Monday, May 21, 2007

Upholding "Separate-but-Equal" Justice

On September 12, Captain Ed Sarvis of the Durham Police Department admitted that the Durham Police had an official policy of meting out disproportionate punishment Duke students, as a class, for alcohol- and noise-related offenses. When confronted with police records showing that Sgt. Mark Gottlieb had arrested 10 times as many Duke students as the other three District Two supervisors combined, Sarvis replied that the sergeant “was doing his job, and doing what I asked him to do.” The implication? The sergeants who didn’t handcuff and arrest Duke students (and only Duke students) for minor alcohol-related offenses weren’t doing their job.

Duke responded to Sarvis’ revelation without public protest. In her final column of the year, Kristin Butler noted that while Mike Nifong had, to date, not been held accountable for his actions,

Neither have the Durham police officers accused of disproportionately targeting Duke students for arrest and citations. This abuse, which was documented by The Chronicle in September 2006, extended well beyond the lacrosse players; rather, dozens of students were reportedly endangered, and the tales of police violence and inappropriate behavior point to ongoing, systematic abuse. Startlingly, we have no reason to believe that any Durham official has ever confronted or investigated these allegations, nor does it appear that the University has ever asked the city to do so.

Thanks to the efforts of the Duke Student Government, it now appears as if the Duke administration has effectively endorsed this “separate-but-equal” system of justice. In late March, outgoing DSG president Elliot Wolf penned a memorandum expressing concern that the Office of Judicial Affairs, led by Associate Dean of Students and Director of Judicial Affairs Stephen Bryan, had chosen to “pursue judicial action against a student based on evidence collected by law enforcement officers that was illegally obtained or otherwise insufficient to serve as the basis for criminal prosecution.” In other words, Bryan was intending to use evidence that even Durham’s blatantly pro-prosecution judges viewed as suspect.

Duke’s willingness to use such evidence, Wolf argued, undermined constitutional protections and effectively encouraged the DPD “to treat Duke students differently than other members of the community—something that is both antithetical to recent efforts to better integrate Duke students with the rest of the Durham community and, more importantly, unfair to students.” Moreover, Wolf contended that the use of constitutionally suspect evidence was “inconsistent with Duke’s mission of educating students about the importance of upholding the law.”

A few weeks ago, Bryan responded. He noted that the university “routinely” employs its disciplinary processes for offenses that may be “insufficient to serve as the basis for criminal prosecution.” Bryan continued: “Since one of the purposes of our disciplinary process is to help students process the difficult choices they could have made in a situation, it would be antithetical to that mission” to adopt Wolf’s suggestion. Indeed, Bryan reasoned, respecting constitutional principles would compel Duke to dismiss “a learning opportunity because of a technicality in how information was obtained.”

I suspect that the students profiled in the September Chronicle article on Sgt. Gottlieb’s dubious conduct would challenge Bryan’s peculiar conception of what constitutes a “learning opportunity.” Moreover, as Wolf observed, the University’s response to the question of off-campus drinking seemed more “rooted in a desire to pacify members of the community” than to “provide a ‘learning opportunity’ for the students involved.”

Bryan also defended the DPD’s work. “It seems unlikely,” he observed, “that there is a higher incentive for officers to cite students versus non-Duke students”—even though Sarvis had effectively said the opposite, months before. Apparently referring to Gottlieb, the Duke dean did concede that he had “heard anecdotally that students feel there is a particular Durham officer who unfairly targets students.”

This blasé response—the first in public by any Duke administrator regarding Gottlieb—was nothing short of extraordinary. Far from “anecdotal” evidence, both the N&O and the Chronicle produced statistical data documenting Gottlieb’s selective enforcement against Duke students.

Bryan did offer a solution to the problem: students who had complaints about Gottlieb could contact—of all people—Sarvis. In other words, Duke’s official position on the Gottlieb problem is that Duke students should get in touch with the very same Durham police captain who told the Herald-Sun that Gottlieb was “doing what I asked him to do.” How reassuring.

As Wolf recently observed, Bryan’s response “did not seem to indicate that Student Affairs will re-evaluate the ways it deals with information provided by DPD and the DA in response to [such] startling realizations” as the Attorney General’s denunciation of the Durham District Attorney as a “rogue prosecutor” and the assertion in the Baker/Chalmers report that much of the DPD’s handling of the lacrosse case was “typical.”

Such a response, Wolf correctly pointed out, bequeathed two separate sets of questions.

  • First, “do the events of the past two years change anything about the relationship/collusion/cooperation between the University and the Durham Police Department and the Durham District Attorney? If so, how? If not, then why not?”
  • Second, given that “the Durham Police and the Durham District Attorney have demonstrated a clearly prejudicial approach in their dealings with Duke Students,” what “is the University community, and particularly the University administration, going to do about it?”

I cannot recall another recent example of a university facing a situation where local prosecutors and police appear to have sanctioned violating procedures when dealing with students from that university and that university alone. (There is no sign that the DPD’s “separate-but-equal” policy applies to NCCU students, nor has Nifong’s office appeared to treat NCCU students unfairly.)

Yet the Brodhead administration would seem to have considerable leeway to act. Nifong is well on his way to disbarment. Few people are willing to defend the DPD in public after the Baker/Chalmers fiasco. Moreover, since many of the Trinity Park figures who initially demanded the crackdown on Duke students were the same people who championed (and in some cases participated in) the potbangers’ protests last spring, these people hardly have moral credibility to speak about any Duke-related issue at present.

Despite this favorable climate, the Bryan response suggests that the administration appears to believe that Duke students should trust the DPD and Nifong’s office to treat them fairly. The DSG’s approach, on the other hand, reflects the reality of recent events.

As Wolf concluded, the lacrosse case “demonstrated the drastic consequences that can fall upon both students and the institution if rights are not respected and proper procedures are not followed—two things that we feel Judicial Affairs’ current practices contribute to. The institution should recognize that Lacrosse upended university prerogatives with respect to student rights; Mike Nifong and DPD investigators’ erroneous pursuit of the Lacrosse Case caused the University far more of a headache than a few neighbors in Trinity Park calling for Duke to engage in ‘neighborhood stabilization.’”

