Sunday, February 25, 2007

Sunday Wrap-up

Writing in Roll Call, Stuart Rothenberg, one of the nation’s most astute political commentators, urged politicians not to “lower the bar for candidates’ campaign bloggers.”

The occasion for his column? Amanda Marcotte’s apologia, in which she claimed that her departure from the campaign was a blow for those hoping to allow “everyday citizens to engage in politics in the language and manner that is comfortable for us, if not for the establishment.” If Marcotte’s comment is any indication, Rothenberg correctly observes, she and her ilk “believe that all ‘everyday, common people’ eschew civility and reason. Sorry, but that’s not the case. Not by a long shot.”

Marcotte and other populist bomb-throwers can write whatever they want—this is one of the nice things about a blog. But that freedom, Rothenberg argues, “doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held responsible for their comments or that mainstream reporters should pay much attention to them”—as Marcotte demanded when she attacked those who had criticized her writings on the lacrosse case. Indeed, “since campaign bloggers are no less campaign staffers than press secretaries, a campaign ought to take responsibility for hiring those people, including any embarrassing past behavior.”

Rothenberg concludes that Marcotte and her blogger colleague, Melissa McEwen, “would have been “fired immediately by Edwards if they had been in a traditional staff position.” Why should candidates apply a different standard to bloggers?

----------

As if to prove Rothenberg’s point, Marcotte, having resigned in disgrace from the Edwards campaign, is again offering her theories on the lacrosse case. Her remarks came in comments from her following post: “I just want to remind you that having sex with someone too drunk to resist is against the law and you can be found guilty of rape if you do it.” Since there’s not a scintilla of evidence of any “sex” in the Duke case, much less a contention that the accuser was unable to resist because she was too drunk to resist (Nifong, as it’s worth remembering, once demonstrated to a national TV audience how aggressively the accuser “resisted”), it would seem that Marcotte’s post would have nothing to do with the Duke case.

But such a view, of course, would not allow for entering the mind of Amanda Marcotte. In her comment, she began by claiming that Ryan McFadyen “would defend a rapist who was caught in the act on videotape.” (The statement is demonstrably untrue, but facts aren’t exactly Marcotte’s friend.) Moreover, as another commenter told Marcotte:

As a blogger who claimed that your posts were satire, ironic and utilised literary techniques to make a point, surely you can recognise it when others use it to make their own point. So which is it Amanda? What you wrote was satire and didn’t divulge any hatred or bigotry of Catholics?

Then the above quote is also satire, as the writer claimed it was. It clearly uses hyperbole to make an ironic point. i.e.: That they would not behave in such a manner ever, even though many are prejudiced and bigoted to believe that they do. That to believe so is absurd . . .

Or are you implying that you get to be held to one standard and those you disagree with are held to another?

Marcotte, obviously, believes that she gets to be held to one standard, and her critics another. She then addressed anyone who has contended that no rape occurred. “No one talks to you,” Marcotte fumed, “because you are rape-loving scum . . . That you defend [the players] makes you such lowly, sleazy scum that it’s no wonder no one talks to you. They’re afraid by acknowledging you, they will catch the evil. Know this. Absorb it. Hope you enjoy sleeping at night, you sick, hateful bastards.”

This is the person that John Edwards wanted as his campaign blogger.

---------

Even sympathetic commenters have had enough of Marcotte. Another wrote,

As someone with whom I agree in so many respects, I do not know why you are so dumb about the Duke lacrosse case, and why you continue to perpetuate the myths about it. This is a case over which the left wing should be outraged, it is a classic case of railroading innocent men, but just because the accused are white men and the accuser a black woman, you must pretend to believe her and join in railroading . . .

Feminists and the left in general are totally mad to support the Duke lacrosse prosecution, because it is a travesty of justice, and it will be used against feminists and more importantly genuine rape victims will have to fight it before they are able to fight their own, for years to come.

I urge you to reconsider your approach on this one, because, you are damaging those you claim to support.

Don’t count on a change from Marcotte anytime soon.

---------

My colleague, Stuart Taylor, spoke about the case Friday in Memphis. The summary of his remarks, entitled “The Duke Lacrosse Case and What It Says About Our Criminal Justice Process, Academics, and News Media”:

What it says, he suggested, is mostly bad: Durham N.C. prosecutor Mike Nifong made an "outrageous rush to judgment," most of the media botched the story because of their political correctness and general shadiness, and Duke professors and administrators were spineless and all too eager to join Nifong’s side.

Two prosecutors served on the panel with him; both provided what could charitably be termed unimpressive commentary. Federal prosecutor Tim DiScenza said that while Nifong might have “violated every prohibition we have about disclosure of evidence,” in the federal system, North Carolina rules might be different. (Actually, they’re not more lenient, and in any case, the Constitution does apply in North Carolina.) He also chastised Taylor for criticizing the media’s coverage of the case, and for suggesting that grand juries are rubber stamps of prosecutors.

DiScenza’s remarks continue what has been an unusual pattern in this case: the prosecutors who try to find excuses for Nifong. The most egregious figure to behave in this fashion has been former Denver district attorney Norm Early.

Here’s Early, on CNN, on December 26:

I don't know whether [Nifong] has done a great job, an average job, a medium job of handling this case, because I don’t know all the evidence. But what I do know is that the defense has done a very good job of trying to smear the victim and smear Mr. Nifong.

He did not possess enough information on December 26 to evaluate Nifong's performance?! Early—as customary in his comments about the case—refused to supply any evidence to substantiate his allegation.

Just like the Trustees’ refusal to condemn the Duke faculty who misbehaved has created a false impression that extremists among the Group of 88 are characteristic of all Duke professors, so too do comments such as Early’s create a false impression that somehow Nifong’s behavior is the norm among prosecutors nationwide.

----------

Those who want to return to events of last spring can sample this youtube video of one of the potbangers’ protests—in this case, their march on Provost Peter Lange’s house.

That people made snap judgments was unsurprising. What is striking, however, is the moral certainty of the potbangers. Based solely on an unsubstantiated allegation, they had no hesitation in taking absolute actions, and using the case to make broad statements about society.

And, of course, the potbangers, like 87 members of the Group of 88 (the exception is Math professor Arlie Petters), have not only refused to apologize but continue to defend the propriety of their actions.

----------

The Chronicle has a new, and well-done blog, which contains a link to the Common performance containing one of the rapper’s two insults of the lacrosse players.

I am puzzled that this issue persists. As far as I understand (and if I’m wrong, I hope Duke students will correct me), the Last Day of Classes event is intended as a celebration for students. We have, in this case, a performer who insulted Duke students in a public, and vulgar, fashion. How can there be any doubt but that his invitation to perform should be rescinded?

Three arguments in favor of moving forward with the performance have been advanced: (1) the contract cancellation fee would take a bite out of the Student Activities budget; (2) there might not be enough time to book another act of comparable quality; (3) lots of other people, not just Common, rushed to judgment last spring.

