Sunday, March 11, 2007

Sunday Review

The other day, I received a seemingly unprompted e-mail from Purdue University professor A.G. Rud, who wrote, “If I was the parent of any of those boys who were at that party, I would be ashamed.”

The prompt appears to have been the recent Peggy Reeves Sanday article, which Rud greeted with a cry of “Amen,” overlooking its myriad factual errors. “Terrific commentary,” raved the professor of Education, “especially in light of the sickening display of sham virtue by the students involved and the parents determined to ‘get’ Nifong. So much of the commentary on the Duke case overlooks the disgraceful culture of privilege, racism, and simmering gang rape.”

One could say that “so much of the commentary” by Rud “on the Duke case overlooks” basic facts; it turns out he posted on the issue here. A “culture of violence and privilege” existed at the lacrosse house, contends Rud, of “young privileged men behaving badly, how elemental urges (bonding like organized crime) take over at an elite liberal arts environment that is fragile and impotent to prevent such.”

I checked through the Purdue University newspaper; it contains no reference to Rud condemning spring break parties in general for creating an atmosphere of “simmering gang rape.” The difference between the lacrosse party and thousands of others: an unethical D.A., and professors like Rud, who appear to desperately want the allegations to have been true.

[Update, 10.59am: In his blog, Rud writes, "Why do most of these comments above concentrate on the supposed 'facts' of the case, rather than the culture of violence and privilege that I discuss?" As Rud appears not to understand, his getting the "facts of the case" wrong means that his analysis of the "culture of violence and privilege" will likely be similarly off-base.]

----------

On the Liestoppers Forum, Tony Soprano continues to break new stories. Last week, he had details of an impromptu interview with the accuser’s spokesperson, “Cousin Jakki,” a/k/a Clyde Yancey. Tony S. approached “Cousin Jakki” as she left court following a recent appearance on criminal charges.

“Cousin Jakki” wanted to know if Tony S. worked for the Enquirer, and complained that the tabloids hadn’t covered the story sufficiently. After demanding cash from Tony S. in exchange for speaking, Jakki/Clyde promised to “get you pictures of the baby, but it's going to cost thousands.” She further claimed that Clyde Yancey was her alias, because “the Duke boys have their lawyers looking” for her.

Tony S. also snapped this photo of Jakki/Clyde, posing as an “international woman of mystery,” traversing the mean streets of Durham.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

---------

Two more Liestoppers threads are worth a look. In the first, Tony S. details the ever-changing, mutually contradictory stories of the accuser’s father, Travis Mangum. Mangum has claimed that he visited his daughter at the hospital—for which no evidence exists. He has claimed that her face was swollen—yet photos from the night and two days after show no indication of swelling, or virtually any other “injury.” He claims that a neighbor heard terrible screams from the house—yet no one else has been able to locate this “mystery witness.”

In the second thread, Liestoppers uses newly released material from the discovery file to uncover a glaring discrepancy: both the accuser and the person described as her “driver” claim that the lacrosse party occurred on a Sunday. Yet it took place on a Monday. What happened in the mysterious lost day? The police never appeared to have inquired into the matter.

---------

Duke Student Government president Elliot Wolf had a fine column last week on the Campus Culture Initiative. Wolf, a CCI member, said that he had “spent the last several months (literally) banging my head against a wall,” expressing his concerns about both the CCI’s process and its recommendations. And he delivers a devastating assessment of the CCI report:

To begin, the Report probably wouldn't have mustered a grade higher than a “C” in any course at Duke. Only two sources were directly cited in the entire document, one being Rolling Stone magazine. The most salient and controversial recommendation- the proposal to eliminate selective living groups- was justified in a mere half page that did not cite any supporting data or weigh any alternative solutions.

And to top it all off, the Report contains sentences like this: “The University must work to recognize and empower those whose conduct of the conversation has been most enhancing for the community and those in whose lives and work the conversation has borne most fruit, and to identify and alter behaviors and habits that inhibit or devalue the conversation to which Duke aspires.”

What?
Wolf also, correctly, notes that events of last spring provided an opportunity to achieve meaningful change, had the CCI not focused instead on implementing the Group of 88’s increasingly discredited agenda. Accordingly, he urges increased student engagement in the CCI review process currently occurring on campus, especially now that a neutral figure, Provost Peter Lange, is in charge of the review. This whole process, however, has been so badly flawed that it seems to me beyond repair.

---------

As the Duke administration and student body do their best to move beyond the CCI’s recommendations, an editorial in the Daily Tar Heel, almost incredibly, urged UNC to adopt a CCI-like agenda.

The editorial argues, “Let’s not make Duke’s mistake and wait until we have a nationally publicized scandal to re-evaluate our campus culture. A pre-emptive self-criticism could save us from the scrutiny it has suffered. Besides, it might even have the byproduct of making UNC a safer and nicer place to go to school.”

It’s hard to imagine why Duke would want to adopt the CCI’s recommendations. It’s almost inconceivable that any other campus would want to do so.

---------

Along these lines, a central premise of the CCI’s report is that athletes receive special treatment, both in admissions and in the classroom. (Alas, the report provided no data to substantiate this assertion, especially for non-revenue producing sports.)

A recent across-the-board NCAA study suggests flaws in the CCI’s underlying premise. The report discovered that:

Eighty-eight percent of student-athletes earn their degrees.

Eighty-three percent of student-athletes have positive feelings about their choice of major.

Ninety-one percent of former Division I student-athletes have full-time jobs, and on average, their income levels are higher than non-student-athletes.

Twenty-seven percent of former Division I student-athletes go on to earn a postgraduate degree.

These are the sort of students the CCI wants to exclude from Duke?

---------

One troubling issue raised by the behavior of the Group of 88: to what extent do they exhibit the same intellectual quality in their academic work as they have in their commentary on the case? Take two items from Steve Veres' fine article in this month's Towerview:

  1. Diane Nelson's claim that between March 29 and April 6, "The lacrosse players' voices were being heard… our sense was that these other students who have an equal right to be heard were not at that moment."
  2. Group members' assertion of a "conspiracy" involving person or persons unknown against them, perhaps including an organized campaign of harassing e-mails.
Item (1) is demonstrably false: during late March and early April, the lacrosse players, upon advice of counsel, were wholly silent, while campus activists stressing racial and sexual oppression dominated discourse at Duke. Item (2) is an extraordinarily serious allegation--a "conspiracy" that might include an organized campaign to send harassing e-mails to people on the basis of their skin color could very well violate federal law--for which the Group has produced not a scintilla of evidence, probably because no evidence exists.

Do Group members similarly disregard facts while making intellectually untenable claims in their scholarship, as well?

---------

Of the many figures associated with this case, few have performed more strangely that Durham Police Chief Steve Chalmers. He’s been on vacation, or on leave, or tending to an ill parent as his department has become synonymous with investigative misconduct. Chalmers’ response to inquiries on the rare occasions when he actually seems to come into work is generally no comment.

Johnsville News has a useful summary of the “best of Chalmers.”

----------

From January’s Academic Council, this question to President Brodhead from an unnamed professor, regarding the readmission of Reade Seligmann of Collin Finnerty:

President Brodhead, you have worked diligently to ensure fairness for all parties involved in this difficult situation and also to find common ground among fair-minded members of the greater Duke and Durham communities.

Some of the facts of this case are still in dispute and yet to be decided. Some may never be known. However it is apparently clear and generally agreed that a party was held, a stripper engaged and that the hosts of this event were the co-captains of the Duke lacrosse team.

Many will think it unwise and indeed abhorrent for such an event to have occurred. However, had it simply been individuals exercising poor judgment, many might also believe that the judicial system however imperfect be allowed to run its course before making a judgment as to whether these individuals should continue to be members of our university community.

But presumably Duke University wishes to discourage such events from occurring in the name of and as a result of actions by an officially sanctioned group that represents Duke in a very public way. In light of this, did you consider simply ruling that such individuals, who abused their right to represent Duke, be no longer allowed to do so as members of the lacrosse team, while holding in abeyance any judgment regarding their removal as students until such time as the facts were sufficiently clear to make a judgment on that matter?

