Friday, May 18, 2007

Revisions

Yesterday’s post referenced the summary version of the lacrosse case, and the University’s response to it, produced by Duke’s Office of News and Communications.

That essay has now been revised, and no longer contains the sentence (“From his first statement in March 2006, Duke President Richard H. Brodhead repeatedly emphasized both the seriousness of the charges and the need for the players to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise within the legal system”) discussed in yesterday’s post.

As an institution of higher learning, Duke has a commitment to the truth. On the other hand, as a private university, it has an obligation to safeguard its financial well-being, including guarding against the potential of lawsuits down the road.

As the case has progressed—and even more now, given the one-sided resolution—Duke has been torn between these two contradictory pressure points. The revised ONC essay indicates a desire for accuracy by Duke that is worthy of praise—even if, as would be expected of an official publication, it presents the administration’s case in the most favorable light possible.

The essay does make one new revelation: “With input from the athletics department and some of the players themselves, Brodhead suspended the remaining games—not as punishment, but as a necessary action until the legal situation became clearer, based on concerns including the safety of Duke’s players.

With benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that Brodhead had no choice but to cancel the season—the combination of Nifong, the Herald-Sun, the Group of 88, and the potbangers had created such a poisonous atmosphere that the players would have been unsafe.

Yet in their contemporaneous explanations, neither Brodhead nor BOT chairman Bob Steel mentioned safety as a rationale for canceling the season. Here’s what they said at the time:

--Steel: We had to stop those pictures [of the players practicing]. It doesn’t mean that it’s fair, but we had to stop it. It doesn’t necessarily mean I think it was right—it just had to be done.”

--Brodhead: “Sports have their time and place, but when an issue of this gravity is in question, it is not the time to be playing games.”

It’s possible, however, that administration officials referenced the safety issue in internal documents that have not yet been released to the public.

---------

Several DIW and Liestoppers readers attended Jim Coleman’s Wednesday talk at the Duke Delaware Club. I had a few questions about Coleman’s remarks, and so contacted him for clarification.

As he did at the post-dismissal law school panel, Coleman “credited Brodhead, Chancellor Ammons, and Mayor Bell for working together to hold down the rhetoric; if any of them had acted differently, it might have given traction to the racial tensions Nifong tried to exploit. Because all of them asked their constituents to defer to the legal system to seek out the criminal allegations, racial tension never became a factor in the case. That also permitted Cooper and the bar to act as they did.”

At the talk, Coleman commented on the April 5, 2006 dismissal of Mike Pressler and the suspension of Ryan McFadyen. He noted, “I did not say it was wrong to discharge Pressler or to suspend the student, only that I thought it was a mistake to do so without finding out what all of the relevant facts were. Although I did not agree with the timing of Pressler’s dismissal, I also said that did not mean that his ultimate dismissal could not have been justified.”

Common sense guided Coleman’s remarks about the Group of 88: he stated that “all of them should accept responsibility and none should complain if the ad was mis-interpreted or if people criticize them for signing it. That is the price of participating in a public discussion.”

To me, this issue has been one of the strangest aspects of the case. The Group consisted of faculty members who went out of their way to inject themselves into the case at a time of considerable legal and political fluidity (with statement author Wahneema Lubiano later admitting that she gave some signatories only six hours to decide whether to sign, thereby ensuring that the statement would appear before the DNA tests that Mike Nifong had promised would exonerate the innocent came back with no matches). Moreover, the Group acted in a highly public fashion—signing onto an ad, as their statement itself noted, “printed in the most easily seen venue on campus.”

Then, after having taken such an extraordinary step, they have lashed out at those who have criticized them, comparing their critics to McCarthy; publicly suggesting that their critics should “shut up”; and alleging that a “conspiracy” explains the criticism that the statement received.

Such behavior is puzzling coming from figures who claim to be public intellectuals.

Finally, Coleman reiterated to me that he has no knowledge of any discussion between the University and lawyers for the students about Duke’s civil liability. In his remarks, he only said that he was sure it was a matter that both sides were thinking about.

123 comments:

Anonymous said...

Professor Coleman is Superman - a great hero - This man of honor and intregerity should be President of Duke. At the least a statue -

Anonymous said...

What garbage!! Cancelling the season? Are you kidding? If this had been a revenue sport, NFW the season gets cancelled. And safety? What? There is such a thing as security.

Gary Packwood said...

KC Said...
.....It’s possible, however, that administration officials referenced the safety issue in internal documents that have not yet been released to the public.
::
I think we will eventually learn that the instant the authorities in Durham saw the G88 ad, they were required to contact the local Homeland Security people and make the determination if they were dealing with a potential incident...that could impact public safety.

I will always wonder why someone at Duke did not contact Duke Security about the appropriateness of running such an ad which was clearly inflammatory.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

I have to agree with anon 12:28. Had this been a revenue or higher profile sport or a sport played mainly by students of a favored race or sex, there is no way the season would have been cancelled. You think Duke would have suspended their football or basketball seasons under pressure from the KKK?

This is the equivalent to not integrating the ACC or SEC in the late 1960s or early 1970s because of fears of safety for the students. Ike did not give in to racists in Little Rock he sent in Federal Troops. JFK did not give in to racists he Federalized the Alabama Nationa Guard.

Anonymous said...

If the safety of the lacrosse players was a concern of the admin, why didn't they have someone collect the "vigilante" posters from the Duke campus when they found that they had been put up on campus in late march '06?

Anonymous said...

The essay does make one new revelation: “With input from the athletics department and some of the players themselves, Brodhead suspended the remaining games—not as punishment, but as a necessary action until the legal situation became clearer, based on concerns including the safety of Duke’s players.”

This statement needs to be tested. At first glance I am suspicious due to its vagueness.

1) Who in the athletics dept.? Obviously there had been communications or AD Alleva would not have said, "It's not about the truth anymore." What was said by whom and to whom?

2) What was the input of the players? More to the point, what prompted their input?

3) If this was a "necessary action", why was any input from the athletics dept. or players even needed?

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Coleman's trying to be both sides at once!:

"Although I did not agree with the timing of Pressler’s dismissal, I also said that did not mean that his ultimate dismissal could not have been justified.”

Stumbling through Coleman's double negatives means Pressler's firing COULD have been justified? Hell no! Pressler's firing never was! Pressler was innocent and so were his players.

I admire Coleman but he's also starting to irritate me. Look, he's either on the side of Pressler or the side of Brodhead. Trust me, they are NOT the same sides!

Please choose a side, Coleman. Just tell us which one it is.

TaterCon said...

Um, JSL, you're the first person in recent years to use the terms "revenue" and "higher profile sport" in the same paragraph with "Duke ... football".
Many still speculate the Duke professors and Terry Sanford conspired to de-emphasize football in the years after Bill Murray was a successful coach in the '60's.

Some could argue (hey, that's right up there with "Sources say"!) that Duke's faculty and admin have a history of treating its athletic programs with a level between disdain and grudging tolerance, with the basketball program receiving the latter end of the spectrum. This could be a reason why voices of alums as a whole haven't been heard in the lacrosse fiasco -- it hasn't done a dang bit of good to speak up for the state of the football program for years!!

TaterCon
UNC-CH, '76

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

anon 12:19 Professor Coleman is Superman - a great hero - ...

I have to agree more with Carolyn. Coleman is getting a lot of credit for simply not being a racist like many members of the 88 gangsters. A professor is suppose to go after the truth and present it. It speaks volumes about Duke that simply being an honest investigator of the Duke Lacrosse team, supporting the presumption of the US legal system and not being a racist makes people think so highly of him.

It seems people with this view think very little of the Duke faculty or expect someone to be racists just because they are black. I personally don't give someone white or black extra credit for not being a racist. I don't think so lowly of black people that I expect them to be racists.

But I can not fault him for trying to have it both ways. He is still a Duke faculty member. There is no reason we should expect him to pick a fight with his administration unnecessarily.