Addressing (1), it would seem, provides a perfect opportunity for the Brodhead administration to encourage healing on campus, by volunteering to cover the cost of the cancellation fee out of University funds. Objections (2) and (3) are hard to take seriously.

A performer invited to campus has insulted students using a vulgar epithet as he grabbed his crotch. And yet the “campus culture” activists are quiet; from the Duke professors who have spent the last several months behaving as if they were latter-day cultural Puritans, we hear nothing. Why is this selective silence not surprising?

----------

[Update, 10.57am]: A rare useful article in today's Herald-Sun notes that Mike Nifong is becoming legendary in federal circuit courts. Nifong's actions have made it into two opinions, one in the 5th Circuit and the other in the 6th Circuit, as emblematic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Bill Thomas on the development: "I am not aware of any other case from the circuit courts that single out a prosecutor by name to exemplify prosecutorial misconduct. It is an extremely unusual circumstance. I have never seen it done before in my career of more than 25 years."

----------

In the Wonderland that is Durham, public information officers seem to practice disinformation instead. A case in point is DPD spokesperson Kammie Michael. She reached her high point in the lacrosse case on March 28, when she definitively stated, in writing, that Kim Roberts was not the first 911 caller. In fact, Roberts told the responding officers on March 14 that she had made the call, and she reiterated the point in her March 22 statement.

So, two options exist: (a) Michael was lying; (b) Michael is incompetent, and gave the press wrong information because she didn’t know how to find accurate material.

It appears Michael’s performance in the lacrosse case was not a one-shot deal, and the matter has now come to concern Mayor Bill Bell. A week ago Saturday, a Durham police officer Charles Callemyn, was killed in a traffic accident. Michael told both reporters and a list-serv that Callemyn “had not been involved in any prior traffic accidents while he was a Durham officer” and “had a clean driving record” with the department. Both statements were wrong.

Bell was blunt in his response: “We need to check our facts before we put information out to the public. If that wasn’t done, we need to understand why.”

The episode came on top off inaccurate information recently supplied to the City Council by Police Chief Steve Chalmers. Meanwhile, the information officer appears to have gone out of business: “As per Deputy Chief Ron Hodge, I am under a directive not to respond to any further questions from The Herald-Sun at this time. Please have Bob Ashley contact Deputy Chief Hodge if you need any further clarification.”

If she’s not supplying information, for what is she being paid?

One final item: despite addressing the theme of Michael providing inaccurate information to the press, the Herald-Sun article ignored the deception practiced by Michael in the lacrosse case, even though it involved a H-S reporter (Brianne Dopart). Apparently, Editor Ashley's loyalty to Nifong's prosecution transcends even solidarity with a fellow reporter on staff.

74 comments:

Anonymous said...

KC: I, for one, sleep well at night. Marcotte is definitely unhinged, and makes that more apparent every time she hits the keyboard. Rothenberg makes a great point, that the lunacy of the Far Left is not by and large shared by the public at large.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Reading this article, I am mad again at the stupidity of the left wing in this case. Thank god for the bloggers in this story. The only good thing I can say about Amanda is she deep sixed the Edwards campaign. Poor Ryan - will he ever send an email again. I hope so.

Gary Packwood said...

Thank You. I look forward to your Wrap Up.

Thanks also for mentioning that North Carolina, like the other 49 states, does honor the Constitution of the United States of America.

With respect to the rapper - Common - I offer the suggestion that several groups of very clever students last year asked that Common be engaged ...as a spoof to annoy the group that we now call the Gang of 88. Common does 'sing' about raping the sisters and black revolution.

I would imagine that the students were just astonished when the administration in an act of absolute stupidity --- approved the contract for Common.

Now those groups of students are practicing deep breathing exercises while staring at their shoe laces trying to figure out how to makes this one go away.

Who on earth is running the place?

Your suggestion was the correct one. Just pull the plug; take the one time financial hit and be done with it.

Anonymous said...

You can actually read Rothenberg's whole column on his website:

http://www.rothenbergpoliticalreport.com

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/02/lets-not-lower-bar-for-candidates.html

Vivien Thomas said...

I wonder what the line is in Vegas on Marcotte's eventual fall into complete insanity. I'd take the over-under on her screaming on a street corner with a sandwich board that reads "William Shatner raped Crystal Gail Mangum" at 6 weeks. I'll be accepting bets through paypal for the rest of the weekend.

Seriously, though, how long do you think it will be before a DNA match for the apparent river of semen which was flowing out of CGM comes to light? There are probably a dozen or so Raleigh businessmen who are shaking in their boots.

None of the lacrosse players did anything to this prostitute, but clearly someone had recently. Maybe the owner or her strip club, maybe Amanda Marcotte (since I've seen no definitive evidence that "she's" a woman), maybe Nifong. Who knows? It's hard for me to say because I've never had multiple semen samples inside me.

David Brennan said...

The episode came on top off inaccurate information recently supplied....

Typo for "of". (Feel free to delete this afterwards.)

Anonymous said...

KC,

Amanda wasn't claiming that 'Ryan McFadyen' would defend a rapist who was caught in the act on videotape. The actual claim was about people like us.

This is what she said(my comment is in brackets)

"People who continue to wax on about the Duke rape case: People don’t respond because you’re right. They don’t respond because they know from experience that anyone who defends men who write thing like this(she quotes Ryans email) Hates women and would defend a rapist who was caught in the act on videotape. No one talks to you because you are rape-loving scum."

twain said...

It's time for some of the lawsuits to be unleashed.

Anonymous said...

KC - love you man. But if it is going to be this hard to get a post in when on topic. I am going to blow off the posts/

Anonymous said...

Thanks for keeping an eye on our little city of Durham!

Provost, looks pretty good asking people to wait till the "facts" come out. Although i have to admit when you read what the DA's office and police spokespeople were saying at the time, it was hard to imagine they were out and out lying, it seemed like the physical evidence they had must have been overwhelming.

Another thought, not so much potbangers but drummers to me. I drove by and saw them.
lib durham dem

Anonymous said...

Here's a question for all of ya.

There is obviously tremendous hypocrisy on the part of the G88, Nifong, Amanda, etc. Given the events of the past year, do you believe that the following order of things/agendas is correct?

Race (wherein Black > Hispanics > Whites/Asians) > Gender (wherein Female > Male) > Wealth (wherein poor > rich) > Participation in athletics (no participation > participation) >
Sexual orientation (wherein Gay > Bisexual > Straight) > Actual Facts (Truth)

Yes, I know this is complicated and the ordering is subjective, but I hope everything can agree that given the Lacrosse Case and the recent alleged rape of a Duke white student by a black man, the order of preference is at least true for Race > Gender > Actual Facts.