Recognizing that it is always easier after some time has passed to see things more clearly than in the heat of the moment, do you think that if such an unfortunate event should occur in the future that banishment of individuals who participate in such a function from any participation in a group holding such a function would be appropriate?

It doesn’t appear as if this professor, whose line of argument comes across as a combination between Karla Holloway and William Chafe, used the Academic Council question session to wonder whether Duke should “banish” any member of the African-American fraternity where an alleged rape occurred a few weeks ago; or any of the other groups that hosted stripper parties; or any of the estimated 75%-80% of undergraduates who consume alcohol. The Group of 88—from whom this question likely originated—isn’t subtle in its double standards.

88 comments:

Assistant Village Idiot said...

"The conversation" is one of those weasel words in academia that doesn't mean what it looks like. It's a pomo favorite meaning "one side gets to talk."

Anonymous said...

And another uninformed Professor comes out of the woodwork. These folk have to much time on their hands. Wrote the Professor on his page, that three of the guys fathers are NYC fireman and one a policeman, who were on duty at 9/11. Certainly shatters his claim of "privelege". He teaches the Wolfe book "Charlotte.." Suggested he add "Bonfire.." to his class, as these guys are truly the "great white defendant".

Anonymous said...

As a follow up to your athletic stats, here are some about Duke Athletics and Duke lacrosse specifically not mentioned in the CCI..

-Duke Athletics has led the ACC in Academic Honor Roll selections for 18 straight years

-Duke was ranked No. 1 in the country last year for D1 student-athlete graduation rate

-Duke has ranked first in the NCSA Collegiate ranking for two years in a row (this ranking takes into account student-athlete grad rate, overall athletic success and academic ranking)

-Last year, more than half the lax team made the ACC Academic Honor Roll (more than any other ACC men's lacrosse program – Other schools include traditionally strong academic schools UVA, UNC and Maryland)

-Between 2001 and 2005, 146 members of the lacrosse team made the Academic Honor Roll, twice as many as the next ACC lacrosse team

-3.45 team GPA this year in the first semester for the lax team (I would be surprised if this wasn't the highest among all teams in the major conferences)

-100 percent graduation rate for Duke lacrosse

Myra Langerhas said...

I am proud to bein 'dumb name', my haloscan name in the first post on his blog. I posted this:

What a tard you are. Young men hired a stripper. BFD. And you pin a Goodfellas label on them? The victims are the young men handcuffed and put on a perp walk all so a gutless DA could buy some black votes.

I admire you for one thing though. You dont let facts get in the way of your jaundiced world view."

I stand by what I said. He is a failed academic. Does anyone know why?

giles said...

If having a party with alcohol and strippers is wrong, I don't want to be right.

A. G. Rud said...

Professor Johnson,

I merely hit reply all to a message from Thomas Sellke, written directly to me regarding my views. That is the source of the "seemingly unprompted" email you received from me. I don't know who you are, but apparently Professor Sellke does.

Anonymous said...

To AG Rud

On those occasions when I have such an astonishing ignorance of the facts as you apparently have, I generally find it advisable to educate myself before replying.

They hired a stripper...OK. is that legal? If so, what's your gripe? Have you acted on that gripe? Actively sought to outlaw stripping for hire?

She is the duck or the quail raised and put in place for the hunter. Who she is doesn’t matter and she is quickly forgotten after it is all over – sloughed off like a used condom

Apparently so. Dennis Miller described the woman as the Louvre of DNA...contrary to your ignorant assertions, none of the Lacrosse players appear to have made a contribution to that museum.

It is just the latest, most egregious, and shameful example of young privileged men behaving badly, how elemental urges (bonding like organized crime) take over at an elite liberal arts environment that is fragile and impotent to prevent such.

What is readily apparent is that you, and the whole gang of 88, are the latest and most egregious example of the decline in the liberal arts environment to where faculty members of dubious scholarship use their positions of privilege to push their own sexist/racist/political agendas without regard for due process, common sense, or even the facts of the issue. That is truly a threat to the University...not a bunch of guys doing a little underage drinking. If you look at surveys on alcohol consumption, this happens all the time, has happened for decades...probably even when you were an undergrad. It's a phase in their lives, unfortunate, perhaps, but they'll grow out of it.

Tenured faculty that ignore reality to preach their own particular racist/sexist/political orthodoxy....well, they'll be jerks forever.

Jamie said...

assistant village idiot (12:09) is bang-on about the pomo definition of "conversation". Diversity agendists allow no diversity of opinion at all in a conversation.

Shorn of the opaque pomo-speak, here's what the central passages of the CCI Report mean:

“The University must... empower those whose conduct of the conversation has been most enhancing... and those in whose lives and work the conversation has borne most fruit..."

The University must give more power to those whose life-work is pushing the narrative-agenda of white male privilege...[or Duke, give us more power!]

"...and ... identify and alter behaviors and habits that inhibit or devalue the conversation to which Duke aspires.”

and single out and re-educate those who resist our narrative.

Obviously, only racist-sexist-classist conversation-haters could have any problem with these very decent proposals.

westernblot said...

In fairness Prof Rud seems to have second thoughts after contemplating the damage to those involved. Appears to be one of the few academics to show any decency whatsoever.

BTW as father of 3 college students I find this asinine griping about drinking to be ridiculous. Students have been overdrinking since the beginning of time and tarring & feathering lax players on their behalf sounds suspiciously like "I died for your sins."

Anonymous said...

KC:

As someone who was an academic for part of his career, this case has been an eye-opener to me. I’m referring to the obvious ideological bias and the blindness to facts, the lack of intellectual rigor in examining arguments, and the pitiful track record in getting published in refereed journals of members of the Group of 88.

As a Duke alum, I actually felt shamed when the ad of the Group of 88 was cited by defense attorneys in their change-of-venue motion.

These thoughts were prompted by reading the piece by Purdue University academic A..D. Rud. It is obvious that some of the maladies I have described aren’t confined to my alma mater.

In fact, with apologies to yourself and Bill Anderson, I must say that the best thing I have read from the point of view of meeting academic standards is the recent article you cited by Bertrand Spencer. I agree with you that “Duke Graduate student Bertrand Spencer has penned perhaps the most perceptive commentary on the Group of 88’s intellectual origins.”
So what, if as a blogger commented, he used “reigned” when he should have used “reined.” This is a minor mistake compared to some of the things I have seen emerging from the academy. The Head of Womens’ Studies at Duke ascribes racial meaning to the phrase “tarred and feathered.” I work with an international financial institution and I have yet to find anyone from the English speaking world who ascribes a similar meaning to the phrase.

Best
Diesel

Sherman Dorn said...

KC,

You wrote, One could say that “so much of the commentary” by Rud “on the Duke case overlooks” basic facts; it turns out he posted on the issue [on his blog].

If you look at the comments on his blog entry, it's clear that your readers have seen villification and not education as the first response. Maybe you could remind them that not everyone follows the ins and outs at Duke as closely as readers of the blog...

KC Johnson said...

Sherman,

I agree that not everyone follows the ins and outs of the case closely. That was one of the items about Rud's post that disturbed me. Accusing college students of producing an atmosphere of "simmering gang rape" should require some basis for making the accusation.

Rud's post made clear that at the very least he had watched the 60 Minutes broadcast (he mentioned his outrage at the comment of Rae Evans). He therefore learned that Nifong conspired with Dr. Meehan to withhold DNA evidence. That revelation, it appears, did not change his contention that the party was an atmosphere of "simmering gang rape."

We're almost a year into the case. Such charges, of course, were commonplace last March and April. But willful ignorance seems like the prime excuse for making such allegations now.

P. Rich said...

Re Rud: Absolutely typical of the vermin who scurry out of their holes, lob verbal grenades and scurry back. They are everywhere in academia these days, and epitomized by the 88 gang.

"Do Group members similarly disregard facts while making intellectually untenable claims in their scholarship, as well?"

Well, yes, of course they do. 'Honesty in reporting' isn't in their repetoire. It's all about 'the cause,' always has been, will continue to be.