Anonymous said...

"I admire Coleman but he's also starting to irritate me. Look, he's either on the side of Pressler or the side of Brodhead. Trust me, they are NOT the same sides!"

Indeed. Coleman stands head and shoulders above the rest, but then they are ethical pygmies. His defense of Brodhead irks me greatly. His trimming and lawyerly weaving is not what is needed now. Coleman: quit while you're ahead and desist from apologizing for your discredited employer. It is tarnishing your knightly armour.

Bakerman said...

I feel like the stable-boy saddling all the high horses.

So many, too, I may need help.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

So tatercon if Duke cancelled its football schedule with say 4 games remaining and the UNC at Duke game were cancelled, Duke's athletic revenue would not be negatively impacted? If cancelling those games caused 2 ACC teams that might well have won 6 games to only win 5 and not become bowl eligible, ACC revenue and indirectly Duke revenue would not have been impacted? Of if say an ACC team that might have finished 10-1 and been a BCS at large team only finished 9-1 and the ACC only got one BCS team, the ACC would not have lost millions of dollars? See there are lots of ways Duke football playing out its schedule might impact ACC and Duke revenue.

Anonymous said...

"But I can not fault him for trying to have it both ways. He is still a Duke faculty member. There is no reason we should expect him to pick a fight with his administration unnecessarily".

He's a scholar and academic first. His principal loyalty should therefore be to the truth, not to his institution. (And even less to the current officers of that institutions.) Coleman is one of the few at Duke to come out of this disaster looking good. He did so by speaking out for the truth. No mean feat for a lawyer. He must continue to do so, or withdraw.

Anonymous said...

the DUKE website said it was NO LONGER MAKING POSTS

changing the nurness.broadrot statement a day after it was vetted and published is LIKE DPD reissuing its manifesto or the Group of 88 changing its manifesto

KC you arent tough enough

the reason for the change was simple

like most of the DUKE statement it was aimed at justifying and rationalizing the DUKE broadrot and its feckless chairman and board

the change was an admission they LIED about the initial statements

this incodent didnt just happen...burness/broadrot didnt just alledegly write this scenario overnight in an allnight session, it took time to write this and vet the final product

they didnt make a mistake they COULDNT PROVE their assertion

all along broadrot was showing his true colors and the changes are an example of the undermindness he had in his mind

BROADROTS actions speak so LOUD THAT WORDS ARE UNNECESSARY

Mr. said...

cOLEMAN CANT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN TOLD ANYTHING ABOUT LEGAL DISCUSSIONS as he had no need to know

if he admitted he would have been called to testify TRUTHFULLY to what he KNEW then and NOW

the issue remains the same: ACCOUNTABILITY

broadrot is incompetent and hired burness the mean spirited and anti athletic eastern liberal...as long as he is dukes VOICE, the school hasnt learned anything about treating it students fairly

may he and broadrot enjoy being tested in cross examination

Cedarford said...

I DO imagine, as Coleman said, that both sides are thinking of litigation.
The main thrust of the litigation, besides a possible Pressler suit, may be directed at DUMC, SANE Supervisor Arico, and Levicy as agent of DUMC for negligence and damages.

I worry that President Brodhead and the Board of Trustees, that DUMC reports to, were blindsided by what DUMC did to enable the hoax and DUMC's failure to correct the record.

Gary said...

I don't "blame" anyone for their initial reactions. I didn't really follow the case at first but my initial reaction was "it's plausible that in a frat-like party, they probably went too far, committed a rape and will end up paying for it the rest of their lives". But after the DNA came back, I thought "well, good, that's over". See, people think DNA == semen, but instead it == hair, skin anything else that would certainly be found in a rough group rape. No DNA pretty much meant NO rape.

So I didn't blame the group of 88, probably acting on the initial emotions.

What I blame is that they didn't and haven't offered any mea culpas. I'd fully accept and forget a: "sorry, in hindsight I over reacted". Instead they continue to compound it and a few wrote op-eds way late in the game that can be quickly summarized as "I'm Prof. 'X' and here's proof I'm a jerk."

Pressler's firing was a complete over-reaction. He could have been suspended pending an inquiry such as the Coleman report. He should in fact either be re-instated or receive a settlement that makes sense in light of the status and hard built team he lost unfairly.

As for the 3 accused students, I know it's part of the Prez's job to cover Duke's behind, but I think Duke could do a private negotiated settlement along the lines of paying all legal fees and perhaps refunding all tuition and then coming out with a public apology saying the same thing: "We as an institution over-reacted and will learn from it" They can then in fact learn from it by insisting that the Durham police do not have a two tier citizenship for students and townies and pressing for a full independent review of the police department.

The Prez could also state clearly, citing statistics that in fact "some people mis-characterized Duke as having a sexist/racist culture, but the statistics do not bear this up". That kind of settlement/apology would restore a sense of honor to Duke and the Prez.

Anonymous said...

your logic is why the USA is reviled

tolerance of everything means disrespect for everything

this isnt a case to be buried under the rug

its a case that crys out for justice and accountability

duke is part of the new liberalism of cowards ...

id be happy to play against someone like you who has no backbone or analytical skills as your analysis so details...

Anonymous said...

Not to veer too far off topic, but I think President Knight ('63-'69) was responsible for the planned decline of the Duke football program, not Terry Sanford ('69-'85).

Just my opinion, but that's the story I've always heard.

D84

Anonymous said...

Shakespeare could not have written a more incredible farce. .

A lying black prostitute/stripper/ex-felon about to be committed for being completely blasted out of her mind on drugs and alcohol drops a stone in the water, “I was raped” yet again! The ripples that resulted were mind boggling. All along the way there are actors of varying degrees of culpability. Duke is bumped from national championship in lacrosse. A gutless university president ends the season prematurely. He fires the coach.

Forty-six players are forced to “volunteer” their DNA. The university advises them not to call their parents. A player is suspended for sending a series of email which are a spoof on American Psycho, after a moronic judge releases the email to the public. The other black stripper initiates an exchnage of racial epithets for which LAX players are blamed repeatedly in the press. The other stripper contacts a PR firm to determine how best spin the events in a way that is most favorable to her. A professor gives a failing grade to a student for merely playing on the lacrosse team.

A cop, biased against Duke students, rigs a line-up. A taxi driver, whose only part is being the alibi of one player, is prosecuted by a rogue DA after he was arrested by a complicit police department. Two extortionist black clowns jump on the case like two flies which just got a whiff of the dung heap. The NAACP send their brown shirts to town. The New Black Panthers show up with physical threats against the innocent accused.

The politically appointed DA, who promised not to run for election and who is 18 points behind in the polls, decides to indict three clearly innocent students. He hides exculpatory evidence from the grand jury in order to get the indictgment. He excoriates the accused in dozens of press conferences. When the case starts to go south, he conspires with the head of the DNA lab to withhold the exculpatory evidence of at least four sets of extrinsic male DNA from various orifices and panties of the accuser, who had said that she had not had sex within the week immediately prior to the non-rape.

The DA is elected by winning over 90 percent of the black vote after promising that the case was not going away. The election occurs at a time when it should have been obvious to any intelligent voter that the accused were innocent.

The DA’s crony head judge ignores the law and refuses to act on a petition to have the DA removed from office.

The incidence of white on black rape in America being infinitesimal, 88 subjects of professorial affirmative action, whose disciplines are imposed on the university and students by the aforementioned extortionist clowns, suddenly see an opportunity to further their curricula of hateful lies and deceit. Nancy Grace, the NYT and the other flies of the MSM smell the same dung heap as Jesse and Al, and swoop in to partake of the fecal feast.

After months, the AG pronounces the innocence of the accused and he exposes the depth of the travesty that had been perpetuated by the rogue DA and his enablers. However, now no one was wrong. Not the police, not the press, not the pseudo professors, not the president of the university, not the extortionist black clowns, NO ONE, except the rogue DA, and even he is resisting his just punishment.