Basically, what I am saying is that for the G88 et al., Race is more important than Gender. Thus, a black female alleges to be raped by white males. The case is clear cut, since black > white, and female > male. Thus, the G88 will always move to protect the black female. However, in the second alleged rape case, a white female is alleging rape by a black male. The G88 and potbangers do not say jack about this case. This is because black > white is more of a priority to them than female > male.

What do you guys think about this?

Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Johnson,
Your stamina and sticking to facts has my admiration. I wish I could have taken a history course with you as the teacher--Tom O'C

Anonymous said...

I don't know former federal prosecutor DiScenza and would not presume to speak for him, but as an attorney I will say in his defense that I doubt he was suggesting that the U.S. Constitution does not apply in NC criminal proceedings. There is a difference between substantive law and procedural law. The federal rules of procedure, which apply to federal courts only, are often very different from the state rules of procedure that apply in state criminal proceedings. I suspect that was the gist of Mr. DiScenza's remark. I also suspect (but do not know) that Mr. DiScenza's role at the forum was to present the prosecutor's point of view in the Duke case -- a tough assignment for anybody (and one of the reasons I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt).

Anonymous said...

Too bad Marcotte "quit" the campaign. She's so wonderfully edgy; besides, Edwards would have handled her latest outburst with his usual aplomb:

"I've talked to Amanda. She has assured me that by calling LAX supporters 'rape-loving...lowly, sleazy scum...sick, hateful bastards' it was never her intention to malign anyone, and I take her at her word."

Anonymous said...

Too bad Marcotte "quit" the campaign. She's so wonderfully edgy; besides, Edwards would have handled her latest outburst with his usual aplomb:

"I've talked to Amanda. She has assured me that by calling LAX supporters 'rape-loving...lowly, sleazy scum...sick, hateful bastards' it was never her intention to malign anyone, and I take her at her word."

Anonymous said...

Stuart Rothenberg is completely correct in his statements highlighted here. The blogmaster has to be held to the same standard of conduct as the press secretary. Although the camera is not on the blogmaster, the number of people the blogmaster reaches will only grow and potentially become as high as those reached via MSM by the press secretary. That blogger really must be quite intelligent, able, and mature in judgment. I am not sure if Ms. Marcotte fit the bill on any of these particulars, but I am confident she shows great immaturity in her judgment...and apparently this experience has had no effect on that.


Reading about prosecutors still trying to rehabilitate our impressions of Mr. Nifong makes my jaw drop. Mr. Taylor almost certainly has a much better command of the information in this case and therefore enjoyed a huge advantage on the panel. I am all for trying to see the best in everyone, but there is really no good light in which to showcase Mr. Nifong.

Observer

bill anderson said...

In my article dealing with the criminality of the lacrosse "investigation," Kammie Michael was one of the people on my list. As I pointed out then, she is an activist in so called rape issues.

One resident of Durham who knows Michael told me that he had wondered about her role in this affair. My sense is that she was (and still is) a willing participant in this criminal hoax. Do not tell me that the Durham police and people in the prosecutor's office actually believed Crystal's allegations. They knew what they were doing, and I think that they believed they could make this frame-up work.

At every point where the signs pointed toward the allegations being a lie, they either have ignored the signs or tried, in effect, to plant evidence. When they could do neither, they simply lied.

The response of the prosecutors in Memphis is about what I expected. I am quite experienced in researching federal prosecutors and watching them in action, and I will tell readers outright that lying is a regular occurence with U.S. attorneys. They do not lie on occasion; they lie as a matter of course, and I am not exaggerating when I write these words.

P. Rich said...

Ramblings

Re Marcotte:

Intelligent commentary comes from the wise, while those lacking judgment should be beaten with a stick. - taking a little latitude with Proverbs 10:13 this Sunday morning.

>>>

"We have, in this case, a performer who insulted Duke students in a public, and vulgar, fashion. How can there be any doubt but that his invitation to perform should be rescinded?"

Well, that all depends upon whose views are considered in the question. I have no doubt that a number of faculty and students would invite this doofus *because* of his nasty commentary. And in the end, this will be decided by one or a few admin/faculty who are very likely to be or include the radical PC/race/gender types.

>>>

Just curious:

Where specifically are the roles, responsibilities and authority of Brodhead and the Duke trustees spelled out in detail? All too often in academia it seems that the "inmates" are in charge of the "institution." And blog posters, myself included, are left to wonder whether executive/trustee actions or inactions are appropriate.

Richard said...

The truth is that Edwards hired Marcotte because of, not in spite of, her previous comments. Edwards was looking to make inroads with the Left by hiring one of their own to be his spokesperson in the blogoshpere. Somehow he thought that nobody in the more rational part of the Democrat party (assuming such individuals exist) and the press would not notice that he had hired a shrill, foul-mouth, mudslinging “progressive” as his spokesperson. Just like having a two America campaign theme while building a 28000 sq. ft mansion, Edwards was trying to have his cake and eat it.

Anonymous said...

“I just want to remind you that having sex with someone too drunk to resist is against the law and you can be found guilty of rape if you do it.” Amanda Marcotte

So according to Amanda's reasoning and accepted 'facts', Precious should be immediately charged with rape.

Certainly she believes the FA's story that she wasn't drinking and the LAX players were all 'fall down drunk'.

MGM

AMac said...

I'm still hoping that some of the Group of 88 will display evidence of their rediscovery of humanity through the two words--I'm sorry.

So KC's distinguishing Math professor Arlie Petters from the other 87 in the post caught my eye.

Alas, in the cited Chronicle of Higher Ed. article, Petters is quoted as saying “Whenever something causes undue pain to people, then of course that isn’t something I would want to be a part of.”

How nice for Petters' sensitivity to blossom at this late date. An indication of remorse? Hardly.

donald wilkins said...

Sir:

I do not understand the comments from the Denver attorney. If he has not studied the case well enough to know how good a job Nifong has done how does he know that the defense has "smeared" Nifong or the defendant?

I appreciate your coverage of this issue.

John Bruce said...

KC, you mention again that the Duke trustees have in some way "failed" to condemn the G88. In your last post, several commenters (including me) pointed out that the trustees of an institution really don't have that role and shouldn't be expected to get involved in campus issues like that.

You are correct that if the administration feels that action needs to be taken, the appropriate canon is the AAUP 1940 Statement (and not the Faculty Handbook, which is impossibly vague and completely unenforced). The most the trustees can do is, if they feel the action of the president and provost is inadequate, is fire the president and pick a new one who will fire the provost. However, as at least one commenter pointed out, these are probably not grounds for firing a university president (and any action under the 1940 Statement would, after all, be a wrist slap that would create martyrs).

The most anyone can say is that Duke has got a dilemma that goes back to its need to hire trendy faculty to enhance its reputation 20 years ago. It may be that the most beneficial effect of the Duke lacrosse fiasco will be a cautionary one for administrators at other institutions -- and if Duke mends its ways, it can wait for the actuarial table to do its slow and certain work with the faculty it has.

But it's the actuarial table, I fear, that has the ability to rectify the problem, not the trustees, nor even the current administration.