“Separate-but-equal” systems of justice are all but certain to lead to abuses, as we have seen in Durham over the past 18 months. Rectifying the situation, to borrow a phrase, provides a “learning opportunity” for the administration. President Brodhead and his advisors should seize the chance to act.

95 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yet another embarrassment for Duke. Who hires such people?

bill anderson said...

To put it another way, Duke University reserves the right to abuse the same students who pay these people more than $50K a year. Furthermore, the students and their families are supposed to thank Duke for abusing them.

No thanks.

Anonymous said...

Goatleeb has got to go.

Anonymous said...

I've never understood why you keep referring to the policy as "separate but equal" when even the police and the Duke administration concede that it's not equal at all.

Chicago said...

I think a poster on TDD said it best a few weeks ago, the Duke Students have been running circles around the Duke Faculty for over a year now when it comes to taking a professional and ethical stand against injustice. This story furthers that argument.

Anonymous said...

Duke's Bryan said,
Since one of the purposes of our disciplinary process is to help students process the difficult choices they could have made in a situation...

How ironic. It has consistently been the Duke administration that has been unable to make the "difficult choices". What disciplinary process exists to help them? To cite one example, apparently there was nothing in place to help Duke's administration with the difficult choice, if it can even be called that, of backing a student or an instructor in a blatant case of grade retaliation.

Anonymous said...

Why all the fuss? Duke's policy of feeding their students to the wolves is consistent across the board, lacrosse players or not. Dick ----head and the Duke administration are sleeping with the enemy.

Anonymous said...

Why do Duke alumni and parents put up with this? It's a disgrace. Have students considered a class-action lawsuit against Durham police and Duke administrators, who enable the police?

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

I think you are confusing two vastly different things Prof. Johnson.

1. The State of NC is trying to take away the liberties of those it accuses of crimes. Thus in a criminal proceeding there are very strict rules of evidence.

2. Duke University does not have the power to take away someone's liberty. Thus in internal disciplanary hearings they have more relaxed rules of evidence.

There is nothing wrong with this. They are two different situations.

But Duke University should be outraged that NC has singled out its students and is treating them differently from other citizens. And certainly NO ONE should send their child to Duke University while this situation remains uncorrected. That includes someone that has a rising SR for a child. In addition even if this situation is corrected anyone should hessitate to send a child to Duke University because its administration is so dense it has no problem with this situation.

But alas, while Duke may be affected at the margin, the vast majority of parents sending their kids to Duke seem to be clueless about this risk they are taking.

hman said...

Perhaps this will be incomprehensible to the folks in Duke/Durham; but I do recall that in my college days the local cops were inclinded to give you a break when they saw your student ID. Afterall, it meant that you were unlikely to be a free-roaming thug without ties to the community.
The distance from that long ago common-sensical response - to the DPD policy of "Let's bust the college kids because we can and it's safe and easy" is quite large indeed.
If I were forced to come up with an overall explanation for these divergent policies I would fairly quickly point out that in my college town the cops all had advanced degrees of their own and did not hate college kids out of envy. Quite the opposite - the cops had decent jobs in a place here the kids really wanted to live themselves if they could arrange it.
Durham, NC, I gather , is not one of those sort of places.
Cambridge Ma., Berkley.,Austin Tx. The Nicer parts of Manhattan-- same planet different worlds.

Cedarford said...

Ed Sarvis runs DPD internal affairs. If the "separate but equal" system continues, Duke does nothing - it would be very easy to set up a "Duke Justice Project" where any Duke or Durham resident that wishes to charge DPD with brutality, federal racial discrimination, unprofessionalism, or 10 other creative charges - could have Duke students help with the paperwork and mailings to several outside agencies that Ed Sarvis would have to deal with for the 6months to a year of meetings, rebuttal paperwork, lawyer meetings.

The students could easily make life miserable for DPD if they keep on being singled out, and Administration comfortable with their own students being treated harshly might get that old "community relations blues" as activists come in to help set up a legal police harassment effort...

**************
Hopefully counter-harassmant will be unecessary, but it is possible.
**************
As for Gottlieb, it would be a prudent move for Duke to ask DPD to assign him to another District as "investigations of his improprieties and lack of professionalism" continue.

Anonymous said...

I think there was an attempt to get the ACLU in for help last year.

David said...

The last time I checked, The supreme court had declared "Separate but Equal" policies to be unconstitutional (Brown v.Board of Education...I believe). What needs to happen is a good old fashioned civil rights case from a student against DPD and Duke (Duke is making itself culpable in their tacit approval and use of police/prosecutor information).

Anonymous said...

The time for legal action is now.

Anonymous said...

12:51 There sure was and they went missing in action.

Cindy said...

Forget about it! There is unlikely to be any legal action taken against Durham County, the Durham Police Department, or Duke University. The wronged parties, Evans, Seligman and Finnerty have all left town, Evans with his degree, the other two with their declarations of innocent, and in search of a new beginning. They will not be back.

Gary Packwood said...

KC said...
...Rectifying the situation, to borrow a phrase, provides a “learning opportunity” for the administration. President Brodhead and his advisors should seize the chance to act.
::
Perhaps.

In my view, the first decision needs to be made by the Board of Trustees is whether or not they want to offer undergraduate educational opportunities at Duke University.

This is not a difficult problem in this day and age if you care about young people...especially unusually bright and talented young people.

There is now and there has always been national level workshops and seminars on university relationships with local law enforcement...to include the highway patrol. And... the first rule is that senior administrative personnel at the University have to meet and actually have a conversation with these people .... lunch even ...at Duke!

It's called community relationship building...which people must want to do!

How embarrassing. You suppose Duke administrators know how to talk with civil servants?