"This whole [CCI] process, however, has been so badly flawed that it seems to me beyond repair."

Yes, from the beginning. One word of explanation: Brodhead.

Jamie said...

Rud: “If I was the parent of any of those boys who were at that party, I would be ashamed.”

Interesting. Well, if I were the author of your email, I would be ashamed.

You dare speak of "sham virtue", a "disgraceful culture", and whatever the heck "simmering gang rape" is? (Is that near-rape, gang rape held just beneath the boiling point?) Your wording is unclear on purpose, isn't it - so you can re-make the allegation without actually saying that it actually happened.

That sir, is underhanded; it is sham righteousness. There has been more than enough of that type of cowardice in this case, thank you very much.

If you are so certain of the legitimacy of your "disgust", assert in print that it actually happened, Mr. Rud. Somehow, I don't imagine you wish to. I'm guessing that you'd rather hide behind the disgraceful tactic of saying something without saying it, based entirely on your "elemental urge" to attack the accused.

Sherman Dorn said...

KC,

I think P. Rich's comment suggests that your readers have gone far beyond concerns with factual accuracy. To call Rud "vermin" is character assassination.

scott said...

Wow!!! If you haven't already read the post by Rud linked in this post and you want to laugh and puke at the same time, I urge you to do so.

The post puts Rud in league with the G88. He is perhaps even more delusional than they are. He starts by stating that the Nifong Scandal case is just the latest in a long line of events that demonstrate vile sexist, racist behavior by privileged white males. Then he takes a part of the Sanday piece that tells the story of a gang rape. Someone reading this who is not aware of the facts of the Nifong Scandal case might believe he is describing what happened in Durham last March rather than quoting from a work of fiction. His tactic to tie the 2 together is vile behavior by a privileged white male.

The real hoot is the comments section. Many of the commenters take Rud to task for not knowing the facts -- the Nifong Scandal case is a hoax and Nifong is up on charges for prosecutorial misconduct. Rud's replies to his critics are so juvenile as to not be believable. That a person who thinks like Rud could have "earned" a credential that permits him to "teach" in an institution of "higher learning" like Purdue (good engineering dept, but if Rud is any indication, their liberal arts are a fraud) perpetuates the myth that college professors are an elite group of intelligent people. The fact is, some are and some aren't.

In response to Rud's remarks, I'd say "if I was the parent of any [of those] boys who took a class from Rud, I would be ashamed."

Rud is a dud.

Anonymous said...

Dude,
Nobody with a lick of sense ever hits "reply all". With that one admission, you have exposed your intellectual sloth.

Chicago said...

The Group of 88 should really consider making him an Honorary Member of their society, despite him being at Purdue. I think that is the least they could do for his efforts. As he points out, HIS point is all that matters. He brought up the culture of violence and privilege and that is way more important than facts.

The Group of 88 might not like the fact that he is so honest about his agenda though. They may feel Rud fails to hide behind rambling run-on paragraphs of 75 cent words that try to build a reader up to a climax that only leaves one scratching their head saying "huh?"

hman said...

As the bogus nature of all the charges and allegations against the LAX guys has become more and more evident, the strangeness of the motivation driving ostensibly educated folks to pretend they are guilty stands out.
I would have thought that learning that no crime was committed against the young woman would have been an agreeable experience. I would have thought that contemplating the accuser as someone who was impaired/confused would be more pleasant than having to live with mental images of her being tortured and degraded.
But apparently not. For some, giving up such images is "moving backward".
Though few will admit to it, sexual jealosies are often the mainsprings of motivation. I find it slightly creepy when middle aged folks get really involved in commenting on the dating habits of student-aged folks, either approvingly or, as in this case, weirdly condemnatory.

AMac said...

A note on Prof. Rud--unlike many politically-correct bloggers, he seems to permit civil dissent within his comments. In the exchange following the MOO2 post that KC Johnson links, A.G. Rud comes off much the worse when matching wits with reader 'James Howard.'

Rud is careless and wrong, but he appears to be open, as well. That's more praise than one could offer to most of his G88 compatriots.

Anonymous said...

“The University must work to recognize and empower those whose conduct of the conversation has been most enhancing for the community and those in whose lives and work the conversation has borne most fruit, and to identify and alter behaviors and habits that inhibit or devalue the conversation to which Duke aspires.”

Literary Bling-Bling. Extravagant writing for the purpose of sounding intellectual.

Anonymous said...

I merely hit reply all to a message from Thomas Sellke, written directly to me regarding my views. That is the source of the "seemingly unprompted" email you received from me.


The man is apparently as ignorant of the workings of a simple e-mail program as he is of academic scholarship or due process.

It figures....

Anonymous said...

If you substitute "liberal social agenda" for "conversation" that quote becomes very scary indeed.

Anonymous said...

Re Rud

It is very difficult to reply to Dr. Rud without degenerating into an ad hominem argument because (a) he himself engages in ad hominem attacks, (b) anyone as self-satisfied and self-interested (try looking at his wildly self-congratulatory bio where he compares himself to Thoreau) as he seems to be is such a tempting target for personal ridicule, and (c) his intellectual argument is so meagre that it is almost impossible to respond to it intellectually. Nevertheless, I shall try to respond.

Approximately 50% of his post is a quote from someone else. It is perhaps unfair to attribute any specific nonsense in the quotation to him even though he asserts that the article from which it is derived is "terrific" overall.

Summarizing just a bit, HIS argument is that (a) a "culture of violence and privilege" is "behind the Duke lacrosse case," which (b) "is just the latest, most egregious, and shameful example of young privileged men behaving badly."

He gives no evidence that universities are particularly violent. We are to accept that on his ipse dixit.

What are the undisputed facts in the Duke case. There was a party at which there were both underaged drinking (a legal offense that many deny is a moral offense) and strippers (an offense to the morality of some, but not a legal offense.) Now I can construct an argument (not that I respect it) that all legal offenses are moral offenses, and I can respect (though not subscribe to) the argument that all acts that pander to sexual appetite and involve a cash nexus are serious moral transgressions.

But where is the violence in the undisputed acts? Rud does not say. What is the connection between a putative "culture of violence" and watching a stripper? Rud does not say. What is the connection between a "culture of privilege" and teenage drinking? Rud does not say. What is the argument that underage drinking and hiring strippers involve "egregious" turpitude? Rud does not say.

Now Rud might say in his defense that he was not relying solely on the undisputed facts. Rather he is relying on allegations that are in dispute, namely that a woman was kidnapped and sexually assaulted. We can all agree that if the alleged facts were true, then they would indeed be violent and morally egregious. The problem with that argument is that the publicly available evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that the allegations are false. In short, Dr. Rud has used an almost certainly contra-factual example as evidence of an unestablished thesis, namely that the typical behavior of male undergraduates in the US is indistinguishable from the typical behavior of organized crime.

In his reply to comments on his blog, Dr. Rud retreats into the Rashomon defense. Now far be it from me to criticize Kurosawa's great movie, which revolves around the difficulty of determining truth. But in practice we must make decisions about truth from the best evidence we have in full knowledge that we shall sometimes be wrong. Consequently, normal people change their views when confronted with additional evidence. But not Dr. Rud and similar academic scum, who live convinced of their own superior moral insight regardless of evidence.

JeffM

KC Johnson said...

Sherman,

I can't speak for every reader of the blog, nor, I suspect, can Rud speak for every reader of his. My comments about Rud--along with the update in which Rud appears to contend that facts are irrelevant to his cultural analysis--deal with his willingness to suggest that the players created an atmosphere of "simmering gang rape" without, it appears, even a basic knowledge of the facts of the case.

Michael said...

Rud made this comment on his blog:

[Why do most of these comments above concentrate on the supposed "facts" of the case, rather than the culture of violence and privilege that I discuss?]

This guy doesn't even realize how stupid this statement is.

Cedarford said...

AG Rud does have some explaining to do to justify his notions that any male high performer and good student who goes to college and bonds in a group - be it athletics, animal rights activists, rap music group - is somehow forming a culture of "simmering gang rape".