Anonymous said...

KC,

As I read of Marcotte's continued delusional state, I wonder that this is not a natural outcome of the practices of leftist campus politics.

During my time on campus it was clear that no left-political statement could result in general ridicule from the left, no matter how wrong or incomprehensible. Perhaps this is because many don't actually believe their positions but rather believe they are pulling a compromise position further left. Regardless of why, the penalty for leftists persisting in error is low. I think this also explains the Group of 88, which knows that error simply isn't a factor in their environment. In fact, sacrificing public credibility to advance leftist politics is seen as an accomplishment, a rite of initiation perhaps.

M Jones

becket03 said...

The Ryan McFadyen email, for the very reason that it's offensive and vicious, actually serves the defense case.

Nifong et al. contend that the players boogied out of the party because they feared the police would arrive shortly on the complaint of the just-raped accuser. They'd either participated in (the Duke 3) or witnessed a criminal act, and didn't want to get caught at the scene of the crime.

Now let's think about that. They ran in fear to their dorms. They didn't want to be identified by authorities. And yet one of them, Ryan McFayden, a kid smart enough to get into a top tier school, while quivering in fear in his dorm room, decides to write a mocking letter (drawn from a highly overrated and silly novel that's been awarded an undeserved spot on Duke's syllabus) and tie himself to the crime.

Would he really do that? Would anybody, if a dastardly crime had been committed?

I don't think so.

On the other hand, if the players boogied because they thought the dancers might call police on a trumped up harassment complaint, and they arrived in their dorms steamed about being ripped off by non-performing strippers, McFayden's email, though not really defensible, makes a lot more sense.

beckett

Anonymous said...

By the way, for any of you tempted to post on Amanda Marcotte's site (Pandagon), I wouldn't recommend it unless you have a medical low blood-pressure condition and you need to have the pressure raised immediately.

My experience was that no matter how objective and factual you try to be, no matter how you avoid ad hominem responses, the posters there will first tear into their misunderstanding of ancillary details of your post, then they will call you a pig, then they will ban you.

bill anderson said...

Here is the text of the letter that I sent to Sports Illustrated in the wake of its recent ridiculous piece on the lacrosse case:


In yet another example of the disinformation that Sports Illustrated has produced on the so-called Duke Lacrosse Case, S.L. Price worries that the ever-changing stories of the accuser in this case "could well override any evidence." I would ask the simple question: What evidence? The prosecutor, Michael B. Nifong, promised Judge Ronald Stephens in seeking a DNA court order that the DNA definitely would identify the alleged rapists. Once it became clear that there was no inculpatory DNA evidence, Nifong immediately declared that DNA was irrelevant to the case.

Not only do we have no DNA evidence of which to speak -- despite the fact that the accuser claimed that the alleged rapists did not wear condoms when they supposedly raped her -- but none of the timelines that the prosecution has given fits the story. Furthermore, we have massive evidence of lying by the prosecutor, Durham police (which also destroyed the tapes of police conversations the night of the alleged rape -- despite requests by attorneys to preserve this evidence), and the prosecutorial investigators.

So, yes, there is "evidence" in this case. However, all of it is exculpatory. Unfortunately, from the start, SI has sought to present a "politically correct" case and has tried to make this look like a legitimate rape case instead of the wrongful prosecution that it has become. Furthermore, you failed to point out that Irving Joyner was designated as the person by the local NAACP to "monitor" the case. Joyner earlier all but called for a local jury to ignore any exculpatory evidence and convict on all charges no matter what actually was presented.

The coverage by SI from the start is this case has been nothing short of dishonest and shameful. Your latest piece continues the dishonesty that has been your publication's trademark in this case. Perhaps you might want to try again and actually write about what happened, not what you wish had happened.

William L. Anderson

bill anderson said...

Keep in mind that Nifong actually thought about bringing a case of "attempted murder" because of the McFayden email. Even Nifong thought that would be a stretch, but it gives us a window into the mentality of police and prosecutors in this case.

Anonymous said...

I watched the "pot bangers II" video on youtube. As they are marching down the street to the Provost's house you can clearly see a Nifong for District Attorney campaign sign by the side of the street. That was a very nice touch.

Howard said...

Your continued depiction of Duke, the Duke professoriat in general, and feminists “in general” as actually really good people is incorrect on its face. Duke—faculty, trustees, and administrators have demonstrated cowardice, a moral equivalency at best, and an unprincipled lack of concern about standards of any kind; in short, Duke is not a place where real learning can take place, only conformity in order to get “good” grades and not cause discomfort for the teacher. Indoctrination can, and almost always does take place in most every class; obedience to teacher authority must take place; and public displays of teacher approved opinion must take place. Independent thought is punished.

The Women’s Studies Department at Duke is an ethical cancer, one that should be ripped from the patient and thrown into the intellectual sewer where it really belongs. I would suggest that in its place studies of famous philosophers by mandated.

One other thing: that tape you link us to is remarkable only in that one professor had the sense of right and wrong, a firm belief in justice and the presumption of innocence, and the actual courage to stand up to that screaming mob. That he stood alone is an indictment of Duke.

On the other hand, Duke is like all the other universities in the United States. Believe as I do or flunk.

scott said...

Any of you that didn't read the story referenced in the link KC supplied about Stuart Taylor's panel in Memphis should do so. It's short and provides some fodder for further discussion. Taylor, himself, offers some clarifying remarks in one of the comments to the story. A couple of the other comments chastise the author (Branston) for his apparent lack of knowledge about the case as well.

Here's a couple of my own observations:

1. The author, John Branston, states that all that most of us in Memphis know about the Duke LAX case is what we read in newspapers and see on TV.

Showing a lack of curiousity there, John? Since your reporting appears on the internet, why not move into the 21st century on other stories and take the time to read some of the excellent blogs that are following this case so carefully that it would round out the slanted view that you get from "news"papers and TV "news"? Maybe you would have a greater appreciation for what Taylor was saying.

DiScenza makes a couple of ridiculous comments that display his disingenousness. The one highlighted in the post about Nifong violating the US Constitution, but NC law might be different (apparently conveying his ignorance of NC law) makes one ask, if DiScenza is so ignorant about NC law, why was he selected as a panelist? Surely, there are federal prosecutors who could have brought the US perspective (if that was an intention of the discussion) while also being knowledgable enough about NC law so he wouldn't have to add such a stupid qualifier to his remarks. In fact, he would have been able to point out that NC law, with its FULL discloser law, is more stringent than federal standards.

Branston's article also states that DiScenza praised the ROLE of journalists and noted that the print news business has been policing its own on charges of plagiarism.

Now I ask you, what does plagiarism have to do with the Nifong Scandal case? The fact is, a majority of the media in all forms -- national and local -- was completely offbase in this case. Their ROLE is nothing they should be proud of.

Mr. Branston's article adds to the shoddy work done on a day in / day out basis by the print news business.

Anonymous said...