Fortunately, the story does have some heroes – the three accused, their defense lawyers, the ubiquitous Blogs. It may yet have a happy ending. The exoneration of the accused was a good beginning. What is still lacking is disbarment of the main perp, assumption of culpability by the myriad of other villains, and about 30 million in damages to the aggrieved three.

If Shakespeare had produced such a farce, he would have been forcefully expelled from the Globe. After all, an audience can only be expected to believe so much.

Mike in Nevada

Anonymous said...

“...Brodhead suspended the remaining games—not as punishment, but as a necessary action until the legal situation became clearer, based on concerns including the safety of Duke’s players.”

If Duke was concerned about the safety of the players, then where was their public condemnation of the threat to student safety and, more importantly, the call for investigation of the source of those threats.

At least in the case of the mysterious threatening emails to the group of 88 professors, Duke representatives did express moral outrage and call for an investiagtion. Given their inability to find these "theats", why not cancel the contracts of the Group of 88 in concern for their safety?

If there were a threat to the lacrosse team's safety, Duke's acts of moral cowardness represented capitulation to the vulgar power of bigotry against "privileged white boys" in this case.

mac said...

Mike in Nevada,

Brilliant summary!

Sounds like Stephen (Acts)
just before he was stoned.
(No connection there, with
regard to the result of Stephen's
excellent layout, except for the
textual/contextual reference.)

Good work!

Anonymous said...

Why was it important to the G88 to sign before the DNA evidence was released?

miramar said...

Duke concerned about the players' safety? When has Duke shown any interest whatsoever in their well being? But no problem, they can just revise the post again...

Kilgore said...

I have admired Colemen throughout this incident but lately he seems to have been drinking the brodhead koolaid. Maybe they have offered him a position? His willingness to reframe the administration's actions seems suspect.

anon 1:17 said: Coleman: quit while you're ahead and desist from apologizing for your discredited employer. It is tarnishing your knightly armour.

Well said!

The talk about "safety of the lacrosse players" is nauseatingly self-serving and clearly spin control. These people had no concern about the safety of these players. Their concerns were in appearing to hold up the PC banner. Wonderland just keeps getting more and more bizarre.

Michael said...

In checking the Minnesota Gophers "rape" case, I can find no news articles since April. The story seems to have completely died.

The University of Minnesota did not cancel the season and they did not fire the coach.

At this point, three young men have had their reputations sullied and spent a weekend in jail. I do not know whether they are still suspended or not.

I agree with one of the other posters and ask why can't Duke do the right thing? Liability in this case is a smidgen compared to their endowment. Do they really want to be seen down through history as jerks? Does Brodhead have Cooper-envy?

Anonymous said...

Mike in Nevada: Speaking of putting it all in a nutshell - great post and so absolutely correct. The stench of hypocracy is all over this case. There is no spin of Duke that cannot be challenged by their inaction towards the wrongs committed by those in the institution.They can edit, rewrite and edit some more, but the facts are still there.

Michael said...

re: 7:00 AM

If they were concerned with the players' safety, they would have moved them to different housing provided by the University. That's what other schools have done in the wake of false accusations.

Anonymous said...

KC - would you please explain something.

In your column, you note that the Duke statement was revised to delete the passage:

“From his first statement in March 2006, Duke President Richard H. Brodhead repeatedly emphasized both the seriousness of the charges and the need for the players to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise within the legal system”.

You then imply that this revision was based on a concern by Duke for its civil litigation liability.

Is the concern among Duke's legal advisors that:

(a) the statement can be proven untrue, or

(b) the statement is true, but is sufficiently questionable as to be subject to attack.

It would be interesting to know if someone within Duke's legal advisory group directed that the revision take place because Duke (including perhaps the Board of Trustees) knows that the statement is untrue.

P. Rich said...

No heroes have arisen in this case. Perhaps we too easily forget what heroes really are. They are people who, in a completely selfless manner, voluntarily risk all for a greater good. Sorry, but I don't see any candidates here for the Congressional Medal of Honor, or even a Scout merit badge.

rrhamilton said...

Gary said...
I don't "blame" anyone for their initial reactions. I didn't really follow the case at first but my initial reaction was "it's plausible that in a frat-like party, they probably went too far, committed a rape and will end up paying for it the rest of their lives".


My initial reaction was this: A bunch of rich white guys raped a black stripper while dozens of other rich white guys looked on -- When has THAT ever happened in human history?? It didn't happen.

I hope you don't "blame" me for my initial reaction. Knowing historical facts can innoculate you against the lies of the metanarrative that makes you think that such stories ... well, MIGHT be true?

Anonymous said...

"Such behavior is puzzling coming from figures who claim to be public intellectuals."

Ding, ding, ding!! These people are NOT intellectuals. I am more and more convinced that university liberal arts departments are filled with people who are unskilled at anything but pontificating.

wayne fontes said...

Duke's actions didn't reflect any concern for the safety of the player's.

Duke made no effort to find housing for the players. Compare that to the incident at 405 Gattis this spring. Even though there were mobs in front of the house, the national race baiters had desended on Durham and the campus was strewn with wanted posters nothing was done. The administration found housing for the students in the much lower profile 405 Gattis incident.

There was no attempt to stop the distribution of, take down the posted copies or find out who made the wanted poster. This poster only contributed to the danger for the Lax players.

No attempt was made to counter the outrageous public comments of members of the faculty. The administrations silence served as an endorsement of the statements of Tim Tyson and others.

Serena Sebring wasn't called on to the carpet and asked to explain where she had obtained "clear evidence some sort of sexual assault happened". Maybe Brodhead was just afraid they would tinfoil his office again.

After the first two statements by Brodhead Duke's actions and statements either made the lax team look guilty or increased the pressure on them. They can publicly claim they were concerned for the safety of the Lax players but their actions speak much louder.

scott said...

Does an organization that is concerned with the "safety" of the players provide advice that the players should not even tell their parents they are involved in a law enforcement situation, let alone seek professional legal advice?

How often has it happened that a lawyer (like Dean Sue) has recommended to someone that is in a legal jam not to consult a lawyer? The only people I know who take this position are DAs and cops that are trying to fast track a guilty plea.

Anonymous said...

KC wrote: With benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that Brodhead had no choice but to cancel the season—the combination of Nifong, the Herald-Sun, the Group of 88, and the potbangers had created such a poisonous atmosphere that the players would have been unsafe.

Shouldn't this read "the combination of Duke, Nifong," etc.

When the mob first took to the streets the evening of March 24 and morning of March 25, Duke immediately caved to the pressure and canceled games, which certainly fed the public perception that something terrible had happened.

Can anyone seriously argue there was a safety issue at that early point? If Duke had shown some spine at that point, would things have reached a point where the black hate groups were on campus?

The safety issue is an after-the-fact rationalization. More lies from Duke.

Jamie said...

Coleman "credited Brodhead, Chancellor Ammons, and Mayor Bell for working together to hold down the rhetoric..."

Brodhead held down the rhetoric ?!! Outrageous. False. Insulting. In fact, laughable.

At the worst possible moment Brodhead piled on. His rhetoric is a matter of public record, and neither Brodhead nor Coleman, no matter how they wish, can make it otherwise.

Jonathon said...

Coleman has demonstrated his objectivity and integrity from the inception of his public statements. It isn't necessary to agree with everything he says to respect both the man and his views.

Anonymous said...

KC -- in your post, you say the Group of 88 'publicly suggest[ed] that their critics should "shut up"' and you linked that clause to this post. However, I cannot find in that post any place where the Group used those words. Am I missing something?

rrhamilton said...

Anonymous said...
KC -- in your post, you say the Group of 88 'publicly suggest[ed] that their critics should "shut up"' and you linked that clause to this post. However, I cannot find in that post any place where the Group used those words. Am I missing something?

Are you under the misapprehension that when the 88 of Hate said "Shut Up and Teach!" that they meant themselves? They meant KC and Bill Anderson and others like him.