How about tuition wavers for the Chronicle editors and let them go to work on Duke's challenge with community relations?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

It's quite amusing that the Duke administrator who is supposed to facilitate "learning opportunities" seems to be far less intelligent than the students he is dealing with.

Anonymous said...

Gottlieb is known to be very aggressive. Very aggressive is one thing but it's bad medicine when combined with a lack of ethics and rogue behavior.

If Duke isn't stung with a large lawsuit, they're fat, dumb, and happy - and I think we saw how much of the faculty and administration loathes the Privileged and unabashed whiteness of many of the Duke students.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Bryan says it's a 'learning opportunity' when a white female Duke student is 10 times more likely to be arrested by a Durham cop than a black hooker.

I think the only thing learned here is Durham's law of supply and demand - i.e., what happens if only the black hooker supplies what the cop demands.

Anonymous said...

Yet more evidence of what life as a fee-paying student at Brodhead's Duke is like. Why, o why, will K C Johnson not put the boot into Brodhead? Why always pulling your punches with that man? I just don't get it.

Anonymous said...

kc...youre so smart i admire you ....I LOVE THE NOTION OF SEPARATE BUT EQUAL, the very same thing thats applied to womens sports...by college jackasses like the AA broadrotten crew

BUT in law what DPD is doing is a violation of the constitution and where are the DUKE law professors advising the out of management control administrators UNDER PRESIDENT BROADROT...or is it now broadrotten

Anonymous said...

Character is measured by a person's ability to do the right thing even when no one is looking.

Well, the world is looking in on Duke, and they still have trouble doing the right thing.

Makes one wonder how administrators there act when nobody is looking.

Anonymous said...

DUKE is now a methaphor for the worst excesses of college czars like president broadrotten and his commissars...not beholden to the american legal ethical and legal concepts despite having a fine law school

Duke is patently guilty of NOT TAKING ITS OWN ADVICE while lecturing the world about whats wrong with society

i love the notion of broadrotten trying to act like an unbiased scholar...like a KING who demands his senate approve all his dicta

Anonymous said...

two presidents..broadrotten and bush...both incompetent

Anonymous said...

"12:51 Anonymous said...
I think there was an attempt to get the ACLU in for help last year."
"1:07 Anonymous said...
12:51 There sure was and they went missing in action."

Those two posts 16 minutes apart sent my "BS Meter" into the red zone. Come on folks ... if you have information about an attempt "to get the ACLU in for help," and any result, please share it with us. Otherwise your posting is useless and qualifies only as gossip.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

for those of you who said that bryan is far dumber than the undergraduates, you're absolutely correct. Bryan, Moneta, and their Student Affairs ilk all have baby master's and "doctoral" degrees in student affairs. Most couldn't get into any of the graduate programs offered at Duke. Bryan most likely has quite a bit of pent up envy after seeing years and years of successful Duke students pass by while he sits in a career that most people on campus view as useless at best and detrimental to duke students at worst

Anonymous said...

I can promise you that all the Duke lacrosse families are carefully preparing for multiple law suits against Duke and North Carolina. There has been a necessary deference to the three families most impacted, but once they make their move, the floodgates will open.

Kilgore said...

KC makes a good case for the Duke Administration's willingness to leave it's own students vulnerable to a hostile local police department. This sad state of affairs is made even more bizarre by remembering that the Duke Admins claimed that they cancelled the lacrosse season to "protect" the players and were worried about their "safety." It seems to me that Brodhead and company are only worried about their own safety. Students be damned!

Wonderland indeed.

Anonymous said...

It is believed the Duke had been long aware of the selective and unusually harsh treatment of Duke students at the hands of the rogue officer Gottlieb.

It is also believed that Duke had maintained a file on Gottlieb, and had demanded his removal from the Trinity Park beat.

How can Bryan only be aware of Gottlieb "anecdotely"?

It is my guess that Bryan is just one more liar on Duke's payroll.

mac said...

C'mon, folks: give Bryan a break!
All he wants to do is to start
a VMI tradition - (the "Rat Line")
- at Duke U.

Guess that's one way to do it:
create and enforce arbitrary,
capricious - (unwritten) - laws
that aren't even laws...and then
have the Gendarmes enforce 'em.

Anonymous said...

How can this be called "Separate but Equal"? This is very "unequal". Isn't that also unconstitutional - or does the constitution now only apply to minorities?

Anonymous said...

05:01 AM - One Spook

I, among many others, corresponded regularly with the Duke ACLU regarding its lack of apparent involvement with the Nifong Hoax.

It is my understanding from members of the Duke ACLU that they had been told not to become visibly involved with this case by the North Carolina ACLU, to whom they report.

Can I prove this? Of course not, and to do so would not be worth the effort. But the silence of the Duke ACLU in the face of one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties of our time, that occured at Duke's doorstep, to members of the Duke community, speaks thunderously for itself.

In this repect, the Duke ACLU showed itself to be just like many in the PC world... ready to defend civil liberties, if the abused party is of the correct PC race, gender or class, but also ready to abandon its "principles", and stand silent, if not.

mb said...

Several things about this struck me. First, this sort of thing is nothing unusual at my university up here in the northern U.S.: Our local police department forgoes dangerous work like tracking down actual criminals (they get our state troppers to come in to do the heavy-lifting when things look scary) and instead focus on harassing and shaking-down the local students when they've collected their quota of traffic citations for the day. Heck, not only are the students a lot safer to deal with, but they have lots money to add to the city coffers. Citing and prosecuting rich students is big business around here, so our local police can't be bothered with less lucrative tasks like fighting real crime.