As a former SI subscriber for many years, who cancelled my subscription several years ago after FINALLY picking up the obvious PC bias that is rampant throughout the magazine, I sometimes get solicitations in the mail that claim to "want me back" and offer me several prizes if I sign up again.

As I toss the information in the trash, I always say to myself, you guys have enough money to pay me what I'd demand to subscribe to your rag, but management wouldn't let you do it.

Anonymous said...

the links to the h-s are being refused by the h-s

Anonymous said...

5:08, I like how you describe the core values driving the G88 and others. A grammar detailing what drives the opinion formation by groups like the 88 would be very useful indeed. For computer science wonks out there, a Backus-Naur format grammar would be particularly nice.

Suddenly, clarity and logic would apply, and prediction of how these generally incomprehensible individuals will react to a given situation will be possible. Very nice.

Not sure if the ordering is entirely correct, but I bet repeated testing and evaluation based on previous reactions and some new activities going forward could tighten up the rationale for the ordering quickly.

Well done!

Anonymous said...

Boo hoo to the 1:32 poster. I applaud KC enabling comment moderation. Marcotte and her ilk are precisely why moderation is necessary. Allowing your blog to become the forum for hate speech, purposeless foul language, and off-topic ranting does nothing positive for anyone.

As my old research methodology professor once said to a classmate, "your comments add a lot of heat to the discussion, but very little light."

Thank you for moderating, KC.

Anonymous said...

10:27 Beckett - I don't recall the name of the book that McFayden's email referred to...what's the name and which course(s) are using it for intstruction.

Ironically if the book is being used in the class as required reading, then that/those faculty member(s) would be complicit in the Gang of 88 charges about how dangerous a place Duke is if you're a female/black/etc. Who and how many faculty members require use of the book?

Besides seeing the young men completely exonerated, the events I look forward to will be watching these deconstructionist/leftists/marxist frauds eat their own. They always do. It will likely be framed per the model provided in the post earlier to day. Race>gender>facts

Were they wise, they may consider it time to quit bashing whitey and begin analysis of whom within their ranks is sharpening the knives to start the back-stabbing.

Of course, any litigation will bring out the absolute worst of these people.

One other thought that is making me smile this beautiful morning...Court TV should have an interest, shouldn't they?

AMac said...

Email to:
Jeff Barker, Childs Walker, and Rick Maese
Baltimore Sun reporters

In Saturday’s paper, I read Jeff Barker’s “In shadow, Duke returns” on Sports page C1, followed today (Sunday) by Childs Walker’s front-pager “Starting over is first goal for Duke,” and Rick Maese’s “Duke close to heart, Pressler re-emerges far from spotlight.” Each article was an good read; the first two provided nice color on the perspectives of lacrosse players and their families. Walker also sought out the perspective of an NCCU student, also useful given the incendiary role of that campus’ leaders at the start of the case.

This series appears to represent part of a continuing effort by the editors of the Baltimore Sun to row back from their early coverage of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. (“Rowback: a story that attempts to correct a previous story without indicating that the prior story had been in error or without taking responsibility for the error”). If so, it is quite understandable, given the Sun’s miserable performance through the summer of 2006.

Just as Sherlock Holmes’ curiosity was aroused by the curious incident of the dog in the night-time, so, too, we can wonder about what the Editors don’t choose to relay about an ongoing story. While readers who are well-versed in the minutae of the Lacrosse Rape Case glean some new information from these three stories, a nagging question remains: “What will subscribers of ordinary diligence take away from their read of the Baltimore Sun?

Surely, such readers will notice that the players’ accusers say one thing, their defenders say another, and meanwhile the case continues. Recalling the Sun’s earlier coverage, they might well read between the lines to deduce that “something (probably) happened.”

How refreshing, then, to read this short comment at the tail of a report of a panel discussion with Stuart Taylor in the Memphis Flyer:

[What about] a DA who indicts defendants after DNA testing from TWO labs has cleared them?... And ALL THREE defendants are supposed to have had contact with the accuser, yet NONE of them left any DNA? And they all passed lie-detector tests? And two of them have photos and witnesses and documents proving they were elsewhere? And the DA lied to the court? And the DA also withheld exculpatory evidence? And the accuser couldn't identify them until after a third ID session, rigged with carefully chosen rules by the DA? And the accuser still can't get her story straight (2, 3, 4, 5, or 20 attackers--doing what, when, and where?) So why was this case even brought? The DA knew BEFORE the indicted that the DNA test was negative...

One hundred and thirty words, not crafted with great care, yet factually correct. Notwithstanding solid coverage of the case by Mr. Barker over the past few months, that paragraph gives readers a better and more succinct context for evaluating the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax than anything your editors have green-lighted in almost a year of coverage.

You are surely aware of that choice. I hope it doesn’t sit easy.

Anonymous said...

The YouTube II with Provost Lange is very good.

1. It shows the lunacy of the pot bangers. What impact do they expect from such actions? Squeaky wheels used to get grease, now they simple get replaced. A very low success rate of changing hearts and minds...

2. Peter Langes responses were outstanding. Clearly he is not a product of the AAAs or Women's Studies hate-filled education indoctrination. Smart, reasoned, responses.

I too had not noticed the Nifong campaign sign before. Who produced the video?

Anonymous said...

One more note on yesterday's lacrosse game. I found it interesting that Duke reported a crowd of "6,485 fans,a few hundred shy of the school record."
Its interesting because I don't know how they came up with that number. There were no turnstiles, no tickets, and people were free to walk in and out. Who was counting?
I find it hard to believe a mens lacrosse game has had a bigger crowd than this one.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but, the cynic in me found that interesting.

rod allison, detroit said...

What Marcotte is saying is; never mind the DNA, the toxicology, the eyewitness testimony, the medical exam, the time stamped photos, the eyewitness testimony, or any other evidence.

Never mind the political motivation or the unethical behaviour of the DA either.

All that matters is that if you think a rape didn't occur, then you're a scumbag like the guy who wrote an e-mail.

This is a common rhetorical technique for people of her political stripe. They try to associate the other side of the arguement with some heinous act or individual, and they put anyone with an opposing view in the same moral category as the perpetrator of the heinous act, or the heinous individual.

Its all moral posturing. Facts, logic, reason, and evidence are thrown out the window. We've seen them use the Columbine, Rodney King, and Mathew Shephard incidents to argue a whole host of issues in the same manner.

A counter arguemnent using the same technique would be to say that if you believe the Duke 3 are guilty, then you are the moral equivalent of Alton Maddox or the New Black Panther Party.

We don't need to do this, however. We'll stick to the DNA, toxicology, testimony, physical evidence, medical exams, and things like that.

Our way leads us to truth and reality. Marcotte's way leads to nauseating moral ostentation and delusions.

Mike said...