Also, I vote for Mike in Nevada @ 4:53AM for "Post of the Month". Great comment by Scott @ 8:52, too.

Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson,

Thank you for giving Professor Coleman the opportunity yo respond to my "straight from memory" post on his talk in Delaware. As usual his comments are measured. I do not think he has trimmed in any way, but has followed the facts as he knows them and reached his own conclusions. He may not agree with everyone on this board, but I give him the benefit of the doubt that his positions are reasoned, which separates him from the 88, the BOT, and Brodhead.

Buddy

Anonymous said...

Coleman "credited Brodhead, Chancellor Ammons, and Mayor Bell for working together to hold down the rhetoric..."

…for what? This?

From the N&O, March28:
“Durham Mayor Bill Bell, who spoke with Brodhead by phone Sunday, said in a telephone interview Monday that he realizes that officials are dealing with allegations and that police have not completed their investigation. Still, he said, "I'm concerned about the code of silence that continues to prevail."
While lauding athletics officials for forfeiting two lacrosse games, Bell urged them to go further. "I think it would send a strong message to the community if they canceled the whole season."

Chicago said...

I do not know about others, but personally, while the ad bothered me, what has bothered me much more than anything are the outlandish comments by numerous members of the G88 after the fact. I am in no way saying all of them are guilty of what a few have stated after the ad, but no one (except one signer) has said they are sorry and regret it.

Additionally, the comments after the ad and after the resolution of the criminal case (as well as while the criminal case was falling apart) by the likes of Holloway, Lubiano, Farred and several others have been completely inappropriate and worthy of severe disciplinary action. Just think if you said some of the stuff they said at a public event at your place of work, no matter what your line of work is, you would be fired.

miramar said...

KC, I suspect the reason Duke changed the wording is that someone there reads your posts and realized that you were blasting them for some blatant irregularities regarding Brodhead's comments. I think that means that you have become a thuggahistorianintellectual and that people at Duke are actually scared about what you are saying about them, particularly when it has to do with the university president.

And while we are on the topic of what people at Duke said and didn't say, let's recall Nifong's statement to WRAL on 29 March 2006: "My reading of the report of the emergency-room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place."

Why didn't someone at Duke Medical Center prepare a short press release the next day indicating that 1) the report had not been released yet, and 2) the report would be prepared by the attending physician, not the nurse? Some simple factual comments by the Medical Center at the appropriate time would have revealed very early on that Nifong was basically inventing his own evidence. After all, Duke Medical Center has an interest in providing accurate scientific information, and they cannot allow either the DA or the attorneys to go around putting words in their mouth. But that's precisely what they did, with disastrous results because their silence allowed Nifong to claim falsely that he had medical evidence to support his assertion that a rape had occurred.

Anonymous said...

Double agent Coleman injects himself once again . Hero ? Just doing his job .

Anonymous said...

More from Bell:

“Well, let me say this. I have met with the president of Duke University and its administrators, as have other African- Americans in this community, leading African-Americans in this community. And we are satisfied that things happen -- probably things could been done a lot better.

But the important point is that we want to get to the bottom line of this, and we're convinced that it's going to happen. We've been given a commitment on the part of the president that if persons allegedly are involved, actually proven to be true, they're going to be dealt with in a very positive and affirmative way. So, you can always look back in hindsight and say that you could have done something better. But we are where we are and we're trying to move forward with this.”

And this…

“Durham Mayor William Bell, who is African American, is concerned that the defense wants a change of venue. “I don’t have any question a fair trial can be held in Durham,” he said. The mayor is standing behind the police department’s investigation, which resulted in the charges and grand jury indictments.”

Gary Packwood said...

Mike in Nevada 4:53 said...

...Shakespeare could not have written a more incredible farce.
::
It might be helpful to actually read about what was going on at the same time as the party.

The following is copied directly from the Women's Center Summer 2006 newsletter.

You would think that someone would have picked up on the humor and irony of Duke Students having a ‘Secs & Execs’ party.
::
This past year, my roommate Sarah Gordon and I began to collect campus party advertisements featuring portrayals of women. As the collection grew, weekend

by weekend, we were struck by its outlandish misogyny. The images consistently depict women as subordinate objects of gender interactions. Themes of sexual infantilization (“St. Maxwell’s School for Girls”) and sexual exploitation (“pimps and hos” and “secs & execs”) are common. The social element is entirely absent from the messages of the “snowjob” and “pussy galore” parties. These images are not the monopoly of male groups, with some sororities and co-ed living groups participating.



Our pet “wall of shame,” we realized, could be made into a forum for public discourse. Encouraged by the occasional poster slipped anonymously under my door, I sought out support for the initiative. In conjunction with Kate Guthrie of the Panhellenic Council, we envisaged a display series that would highlight the subliminal and inexcusably unequal gender relations at Duke by letting the collection “speak for itself.” Free response space enabled written public dialogue. The displays were presented from April 21 through May 5, during which parties are sporadic as students settle down to their exam preparations. April 21 also marked alumni weekend at Duke. These former students proved invaluable to the project, as did the support of the National Pan Hellenic Council, Inter Greek Council, Women’s Center, and most importantly, Inter Fraternity Council.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

1:14, I both agree and disagree with you. You say:

"It seems people with this view think very little of the Duke faculty or expect someone to be racists just because they are black. I personally don't give someone white or black extra credit for not being a racist. I don't think so lowly of black people that I expect them to be racists."

I do not think that people, white or black, deserve extra credit for not being racist. I do think, however, that in an environment where there is great social pressure to be racist, those who resist that social pressure do deserve to be recognized and applauded for it. If some "think very little of the Duke faculty", aren't there months where nothing was heard from Duke faculty except premature condemnation to explain why? I too think Coleman is being far too charitable to Brodhead, but I think we still need to remember that he spoke up for justice and truth at a time when his colleagues were speaking up for racial stereotyping and vigilante terrorism.

Anonymous said...

KC wrote: With benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that Brodhead had no choice but to cancel the season ...

Brodhead suspended the season on March 28, pending the "legal outcome". With benefit of hindsight, that effectively cancelled the season.

On April 5, in one of several purely punitive moves, Brodhead formally "cancelled the season". This was a symbolic punishment to appease his faculty and others such as Mayor Bell who had been calling for that. Brodhead most definitely had a choice in this, and he chose badly. Instead of waiting, he rushed to judgment.

TaterCon said...

To 1:20 AM -- hey, there was some tongue-in-cheek levity to my comment that Duke football was a non-revenue sport. Arises from seeing all those empty seats and bleachers at Wallace Wade Stadium, even when rivals like my alma mater's Tar Heels come to town.

Sorry you took that part of my comment so seriously. I don't disagree that there would be all kinds of confusion all over the ACC if Duke or any other school were to pull the plug on the last four or more games of its football schedule. Heck, it's hard enough to get one game rescheduled after a hurricane comes through.

duke09parent said...

Gary at 2:00 I agree with almost all you said. The problem I have with Duke paying the legal fees is two fold: Primarily it would let Durham off the hook for them, which is where the primary liability for Nifong lays. Secondly, Duke's actions really didn't cause the prosecutions. I know many people believe various Duke actors enabled it, but I am not one of them. Lots of crappy behavior, I agree, but I have never bought into the idea that anything Duke would have done differently would have altered the prosecution or its outcome for the better.

For all the purists who now want to discard Coleman because he doesn't agree with everything you believe in on this case, take a long walk off a short pier.

Anonymous said...

rrhamilton at 9:07--
Well, you might be right that the "Shut Up and Teach" sponsors were eager for their critics to shut up and teach, but of course their use of that title was expressly explained as their characterization of what people were saying to them, not what they would say to others.

Anonymous said...

At Duke, common sense is very uncommon.

mac said...

Pretty obvious: Coleman's
gonna be the new Pres.
He's got to show that he
can nuance his way through
a BoT seance.