That is a strong, and frankly patently ridiculous charge to make against all men collectively. Such labeling of "all men who bond with men" as incipient felon wannabes only flies in academia. Elsewhere, Rud would be laughed off as kook by the 120 million men who have at some times, existed in such "simmering gang rape" cultures, bonding in and out of college. And by the women that know them.

AG Rud's loose shit can also be easily spattered on blacks or women's grouping and bonding rituals as well - if not "simmering gang rape" - then perhaps other awful, dire criminal acts in the making, that women and blacks could be tarred with...even if such acts are as uncommon as "privileged white male gang rapes". Who knows what nefarious but almost unknown pathology "simmers" in those female-bonding sororities, those black male "professional associations"!!

AG Rud "teaches" I am Charlotte Simmons, which he somehow correlates into making himself knowlegable on lacrosse behavior and guys at parties outside Indiana. And how they misbehave not just in Tom Wolfe's mind, but extending into reality as AG sees it.

Which means if he teaches The Vagina Monologues no doubt it would have him writing about how the reality is that white feminists of privilege spend their days sexually molesting 13-year girls and proclaiming to all who care to listen that their "cunts" and how they love them, is core to every woman's beliefs and identity.

Let's hope AG stays clear of The Monologues.

And perhaps educates himself on exactly where the threat of "simmering gang rape" actually resides, and it is not with law-abiding "privileged white males". But happens almost uniquely with gangs of thugs, most from "the underclass", almost all with prior criminal records. Actual violent gang rape happens, as in the horrific Tennessee carjacking, murder of a husband, then 4 days of rape, torture, then murder of the wife by up to 9 underclass African-Americans - but to find a violent gang rape of a black woman by a group of "privileged whites" - one has to go back many decades. And Tawana doesn't count.

In the thread KC referenced, another Prof hell-bent on defending the Group of 88 appeared.
"UnApologetically Tenured" is his handle.
And, by the quality of his thoughts, he indeed has nothing to apologize about. But the Committee that granted him tenure might.

In his defense of the 88 and against "right wing agitator's hot air", UnApologetically Tenured makes the case that members of the public are not qualified to look at events and make any judgement. Only lawyers, lawyers in robes, and specially constrained and spoonfed members of the public on a jury are able to to do that:

Again, I have no idea what happened in Durham that night. Neither do any of you. Not only might the players be completely innocent, but they, like all of us, deserve the presumption of innocence. But that doesn’t mean that any of us *knows* what happened.

I think we all have a pretty good idea of what happened on 9/11, who did it - despite no lawyer wearing a robe having performed his/her role of High Priest of Fact Determinations....No jury saying who used the 4 jets...

The truth is we, in all our walks of lives and in our family's existence - all make plenty of judgements in our lives based on facts as we see them. And sometimes, out of necessity, on what incomplete facts exist but that we are compelled to act on. Decisions in sometimes momentous matters..have that surgery or not? Should we marry? Is joining the Marines the right thing without a judge and jury ruling on it??

UnApologetically Tenured's assurances of universal ignorance on all sides in the Lacrosse case and the inability to get facts, learn, and form a judgement appear to only reflect his distain of the ability of individuals to learn, get educated by others, and frame an opinion.

A sad state for an educator to be in, asserting only courts and the miniscule fraction of the public that comes to play in crafting opinions there, are "capable of finding the truth".

Curiously, that mindset appears limited only to certain university profs, lawyers, and black followers of the NAACP. (Noting of course it is a VERY RECENT development for NAACP to insist that everyone should "shut up" and let a jury and only a jury decide matters of justice).

This crippling intellectual reliance on "Courts have to decide!" seems to be an escape clause of the narrow-minded that who have failed to summon persuasive logic, evidence, and arguments on their side. It is a fall back position. When everything you believe in ideologically is termed a ridiculous argument - Plan B is to say the argument itself cannot be discussed by mere layman - as only Courts can attain......The Truth of It All.

P. Rich said...

Sherman Dorn

Your use of the term "character assassination" is nothing other than a sly accusation contained in a self-indictment.

"vermin: an offensive person"
Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary

Research, preparation and precise word choice are wonderful things; baseless assumptions are not. Please try harder next time, or find yourself in the appropriate category.

Anonymous said...

Just as in the Tawana Brawley case, it is not particularly important whether or not the alleged race and gender driven criminal activity DID occur but, instead, that it COULD have occurred.

Because both Ms. Brawley and Ms. Mangum COULD have been sexually assaulted by privileged white men, Duke students must engage in a fruit bearing, community empowering conversation.

Those choosing to inhibit or devalue the conversation will simply not be allowed to graduate.

Georgia Girl said...

To Anon 1:50 a.m:
Duke's collegiate ranking has not the slightest relevance.

KC, you said:
"Accusing college students of producing an atmosphere of "simmering gang rape" should require some basis for making the accusation".

My God, KC, it's right under your nose! Alcohol and strippers are huge elements in producing an atmosphere of "simmering gang rape"!

And to Michael: Rud nailed it! The commenters in this column choose to totally AVOID the violent rape culture that exists within fraternities. Were it not for the so-called feminists who arrived on the scene in the 70's and 80's, society would still be blaming women for "getting themselves raped".

Certainly, I believe women have a responsibility to protect themselves.

Read the following from helloitsme444:

Feminism keeps saying the sexes are the same. It keeps telling women they can do anything, go anywhere, say anything, wear anything. No they can’t. Women will always be in sexual danger”.

“College men are at their hormonal peak. They have just left their mothers and are questing for their male identity. In groups, they are dangerous. A woman going to a fraternity party is walking into Testosterone Flats, full of prickly cacti and blazing guns. If she goes, she should be armed with resolute alertness. She should arrive with girlfriends and leave with them. A girl who lets herself get dead drunk at a fraternity party is a fool. A girl who goes upstairs alone with a brother at a fraternity party is an idiot. Feminists call this ‘blaming the victim.’ I call it common sense”

Hey, women today know they have the right to wear whatever the hell they want, be it jeans and a sweatshirt or a mini-skirt with stilettos, but considering this, women today also need to realize that just because they know this doesn’t mean the world has changed so much that they can make whatever choices they have all the rights to make, dammit (get drunk at a party, flirt and make suggestive jokes, sit in a car with a guy pumped with hormones in an empty parking lot, send mixed signals, etc) and be surprised if something tragic and terrible happens. Having the right to make choices comes with a responsibility, like any set of rights, to accept the consequences of them. Again, accountability and alertness is all that should be asked of women to accept. If a woman is walking to her car after work, maybe even armed with her can of ax, and a man attacks and rapes her, it is not her fault; she is not an idiot or fool. But what I want to really stress is that no matter how I believe women should be more accountable with their actions, rape is never their fault. Women may make mistakes in judgment, but men who rape make choices.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. That Rud is with a "School of Education" speaks volumes.

These are the jokers who have wrecked K-12 education in the US.

Schools of Education get the grad students who are left after sharper people go to med school, law school, business school, and graduate school in real academic fields. Their GRE scores are notoriously low. They could be lower on the food chain than even "angry studies" academics.

Apologies to any School of Ed types with IQs that surpass room temperature, but there is a pattern. As a parent of K-12 age children, I have had the misfortune to interact with the arrogant yet incompetent products of School of Ed grad programs in our school district. These people are ideologues with no ability to critically evaluate the education process.

Once you have met a few, you realize why our kids are falling behind children from other countries. Schools of Ed are fully on board with the Gang of 88 worldview.

Anonymous said...

Sorry: I couldn't quite believe what other posters here were reporting, so I had to slip over to Rud-ville. Mein Gott!

Facts, complains Rud, who's talking about facts? I'm talking cultural critique here!

Okay, normally that would be comical - but the Rudster appears to think the very threatening charges against the LAX players are based on some sort of cultural criticism.