An issue, one of many by the way, has been bothering me about the private email that discussed “American Psycho”. I’ve read a lot of posts on the case and am most probably inaccurately remembering the facts surrounding this aspect of the incident. I think that someone said that “American Psycho” was required study. Is that accurate? If so, is the name of the course requiring study of the film known as well as the name of the instructor who required viewing the movie? Was it a member of the Gang of 88?
Mike Rayfield
Spring, TX

Anonymous said...

@9:05

In LEGAL THEORY, a board is to establish policy; management is to implement policy. This is one of those idiotic formulations of the legal mind because management has far more information on which to formulate appropriate policies and, in any case, the distinction between policy and implementing procedures is no bright line. (I say this with years of experience sitting on boards and writing policies for boards to approve.)

As I said in a post yesterday, the most important duty of a board in PRACTICE is to hire and fire the chief manager. The secondary duty in PRACTICE is to give that manager advice.

A board generally is subject to a business judgment rule, meaning it is supposed to act reasonably (not correctly) on the basis of the information available to it. (Of course, its members are also subject to a fiduciary duty not to prefer their personal interests to those of the institution.) However, at least in Pennsylvania, an unpaid board, which is what boards of private schools mostly are, is held to a lower standard: it must avoid gross negligence and its members must meet their fiduciary duty.

Any lawyer who wishes to supplement this should feel free to do so. This is my recollection of what I have heard from various lawyers during presentations on D&O insurance policies, something boards tend to have an interest in.

JeffM

MTU'76 said...

To Anon 11:43

As my dear old hubby once said, "There are times in a moribund discussion where heat causes agitation and new avenues appear."

Gary Packwood said...

Preparing for the trials

I think Bill Anderson's 8:46 AM comment needs close attention...as he is one of the few people to at least mention planting of evidence.

Was anyone working with the DA's office to plant evidence?

Has anyone else thought about that?

The Lacrosse players asked for one white girl and one Latino girl which I would imagine was an ironic statement of DIVERSITY...that would get a huge laugh back on campus.

Who planted the AA black girls? Why were they assigned to these particular customers? Who assigned them?

Why would a escort business not meet the needs of their customers...who you would think ...using conventional customer service jargon... would be REPEAT customers someday.

Anyone working on this issue?

Bakerman said...

It's disturbing that at this late date, posters still feel the need to sign "anonymous," particularly when attempting to explain and/or defend prosecutorial misconduct and malfeasance. As if it were exceptional, as if all prosecutors were not and are not complicit in the sub-culture of judicial corruption.

Yet, common sense suggests there must be exceptions, prosecutors who understand the difference between simple-right and simple-wrong.

But then I go the Innocence Project and see the number of exonerations to date; 195 - one hundred and ninety five wrongful convictions in one hundred and ninety five capital cases. A few law professors and a small law school, 195 convictions overturned - which since the Innocence Project's inception, works out to at least one exoneration per month.

Imagine if it were two law schools, or three, or four...

Anonymous said...

I suppose everyone saw the article in the Sports section of today's NYT (not by Duff Wilson--George Vecsey is the writer). It is much improved over previous coverage. Irving Joyner again is quoted stating that the case has enough merit to go to trial and that the remaining charges are just as serious as the rape charge...but at least Mr. Vecsey notes Mr. Joyner's role at the NAACP.

My biggest disappointment with the article was Mrs. Fogarty's (mother of Duke LAX player Gibbs Fogarty) apologia for the Grumps. She blames Mr. Nifong entirely for their missteps. No comment from her, though, on why, after all this time and with so much public evidence of Mr. Nifong's misdeeds and the players' innocence, the Grumps persist in defending their position. No need to worry as far as Mrs. Fogarty is concerned, though. The paper reports she still loves her alma mater, and she "understands" Duke's response. She must be a very gentle soul.

Observer

Anonymous said...

12:31 MTU...funny. I'm reminded of the sign at my favorite BBQ joint which says, "Don't question your husband's judgement, he married you." My wife doesn't think it nearly as funny as I.

If the CCI is successful in mandating that PC pap orientation requirement, they clearly would violate the comment above because the students are coerced into the indoctrination without being married to the lunacy sprayed upon them.

How's that for looping a BBQ sign into a Duke rape hoax story-line?

bill anderson said...

The first potbangers video at first declares with no "alleges" that the lacrosse players beat and raped Crystal for 30 minutes, so any attempt on their part to say that they were calling attention to larger issues simply nothing less than a lie. A lie.

This second video shows that they were absolutely certain not only that there WAS a rape as they had described, but also there is no doubt of their own moral certainty. These are people who are sermonizing everyone else, and those who might have equivocated simply were enablers of racists.

This first video absolutely is libelous and I can only hope that some lacrosse players take these monsters to court. As far as I am concerned, these are people who did not care for the truth, only their own sense of moral righteousness.

But, for those who might think the potbangers to be righteous people, remember that pride and wrath are listed among the Seven Deadly Sins.

Anonymous said...

9:28 Thanks for the laugh.

rod allison, detroit said...

"...so any attempt on their part to say that they were calling attention to larger issues simply nothing less than a lie."

You are correct Bill, but they were also using this incident to call attention to 'larger issues," and that is just as bad.

The problem is, they want to discuss these "larger issues" from a position of absolute moral superiority. By "calling attention to larger issues," and making demands, in the name of denouncing a rape, they feel their moral authority is unquestioned.

They take the position that if you disagree with them about the "larger issues," or if you disagree with their demands, then you are the moral equivalent of the rapists.

That's why, whenever there is an incident (real or imagined) like Columbine, Tawana Brawley, Howard Beach, or Mathew Shephard, that they can exploit, they opportunistically jump out of the woodwork and milk it for all its worth.

As Marcotte has shown, these people can only operate from a position of assumed moral superiority, and they thought the lax "rape" gave them just that.

bill anderson said...

I'll defend Sally Fogarty here. She is very loyal toward Duke (although not toward Brodhead), and will stay that way, which is her privilege. In our email correspondence, Sally has said that she holds Nifong to be primarily responsible for what has happened, and I believe that all of us can agree that Nifong primarily was the engine that drove this case.

I think we need to understand that she has been a very loyal Duke alum and the lacrosse case has not changed, even though her son, Gibbs, very well could have found himself caught up in the lottery indictment. That does not mean, however, that she supports the G88 and their ilk.

Gary Packwood said...

10:16 AM

Trustees ARE Responsible for the Consequences of their Actions

Mr. Bruce,

Your theory is that the trustees of an institution really don't have an oversight role and shouldn't be expected to get involved in campus issues like that.

I beg to differ with you and suggest that your theory is without a shred of evidence and doesn't rise to the level of being wrong.

Trustees have fiduciary responsibilities.