Perhaps his role - considering
how nothing (publicly) emanates
from most of the meetings but
vapors and whispers - will to
be the NSIT (New Svengali In Town.)

Or perhaps, to function as
a Medium to help interpret
UBUNTU's dance, and to be the
linguistic interpreter for
Grant Farred et al to some of
the Old White Guys on the BoT,
who couldn't possibly understand
Farred's peculiar genius for
narcissistic musings - (truly
understood only by the Master of
merde himself, Mr. Farred, sort of
like a dog whistle that only one
dog can hear.)

President Coleman will attempt to
span the gap between the Board
and the 88-alikes.

Frankly, I don't think that's why
he would be chosen: he was someone
who was right, had enough sense to
throw cold water on some hot dogs,
and who has demonstrated an adroit
touch.

In other words, what you are
reading (from his words)- is an
audition. IMO.

Gary said...

duke09parent said...

Gary at 2:00 I agree with almost all you said. The problem I have with Duke paying the legal fees is two fold: Primarily it would let Durham off the hook for them,


I didn't mean to imply that the LAX 3 should let the city off. Right now you see the city manager and police chief denying anything went wrong when clearly people like Sgt. Gotlieb should be fired first and perhaps charged second with fabricating evidence.

Given the denial, someone with legal standing should make a push for a criminal investigation and that falls first to those directly harmed aka the LAX 3, Duke second.

Civil suit might also be good to at very least get a back room deal with the city that involves cleaning the department, getting in a competent management and establishing equal treatment rules.

Anonymous said...

RRHamilton --

"Are you under the misapprehension that when the 88 of Hate said "Shut Up and Teach!" that they meant themselves? They meant KC and Bill Anderson and others like him."

I was not aware at that time of the Group of 88's lecture/forum called "Shut Up and Teach?: Faculty and Public Issues". There was no mention of it in the post that KC linked to, which presented a mystery of why KC linked to that post, as it was not a post that supported his assertion of the Group of 88 "publicly suggesting that their critics should 'shut up'".

One of the reasons KC's work here is so widely respected is that it is so strongly referenced; when Brodhead claims now that he always called for the presumption of innocence, KC tells us all the places Brodhead should have made such calls but did not. It's therefore unusual to see a post where KC attributes a quote to the Group and provides a link but the link provided does not directly support the attribution of the quote.

Anonymous said...

The safety argument Duke now advances is disingenuous, at best, and total revisionist history. It was not the players safety they were conerned about, now OR then. Duke was assuring the public that it would provide for the safety of OTHERS from the lacrosse players. Duke administrators, Nifong, DPD were saturating the airwaves with untrue anecdotes about how horrible these kids were, grossly exaggerating the records. Administrators were stating (at least to alums) that they had to take steps to assure prospective students and parents of female students that they would protect them from the out of control lacrosse team. Turns out it was the lacrosse team that needed protection, but that was never the concern. Like everything else Duke did at the time, it was a PR stunt.

So . . . the safety argument is being turned on its head because there never was a safety concern as Duke originally thought it to be. It is however an easy argument to trot out to make it look like there was a rational basis to the decision. Kind of like the Baker/Chalmers Report, it is unclear why they bother since it is so easily discredited.

Gary said...

What is Black and White and Orange all over?

Even in a society that is NOT color blind, Blacks and Whites are the SAME color.

Somewhat off topic, but since I work technically with imaging, computer vision and have a deep appreciation (and alas shallow talent) for art:

If you want to draw a human in a scene, whether black or white, you use a lot of orange color. Flesh color is primarily orange and flesh is the color of whites and blacks.

The proof of this is that one may convert a picture of a black or a white person to an HSV color space, that's H=hue (what people mean by "color") S=Saturation (how much color e.g. "pink" is just diluted red) and V=Value (intensity or brightness). You can then set the S value (Saturation) to some fixed number AND Wham! blacks and whites have indistinguishable color.

We are all the same color, we vary in saturation (how much color). "Whites" can see this clearly if they tan. We're all Flesh color, some of us are born with more of it (darker shades of orange) or less of it. Albinos are different -- they are red colored, low saturation.

Just thought I'd clear up the old racial divide -- we're one in color and spread in saturation. That is how our future robot overlords will view us all, get used to it. :-)

Anonymous said...

Is this what you are looking for in the link?

From the Locomotive Breath posting at Feb 13 2007, 01:55 AM in the "3. CP" paragragh"

"Concludes with "K.C. - shut up and go back to teaching"."

Anonymous said...

misogyny: n, anything said by any man that some woman, somewhere, does not like.

Nifong's hat trick said...

"Because all of them asked their constituents to defer to the legal system to seek out the criminal allegations, racial tension never became a factor in the case."

Racial tension was always a factor in the case. Racial tension was the bomb that Nifong and ilks were trying to diffuse when they decided to prosecute this case.


From The Chronicle: 04-03-06

"...residents of houses along N. Buchanan...threats of gang related violence targeted at Duke students."

"...harassment directed at men's lacrosse coach Mike Pressler and member's of the men's lacrosse team."

Two students were "...surrounded and verbally harassed at Cook Out restaurant on Hillsborough Road...resulting in a physical assault." One student was "...briefly knocked unconscious."

"We don't want Duke kids here at Cook Out because they're going to rape our women." The Duke student was "...punched in the head."

Students complained that while on their porches along Buchanan, passengers in cars driving by frequently made threats, "...we had been sitting on our porch hanging out and at least 3 cars went by flicking us off saying "you'll see." Passengers pointed fingers in the shape of a gun at residents.

Anonymous said...

the nasty homosexual lobby uses SAFETY to justify the debasement of morals...when its the exact opposite

who is GUILDING DUKE in there PR ?

what are their leanings ?

what organizations do they belong to ?

the defenses put forth are the same ones that unethical and morally remiss use to justify whatever they want to, INCLUDING being accessories to civil and criminal procedings

telling students to refuse to contact parents and lawyers is a denial of due process JUST like planned parenthood telling minors to refuse to give their ages or notify their parents so "statutory rape" cant be brought afainst the impregnator

thats what DUKE did to these players...abused their rights BEFORE the MOB of overactive professors, agressive NO AMERICAN student mob leaders, black and negro rascists supported by the PANTHERS and other non duke organization...

and of course we have the GARY the pacificist...who woukd long ago refused to serve and negotioted a settlement that sold out the players

may he have a child that gets the same treatment he wants for the duke 3 players..what a father of a coward hed make

gak said...

Mike in Nevada worte
The other stripper contacts a PR firm to determine how best spin the events in a way that is most favorable to her.


Which stripper contacted a PR firm? Is this truly fact or just speculation?

GAK

Anonymous said...

This part of the posting from Duke’s Office of News and Communications, I find very interesting:

"As doubts grew about the charges, criticism shifted to Nifong and his team, as well as to some administrators, students, community members and others – including a group of faculty members who published an ad in The Chronicle – who were accused of prejudging the players or of using the case to promote their own agendas."

By lumping the gang of 88 together with Nifong in this statement, I read this as a rebuke of the 88's actions. It certainly gives the impression that their actions are a significant part of the story and at best they were part of the problems Duke had to contend with - not part of a solution.

To me, it is less than the 88 deserve, but I will still take it a small checkmark in the win column.

Anonymous said...

"Which stripper contacted a PR firm? Is this truly fact or just speculation?"

Here is the news report:

http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/0421/duke_rape_ap.html

Anonymous said...

Something appears to have gone wrong with 1:48's copy-paste; here's the complete link:

http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/0421/duke_rape_ap.html

(Curious; the preview shows it malformed on my screen as well. If you make sure the last part of the URL reads "duke_rape_ap.html", it should take you to the correct article.)

And here's part of the relevant section of the article:

Also Thursday, 5W Public Relations, a New York firm that specializes in "crisis communication," distributed an e-mail signed "The 2nd Dancer," and Roberts confirmed she sent it after learning the AP knew her identity.