Second, this "separate but equal" (I would agree that "separate but unequal" is a more accurate characterization) is simply another form of profiling, and indeed the LAX hoax contains elements of racial profiling on the part of the DPD and with the other actors, e.g., the potbangers. However, what we are less inclined to note, but which IMO is just as strong, is gender profiling. Let's not forget the Holy Trinity of the potbangers, i.e., race, class and gender so the fact that these guys were, well, guys cannot be overlooked. Indeed, I believe that if one were to carefully examine general law enforcement stats one would note that men are treated more harshly than women who committed similar "crimes." And it goes without saying that the PC types in the Duke adminstration go along with the program vis-a-vis separate but unequal treatment of men vs. women in such instances. I know for a fact that this type of system is in place at my university because I sat on the student disciplinary board for 4 years and waged many battles over this injustice. Therefore, IMO we should not overlook nor discount this very real phenomenon.

Finally, I personally believe that this is not an isolated case - as I noted above, this happens in my town too, and I suspect that this sort of thing is de rigueur in most all college towns in the U.S.

Anonymous said...

LOL, now this case has changed the dynamics of race in America.

You people are insane. This type of injustice happens to one race much more often than the other. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't happent to whites more often.

"Now the Constitution only applies to minorities"? Are you clowns serious?

Most of the posters here are maniacs!

Anonymous said...

The Seven Deadly Sins have been well represented in this case.
To wit:

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
--Where to start?

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.
--Again, where to start? Probably run into a bandwidth problem listing these people.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
--Think Duke spokesman John Burness

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.
--The Duke Three? INNOCENT.

Think:
Associated Press
Nov. 7, 2006

DURHAM N.C. — A former employee in the office of the district attorney prosecuting the Duke University lacrosse team rape case has filed a sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker.

Ashley Cannon, a former Durham County assistant prosecutor, made a verbal complaint to the state Administrative Office of the Courts on Friday, her last day working in the district attorney's office.

"I went through the proper channels to address the issue, and nothing was done to resolve the situation," Cannon said.

See also Houston Baker.


Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.
--Think Angry Studies.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
--Think Nifong, et al.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.
--Think 88.

mac said...

9:16

Are you perhaps referring to
Mexicans?

A valid point was made about
gender being the chief area of
inequality, with regard to
prosecution. Black males
and white males are still more
likely to be prosecuted than
women of either race - discounting
the greater number of crimes
committed.

All you have to do is look at the
cases involving pretty blonde
teachers and 12-14 year olds,
and compare their treatment to
men who commit the same crimes.

Of course, you would probably
prefer to call us insane -
from the hallowed halls of NCCU.

If you've been following the
case on DIW, you might've noted
that KC described the DPD's
two offenses against the AA
community (both cases eventuated
financial compensation for those
wrongly treated/charged.)

But of course, you probably just
dropped in for a moment to
pee on the collective Wheaties.

Gary Packwood said...

mb 9:13 said...
...Our local police department forgoes dangerous work like tracking down actual criminals (they get our state troopers to come in to do the heavy-lifting when things look scary) and instead focus on harassing and shaking-down the local students when they've collected their quota of traffic citations for the day.
::
What are some examples of harassing and shaking-down of the local students in your town? Are you able to read about such acts in the local newspaper?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

I'm not here to "piss on the wheaties". I just think that while this site has served a great purpose, some of these posts are incredibly ridiculous.

Are males treated unfairly by the justice system? Interesting, I'll listen to that argument.

But to say that whites are treated unfairly is a crock. Period. This Duke case notwithstanding.

Look at the prison demographics. Many blacks are imprisoned for drug offenses, from multiple possessions to dealing. Now think of how the average wealthy white student is treated by the justice system for multiple possessions and dealing.

If you don't already know this, drug use amongst wealthy college students is out of hand. Further, the dealers are almost exclusively fellow students living on campus (at least at the "retail" level). These kids get caught all the time. Almost never does the punishment include prison time.

FACT: Drug use and abuse (including illicit trade in prescription drugs) are rampant throughout society, equally if not moreso in privileged areas where people (especially kids) have money to throw around.

Yes, the justice system treats people differently based on race. Notwithstanding the Duke abberation, its usually unfair to minorities.

Are you people serious?

mac said...

GP

Agree fully.
Add to that question:
How many indulge themselves in
(apparently) criminal conspiracies
in order to convict innocent kids?

Anonymous said...

I asked my nephew who graduated from a University in Charlottesville ,va last year if there was a problem there with police particularly targeting students and he felt that although it could happen it generally did not and that police persons who were thought to do that sort of thing were held in contempt by other police. My nephew is working on joining a government security agency and has lots of contacts in local and federal law enforcement in Charlottesville. I think that the professionalism of personnel there is maintained at a high level with many college graduates on the city and county forces.

scott said...

Based on Bryan's remarks, since Duke appears to have outsourced to the Durham Police Department some of the "learning opportunities" it offers its students, shouldn't the DPD get a slice of the tuition dollars that students / parents pay to Duke?

It would appear the City of Durham is missing a revenue enhancement opportunity. I encourage Mayor Bell to have a city attorney look into this matter immediately.

mac said...

10:04

I live in a "mixed" neighborhood,
one that is (slowly) being taken
back from gangs and street dealers.

I haven't noticed too many
white kids coming through
here, either buying or selling,
even though I live near a
college.

I've seen black kids' mothers help
their kids sell drugs, facilitating
their efforts. I've seen them
use their kids as drug mules, too.

'Round here, we have working-
class blacks and working-class
whites. There are also
"workless" class of both races,
sponging off the system.
The workless classes - (including
drug dealers) - aren't invisible.
And the ones with the highest
visibility - and therefore the
highest vulnerability to arrest -
are black.

Maybe the inequity has something
to do with the willingness of
the drug-sellers to make
a parade out of every trip up and
down the street.

Again: I like most of my
neighbors - the working class
neighbors, both black and white.
They are honorable and decent.
The working class folk aren't
harrassed nor arrested.
Strange: the stats for working
folk of all races who don't
steal, drink excessively, drive
while drunk, sell drugs and so
forth aren't racially identifiers;
only the ones on parade, or whose "moms" aid and abet their
criminal activities get caught
more frequently.

Maybe you'd like to have the
gangs and the drug dealers live
next door to you in rental units?