Which I guess, in a way, they are -- if you define transparent race-baiting, hate-filled stereotyping fraud as cultural critique. The LAX case certainly isn't based on physical reality, and there cannot be anyone left with an IQ much over 40 who honestly thinks it is. The Nifongian "facts" have all gone very sour, had the living s--t choked out of them as though they were thugnigga's first-day students, yet these charges persist.

The disgusting lie-fest of the LAX case has got to end, and then the 88 can set up "something happened" courses for the next century. If Duke is stupid enough to pay them, and students are stupid enough to sign up, well...that's free enterprise: but this is about justice.

Michael said...

re: 1:15

Perhaps it's my profession as an engineer but I generally like some evidence of a matter before accepting an assertion that apparently isn't supported by anything more than opinion.

Some college professors seem to feel the same way. I think that KC's statement should suffice for any reasonable person. I don't understand why a college professor would want to skip the facts and go with fantasy but if parents are willing to pay $40K for that, then I guess there's a market for it. I'm glad these guys don't build bridges.

Anonymous said...

Rud is right, of course. There was a rape at a Duke fraternity house - those elite privileged black frat boys allowed a white woman to be raped, alledgedly, and did nothing. Talk about sticking together in the face of great wrong. What's the problem, Rud - you haven't heard of that case? White women have something precious that blacks want? Where is the outrage? Oh that's right - there won't be any.

Now go back to your ivory tower, and whine about how you are being kept down...

Clarencedarrow said...

To Georgia Girl,

Rud hit on nothing. The fact is NO rape occurred at that party. The only live accusation concerns that of a white woman who accused a black man (non-student) of raping her at a black fraternity party. Neither you nor Rud say ANYTHING about the moral character about a substance-abusing prostitute with three illegitmate children who tries to put three innocent men she can't even legitmately identify in prison for 30 years to life. I submit that scum like Crystal Mangum have made choices and should be held legally and financially responsible for their actions. For you and Rud to take your respective positions in this case are not only disturbing but totally obscene.

Anonymous said...

I am a 12 year recovering drunk. Certainly agree that drinking can take you to a bad end; however. drinking does not usually enhance sex for the male. These feminist are exhausting.

Anonymous said...

Anne Coulter says" if you are not out after midnight drinking, you will greatly reduce your chances of being raped or murdered." Its a choice to go into a partking lot alone-a bad one at that.

Anonymous said...

Even if hapless, Rud remains an idiot. I would have expected more until I noticed Rud teaches in an education school--another university sewer for the CCI-types.

Anonymous said...

For all of you mentioning that Rud is in what, before PC days, was called a teacher college or normal school, I think you are forgetting that he has been acclaimed as a writer and thinker on a par with Thoreau.

JeffM

PS Excuse me: he was acclaimed as such a writer and thinker by others working in teachers colleges.

Anonymous said...

I keep reading about the "simmering gang rape" culture being the focus of "the conversation", "the big picture" the "greater cultural issues" etc. Gee, Ms Sanday tried to put it in perspective by avoiding the 2 questions that ARE the perspective of this case. A black woman cries rape to keep from going to a mandatory detox treatment center. Just where are our 3 players racist here. She finds this email about skinning strippers and it is reliving the excitement of the night. Somehow the anger from these boys of being robbed of $800 over this sad affair never seems to be an issue. If I paid $20 for something, a strip show, a movie, whatever, I'd be upset if I were suddenly told, so sorry, you get the 2nd string, the other movie, whatever. Mr Rud is trying to bring out the greater cultural issues of hiring strippers and drinking leading to "the conversation" (the isms, race sex etc). The only racism here is that they would have perfered white women instead of who showed up. As far as sexism, I'd love to see the lofty explanations of how the girls of spring break fit into this situation. Joe Francis has made millions off these "victims". Is that so terribly wrong? Why is it that the majority of marriages arent interracial? Truthfully, I don't have statistics but are the happily married african american couples or the happily married white couples racist because they married within their race. I think at this point, I will slow down on the blogs and follow the suggestion of Jason Trumpbour at FoDU and start writing letters. The fact that these academics are getting air time only helps to legitimize their nuroses....er I mean causes. I think that would be the best path for many of us at this point.

gak

Georgia Girl said...

Okay, we all agree -- NO RAPE occurred! So, why do you continue making that an issue, while skirting the obvious issue of the RAPE-PRONE CULTURE prevalent on college campuses.

Sanday didn't invent it. Rud didn't invent it. Fraternity culture can be dangerous. I am a victim of what happens when individuals form a pack mentality.

I am NOT a Sanday fan nor am I a feminist. Her book on fraternity gang rape fell way short. It depicted victims who took no reponsibility for their own safety.

I wish some of you would omit cynicism and narrow mindedness in your posts. If you'd LISTEN for a change, and stop wagging those tongues in protest, maybe you could learn to respect opinions different than your own. Disagree politely maybe without all the rubbish?

Linda said...

Under the comments section to his latest post, Rud said he doesn't know why people are getting so "lathered up" about this particular case. I'm guessing if the races were reversed he would understand. But since it's white boys, well, only the families should have any interest. No implication in the railroading for society at all. The case only has meaning if it can be used to show racism (white on black), and he so desperately wants to show racism.

If he is so interested in the "cultural issues" and not the facts getting in the way, perhaps he should delve into Nifong and the black community in Durham instead.

In the first post the man can't come back with anything other than what I think he thinks are funny quips (calling one commenter "Dad". Hilarious.) He calls the Duke party "egregious", but can't explain why exactly it's so egregious. He is either embarrassed that he ignorance is being pointed out and all he is left with is snark or he really is just that stupid.

Gary Packwood said...

Duke Academic Council Meeting - January 25, 2007

Wrestling with Pigs

Thanks KC for the link to the Academic Council Meeting minutes. I read them several times and I believe that President Broadhead attempted to take the G88 to the woodshed without getting into a wrestling match with pigs.

Twice he focused squarely on the need for faculty to get out of their caves and talk with people including student ...people.

'People [should] actually make the acquaintance of people who don't agree with them; in which they take enough trouble to figure out what's different about the different way somebody else thinks"

'We [faculty] all have an obligation in our own practice and to model our behavior to students to look to us for examples, to make this a time when we really take the trouble to try to find out people who don't already agree with us, to try to learn the strange way it is they actually think, so we can make our case more persuasively than them, and so potentially we can learn something in return'

Notice that phrase ...The STRANGE ways it is they actually think.

He also observed that the question he received about the Lacrosse troubles was a 'Question [that] is honestly intended.' I took that to mean that the question was juvenile but honestly intended.

The tone of the Broadhead's address told me that he learned early on from his parents the old adage...
Don't wrestle with pigs; you get dirty and the pigs enjoy it.

I certainly pray that the G88 heard President Broadhead and will move on to their next Cultural Critique [job].

Anonymous said...

To the surprise of no one, Rud now has to "move on" and retire from the field. I have heard that before. Does he realize that he is one of many who wrote about the hoax without thinking or getting the facts. Where is Gail Dines when we need her?

Cedarford said...

Georgia Girl -

My God, KC, it's right under your nose! Alcohol and strippers are huge elements in producing an atmosphere of "simmering gang rape"!

And to Michael: Rud nailed it! The commenters in this column choose to totally AVOID the violent rape culture that exists within fraternities. Were it not for the so-called feminists who arrived on the scene in the 70's and 80's, society would still be blaming women for "getting themselves raped".


Girl, you need to get out more. Or at least wean yourself off the preposterous feminist drivel you've swallowed without question.

A clue. There are 150 men and boys in America. 100 million of them have had "male-bonding rituals", a majority involving alcohol, dope, strippers, boisterousness or some other feminist sin at some time. Most of that behavior is completely outside "fraterities". And harmless. And ubiquitous in all human societies. Gang rape is not part of that, does not stem from that, but is abherrent human behavior done by very, very few men.

At least we didn't hear you tap too deep into the motherload of campus feminist drivel statistics. "Every 2 seconds, a woman is savagely raped in America".15 million a year! "White male coeds who are in a group who are the biggest rapists of all men!" "Women never lie about rape, and when "something happens", they are only guilty of poor judgment - never responsible for their actions...."