"I've found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country," she wrote. "I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage."

Anonymous said...

Plan on revisions occurring from all the Hoax Enablers until they have revised themselves into their respective corners and have no way out. Many are already there. None of these entities are facing civil or criminal proceedings yet, virtually everything they have said and done is extremely well documented, and yet they all seem to have trouble with being misunderstood and getting their stories straight. The best thing they have going for them is USAG Gonzales as a role model.

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

Off topic but anyway:

Wonder if waterhead GDet Gotlieb is a candidate?
http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/1426559/

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

I seriously question whether Brodhead or anyone in his administration was concerned about the safety of the players.

I know for a cold hard fact that a player called a member of Brodhead's administration for help because potbangers were gathered outside the house. This was not the 610 Buchanan house. The players were very nervous and wanted the administration's help. This member of Brodhead's administration told the players that they were on their own and there was nothing that the administration could do for them. The players wound up sneaking out the back way.

That doesn't sound like concern to me.

huesofblue said...

The Coleman bashing in these comments is uncalled for. Coleman's job is to be a professor at the law school - which means teaching students and contributing to legal scholarship. He had no obligation to aprise himself of the facts of Nifong's misconduct, and had no obligation to put his own reputation on the line or attach his own name to what was originally a decidedly unpopular cause (i.e. standing up for the due process rights of the accused).

There's no question in my mind that he's a hero of this case.

huesofblue said...

The Coleman bashing in these comments is uncalled for. Coleman's job is to be a professor at the law school - which means teaching students and contributing to legal scholarship. He had no obligation to aprise himself of the facts of Nifong's misconduct, and had no obligation to put his own reputation on the line or attach his own name to what was originally a decidedly unpopular cause (i.e. standing up for the due process rights of the accused).

There's no question in my mind that he's a hero of this case.

Jack said...

Maybe it’s me; maybe I’m the only one who doesn’t get it. After all, people are posting here day and night, analyzing, referencing, dissecting words and events that have transpired over the past year. And for what? Because some private entity, Duke University, didn’t handle the PR properly? Because this private institution, which has manufactured an image of exclusivity, of elitism, which has sought and cultivated a student body that, for the most part, conforms to the stereo-type they wish to down play, is now catching hell from those who resent it. This private entity now finds its hand being bitten by those it has fed and nurtured over the years, the radical leftists in it’s midst, angry African Americans on it’s faculty that now, suddenly, reveal themselves to have total disdain for their own students. Duke didn’t presume innocence strongly enough; Duke punished a sports team for acts never committed; Duke allowed a DA to steam-roll the media and a community into believing it’s players had committed a terrible act; Duke did this; Duke didn’t do that. So what? For virtually every poster in this board, the actions of Duke University, its administration, faculty and athletes have zero impact on your lives. So don't send your kids there; it is not the only choice. By the way, are there really... really any more than four or five people that actually post here, just under a variety of guises?

If you want to rant about the injustice of the DA, the corruption of the Durham Police Department, well, ok. Those are societal issues that can and will impact the rights and lives of citizens everywhere. But Duke? The nasty faculty (the Gang of 88), the complicit faculty (the rest minus the 88); the flaccid student body (with only 1,000 signatures out of 6,000 students; not counting the Class of 2006, hardly a robust show of support) and the spineless administration? It’s not my problem, really, or gary packwood’s, or mac’s, or Dave Dixon’s from Chicago. KC Johnson’s only dog in this fight is his book, and how it serves his academic pursuits. It’s their school, it's their little club, and it’s their money, the families from New Canaan, Summit, Bedford Hills and Garden City, but certainly not of the posters here. It’s the alumni, jarred from the smug comfort of their near-Ivy status, who now must endure a bit of tarnish.

Actually, this is sort of like a celebrity f#*k up, a nasty Hollywood divorce, a high profile sex scandal – it has nothing to do with the real world, but it sure is a pisser watching.

Anonymous said...

6:23pm:

It's you.

No justice, no peace said...

McCarthy was right.

The highly used comment regarding McCarthy "...You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency..." takes on new meaning in these times.

The Gang of 88 operate like Stalinists and NO they have NO sense of decency.

Anonymous said...

6;23

typical american reaction...your motto for life "i got mine who cares what happens to others"

let duke get away with false moral authority and you allow the slime arabs to destroy israel....you tolerate germany to take over europe...you allow chavez to steal from others...you allow perverts to claim their saints and that real saints are evil...you allow abortion...you allow killing of disabled people and in fact sheer when the slime florida judge gets away with it...and most of all you allow patterns like duke to run roughod over all those GOOD people who built duke to be taken over by the pervert coalition...

you are a voiceless idiot

Anonymous said...

1:18 high-horsemanship

Well we could spend time with the low horses, but the dumbing down of our education, media, churches, and other institutions is a very crowded field.

I find it refreshing that so, so many, at a minimum, seek a higher standard.

If that is off-putting and you prefer mediocrity then so be it. I'll ride bare back.

Anonymous said...

if coleman was so concerned HE WOULD HAVE STARTED HIS OWN MANIFESTO and supported the innocent...where he in zenezuela would he protest chavez, or slime castro in cuba..putin in russia...there he might have been in DANGER...OMG danger

here in america he isnt in danger...but he isnt a man of character either...character is when you STAND UP TO INJUSTICE not write about it EX POST

Gary Packwood said...

Jack 6:23 said...
So what? For virtually every poster in this board, the actions of Duke University, its administration, faculty and athletes have zero impact on your lives.
::
It's You.

This case will establish administrative and legal precedent across the nation with respect to how universities handle due process issues and how they define universal values.

Communities also are taking a hard look at due process and fairness because of this case.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

KC...the duke posting wasnt REVISED it was REPLACED...

and the replacement was MADE because they were CAUGHT IN A LIE...

did burness or broadrot APOLOGIZE ?

no they did the DISHONORABLE THING ?

they slid a new copy in the place of the original...was the original plagerized ? whose NOTES was it based upon ?

Jack said...

To gary packwood

This case would never have been on anyone’s radar screen if the District Attorney, the corrupt Durham Police Department and a complicit judge had not deliberately, willfully and maliciously perverted the criminal justice system to suit their own purposes. Duke has no role in the legal process, no explicit role. How the Duke administration and faculty misbehaved, mismanaged and otherwise conducted themselves in a despicable manner is nothing but a lesson in how people with uncivil agendas, and without principles and values should be avoided. But in no way does the Gang of 88, or Brodhead, or the listening statement have anything to do with “due process” under the laws of North Carolina, or any other state. These people may have behaved in an objectionable, reprehensible manner (much like some feel the lacrosse players did) but it is not illegal.

To the extent “This case will establish administrative and legal precedent across the nation…” I believe the impact, from a legal standpoint, will be limited to only the actions of the public officials, not private individuals or entities. Universities will certainly take note of this, how can they not? But they are not parties to the “due process” exerted by the criminal justice system.

Anonymous said...

Jack, I must wonder what kind of dog someone would have to have in a fight to come up with an absurd speculation such as that there are only four or five people total posting "under a variety of guises". I'm sure it's a completely comforting (or perhaps convenient) notion to you that only four or five people in the world could have enough of a sense of right and wrong to care about a case of blatant injustice. Unfortunately for you, it's also completely inane. Do you also think the Gang of 88 is four people who signed 11 times each?

Anonymous said...

Jack - You are right on about Duke, etc. I contributed money, wrote letters, faxed everyone in sight and contacted the DOJ so ofter, Gonzales and I are almost engaged, to bring the injustice of this event to peoples attention. Now that the charges are dropped, bought six copies of KCs book and two of Pressler to show support, I am on board for Nifongs hearing. Duke can go to Hades in its own basket or not.

Jack said...

To anonymous..no, not you, the other anonymous!

“any more than four or five people that actually post here, just under a variety of guises?”

Sorry, I guess irony, like ethics, really can’t be taught.

mac said...

