duke Mothers again...

Well KC, so far from the sound of the postings today it looks like the Group of 88 need habilitation rather than rehabilitation.

There isn't a whole lot there to work with.

Are any of the Concerned Mothers of Duke Students available to meet with the Group of 88 and start from scratch on how to behave as adults who teach?

How about Mothers Walk on Monday?

Anonymous said...

Pro or against the players, I just don't think it is appropriate for faculty to say anything, lest they be asking for fairness and demanding that THEIR OWN students at least receive due process, regardless of the outcome.

Not sure we need Arts and Sciences people proclaiming guilt or innocence. Its kind of ridiculous.

Nifong's hat trick said...

In response to Ms. Lubiano's synopsis...

1. Learning about traditional and continuing forms of social inequalities—including those of race, class, gender, and sexuality—can be one of the more valuable experiences students have in college; however, teaching those forms of inequalities effectively also presents special challenges to the instructor.
This is true Ms. Lobiano, especially when the instructor creates those social inequalities by promoting hatred of all rich, white heterosexual males.

2. This seminar offers prospective teachers a chance to think through some of these issues.
Do you really think students will fall for your explanation of what this course offers? Tell the truth,it offers the teacher a chance to indoctrinate future teachers who will indoctrinate future teachers who will......etc.

3. What content do various student audiences need to complicate their thinking?
I thought it was the job of the teacher to help clarify the student's thinking, of course complicating thinking is more conducive to brainwashing

4.How can that content best be taught?
Repeatedly over and over and over for 30-40-50 years, from course to course, from University to University, from sea to shining sea

5. How do you get students of different backgrounds comfortable talking with one another?
Waheema, it's called meeting people and deciding if you want them to be part of your life...like friends do, do you know what friends are?

6. How do you overcome the reluctance of male undergraduates to avoid anything with “gender” in the title?
The "reluctance...to avoid"? Are you saying that your classes are swamped with male undergraduates because they see the word gender in your syllabus?

7. How do you make class apparent in a social order that reduces it to consumer choices, or in which it is made invisible by the hyper-visibility of race and ethnicity?
I would say this works better for point #3, you know where you want to complicate the student's thinking!

8. Within the terms of a heteronormative culture that has made individual aesthetics the bedrock of sexual relations, how do you introduce the idea of the social to questions of relationships?
Do you mean how do you get people to have sex with people they are not attracted to? Do blindfolds work?

9. How do you help students make the connection between the specifics of their everyday lives and the theories that undergird analysis of those lives?
It's like the answer to #4, just keep repeating it over and over and over for 30-40-50 years, from course to course, from University to University, from sea to shining sea

Anonymous said...

Interesting. It seems that G88 has a new battle plan in place: They have decided to fight anonymously in blogosphere. They have have sent one of their own to write anonymous posts here repeating pro-ACLU, pro-G88, anti-republican, anti-O'Reilly comments. Karla, is that you?

Anonymous said...

2:21 says

So, in summary, perhaps your point is valid; maybe another group of professors should have condoned -- not the opinions of the G88 -- but their behavior in saying anything at all.


You have just GOT to be a proffessor! What gobledygook!

Fact is, we're not dealing in hypotheticals, we're dealing in a case in which a group of Duke faculty prejudged an ongoing investigation, applauding and encouraging rush-to-judgement demonstrations and protests. You fellow proff's silence INDICTS you as silent collaborators and hypocrites

Now, please, give us another nonsense generaliztion about how you think things should have gone , and how you were all correct, hypothetically, in retrospect.

Anonymous said...

No, I'm the anon poster you refer to and I'm from the hometown of one of the accused. I'm relatively liberal, and I'm unapologetic about that. I wholeheartedly support these boys because I see they've been badly wronged.

That being said, if I'm here supporting them and I see some crap about how I'm supposed to apologize for the Group of 88 idiots, I am NOT going to take it, and I'm going to point out hypocrisy and idiocy (i.e., making Nifong the Group of 88 speak of Democrats and liberals everywhere) when it is blatant. Look at the past election... the Democrats won because they were moderates, and the Republicans largely lost because they were radical righties.