College men are at their hormonal peak. They have just left their mothers and are questing for their male identity. In groups, they are dangerous.

Ah, yes! Dangerous evil penis-wielders in uniforms! Sometimes drinking the evil malted beverage of Satan himself. Leering, testosterone-crazed disgusting nasty guys who watch strippers...(who of course are completely innocent hard-working women who somehow "chose" the sex industry and are to be admired for their career choice and celebrated as feminist role models of courage!)

But what I want to really stress is that no matter how I believe women should be more accountable with their actions, rape is never their fault. Women may make mistakes in judgment, but men who rape make choices.

As rape encompasses degrees of involvement by the female involved, feminist rape politics has come to argue "all rape", from stranger on stranger to alleged date rape is "never the woman's fault, because only the *spit* man makes choices - and the woman can only be sympathetically affirmed in her victimhood as perhaps suffering from weaknesses or poor judgement.

Which leads to estimates that 35-40% of alleged rapes are false...from the ones that are confessed to roomates..."My date raped me! Then we went out and danced! Then he raped me again!" buyers's remorse to the ones the authorities generally say lack grounds to prosecute but will not accuse the girl of lying to their faces.

"Well, the fact that several people saw both of you necking and groping one another at the party, then by your testimony you took all your clothes off yourself before you jumped into bed wearing only panties for "some more necking" and that you had sex twice and made no effort to leave when he used the bathroom --does make it hard to prove a she said, he said incident in court."

The "violent rape culture" in fraternities is a concoction that feminists feed to the scared little girls arriving at college they hope to indoctrinate (and more).

*****************************

And within context of the Duke case, inter racial gang rape where there is a black victim is exceptionally rare.
Perhaps one legitimate case in the last 2 decades, compared to many thousands of black on white gang rapes. And of black gang rapes and frequently, murder of white women - they happen with few, if any, occuring in supposed "a violent rape culture in black fraternities" context. To paraphrase Jesse Jackson, I hear 3 big guys coming up behind me and a female companion, I'd be nervous. But if I saw they were three guys from a Black Frat, I'd be relieved...

Anonymous said...

I think he compaired himself to Thoreau. Rud and his buddy Drew(who is this) when presented facts attached the blogger - including suggesting one person had suffered a stroke. Now Rud has to "move on."
Who was that other commentator who had to "move on"? We have never heard from him/her again.

Anonymous said...

Yesterday's Rocky Mountain News carried a wonderfully perceptive column on the practice of "insulting upwards," where some obscure commentator makes outrageous claims about a more famous/notorious person(s) in the hopes of garnering attention.

I would suggest that Professor Rud is guilty of using this tactic.

Anonymous said...

@ Georgia Girl

Not calling names. Not wagging my tongue.

What does it mean to talk about a rape-prone culture if no rape occured?

OK. I can hear your response. "Sure, there was no rape in THIS case, but there are rapes in other cases." Admitted, and I further admit to being reasonably confident that some of them take place in fraternity houses.

But if rape-prone culture is to have any substantive meaning and be worth discussing, it must mean that the incidence of actual rape among members of male fraternities is higher on a per capita basis than in the general male population. Otherwise, we clearly have a "rape-averse" culture. So, I shall be glad to listen to you, and even the self-satisfied Dr. Rud, on "rape-prone" fraternity culture if you first provide the evidence that it exists.

"Simmering" rapes, meaning rapes that do not occur, do not count.

JeffM

Anonymous said...

I believe that Purdue U has its own problems with a missing (after attending a frat party) student. No school,is immune to these problems. Maybe a monastary ( ok, I won't go there ) We need to stop calling the kettle black . This episode happened at Duke but it could be, "NAME THE SCHOOL"

Georgia Girl said...

Exactly what IS a feminist?

None of the "cry rape" scenarios you described in your post are similar to my own experience.

I didn't even know date-rape drugs existed back in 1962.

I can tell you that it was a "follow the leader" type situation. By that, I mean frat guys who were probably appalled at the mere thought of "drug-raping" a girl nevertheless went along with the "leader" ... "the pack mentality".

I certainly agree with you that only a FEW are guilty of such crimes. I guess my point is this: if gang rape was happening the 1960's, it must be even more prevalent today.

I can even tell you who the name of the perpetrator, where he lives, his fraternity, and the well-known engineering school from which he graduated in 1962.

I've revealed all that information on this site at one time or another, and will do so again if KC will allow it.

Anonymous said...

Georgia Girl: " If you'd LISTEN for a change, and stop wagging those tongues in protest, maybe you could learn to respect opinions different than your own."

Respect an opinion that proclaims "Rud nailed it!"?

Sorry.

To this day three LAX players remain nailed with charges that physically could not have happened as claimed.

Nifong tried to nail them to the wall, much of Durham wants them nailed, the Group of 88 will not retract their nails.

This general social commentary about frats and rape and simmering and all that other fact-averse BS must wait until these specific false charges are dropped.

Afterwards you and Rud can nail up whatever theses you want, wherever. Knock yourselves out. But when he -- or you, or anyone --step into this affair, be prepared to talk facts or be prepared to be opposed, and vigorously.

Anonymous said...

Adding to JeffM's response to GeorgiaGirl:

To build your case from a story is to build a skyscrapper on sand. Your case has no merrit if the examples are lies.

Further, I would venture to guess that most people posting here are more interested in the facts surrounding this case and THEIR (the facts) greater sociatal implications. I read the links associated with your screen name and I understand where you are and where you have been as far as a man can. I am close friends with 2 rape victims and have seen what it can do. I suspect this is the worng forum to post to.


gak

Anonymous said...

Georgia Girl - I am saddened to hear about your rape. That is a trauma that never heals. It happened to my girlfriend here in Durham - she was beaten on the head with a sledgehammer, abducted, robbed and raped by a black "man". No one was ever charged, no DNA evidence was ever processed by the 3 stooges at the SBI, and it was just swept under the rug by Nifong and company.

And you are right - a culture of rape does exist - a white woman was just raped, alledgedly, at a party at a black Duke Frat. So there you have it - even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn. Now take yours, educate yourself, and return when you are less sure that "something happened".

Anonymous said...

KC:

You refer in this post to "two items from Steve Veres' fine article in this month's Towerview".

The link is in fact to the article in The Chronicle that you linked in the previous post.

Also, I am perplexed by the "fine" qualifier. In the previous post you seem to take the view that Veres's article gives too much credit to the 88's version of events. (It is exaclty my reading, BTW.) Why is it "fine" in this post? Is this hidden sarcasm I missed?

Clarencedarrow said...

To Georgia Girl;

Don't you have to have rape to co-exist with a culture of rape? Where's the logic in your accusations. I'm sorry, I have 3 degrees and I have NEVER seen what you claim exists on college campuses. I've been married for over 30 years and have a grown daughter. Yeah, as with many young women they were sexually assaulted but NEVER on any college campus (and yes they have multiple degrees). You have no facts to make that accusation and, quite frankly, we're all tired of hearing that demigogery.

In addition, let me point out that I am a practicing Nurse and based upon my professional experience, criminal activity on campus 99.9% of the time is caused by outsiders - including rape. We've had two sexual assaults in the hospital parking lot in the last year. Does that mean that the atmosphere is breeding sexual predators in male nurses and doctors? You need to get your head out of the sand and start worrying about how violent crime is penetrating the last bastions of civilization.

Basically, I have known many athletes and fraternity men, including my son, who are fine, responsible even stellar members of society. It's an insult to them and their parents (including me) that you make these stupid allegations. Maybe you should start thinking before you start spouting politically correct dogma.

Georgia Girl said...

To JeffM: You said, "... if rape-prone culture is to have any substantive meaning and be worth discussing, it must mean that the incidence of actual rape among members of male fraternities is higher on a per capita basis than in the general male population".


I don't know about all that stuff ... per capita basis, etc. But consider this:
Under what other circumstances other than a street gang or a fraternity does a girl become involved with an organized group of men with organized rituals.

If any amongst you are members of Greek Fraternities, I have some questions for you.

Anonymous said...