Gary Packwood,

Correct: this thing does have
enormous implications - and not
just the Duke saga.

Jack,

Let's just say that Prosecutors
will get more scrutiny - if not
scruples - and Investigators
will be watching to see if they
can be held accountable for being
cowering bums who use strong-arm
tactics on cab drivers to try to
break him down. There are plenty
of people watching this,
even if MSM is asleep - and in
truth, the only time they were
awake was when someone said
"rape," "rich white boys" and
"rogue prosecutor." Other than
that, they've been deep in slumber.

Also:
With this case, we are seeing the
first of the Homeland Security-type
tactics - (only not yet commonly
observed) - a storming of the
walls of our freedoms.

IF this fails in the City of Durh,
it'll be less likely to be used
when Homeland Security becomes -
(forgive me for repeating myself) -
another CETA Program like our
Airport Security appears to be.

It seems a stretch, but trust me:
people are watching. Measurements
are being made: how far, how
high, how low can we go.

College Presidents are also
watching, waiting to see if
Duke will punish/remove/
castrate (had to add that one
for good measure) - it's own
wayward Administrators, people
who behave like the National Guard
at Kent State.

They'll be waiting to see how
the 88 is handled, certain
members in particular, just
as the case involving
Ward Churchill was closely
observed - (though I don't know
what lessons they got from it,
other than not hiring certifiable
wackos.)

One thing they might learn is
to make hiring contracts more
stringent, with great academic
freedom, but without the freedom
to abuse students. They'll learn
to make contracts with moral
clauses, with regard to
bizarre, inflammatory behavior
(race baiting etc.)

Don't be surprised if they
(Universities, Duke especially)
learn how to keep this type of
thing from happening again;
don't be surprised if departments
are more closely scrutinized
for actual academic content.

Is this a worthless venture,
nothing more than the rantings
of lonely bloggers? (I'm not
lonely, thank you.) No.
I think it provides a template,
a forum. And there are lots
more than 4 or 5 of us.

Don't be surprised if people like
KC (and Bill) help change the
landscape of higher education,
and don't be surprised if even
our little contributions don't
resonate somewhere, sometime and
with someone. It is not
pointless.

But if you think it is...
I think you are probably old
enough to make your own decisions.

Michael said...

For those that think that this case has nothing to do with the real world; it appears that hoaxes at other schools recently have been handled rather differently than they were at Duke.

For those that think that there are only a few here posting, I'd suggest you spend some time on Liestoppers where they don't permit multiple identities per person.

Anonymous said...

I hope they have been handled differently, Michael. Schools must surely have learned a valuable lesson in this event. If not, the Adms are even dumber than we thought. Even Duke has learned its lesson. The folk on this board for the most part are looking for intelligent debate.

KAZ said...

Jack:

While I'm certain there are other commenters on the board more knowledgeable than I about legal issues, one aspect of the Duke situation that I suspect will be contested and decided is what remains of "in loco parentis." [I hope I got the spelling right.] Did Duke have any sort of obligation to the players under the theory?

In particular, I'm thinking of the story that came out of the early stages where the players were reputedly told not to inform theor parents or retain personal counsel.

If the story is true, I think Duke is screwed either way. If they were acting in place of the parents, they gave some fantasticly bad advice. If they disclaim the obligation to act in place of the parents, somebody needs to be fired for opening their mouth.

In any case, it will redefine the limits of the university's obligations and perogatives where student involvement with the law is concerned and be cited at other colleges when defining what limits they will establish.

mac said...

7:50

Right. Intelligent debate.
An opportunity to teach and an
opportunity to learn.
Also an opportunity to learn
how to rationally frame thoughts,
something that excludes most
of the 88 and Levicy's
supporters.

Lubiano said...

Hey Michael @ 7:45
...spend some time on Liestoppers where they don't permit multiple identities per person...

WRONG ! !

Check out Cindy and Zeppo.

Anonymous said...

Resorting to grammer and spelling mistakes is showing a lack of ideas. "There is no spell check here or Editors and is more conversation" per the brillant JLS

Dukex4 said...

Prof Johnson

I was at the Coleman talk, and I am glad you contacted him directly. As for the Pressler firing, he did say it was a mistake for Duke to fire him when they did. He said Duke should have waited until after his report was completed to address that decision. But, he went on to say that Pressler was the only one in the administration who disciplined any of the lacrosse players for being in trouble, and cited the championship game in which he made two of them sit in the civilian clothes on the bench. I certainly construed his comments to mean that he thought favorably of Pressler. If asked what he would have done had he been "the decider" on that issue, I am sure he would demur publically, but privately, my money is on him saying he would not have fired Pressler.

Coleman did reiterate his belief that had the administration publically defended the students in a forceful way, he thought the State Bar would not have intervened and the AG would not have proclaimed the three players innocent. But, I really took this as much more of a silver-lining kind of description – he certainly did not say, nor did I understand him to be making the case that this was a brilliant strategy on Duke’s part that led to these two good outcomes.

It is almost as if Duke is trying to take some distant credit for the outcome by saying that Coleman said their stance of non support ultimately helped the boys. That burns me up.

Anonymous said...

Liestoppers has its little cliche, who trade the same thoughts on a regular basis. No new thoughts or contributers welcome. Just like HS

mac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Duke x4 - thanks for clearing that up - Coleman is the best.

Nifong's hat trick said...

JACK:

"Maybe it’s me; maybe I’m the only one who doesn’t get it. After all, people are posting here day and night, analyzing, referencing, dissecting words and events that have transpired over the past year. And for what?"

Something about this blog seems to have caught your interest and has allowed you to interject your opininion, analysis and dissection of other's analysis and dissection of the Duke events.

That's the beauty of the internet...if you don't like a blogspot you have the freedom not to participate in it.

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

7:57

No one is "resorting to grammar
and spelling mistakes" when
they - like 7:50 - state a
desire to engage in "intelligent
debate."

Does his/her comment threaten
you?

Anonymous said...

6:23PM Jack
"By the way, are there really... really any more than four or five people that actually post here, just under a variety of guises?"

This blog currently gets on average 9,411 visitors every day. People do recognize that something has gone terribly wrong in Durham and at Duke, and that this could and probably will happen elsewhere in this country (perhaps currently in another jurisdiction.) Consider this a random sample of people who truly care about the abuse of power from the nation at large.

False criminal accusations, scapegoating, and railroading by the state and society are the stuff of enduring historical lessons.

This case is bigger than you know.

mac said...

8:05
Did I read a distinctive
Boston accent there?
(just kidding)

mac said...

8:14
KC, is that you?

Regardless if it is: you're
right.

People make the mistake of
thinking that if MSM doesn't
cover it, it ain't happenin'.

Blogs are the new grapevine,
only more public and much more
educational. Gossip can be
tracked down for what it is
on a blog: not so with the
old fashioned way.

Glad to see there are so many
visitors.

Anonymous said...

8:22PM
You don't have to be KC to know this stuff. Click on the Sitemeter icon at the bottom of the main page.

mac said...

8:24
Thanks for the sitemeter info.

KC's style of writing is similar,
and the other reason I guessed
(wrong?) is that he made
references to "historical
lessons."

It also sounds - in the closing
line - a little like Bill A.
Or the good Wendy (McElroy,
not Murphy.)

mac said...

Jack,

Again referring to the value of
Blogs in general, but DIW and
Liestoppers specifically:
ever wonder how many revolutions
were started in the quiet of
the pews of a church?

Jack said...

Visitors and actual posters are quite different. And my sense of justice, and distress over how these events have genuinely hurt innocent people should not be misconstrued. My main point is that while there are many at Duke University who have behaved badly in all of this, the real harm to society comes from the government, the police and officers of the court. If the public officials had acted properly, Duke University’s cancerous core would have gone undetected, which would have been fine with Duke. Being wrongfully accused, maliciously indicted, incarcerated, and brought to trial by such bad people is the real world, and it is worth all the efforts of people to expose. Focus on the real evil, because what Duke does, and how they act, who they hire and what they teach, within their own private domain, really does not impact anyone who does not attend the school.