Moderation is good. Zealotry bad. Applies equally to both sides. Both sides have bad players. You are a hypocrite and an idiot if you don't understand that.

I will continue to support the boys, and I'll continue to "take the bait" when people make backhanded remarks about Dems or libs, just because Nifong is a Dem and the G of 88 are likely libs.

Anonymous said...

2:21...

You're an idiot, as are the Group of 88. I don't like them, and I don't like you. I do, however, want to criticize Nifong and the G88 without having to take idiotic remarks from Ted Haggard wanna-bes like yourself.

Anonymous said...

For ease of conversation, I'll start using the name "O'Reilly's Loofah" so you all can ID me.

Anonymous said...

will duke ever be able to shed the descriptions ,orwell u,and an academic enron? it devestates a family with six academic degrees from duke to fear that the answer is either no or not for decades.where is the demand from the trustees for responsibility and accountability?

Bob Wilson said...

Good work, amc 1:29 p.m.: I've thought for some time that the shade of Gramsci has found a happy home at Duke. The Gang of 88/87 is a near-perfect illustration of Gramsci's subversion of cultural hegemony at work.

AMac said...

anon 2:21pm --

Thanks for your response to my query. I think (FWIW!) that you express a tenable position (profs shouldn't jump in, especially early on).

Of course, the outspoken Prof. Coleman's talking points were largely centered on the need to respect Due Process--something which clearly wasn't happening in the March to December time frame. His acts are consistent with your proposal. And while he's a law prof, it wouldn't take any special expertise--just a familiarity with the Constitution--to voice support for support the Rights of the Accused and avoid inflammatory, prejudicial comments.

So where was Duke's faculty?

Your model breaks down when (1) It's no longer a rush-to-judgment, or (2) Injustices in judicial and media proceedings become evident, or (3) Colleagues misbehave. All three obtained by some point during the summer or early fall.

So where was Duke's faculty?

Again, anon 2:21pm, thanks for the thoughtful response. Can you say what your connection (if any) to higher education is?

-------------

anon Duke Parent 9:34am/2:55pm --

Thanks to you, too, for the considered and detailed response.

I think you've channelled the thinking of the Group of 88 about as well as any non-initiate could. And taking into account that some faculty drove this ideological bus while others just hopped on for a merry ride.

I quoted the critique of Gramsci's philosophy on Hegemony, meaning to apply it to the drivers. Some of this crew are accomplished in their fields. Academic Freedom is supposed to protect them; a strong society can trade tolerating of these people as the price for overall protection of the academic enterprise.

However, many of the Group of 88 and their rumpers seem... er... professionally undistinguished/. Calls to mind last year's Professor Ward Churchill saga, where his accomplishments and credentials evaporated upon inspection. The real question changed from "why is this clown a tenured professor pulling down $100 grand plus?" to "How in the world did the faculty and administration of a research university decide to employ and repeatedly promote this transparent and buffoonish fraud?"

Duke ought to start getting mighty uncomfortable now that the spotlight is on the thugganiggaintellectuals (sp?) and assorted freeloaders who populate the port-side fringe of the university. These maroons are struck by their own brilliance, yeah yeah. But who served on the Promotions and Tenure Committees that implemented these Emporer's-New-Clothes assessments?

As far as your view of the decent professoriate, that looks right to me as well. While not admirable, I, too, can think "could well have been me" for the reasons you describe.

Speaks to a problem that Western intellectuals seem unwilling to recognize: that our institutions of learning seem to have very poor defenses against those who are willing to subvert the traditional missions of teaching and research from within.

Anonymous said...


Since I tend to view students as customers, I would call you on the telephone and ask to meet with you to discuss the possibility that this group of faculty may have a 'toe-hold' across the campus with students and staff. Our teaching evaluation might take a 'nose dive' if we don't get with their program, as it were...no matter how much you and I disagree with their position.


This crap has been going on in public schools for a while, mainly from students from one or two groups.