"Fiduciaries through their actions, or inactions, motivated by malice, or through ignorance or neglect, may be held personally liable if they breach their duties. Furthermore, fiduciaries should be aware of the actions of co- fiduciaries, since fiduciaries have potential liability for the actions of fellow fiduciaries. This legal concept is known as joint and several liability"

Additionally, The Board of Trustees of Duke sits on-top of a $4.5 Billion endowment with a income stream that had to be used to establish the AAS, The Women's Center, and all the other Anger Studies programs. There are not enough tuition dollars to buy all of that wonderful scholarship that adds such GREAT VALUE to the campus.

Even the hint of a charge of NEGLECT can toss a trustee into a law office for hundreds of hours trying to figure out how to wiggle out of such a charge. I don't know about you but I have better things to do.

In America we are responsible for the consequences of our actions to include inactions. Period.

Sarah D said...

Hold on, let us be fair, you should not compare the dreadful murder of Matthew Shepherd or what happened at Columbine to what has happened here.

They were real crimes, this is a lie.

Gary Packwood said...

Mike 12:03

American Psycho

I doubt that you are going to have any takers to your question about American Psycho.

Naming names from from a secondary souce is just what most folk don't do ...as you very well know.

If you want to read about it...just pull up Google and use the following search string

American+Psycho+Duke+University

rod allison, detroit said...

"Hold on, let us be fair, you should not compare the dreadful murder of Matthew Shepherd or what happened at Columbine to what has happened here.

They were real crimes, this is a lie."

I know that. I'm not trying to equate them. I'm saying that others are.

Last spring, a whole lot of parties acted as if the lax case was a real crime, they wanted it to be a real crime, and they tried to make it into a Mathew Shephard or Columbine or Bensonhurst and exploit it the same way.

In a more bizarre development, now that the case has crumbled, Amanda Marcotte has leap frogged to a new "outrage" - the e-mail - and is trying to use the moral authority she gets from denouncing the e-mail to argue that the phony rape charges are really true.

Its surreal.

Anonymous said...

BA,
I will defer completely to your understanding of Mrs. Fogarty's thinking. I loath criticizing a LAX parent at this point anyway. Mr. Vecsey, however, seems clearly to have missed the point that Mrs. Fogarty does not offer full support for Duke University. Or perhaps I can no longer distinguish between support for Duke and support for the administration and the G88. Let's just say Mrs. Fogarty is much more gracious than I could possibly be under similar circumstances.

I am interested in ideas about how to change major problems at private educational institutions without resorting to public criticism and the withholding of contributions. Does anyone have a gentler method that actually works?

Observer

John Bruce said...

Gary Packwood, it seems to me that JeffM's post is better informed than yours. The poor judgment of individual faculty members, or groups, is simply not a trustee issue. In cases like Ward Churchill at Colorado University, the trustees basically fired the president, which was all they could really do.

Think about what would happen if the trustees took some unspecified action to denounce (or however you want to express it) the G88. It would turn into a p*ssing match between the trustees and faculty members, many of whom would be protected by tenure. In effect it would be an "am not!" "are too!" dispute that would create martyrs among people who'd like the attention all too well. There would be absolutely no other action the trustees could take.

KC, what concrete action do you think the trustees could, or should, take over the 88? What would be its practical consequence?

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

KC, I apologize if this is off-topic. But the Ryan McFadyen email has confused me for some time. Though my memory is poor, I am certain I remember two things said about it from the beginning, i.e., police describing it as(1) 'unsent' and (2) sent only to Ryan's friends. Not only do the two 'facts' contradict each other, they don't even make sense standing on their own.

For instance, if the email WAS sent to Ryan's friends, the cops could have gotten it ONLY if one of the friends told them about it. Since the single thing that has emerged from this nightmare is the unquestioning loyalty of every lacrosse player for one another, the fact of one of them betraying Ryan is ridiculous. Worse, since the email was (supposedly) sent after Crystal made her rape accusations and the cops got it after Nifong announced Ryan and his friends were being charged with gang rape, then we are asked to believe that a friend of Ryan's chose to tap a cop on the shoulder and say, 'hey, I've got an email that will help your rape charges against my buddy'. Ridiculous.

Ruling out friends, however, leaves something every bit as peculiar. This email has been described as 'unsent'. Now, of course, the cops get around it by saying that they accessed it on Ryan's computer in his dorm room. However, you can't do that to an 'unsent' writing. If that writing is private and unreleased, it is yours and inaccessible by law. Your legal claim on that writing only ceases once you freely 'release' it into public domain - i.e., send the email. Ryan didn't. But - even if he had, the cop's intrusion into Ryan's computer was still illegal. As I understand it, they entered Ryan's room without his permission and in clear violation of the university's mandate against search and seizure. Therefore, their illegal actions nullified the search - and of course the result of that search. Making things even more suspicious about that 'unsent' email is the fact that in every reproduction I have seen of that peculiar email, I have seen only the body but not the heading - i.e., the computer language at the top of that email giving when it was composed. We have only the integrity of the cops proving when that was. Yeah, right! The same 'integrity' that destroyed police tapes, disobeyed the rules of line-up procedures, ignored the rules forbidding public comments on a case and, finally, lied to several judges and the defense about exculpatory lab evidence. (In fact, allowing my cynicism to run riot, I couldn't rule out a cop composing part of the email himself. After all, Nifong's crew has been 'composing' suspicious evidence since this case began - i.e., Sgt. Gottlieb's 'notes' composed months after the alleged rape, Wilson's 'reconstruction' of Crystal's alleged rape composed months afterwards, etc.)

Like I said, that Ryan email bugs me.

KC Johnson said...

I wrote about the McFadyen email here.

It almost certainly came from the captains' computers, since the captains had given police, voluntarily, their email passwords.

But Nifong, trying to bolster the false image of a wall of silence, deliberately withheld that info from the public.

Anonymous said...

It's Out There

"This weekend, join hosts Kirsten Powers and Michelle Malkin as FOX News takes you inside the most explosive blogs on the Web!

We'll examine John Edwards' virtual campaign HQ and break down how candidates are using networking sites like Facebook and MySpace to reach young voters"

This may be of interest. 10:30 p.m. ET

Anonymous said...

I think it would be great to rate colleges and universities by how free they are in the same manner that the Wall Street Journal rates nations for economic freedom.

FIRE uses a green/yellow/red light typology but it would be much more fun to use a ranking system to determine which institutions are the North Koreas and Cubas of higher education.

SAVANT

Anonymous said...

Allowing the police access to the student’s rooms, on top of discouraging contact with parents and legal counsel are the biggest, by far, failures of Brodhead and the administration.

How in the world did that happen? As a true leader, paraphrasing the other true leader, once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Those are pretty damned divisive and unforgivable acts.

It would be very interesting to see email/phone records of those involved.

Greg K said...

Can somebody with legal information/experience please weigh in on this. I read somewhere that the AAAS was elevated to Department status at Duke. If this is the case, do you see it being a problem with the Dowd case. I may have the name wrong, but I refer to the case brought by the student that got the "F".

Anonymous said...

6:16 Savant - a great idea. Maybe one could then overlay the cost per semester hour, so one is better able to understand the ture cost of indoctrination.

bill anderson said...