If, on the other hand, you do not like the radical politics of Duke’s various “studies” departments, or the racism demonstrated by black members of the faculty, or the contempt they have shown toward the children (my own kids are college age, and I still view them as children in many ways) they have chosen to teach, or how the spineless President, or self serving Board of Trustees, or the silent, timid student body failed to step up for the players, then simply go elsewhere to college. Duke is free to populate its so-called academic departments with anyone, from any place on the political spectrum they choose. Some recent poster stated this episode will result in more scrutiny over who gets hired. Ha! Does anyone think these radicals got into these positions by accident? Ask Professor Johnson about the type of scrutiny he had been subjected to. Over the past 25 years, Duke has tried to balance two extremes on one see-saw: an affluent, high retail, preppy, ambitious student body on one side, and an angry, resentful, militant, stridently anti-establishment faculty on the other. Well, guess what? Fat Albert just climbed on board!

Jack said...

The other boards are interesting reading, useful information, insightful and well written and researched. But DIW has all the action, a hundred messages per KC post, compared to a dozen or so on the others. With anonymous this, and anonymous that, and writing styles indiscernibly similar, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that the actual number of different individuals posting here might be fewer than you think. Why does that idea get everyone’s panties in a knot?

Anonymous said...

mac said...

8:05
Did I read a distinctive
Boston accent there?
(just kidding)
-----------------------------

Naaaah. I'm a Brit with a hyperactive left pinky.

Anonymous said...

"With anonymous this, and anonymous that, and writing styles indiscernibly similar, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that the actual number of different individuals posting here might be fewer than you think. Why does that idea get everyone’s panties in a knot?"

Um, because it is unreasonable to speculate such a thing. In fact it's downright dumb and sleazy. I have no idea what planet you're living on if you think that it isn't insulting to accuse people of sockpuppetry. If you had some actual reason for such a suspicion, that would be one thing, but what we actually have is your perception that "writing styles [are] indiscernibly similar" (really a confession of your own inability to discern style) and your own belief that it would require skullduggery to explain why a well-written, excellently referenced blog on a captiving real-life drama might have more than "four or five" persons interested enough to comment. Since you have not hesitated to accuse those here of sockpuppetry, I will not hesitate to say that I cannot picture anyone holding such a belief save a dullard.

mac said...

9:45
Now, that wouldn't be you,
would it Jack? Just playing
a trick to amuse yourself?

What ARE we doing on a Friday
night, anyway? Watching
"That 70s Show?"

mac said...

BTW,
"Sock puppetry" sound a lot like
"pocket Pool," or "pup tent."

Yup. Same concept.

Jack said...

Thanks, mac, I was tempted, but that is too much writing just to criticize myself. No, on this Friday night I just returned from the airport to pick up my daughter who is home for the week end. When I read the post from the indiscernible “anonymous”, I was amused at how defensive s/he appears. Turning my tongue in cheek musings into accusations of socket puppetry is a leap I had never considered. Oh, well, I do enjoy this web site, and the thought provoking exchanges.

Duke 85 said...

My brother went away to UVA when I was 4 years old. I asked about colleges and some were listed for me. I liked the name Duke and announced that I was going to go there. They laughed but my mind was set. Many years later, years serious studying, terrific SATs, newspaper editing, community service and a plethoa of other sports and extra-curriculas, I received my Duke acceptance in the mail. Most of my childhood was spent with the one goal of going to Duke set in my mind and heart. Turning down Princeton, Yale, Davidson and backup UVA, I set off for Duke. It was an amazing 4 years and I loved every second of it. I met and married my Duke sweetheart and we had hoped, someday, to send at least one of our 3 boys there.

But no longer.

So, is it real world? To some it either is or isn't. And to others it's a matter of heart.

There is a part of me that hopes it can pull itself out of the mire. I don't think Brodhead can help.

Anonymous said...

This is none of my business, but if you are bleeding Duke blue, why not send your kids there? Simple to avoid the classes of these dopes. Now, if you are afraid of Durham, that is a different story and only you can decide on that. My kids went to the schools they choose and not to much conferring with me. That is their decision.

Gary said...

May 18, 2007 1:27:00 PM the nasty homosexual lobby uses SAFETY to justify the debasement of morals...<...> ... and GARY the pacificist...who would long ago refused to serve and negotioted a settlement that sold out the players

A fey statement and I don't mean it in a homo-lobby sense, but in the original fairy meaning of "other worldly" in the sense of incoherent.

I'd love to have the power to negotiate to sell the whole Lacrosse team down the river because I'd use it to leverage each and every one of them to come over next weekend and help me clean up my yard that is fey with neglect. In this way I'd wouldn't "refuse to serve" but would serve them right: Hauling brush is great exercise, it would make me happy and I'd be motivated to get them a better settlement ... if only I could.

Dude, by definition, in principle but sadly not always in practice, a "settlement" leaves both sides happier. Same is true for sales in the market aka capitalism or with non-coercive hot dates on dat homo-lobby. We, them and da team are all happier ... except of course when we're not and that's the rub.

Gary

Gary Packwood said...

Jack 7:27 Said
...Universities will certainly take note of this, how can they not? But they are not parties to the “due process” exerted by the criminal justice system.
::
Point taken.

I am using a much broader definition of due process and should have said that.

Universities are literally all about due process and of course we teach that to students.

For example, it looks like we are going to crank up the Kennedy assignation conspiracy again and good faculty will work with students until the end of time if needed to teach that we should follow due process before coming forward with an unsupported assumption about what happened in Dallas.

Follow the process and get the facts that will get to the truth. Search for the truth! Search and Search and Search.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

to the people saying coleman will be president of duke, that is absurd. no black man, no matter how much of an uncle tom, will lead the plantation known as duke. duke actually has a poor history of race relations even now among the students which is why the group of 88 said and did the things they did. as to coleman, he is a paid member of the faculty at duke with the emphasis on paid and he was paid to do the whitewash report to get duke out of possible civil liablity as the point could be made that they knew there was a problem with the team at that house and did little to stop it;the disciplinary and criminal records seem to back up this as a possible legal argument so coleman made sure his report minimised the bad behavior and got duke off the hook. now he is doing the same for brodhead as he is being paid to do so. coleman is obviously the type of uncle tom who, if told to jump by duke, asks how high, massa? why are you people so surprised?

Christy said...

Any one else get that delicious frisson of excited satisfaction when recognizing that the Gang of 88 has nothing left but ad hominems? Do I indulge in the same fallacy when I take delight that they don't even know better?

Anonymous said...

Okay, so first Jack suggests that there are only "four or five people that actually post here, just under a variety of guises". Then he denies that he ever considered "accusations of socket puppetry [sic]". Whether he is trolling or simply inept, he's clearly no one worth responding to.

Anonymous said...

Hey - This is not LS or TL - we do not need you, to call names or tell us who to respond to at any time.This is a volunteer army and Kc is the Captain - no one else.

Anonymous said...

KC,

I am glad to see that after beating up on Brodhead for the better part of a year, you have finally come to the realization that he had no choice but to cancel the LAX season. It is too bad that the fanatics posting comments on your website still are unable to grasp this point.

Anonymous said...

I don't agree that the season should have been cancelled. Unless there was a real concern for these guys lives. Then, I would think it would be an individual judgement for the players to make themselves.

mac said...

1:17

President Brodhead should have
met with the attorneys for
the boys before:

1) Firing the coach (oh, that's
right, he "resigned.")
2) Ending the season.
3) Making several patently absurd
comments about "what they did."

If he'd seen the exculpatory
evidence - (two of the boys
had solid alibis) - he could
have kept the season intact.
But that would also mean that
he would have had to go against
his 88s and MSM.

God forbid that he should ever
grow up to become a man!