Teachers are starting to develop strategies to deal with such student groups and prevent them from disruping classes and gaining privilege as traditional victim groups.

Profs who have tenure have little to fear, it seems to me, from these viscious little cliques of professional victims.

Out here in the real world, we ignore them, and when EEO insists, we find sinecures for them with little power or prestige.

Anonymous said...

Amac:

I'm an attorney in New York. No connection to higher education. Went to a small liberal arts college in New England that is probably more like Duke than most schools in the country (tough area, wealthier student body, etc.).

I do agree that when the process is so RIDICULOUSLY EGREGIOUS as is the case in the Duke matter, then I wouldn't criticize the professors for speaking up. In terms of the LAW professors there (or even Poli Sci), I kind of agree with you that there is almost an OBLIGATION to speak up, considering all the due process violations and unethical conduct of Mike Nifong.

As for guilt/innocence... I just don't think its the right place for professors to say anything. But in terms of protecting their rights to fairness and due process, ABSOLUTELY, especially when the misconduct and due process considerations are present as in this case.

As for criticizing the actions of the G88 themselves... yes, I see what you are saying and I kind of agree that other professors COULD HAVE validly expressed criticism of their jumping to conclusions. Sure. I just don't think they should ever talk about guilt or innocence.

I can't really entirely articulate why I don't think they should speak of guilt or innocence... but I think it has mostly to do with professionalism (which the G88 clearly lack). You don't want to compromise the school or your own career by going out on a limb (forgetting for a second that it just piled crap onto the situation for 3 apparently innocent young men). Its not their place in my opinion.

But yes, as for criticising the procedures and the G88, I think you have a very valid point. Once again, however, I remain unable to apologize on behalf of the G88, as some of the posters think I should.

AMac said...

anon 3:55pm, Agreed that it's no good to view cases like this through the retrospectoscope. We know now that the DA is a corrupt race-baiter, but that can't be held against folks for their conduct in March and April. Especially Law-'n-Order types like the Free Mumia crowd at the heart of the 88. It's hard for them to imagine prosecutorial misconduct.

The point is that things are not always as they first appear, and faculty behavior should turn out to be honorable and appropriate--however a case turns out.

How fortunate for the Group that they don't have to live by the standards that apply to the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Bob Wilson, "Gramsci's subversion of cultural hegemony at work." Would you please explain? I'm not familiar...Thanks.

AMac said...

anon 7:06pm --

On Antonio Gramsci, see the comment in this thread dated 12:57am. (Search "Duke Professors".) Wikipedia has a good entry on him, as well.

An interesting guy if not necessarily a good one.

Anonymous said...

The link
http://z10.invisionfree.com/FODU_Open_Board/index.php?showtopic=27
has a list of Duke faculty who have supported due process explicitly and openly.

Anonymous said...

Are we now to consider Paris Hilton a "thugniggaintellectual?"

AMac said...

anon 8:25pm --

Thanks! The link you put up to Duke Faculty for Truth and Justice is good to see. Alice of "Friends of Duke University" has listed 46 faculty-grade employees of Duke who have spoken out in favor of the application of Due Process in the Lacrosse Rape Case. Some have also commented on the Hoax itself, in support of its victims.

Duke faculty can contact Alice and arrange to be listed at the FODU site.

Anonymous said...

10:10 amac

The link is good-- two cultures at Duke. Not a great situation, but at least there's a choice.

Nifong's hat trick said...

"At times, being a
"ThugNiggaIntellectual" is about always remembering the truth that I ain't even supposed to be in academe." Mark Anthony Neal
This guy sounds more like a "SelfLoathingWhiteHonkyliberal",but at least he has the nerve to admit he doesn't belong "in academe", which is more than you can say for the rest of the 88!

Anonymous said...

I think it is time to think the hitherto unthinkable.

All reasoning people have long known that "ethnic studies" and "gender studies" and the like never really were about academic scholarship, but merely about political correctness. These fields allowed people to be hired who would never have met any sort of academic standard in REAL scholarship, but by severely compromising on the definition of scholarship, one could find people who would fill out the demographic of the university faculty in a way that at least gave the appearance that educated people were evenly distributed across gender and ethnic lines.