Anonymous said...

10:04 (no name identified)- Whether there are more drug offense minorities in jail than similar white college students may not be because of the color of their skin (it may, I don't know). One might compare college students of the same family income against racial makeup for a better analysis, for example. Citing a statistical fact does not necessarily make an informed conclusion. It may have more to do with socio-economic factors. BTW, I am serious, and I am a "people."

Ed

Legal Eagle said...

RICO; going once, going twice, go...

mac said...

Ooh. Missed it.
10:04 said:

"You people."

(Didn't work for Ross P, did it?
Why should you be able to use
it?)

You people, indeed.

bill anderson said...

As a college professor, I must admit that there a so many ways that students can get into trouble with the law that simply was not the case when I was an undergraduate. (Yes, yes, it was during the Stone Age -- or, more exactly, the Stoned Age.)

We forget just how bad it really is for all students, black and white. The Drug War has made it profitable for police to make arrests, seize property, and the like. There just were not as many arrests when I was in school.

Of course, the U.S. prison population then was about 300,000. Today, it is 2.1 million and rising. Don't tell me that is a healthy trend. Many of the people in prison are first-time drug offenders. I guess with the drinking age at 21 and the Drug War in full swing, it is Police Uber Alles.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, "you people" referring to almost every single poster here. Not sure why you have a problem with "you people", especially since you knew exactly what I was talking about.

Regardless, I'm not a PC wuss like all these whiny Republicans. I can very comfortably say "you people" when referring to posters on a relatively small, community-type blog. Funny, though. Really funny stuff. You totally caught me there!

Anyway, if you went to college, it must not have been any time recently. Ditto high school. Cocaine and illicit trade in prescription drugs (including some that are as serious as heroin like Oxycontin) are all over the place in wealthy high schools. Moreso in college.

These kids never see a day in jail. Their counterparts are not only harassed by police for the same behavior, they are also thrown in the clinker.

To deny this is to confirm you don't have a brain.

You are denying the statistics regarding who deals and abuses drugs.

You are denying the disproportionate way the justice system treats people based upon the lawyers they can afford.

If you have money, you don't go to jail for the same behavior.

The Duke case was a reversal of the norm. Absolutely something we should all care about (the Due Process rights of the boys and Nifong's horrific behavior), but clearly not the norm, as "you people" seem to be implying, when speaking of how the wealthy white man simply can't catch a break in our justice system.

Delusional. I'm really surprised that people think that. Shocked really.

david page said...

Unspoken so far is the fact that Duke University pushed the alcohol off campus at a time when Duke had a safety intrest in creating a buffer zone from Durham Resident Crime (theft etc.) on East Campus.

The Duke Admin. has been actively purchasing land and rental housing then developing and selling the property to "respectable" families (often Duke employees) thereby pushing the criminal "downtown" element further from campus. There is money to be lost to Duke if drunken students make the area less attractive to possible buyers.

The Duke police (they used to be called Duke Public Safety and did not then own riot gear to use on the students) would have good reason to help the Durham police quell the students.

Most of the Durham police come down on the UNC side of a bitter rivalry.

Some wacked out profs. get to push their social agenda and justify their high pay for only teaching two classes (less than 10 hrs. a week) then writing about each other as their only "research" effort.

Wow! Every one wins but the students.

david page said...

Unspoken so far is the fact that Duke University pushed the alcohol off campus at a time when Duke had a safety intrest in creating a buffer zone from Durham Resident Crime (theft etc.) on East Campus.

The Duke Admin. has been actively purchasing land and rental housing then developing and selling the property to "respectable" families (often Duke employees) thereby pushing the criminal "downtown" element further from campus. There is money to be lost to Duke if drunken students make the area less attractive to possible buyers.

The Duke police (they used to be called Duke Public Safety and did not then own riot gear to use on the students) would have good reason to help the Durham police quell the students.

Most of the Durham police come down on the UNC side of a bitter rivalry.

Some wacked out profs. get to push their social agenda and justify their high pay for only teaching two classes (less than 10 hrs. a week) then writing about each other as their only "research" effort.

Wow! Every one wins but the students.

Anonymous said...

New Jersey Lawyer. To give the Blue Devil its due, the constitutional protections that apply with respect to legal actions (especially criminal actions) do generally not apply with the same force in private disciplinary actions. Indeed, if the point of a disciplinary action at a university is to help the student grow and develop, sometimes considering evidence that wouldn't pass muster in court may be necessary. I am also aware that, like many colleges and universities, Duke must often deal with the bad will created by the antics of its less than sober students. Having said all of that, however, in light of what has happened over the last year, I am not sanguine that Duke's use of illegally obtained evidence was used to aid in the further development of its students as it was to rid itself of students whom it found embarassing. I am also appalled that Duke apparently sees no need to address the issue of its students being singled out for "special treatment" by the DPD. One wonders what the reaction of Duke would be if Duke faculty or administrators received such "special treatment." Or, if the "special treatment" were meted out primarily against minority students or women, as opposed to Duke students in general. I think the answer to Duke's nonchalance may lie in its desire to get on with the Central Campus project and to ruffle as few Durhamite feathers as possible. The rights and safety of Duke's students is apparently less imprortant than the development of real estate.

mac said...

Bill's got it right:
there is a tendency to
criminalize nearly everything.
What we did as college kids
(10:50 is right, it's been
a long time) seemed inconsequential
then - even to police - but now
everything's been magnified.
That's a general trend,
not neccessarily race-specific.

10:50 still hasn't said whether
he'd like to live in my
neighborhood, across the street
or next door to crack dealers.

Last I saw, the college students
who shot at other college students
were insane; last I saw, the
morons who drive up and down
my street were willing to shoot
anything that moves, including
each other.

Anonymous said...

I simply believe we need to treat the same behavior in the same exact manner, regardless of race.

So, to the extent that "people drive up and down your block shooting each other", they should be in prison. This should apply even in wealthy white areas, where such an occurrence is less common.