Georgia girls says my point is .. if gang rape was happening the 1960's, it must be even more prevalent today.

So you come onto a blog which is all about a frat party rape that did NOT happen, which everybody who posts about acknowledges, and you want to talk about the frat boy rape culture ?? Is that not comically, perversely absurd? Is the best venue for your whine a place where people bemoan a fraud?

Why don't you meander over to the blog discussing the Black Duke Frat party where a white girl was more plausibly raped ? There might be a better reception for your "theories" there.

Anonymous said...

please KC - no rape stories - particularly ones that are supposed to be 40 jears old and involve date rape drugs that did not exist then.

Anonymous said...

I think P. Rich's comment suggests that your readers have gone far beyond concerns with factual accuracy. To call Rud "vermin" is character assassination.

You are of course correct. Fortunately, most vermin lack the intellectual capacity to even understand they've been insulted by comparing them to this sanctimonious twit. There is some risk from the PETA people suing you on the vermins behalf, however.........

Georgia Girl said...

My comment that "Rud nailed it": offended a few.

I haven't seen Rud's site, but it seems to me that he attempted to distinguish one subject from the other. That is, the "Duke scandal" from the "violent culture". If that's the case, then I agree with him ... two different topics for discussion, right?

Kilgore said...

Georgia Girl said: But what I want to really stress is that no matter how I believe women should be more accountable with their actions, rape is never their fault.

This is the very sort of thinking that comes from the gang of 88. "It could never be Crystal's fault. Never."

Feminists like it simple and they like it so the woman is the victim and the man is the perp. The woman is never at fault and the man is always at fault. Women have choices and rights and men have responsibilities. Real simple. No gray.

Should we tell young men that no matter what, if they ever get physically assaulted it is NEVER their fault? I bet you wouldn't go along with that one would you? Why not?

hman said...

To Georgia Girl
You say that you had a bad experience with some frat boys back in the day. Did you feel like that you would not be believed at the time if you had wished to press charges? Were you concerned that women drinking in a frat house were giving up a lot of credibility?
Listen carefully: This case, or at least the nonesense spewed about it by folks like Rud, has done more to undermine the the status of actual rape victims than any in memory. The whole world has been ram-taught that women lie in fragrant ways about rape and that entirely bogus charges are sometimes brought to indictment. If this is what you want to happen, go ahead and support Rud and the gang of 88.
Otherwise, learn to take seriously the difference between guilt and innocence; truth and lies, what is true vs. what satifies a favorite fantasy.
A lot is at stake.

scott said...

Georgia Girl 1:15 PM

KC, you said:
"Accusing college students of producing an atmosphere of "simmering gang rape" should require some basis for making the accusation".

My God, KC, it's right under your nose! Alcohol and strippers are huge elements in producing an atmosphere of "simmering gang rape"!

"And to Michael: Rud nailed it! The commenters in this column choose to totally AVOID the violent rape culture that exists within fraternities. Were it not for the so-called feminists who arrived on the scene in the 70's and 80's, society would still be blaming women for "getting themselves raped".

Georgia Girl, you should use a "sarc tag" when you write stuff like this. Otherwise, people might think you actually believe it.

"Women will always be in sexual danger”.

Georgia Girl, I'm beginning to think you actually DO believe it. How do you and Helloitsme444 get up the courage to leave your house to even go to a grocery store? You might encounter a man; watch out for that simmering gang rape culture brewing over in the produce aisle.

“College men are at their hormonal peak. They have just left their mothers and are questing for their male identity. In groups, they are dangerous. A woman going to a fraternity party is walking into Testosterone Flats ..."

Just left their mothers, Testosterone Flats? Now that's just ridiculous. Who is this Helloitsme444 you're touting as a voice of reason and experience?

"A girl who goes upstairs alone with a brother at a fraternity party is an idiot."

Or maybe she has made a conscious decision to have consensual sex. Women do that, you know. And in that case, nobody is getting raped.

"If a woman is walking to her car after work, maybe even armed with her can of ax, and a man attacks and rapes her, it is not her fault ..."

On this we agree, but what does this example have to do with a simmering gang rape culture perpetuated by privileged white male college students who belong to a group such as a fraternity or sports team, which was the original point you started with based on the content of the posts from KC and Rud.

I would contend that the typical man who rapes a woman walking to her car
1) is not a college student;
2) does not belong to a fraternity or sports team;
3) has a prior criminal record, some of which likely involves physical violence.

In closing, the only thing Rud nailed was demonstrating his complete ignorance of the facts of the Nifong Scandal case. As a result his post was a complete waste of bandwidth.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 1:44:00 said...

Schools of Ed are fully on board with the Gang of 88 worldview.

Well how then would you suggest we deal with that little fact if it is true?

There are more of them than all of the rest of us.

The Masters in Education is the #1 grduate degree granted in the USA.

GP

Anonymous said...

Rud: “If I was the parent of any of those boys who were at that party, I would be ashamed.”

He forgot to mention that he would be financially broke too !

Interesting how that slipped his cracker-jack attention - what a schmuck !

Anonymous said...

"Why do most of these comments above concentrate on the supposed 'facts' of the case, rather than the culture of violence and privilege that I discuss?" ...Rud

Nice critical thought process....If I were his parent, I would be ashamed -

TW

Anonymous said...

A.G.Rud is either an imposter or he has managed to become a professor at Purdue without himself having received a proper education.

Professor A.G. Rud wrote, “If I was the parent of any of those boys who were at that party, I would be ashamed.”

The sentence should have read, “If I were [not was] the parent of any of those boys who were at that party, I would be ashamed.”

Use of the conditional "would" requires present subjunctive mood, i.e. "If I were". Rud's grammar is more indicative of a high school junior than a Purdue professor.

Anonymous said...

For the Rud fans one question.

Which would you rather do?

1. Get paid $400 to strip for a bunch of drunk lacrosse players or

2. Spend 30 years of your life in jail for a crime that never occurred.

Apparently the group of 88 and their supporters would prefer the first.

Anonymous said...

Hey there Georgia Girl,

I don't want to know the name of your rapist. If he wasn't prosecuted back in the 60's I don't think publishing his name now will do you any good. If he was prosecuted then hopefully justice was done. Reading DIW and the rape hoax I was reminded of my decades ago rape at gunpoint. (I never considered going to the police, he was the police, dear.)

PLU (people like us) need to sift through our thoughts and feelings about being raped, and keep that which makes us stronger, wiser, happier and blow the rest away.

MTU'76

Gary Packwood said...

Insulting Upward

Anonymous 6:02 said...
Yesterday's Rocky Mountain News carried a wonderfully perceptive column on the practice of "insulting upwards," where some obscure commentator makes outrageous claims about a more famous/notorious person(s) in the hopes of garnering attention.

You are correct. Great perceptive column. Thank You.

Now I have a better understanding why my friends who are court administration people are planning quickly for an explosion of CIVIL court cases in the future.

Nifong's hat trick said...

Professor Rud: If I was a parent of any of the group of 88 I would be ashamed!

Some other noted accomplishments of Univeristy Professors across the nation:

March 9, 2007: Michigan State Universty Professor arrested on assault charges

Nov. 28,2006: East Stroudsburg University Professor arrested on felony charge of raping a 19 yr old

Oct 19, 2006: Shippensburg University Professor arrested for molesting boys in 4 states

October 24, 2006: Northern Illinois University Associate Professor charged with soliciting child on internet

September 7, 2006: University of New Hampshire Professor charged with trying to solicit sex online from kids

August, 2006: University of Pennsylvania Professor arrested for molesting boys

August 30, 2006: Wharton School Ivy League Professor arrested after 3rd allegation of sex crime with minors

July 21, 2006: Elizabethtown College Professor: Chairman of the Religious Studies Department: arrested on internet child-sex sting

May 2006: Oklahoma: Langston University Professor arrested for acts of lewdness with another man

February 18, 2006: Brigham Young Unviversity Professor arrested for taping pornographic videos of 14 yr old girls

Feb 23, 2006: Colorado State University Professor arrested for sexual assault

January 20, 2006: University of Maryland sociolgy Professor arrested for running a prostitution ring from her home

And that’s just in the past year...