This has always been a farce, but it has been a farce we bought in to, hoping for some greater good. It's apparent that no greater good is forthcoming from such a hoax.
Maybe it's just plain time to junk ethnic and gender studies.

Anonymous said...

151L. Organic Chemistry. (NS) NS, QID The structures and reactions of the
compounds of carbon. Laboratory: techniques of separation, organic reactions and
preparations, and systematic identification of compounds by their spectral and
chemical properties. Prerequisite: Chemistry 22L, or 23L, or 19, or consent of director of
undergraduate studies. Instructor: Baldwin, Craig, Pirrung, Toone, or Widenhoefer.
One course.
152L. Organic Chemistry. (NS) NS, QID Continuation of Chemistry 151L. Prerequisite:
Chemistry 151L. Instructor: Baldwin, Craig, Pirrung, Toone, or Widenhoefer. One
course.
161. Elements of Physical Chemistry. (NS) NS, QID Survey of physical chemistry
including quantum chemistry, molecular structure, molecular spectroscopy,
thermodynamics, and kinetics. Chemistry 163L should be taken concurrently.
Prerequisites: Chemistry 12L or 22L or 23L or 19, Mathematics 32L, and Physics 52L (or
54L) or consent of instructor. Instructor: Staff. One course.
163L. Physical Chemistry Laboratory. (NS) NS, QID, W Laboratory experiments
designed to accompany Chemistry 161. Includes instruction and practice in writing the
laboratory notebook and formal laboratory reports. Prerequisite: (or corequisite)
Chemistry 161. Instructor: Staff. Half course.
165. Physical Chemistry. (NS) NS, QID Fundamentals of physical chemistry.
Emphasizes quantum chemistry, molecular structure, and molecular spectroscopy.
Chemistry 167L should be taken concurrently with Chemistry 165. Prerequisites:
Chemistry 12L or 22L or 23L or 19, Mathematics 32L, and Physics 52L (or 54L) or consent
of instructor. Instructor: Staff. One course.
166. Physical Chemistry. (NS) NS, QID Continuation of Chemistry 165. Fundamentals
of physical chemistry. Emphasizes thermodynamics and kinetics. Chemistry 168L
should be taken concurrently with Chemistry 166. Prerequisite: Chemistry 165 or
consent of instructor. Instructor: Staff. One course.
167L. Physical Chemistry Laboratory. (NS) NS, QID, W Laboratory experiments
designed to accompany Chemistry 165. Includes instruction and practice in writing the
laboratory notebook and formal laboratory reports. Prerequisite: (or corequisite)
Chemistry 165. Instructor: Staff. Half course.
168L. Physical Chemistry Laboratory. (NS) NS, QID, W Laboratory experiments
designed to accompany Chemistry 166. Prerequisite: (or corequisite). Chemistry 166 or
consent of instructor. Instructor: Staff. Half course.
175. Molecular Basis of Biological Processes. (NS) NS, QID Chemistry of the
constituents of proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids and their metabolic
interrelationships. Not open to students who have taken Biochemistry 227. Prerequisite:
Chemistry 152L and Biology 25L. Instructor: Staff. One course.
176. Biophysical Chemistry. (NS) NS, QID The physical chemical principles of and
experimental methods employed in the study of biological macromolecules. Students
may not receive credit for both Chemistry 176 and 196S. Prerequisite: Chemistry 161 or
165, or Biochemistry 227 (or Chemistry 175) or consent of instructor. Instructor:
MacPhail or Shaw. One course.
117. Inorganic Chemistry. (NS) NS, QID Bonding, structures, and reactions of
inorganic compounds studied through physical chemical concepts. Prerequisite:
Chemistry 161 or 162L. Instructor: Crumbliss, Grinstaff, McPhail, or Palmer. One
course.
131. Analytical Chemistry. (NS) NS, QID Fundamentals of qualitative and quantitative
measurement with emphasis on chemometrics, quantitative spectrometry,
electrochemical methods, and common separation techniques. Corequisite: Chemistry
133L. Prerequisite: Chemistry 163L or 167L. Instructor: Fitzgerald, Lochm├╝ller, or
McGown. One course.
180 Courses and Academic Programs
133L. Analytical Chemistry Laboratory. (NS) NS, QID Laboratory experiments
designed to accompany Chemistry 131. Corequisite: Chemistry 131. Instructor: Staff.
Half course.