If we as a society decide that dealing drugs mandates and sentance of X years, said sentance should not vary based upon your ability to hire a top-notch attorney. But it does.

If we are going to apply a penalty of Y years for multiple possession offenses, wealthy people should not be able to hire great attorneys who have their priors "expunged" form their record completely, so the criminal kids themselves can become doctors and lawyers once they "get their sh** together", while those without money end up in prison.

In no way shape or form am I condoning criminal behavior by demanding that punishment be meted out on a equal basis.

I'm simply responding to the absurd belief that white men are the worst off of any subsection of society with regards to the way they are treated by the criminal justice system. Its crazy to think that.

Men are treated poorly in divorce court, regarding support and child custody. That is a rational statement backed up by statistics. The statement about white men getting a raw deal by the criminal justice system can be backed up by the Duke case, thats about it. Its pathetic that you'd use this one case as the basis of such an argument that needs to be based on a large volume of statistics compiled over time.

Anonymous said...

To answer your question:

I like where I live. You describe your community as a crappy one. I respectfully decline your request to downgrade myself and move accross the street. We live in a capitalist society. If you don't like where you live, work hard and come be my neighbor!

mac said...

11:14
Agree with most of your points.

mac said...

11:16

Unlike persons like Jack,
who doesn't want to see Duke
become a better place,
I'm trying to be part of the
solution in my own neighborhood.
Starting with my own property.

I'm not unhappy to see drug
dealers arrested, and I'm not
unhappy to live among working-
class folk - since I am one.

My neighborhood is getting
better: not "whiter."
Better.

Anonymous said...

Grow up KC - if Gotleib is out of control (ex Buchanan St.), have him managed. But to defend misbehaving students disrupting their neighborhood is just silly.

Anonymous said...

10:50 (still no name) said:

"These kids never see a day in jail. Their counterparts are not only harassed by police for the same behavior, they are also thrown in the clinker.

To deny this is to confirm you don't have a brain.

You are denying the statistics regarding who deals and abuses drugs.

You are denying the disproportionate way the justice system treats people based upon the lawyers they can afford."

I thought your post was about race - now it's about wealth - still incongruent, however.

I don't care who you are - PC wus, or not, your arguments are cliched. It IS about wealth more than race; however, when you say they "never" spend a day in jail (never is a long time), "wealthy white man" (as oppossed to un-wealthy white man? Non-white wealthy man? Non male wealthy?), and "usually unfair to minorities" (unfair more than 50% of the time?), etc., you marginalize any contribution to the conversation.

Your comments about "don't have a brain" lend nothing.

Ed

Anonymous said...

I'd say its based upon wealth and the ability to hire attorneys. I know that poor white men healing from trailer parks or any other white blighted areas don't do well in the criminal justice system, either.

The statistics about race and wealth, however, and which groups typically don't have the big bucks for the big attorneys, goes a long way to explain the disparities in the system.

Once again, I have no problem saying you don't have a brain if you don't think money buys you freedom in our system. Its terribly ignorant not to recognize that you can buy justice in our society. Damn, imagine if these Duke boys didn't have any money... they'd be screwed and they themselves said they were thankful that their families had the money to obtain proper representation!

Typically, people with that type of money are white. Not always (see, for example, OJ Simpson), but the point remains: if one were to make an argument that the criminal justice system treats people unfairly based upon race and socioeconomic status, the person with a brain would have to decide it was much more rational to say that poor people and minorities are the ones who are treated unfairly.

Come on, this is ridiculous. It would be funny if I didn't think that you believed that white men can't get a break in contemporary America (or America at any point in our history). Thats just lunacy!

mb said...

Wow 10:04am, talk about missing the point and obfuscating a la changing the subject. How about we compare apples to apples, not apples to rutabagas, Ok?

Let's compare rich white males to rich white women: Are you seriously trying to make the case that rich white women are treated as harshly as rich white men? How about Paris Hilton's multiple drunk/drug driving, etc., with, I don't know, that of Robert Downey Jr. I don't know the details, but I'll bet dollars to dimes that Paris is doing less jail time than Robert or other rich, young white guys get, even after getting multiple passes due to her status as a female.

I hear you about the black/white disparity, but as others have pointed out, without a multivariate analysis that control for things like weapon use, multiple crimes (e.g., drug possession, assault, using a gun while committing a crime, etc.) it's pretty hard to tell whether or not we're really comparing apples to apples.

Anonymous said...

***I hear you about the black/white disparity, but as others have pointed out, without a multivariate analysis that control for things like weapon use, multiple crimes (e.g., drug possession, assault, using a gun while committing a crime, etc.) it's pretty hard to tell whether or not we're really comparing apples to apples.***

Properly compiled statistics do not lump in violent drug offenses and/or drug offenses involving weapons with non-violent drug offenses. But that is an important point. Improper use of statistics leads to inaccurate results. Be that as it may, the properly compiled statistics regarding disparity are appalling.

Anyway, about the way men and women are treated in the criminal justice system... perhaps you are right. Typically that is not the topic of discussion... and I don't know the hard numbers, but maybe you're right. To the extent you are correct, thats a problem.

In the end, my posts were directed at the posters here who not only insinuated, but flat-out said that the justice system treats white men unfairly... I think thats ridiculous, even if men are given more harsh punishments than women receive.

Anonymous said...

Well sure, its based on wealth and the ability to hire great lawyers. That was the great thing about the OJ trial - it showed buying great lawyers is an Equal Opportunity. Nor reserved for white folk but for all with money, That is one of the reasons he is hated so much.

Anonymous said...

Just the type of support and oversight parents are expecting when they send their children to a university of college.

The university telling the town the students can be treated by a different and more confining standard than the law as it exists.

jamil hussein said...

This war is lost. Far left wackos (gang88) and radical islamists (including Hezbollah and Hamas) are now in charge in campuses around the country. Meanwhile, a professor who cite a founding father (including a reference to god) is fired on the spot.