Something does not ring true regarding Amanda Marcotte's reaction to the McFayden email. If she does not care for the vile tone of the email, then why does she constantly post vile comments herself?

If she was wanting more "civil" discourse in private emails, then I would suspect that she would want more "civil" discourse on her blogs. However, her blogs are anything but civil. After all, she sees herself as "cutting edge," which today means dropping as many "F-bombs" as possible.

McFayden's email meant nothing in the larger scheme of things. The only reason that Nifong had it released was that it helped to jump-start his case against the lacrosse players. Time and again we have seen writers for publications like the NY Times and Sports Illustrated and others refer to the email as a justification for bringing this farce to trial.

For Marcotte, the McFayden email simply is another fig leaf in the false case she has created. Here is someone who openly is calling for wrongful convictions of people who have not committed any crimes. That she was recruited by a "social justice" candidate like John Edwards tells me all I need to know about the "social justice" movement in this country today.

sceptical said...

Today was a fantastic day for Duke sports...

The men's lacrosse team defeated a scrappy Denver squad 13-9 in the rain to mark their second victory of the season.

The men's basketabll team anhilated St. John's 67-50 at Madison Square Garden.

Finally, in a remarkable accomplishment, the women's basketball team beat the Tar Heels 67-62 for an undefeated season.

My spies on campus tell me the benches are now burning-- the traditional bonfire when the Blue Devils beat North Carolina. The game brought together Duke players and fans of all nationalities, races,, and religions. Cameron Crazies are not black or white or Hispanic or Asian-- they are all blue, united in their support of their university sports teams and happily celebrating together.

The two basketball games were nationally televised, promoting Duke to millions of viewers across the country.

Juxtapose the scenes of joy with the plans of the elitist, out-of-touch Campus Cultural Initiative committee.

According to the Chronicle, some of the changes recommended include:

"In athletics, the report calls for a reduction in the time student-athletes spend on practice and travel in order to better integrate them into campus life.

A number of recommendations were also made with regard to admissions, such as raising the "low end of the admissions standards" to ensure that all students are prepared and committed to engage actively in the intellectual life of campus."

No matter that Duke has one of the highest graduation rates of student-athletes in the country.

No matter that athletics now are color blind, with minorities playing key roles and with the criteria for success based on talent.

No matter that sports are a unifying force for students of all races and backgrounds.

No matter that sports bind alumni to the university, promoting philanthropy.

No matter that sports, especially basketball, has propelled Duke to a top ten university. Do you think Duke receives over 19,000 applications because they are clamoring to take classes from Profs. Holloway or Lubiano or Starn or Curtis? Sports have put Duke on the map, and many students chose it precisely because they want a combination of outstanding sports and academics.

Unfortunately, the Campus Cultural Initiative is another attemtp to downgrade and degrade sports at Duke. Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg!

(also posted at Liestoppers)

Steven Horwitz said...

Let me just "second" the idea that the Trustees are NOT going to step into this mess in any other way but through Brodhead. Most Trustees (good ones anyway) want little to do with the day-to-day operation of colleges, and, as a faculty member, I'm glad of that. I welcome their conversation, I welcome their big-picture strategic thinking, and I've even welcomed some into my classroom, but I would NOT welcome them inserting themselves in faculty issues that are really about the administration and the faculty.

Yes, even in a case like this one. It is a Pandora's box you do not want to open.

The way to deal with the G88 is threefold:

1. Do what KC is doing here: put all of their work, statements, etc out in the sunshine where they can be judged by the public.

2. Encourage administrators to act if clear violations of faculty handbook procedures and principles are evident.

3. Encourage Duke students to avoid their courses, or to take them and fight back intellectually. Watch for evidence of ideologically-driven grading and if you find it, publicize it.

One last thought: just as the G88 have help to give rape victims trouble by defending a liar, they have also undermined legitimate courses and research on race, class, and gender that might well benefit young people.

Anonymous said...

"6:16 Savant - a great idea. Maybe one could then overlay the cost per semester hour, so one is better able to understand the ture cost of indoctrination."

Thank you for the suggestion. I see the academic freedom ranking working for people who want freedom as well as for people who want to avoid it by choosing an environment where they can be free of "offensive speech" and constant reminders that most Americans don't think as they do. There were always people who wanted to move to the Soviet Union or East Germany before the collapse of communism. I am sure that some schools would see their "North Korea" status as a badge of honor. Everyone wins with choice.

The cost per unit of indoctrination you suggest will show students in search of freedom how much a real screwing costs (Hint: Far more than CGM would charge). And, it will give those who want an academic lobotomy an opportunity to get one at the best price. Again, informed consumers and a free market make everyone a winner.

SAVANT

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

KC - thank you so much for your link on the Ryan McFadyen email. It's answered a lot of questions.

Anonymous said...

This is a bit off topic, but I see that the Gang of 88 and their supporters are again reverting to the issue that the lax "scandal" is really about racial epithets, underage drinking, and hiring stippers.

The solution is simple:

1) Any student on or off campus who looks at a stripper shall be expelled;

2) Any student on or off campus who drinks alcohol below the age of 21 shall be expelled; and

3) Any student of any race who uses a racial epithet on or off campus under any circumstances shall be expelled.

Problem solved through freedom of contract. Of course, Duke might not get as many kids to attend such a Victorian institution, but Duke would have the culture that Duke claims to want.

JeffM

Ryan said...

Interestingly, given the most recent story the accuser has told that's been made public, Marcotte's blanket, tasteless denunciation of anyone who denies a rape occured would have to include the accuser herself.

richard mcenroe said...

JeffM-- so when do you think the first African-American student to use the word 'honkie' would be expelled.

Just askin'.

Anonymous said...

Check this out:

http://pandagon.net/2007/02/27/exodus-vp-gays-havent-suffered-enough-to-deserve-civil-rights/

"Are civil rights a zero-sum game in Randy’s book? Does one’s level of wealth qualify/disqualify one’s right to live as an equal to others in society?"

Only if you're a honkey.

Anonymous said...

My longest blog of my own on Court TV Message Boards have been taken down, IMO, because I "named names," and posted a link to a document from the now Senator McKissick to Archie Smith, Clerk Of Superior Court in Durham, concerning my murdered brothers estate, and as of today, they still have done NOTHING!

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e...cture428462.jpg


Mr McKissick was not even aware my brother was dead (?!) and he wants a 10,000 retainer to take this back into civil court?! AND, even Archie Smith gave my mother and I names of lawyers, as he "would love to have this case before his court!"

My brother was murdered for hire, and LE were involved! THIS is why Sheriff Hill, and the Medical Examiner refuse to give us the documents and reports we asked for, and have proof from the one report the Sheriff's Department did send, that clearly shows my brothers body to be staged, and they altered the colors (?!)

PLEASE help not only my family, but far too many who have suffered the same fate from barbarism and ruthless, corrupt government officials!