Don't let these 88 dipshits define Duke University for you.

Duke84

Georgia Girl said...

The "father" of one of the accused duke lacrosse boys said that his son had made a "mistake".

The father made the comment on a major TV show ... 60 Minutes or whatever.

What did the father mean by that comment? Did he mean that his son had made a slight indescretion? Did he mean that "boys will be boys"?

Could it have possibly meant that his son's "past" had caught up with him?

GROUP88 ... so what? Wouldn't any parent WANT his/her child to have expert advice from "people who know"?

I was not that fortunate!

Georgia Girl said...

to Savant at 9:11

Get Real .... your daughter (if at Chapel Hill or Duke for 4 years) knows damn well what goes on ... on a regular basis.

I am a UNC MOM

Caroline said...

GEORGIA GIRL, thank you for your sane comments. KC and crew, I am a Duke student, and I am asking you NICELY, please please PLEASE, STOP IT! stop sending my professors hate mail and death threats. stop attributing 5 months of news media sensationalism to 88 professors. Stop your violent and vengeful comments on this blog, and start acting like adults instead of bullies. I dont blame anyone for wondering how the LAX stuff snowballed in the media, but DO NOT equate that with my professors! DO NOT try to get them fired or resort to thug-like KKK members by sending them hateful email threats. Cant any of you see what is in front of you -- you are blaming everything on our black faculty, you are ENCORAGING and enabling this violent behavior. Please, think about what you are doing, think about the actions of where you are flinging the blame, these professors are extremely important to us students. This witch hunt on this blog and a couple of others has gotten so out of hand, I had to write in, I couldnt stand it anymore. It concerns me because now you are interfereing with my education. STOP IT - the hate mail, the ad hominim attacks - please, Im begging you, I do not want to lose the best teachers I have ever had. I speak for many many many of us here at Duke, and I am appealing to you as people who are dedicated to social justice - can you just step back a moment and check out the comments here - are you human enough to admit that the these professors are not responsible for the insane media campaigns, and that personal attacks and death threats are NEVER justified, most especially in comments in a blog that is suppsed to be dedicated to social justice?

Kely said...

Hello I want to congratulate to you. This site is fantastic, looks like entertained and very good to me it elaborated. I invite them to that they explore a little on my site of the Web
Our real estate listing includes great opportunities on Costa Rica Central Valley’s provinces such as San Jose, our Capital, with remarkable cities as Escazu at the west, or Curridabat at the east, experiencing a great development on both commercial and residential properties, making their real estate pricing highly attractive to investors; on other hand, Alajuela city gathers places with a very special warm weather such as Grecia, La Garita and Atenas, or beautiful farms for agricultural, cattle or nature preservation purposes as those located on San Carlos or Sarapiqui. We also offer land properties in Guanacaste, which is the province, along with Puntarenas, with the most beautiful tropical beaches on the Pacific Coast such as Tamarindo, Playa Grande, El Coco, Playa Hermosa, Nosara, Samara, Herradura, Jaco, Manuel Antonio, Dominical and Golfito, where the real estate business occupies the first place as the local economic activity.
Great investment opportunity at Costa Rica Pacific Coast, Preconstruction condos in costa rica
Condo sales in costa rica, Retirement property in costa rica. Visit us for more info at: http://www.costa-ricarealestate.com/

Anonymous said...

Wahneema Lubiano writes How do you overcome the reluctance of male undergraduates to avoid anything with “gender” in the title?

Well Wahneema, our Holy Father, the Pope writes that reducing sex to gender is a sin against God. Gender is a bullshit concept created by feminists so avoiding anything with the word "gender" in it would seem to be a very appropriate thing for men to do.