Anti-Semitic Campus Intimidation
Yesterday, I visited the Crystal Cove Auditorium at UCI to hear Amir Abdul-Malik Ali, a radical Islamic activist sponsored by UCI's Muslim Student Union. As soon as I arrived I could hear his typical racist vitriol on how the Jewish people are the greatest threat to civilization

mb said...

12:16PM said: Anyway, about the way men and women are treated in the criminal justice system... perhaps you are right. Typically that is not the topic of discussion... and I don't know the hard numbers, but maybe you're right. To the extent you are correct, thats a problem."

The fact that people like the potbangers/G88 don't discuss the issue of gender profiling when men are targeted is a problem, and the result of their stonewalling is that we can't know the extent of the problem because it's decidedly un-PC to examine gender issues in any way other than to conform with their rubric of "male=privileged, women=oppressed." This is easily shown to be false on many levels, yet academia seems to be so profoundly bound by PC that we simply can no longer rely on most academics to provide accurate, unbiased information re. this sort of gender dynamic. Still, the real-world debacle of Duke LAX hoax provided us with a high-profile example of a phenomenon that has been present for a number of decades now, all the while denied by the likes of the G88, and demonstrates the kind of disaster that arises when we buy-in to the 'information' that G88 types provide to judges, law enforcement and society at large. It's crucial that we learn from this, and IMO one of the most important lessons is that very likely everything we've been taught about gender dynamics by the likes of the G88 is very, very wrong.

12:16PM continues: "In the end, my posts were directed at the posters here who not only insinuated, but flat-out said that the justice system treats white men unfairly... I think thats ridiculous, even if men are given more harsh punishments than women receive."

The fact that the justice system treats white men unfairly does not negate the likelihood that it also treats minority men unfairly; the two are not mutually exclusive. IMO the justice system treats most all men who are not wealthy unfairly compared to women of similar race and SES. I believe I share your view that those with enough money can buy justice, however, my point is that for men the price is much higher than for women, primarily because of the kind of dogma and rhetoric coming out of the likes of the G88 as they 'educate' police, judges, prosecuters, et al.

Anonymous said...

11:14 Well, the stats show that men who get divoriced standard of living rises over 60%, while the woman (most of whom have the children)is lowered by 75% - these guys are doing okay. I think the woman should dump the kids on the men and go their merry way.

mb said...

1:27pm: Those stats you cite were fist reported by Lenore Weitzman who has long-since admitted that they are wrong due to a (cough, cough) "mathematical error" and thus have been thoroughly debunked. Therefore, deliberately of not, you're simply spouting more of the same G88-style propaganda.

The reality is that the post-divorce picture is much more complicated than the feminists portray, and in fact, many good researchers report that women do better than men overall after divorce.

mac said...

11:55 am:

Hmm. Guess the two AA women
who sued DPD for abuse -
successfully - were really
phantasms, coporeal presences -
or they were rich.
And the employees who also sued
(who were accused of running
a prostitution ring.)
Guess they were rich, too.
Probably white, too, but having
purchased lots of time on the
sunbed.

No, what made this case unique
is that it was openly stated"
"White boys rape black woman
mother/student."

Race, class and everything else
brought this up. Don't blame
people for noticing when the
MSM was already preparing the
gallows.

Anonymous said...

7:39:00 AM

"I, among many others, corresponded regularly with the Duke ACLU regarding its lack of apparent involvement with the Nifong Hoax.

It is my understanding from members of the Duke ACLU that they had been told not to become visibly involved with this case by the North Carolina ACLU, to whom they report.

...

In this repect, the Duke ACLU showed itself to be just like many in the PC world... ready to defend civil liberties, if the abused party is of the correct PC race, gender or class, but also ready to abandon its "principles", and stand silent, if not."

I appreciate that amplification and wish you had included that explanation in your original post. Frankly, I couldn't agree more with the point you made in your final paragraph.

I used to support the ACLU until it began to represent non-Americans who had not even contacted them for assistance.

The ACLU, like NOW who I also formerly supported, is presently nothing more than yet another tool in the victim creation and perpetuation system that is the bedrock of the radical liberal PC left, as evidenced by the Group of 88 in the Duke case.

I very much appreciate your most cogent reply.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Many of the organizations, I previously supported (including finanically)- ACLU, NAACP and the Innocent Project disgraced themselves in this event. The white boys did not fit their agenda and justice for all, a myth. At least they have exposed themselves to the public,

Anonymous said...

1:42 - No, not true. Many studies on this issue do not support your statement.

Anonymous said...

I was born liberated. I do not support the marxist feminist at all. Just go into any fast food place on Friday and see the tired working woman with their kids, trying to take care of them. That is why I think the woman should dump these kids on the father. The woman can do the every other saturday afternoon visits..

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 9:16 said...

...You people are insane. This type of injustice happens to one race much more often than the other. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't happen to whites more often.

...Most of the posters here are maniacs!
::
Your comments are meant to be a diversion back to the old worn out issues of racism.

It doesn't happen to whites more often?

Well, actually it happens to poor people more often. The issue is poverty and all the sorrows associated with poverty.

The anti-poverty advocates of many years ago have now taken jobs at Universities where there is no poverty!

They don't know what to do with themselves except create problems to solve...such as rape and sexual assault.

It makes about as much sense to offer programs at Duke University to combat rape for example as it does to offer program to help students combat Alzheimer's disease in the resident halls.

The G88 needs to work with anti-poverty programming in Durham if they want to hone their anti-poverty advocating skills.

The maniacs are those who are consciously creating problems in places where there are none.
::
GP

mb said...

3:13 said: "No, not true. Many studies on this issue do not support your statement."

Such as?

A very good analysis conducted by Sanford Braver, who took into account such things as taxes paid by fathers on income used for child support, tax-free payment to mothers such as child support, etc., showed men's increase in standard of living going up a 'whopping' 2% and mothers going down an equally 'whopping' 8%. Statistically it was a wash.