One might contend that a "culture of violence and privilege" exists at Universities across the nation where well paid priveleged Professors are behaving badly (...like organized crime).

Anonymous said...

KC:

Sorry to be a pest...

It is 12:01 and there isn't a new post...

Did you forget to reset the time on your computer? You will need to do that manually, as most computers won't automatically set to the new DST...

KC Johnson said...

On the Veres--no sarcasm in my praise. He fairly reported both sides, which is his job.

The G88 look ludicrous in his article, but that's not his fault.

Sorry for slight delay in posting this evening.

becket03 said...

I found it interesting that on Rud's blog immediately after a poster said something about "casting stones" and "what goes around comes around," Rud suggested he'd been threatened.

These folks live for threats! Threats allow them to demonize and degrade their enemies and perch themselves upon the moral high ground. All other argument can be dismissed because somebody somewhere uttered what they contend was a threat.

Holloway, Baker, Neal, Bomani Jones, Nifong, Sanday, Marcotte, Gail Dines, and now Rud, have pounced with a gleeful "Aha!" on "threats." It's the rhetorical technique de jour for these bozos, a way to avoid a substantive response to the meat of the argument made against them.

beckett

Anonymous said...

Clarancedarrow - Retired two years ago. Fity years as an Rn - 45 in emergency and 5 in felony jail. Of the thousands of nurses I know, not one has ever cried rape. Of the women treated in the ED who were raped, they knew every detail of their rapist. I agree, this false claim has done incredible damage to rape claims.

James Howard said...

It seems that Professor Rud has drawn up the drawbridge and stopped further comments appearing on his blog.

Ah well, it's his right of course.

It would have been nice to see that he'd learned something from the experience (ie to research a subject before pontificating on it) but it looks as if he's gone down the "they're all out to get me, it must be a right-wing conspiracy" route.

Good luck to him on that one.

Still it'll give him victim-status in the staff room. That's got to be good for at least three coffees and a chocolate biscuit.

I'm off to find the tinfoil now (this paranoia is catching!), keep up the good work KC

Anonymous said...

I just posted on his blog -4:30 AM

James Howard said...

Thanks Anon (4:25am) it seems I unfairly maligned Prof. Rud

I had written a reasonably lengthy post and was just a touch disappointed when it disappeared into the ether and the comments facility vanished. It must have been a temporary fault with the Prof's hosting site.

I'll pick my teddy back up in due course and go and bother him some more.

I'd be particularly interested to see what he thinks the appropriate punishment for faculty staff should be when they drag their institution into disrepute.

After all, he seems to agree with a comment on his blog that student-athletes should be held to a very high standard as they should realise that they represent their University.

If the appropriate penalty for getting drunk and hiring a stripper for a student-athlete is:

to have your Faculty Professors call for your removal; to have wanted posters distributed on campus bearing your personal details and pic; have race-hate groups invited onto campus to make death threats against you; have your grades unfairly marked; and to have faculty members libel and slander your good character in the national and local media on the flimsiest of evidence..

Then what should the punishment be for Faculty (who, lets face it, are PAID as representatives of the Uni) when they do all of the above?

As I said in an earlier reply on Prof Rud's blog, academics like him should be careful about throwing stones. Some of them might just rebound.

Richard Aubrey said...

Supposin' for supposin's sake:

A student in Prof. Rud's class says, "It didn't happen. Here are the facts, Prof."

Or, "Where's the research?"

Pass? Fail? Referred to the authorities for creating a hostile environment?

Georgia Girl said...

Some final thoughts:
I revealed my own experience with rape after reading Rud's phrase "bonding in organized crime". (His comments were in general and not necessarily targeted at Duke team).
I attempted to explain how this "bonding" can be dangerous for naive young women unaware of what young men are capable of doing in a group situation. As individuals, they do not gang rape women.

My experience is not imaginary and the accusations are not contrived. The ploys the rapist used to lure me into a sexual encounter did not work. Drugging me was easier.
And despite what some naysayers have said, date-rape-drugs were in existence in 1962 and earlier. That’s a fact.

No, I did not report it. I didn't even confront the rapist. I shoved it far back in my mind, eventually suppressing the memories (with only flashbacks) for years and years ... until July of 2005. So you see, although it happened 45 years ago, my psyche thinks it happened only 2 years ago.

To the Nurse employed 40 years at a hospital:
So true! A real victim can recall every detail. My memories of the events surrounding the rape (people, places, expressions, conversations, along with the few "minutes" of lucid moments during the actual rape) are razor sharp. Think of the enormous amount of energy it would take to lie about these details! The truth needs no script.

And of course, that's how the Duke accuser's story fizzled out. She lied over and over again. What a pathetic woman.

The fact that she’s a liar has nothing to do with the possible eruption of violence that can occur when a group of white, male, privileged young men bond together. Remember, I am basing my opinion on first-hand experience!

Anonymous said...

To: Georgia Girl,

Sorry, the issue IS NOT the "climate" of a group of young men. It is a false accusation by a pathetic drug addict, single mother selling her *ss. That is the issue and the only issue here. Don't dissemble.

Anonymous said...

RUD is a DUD.

GF said...

Please forgive this insolent question, as I am merely a humble computer scientist and unused to the strictures and protocols of social science.

But, in discussing the social problems arising from the prolonged association of young men, might it not be better to use as an exemplar a situation where a problem _actually_ arose?

It strikes me that the Duke lacrosse case is not of much use in furthering the understanding of fraternity rape, since... uh, there wasn't any. You are trying to figure out the _causes_ of fraternity rape, right? And how it might be prevented?

Of course, one of the things the Duke lacrosse case _could_ serve as an exemplar for is the social response to gang rape. There was a whole ton of that.

--GF

Anonymous said...

Georgey girl says..The fact that she’s a liar has nothing to do with the possible eruption of violence that can occur when a group of white, male, privileged young men bond together. Remember, I am basing my opinion on first-hand experience!

How can we EVER forget? Thats all you want to talk about. This blog is about a false accusation of rape, and you think its relevant to bring up a case of rape that says NOTHING about what happened here. And I mean NOTHING.

So take your bottle of whine elsewhere. You may have serious personal "issues", but to many here you sound tin-eared and self-centered.

Anonymous said...

Georgia former-girl

There are on average 2 rapes a week here in Durham, most done by black males. Their victims are women of all races.

These rapists are probably not part of any organization - not a college or a sports team, but rather they are criminals, which this town produces in great number. Have you checked into their climate? Or do you care to see what is simmering in their neighborhood?

These are real rapes, not the rantings of the prostitute Crystal Gail Mangum trying to avoid 3 days in detox. She is a criminal on par with the all-to-numerous Durham rapists, and for you to wander off into the realm of group dynamics puts you more on the side of the Group of 88. As such, you should probably post on their website - you would be more comfortable there.

Anonymous said...

the culture of violence;o)

Sabres vs Senators brawl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZT2PIyE5Vg

Flyers Vs. Senators Record Fight Game
Flyers vs Ottawa Fight- Remixed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVaM9rCkqHk

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=hockeyfightsdotcom (227 'clips':-)

Georgia Girl said...

To Anon 2:08 p.m.

In trying to read between the lines, you're trying to tell me that the Group88 lashed out at the "white" boys to achieve a balance ... so to speak?

If that's the case, thanks for setting me straight, and doing so without sarcasm. I feel rather dumb at this point.

Correct me if I'm wrong: it's ALL about racism cleverly labeled as a "violent culture" by Group88?

Anonymous said...

Georgey says..you're trying to tell me that the Group88 lashed out at the "white" boys to achieve a balance ..

Given that theres maybe one case in the last 20 years in the entire country of a gang of white men raping a black girl, I think that would be a fair commentary.. Interesting to note that the "Gang of 88" doesent have much to say about black men raping white or black women in Durham specifically, or elswewhere generally. The target of their wrath is usually stated in the abstract, except as pertains to the Duke 3. Amazing coincidence, isnt it?