See The Gender Gap in Standard of Living
After Divorce : Vanishingly Small?"
SL Braver, Family Law Quarterly, 1999 for just one of many examples of a more fair and accurate analysis of this non-issue.

Anonymous said...

2% to 8% does not look like a wash to me. According to your stats that is a 6% difference. How about you reducing your income by 8%, see how you like it. Plus be the primary care giver. Bravo Sierra. I don't agree with your stats and can't access your link.

Anonymous said...

***Your comments are meant to be a diversion back to the old worn out issues of racism.***

No, my comments were in response to the poster who said that white men have it the worst in the justice system. That IS an insane statement.

***It doesn't happen to whites more often?

Well, actually it happens to poor people more often. The issue is poverty and all the sorrows associated with poverty.***

Fine, the issue is poverty, and demographics/socioeconomic realities are... demographics and socioeconomic realities. The way society is structured, minorities are the ones with the least money, and hence have it the worst in the justice system. Not sure you are defending that guy's comments that I was attacking, as you have stated you believe that poverty is the leading cause of injustice (ironically, also something that has nothing to do with the wealthy defendants in the Duke case).

***The anti-poverty advocates of many years ago have now taken jobs at Universities where there is no poverty!

They don't know what to do with themselves except create problems to solve...such as rape and sexual assault.***

I wouldn't say that these "former anti-poverty advocates" have "created rape and sexual assault". Those things are real, whether or not they occurred in the Duke case (which we all know didn't happen). You are right that they thought "one of their own oppressed" was the victim of a crime by wealthy lax players, and thats why they pounced on it. Great work, Captain obvious (we knew this already)!

***It makes about as much sense to offer programs at Duke University to combat rape for example as it does to offer program to help students combat Alzheimer's disease in the resident halls.***

I gather that rapes happen more often on college campuses like Duke than do cases of early-onset Alzheimer's. Far more.

***The G88 needs to work with anti-poverty programming in Durham if they want to hone their anti-poverty advocating skills.***

They do still do anti-poverty work, whether you love 'em or hate 'em (and I don't like 'em one bit either, but that doesn't mean honesty and common sense go out the door).

***The maniacs are those who are consciously creating problems in places where there are none.***

Those professors are a$$holes and overreacted to an alleged crime against a minority student allegedly perpetuated by wealthy privileged lax players. Again, congratulations Captain Obvious. They were wrong and did the wrong thing. Not sure their motives were evil, but the result to these boys was pure evil. Regardless, they are not the issue...

THE SOLE ISSUE WAS RESPONDING TO THAT IDIOT'S REMARK ABOUT HOW WHITE MEN ARE TREATED UNFAIRLY!!!

Anonymous said...

At least the team is smart enough, to not go one to one or group to black folk in Durham without witnesses.

Anonymous said...

5:01 I sent letters, faxes and called the ACLU, Naacp and the Innocent Project requesting intervention. I know that multi thousands also did the same thing. Why - because they wrote in blogs that they did. I have no reason to believe this is not true, as bloggers, if nothing else, know how to mount a campaign. Please do not tell me, it takes a big shot to bring them in and not an ordinary citizen.

mb said...

4:13, try using the citation to Family Law Quarterly to find the article. That's how it's done in legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific circles. When/if you actually read the article you'll find the following in the conclusions:

"The present article used the author's own 1987 data set to examine the gap . Employing a method used by most previous researchers (the needs adjustment income technique), the gender gap in this sample approximated that of the remaining literature. However, after correcting the method for two matters not hitherto considered, unequal taxes and the sharing of the expenses of the children between the two parents' households, the gender gap was vanishingly small; it all but disappeared. There is reason to think that recent reforms of the child support guidelines has actually reversed the conventional wisdom: fathers in certain states may now be more impoverished by divorce than mothers. There is also reason to think that this tendency will worsen as longer term effects are assessed."

You seem to be very hostile to ideas that challenge your orthodoxy. Are you a member of the G88?

Anonymous said...

WTF - legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific circles in a Law Review. This is a blog. 1987 stats. Is this the best these guys could do? No, I am not an 88 Professor. I would think that was obvious. More improverished - well, that will put a crimp on their new swinging life.

Anonymous said...

I'm sick of hearing the word "privileged."

Let's deconstruct it, shall we?

Source: American Heritage College Dictionary--

"Privileged"--2. Confined to an exclusive or chosen group of individuals.

"Privilege"--1a. A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. b. Such a privilege held as a prerogative of status or rank and exercised to the EXCLUSION OR DETRIMENT OF OTHERS. [emphasis added]

So, how have the lacrosse players utilized their "privilege" to the exclusion or detriment of others?

"Privileged," like "racism" or "sexism," is nothing but a word to attack "groups" who individually and as families contribute disproportionately to the prosperity of the world.

What the doofus 88 are really accusing the lacrosse players of is coming from functional families

Polanski

Anonymous said...

How anyone at Duke could defend DPD's work when they managed to arrest three innocent Duke students for a crime that never happened is beyond me. With that sort of titanic screw-up on their record and their recent report whitewashing their own actions in that case it is tough to have any confidence in them at all.

All of this is just compounded by Duke's acceptance of a DPD policy that allows for more severe punishment of it's own students than other local residents. Is Duke taking the position that their students do not have the same civil rights as other residents of Durham? Maybe if DPD extended this policy to include Duke faculty and administrators people like Bryan might take a different view. As it stands it is completely baffling. Duke as an institution seems to have no concern for it's own students. They will accept the tuition checks of these same students though. No problem there.

mb said...

5:23pm: Actually Braver's done quite a bit of work in recent years, but given your obvious hostility to real facts and reason, I'll stop wasting my time and leave it to you to do your own homework. I cited that source deliberately because the data used was old and more comtemporaneous than more recent studies with Weitzman's now-discredited work. However, that important distinction obviously went right over you head. Still, it's quite telling that while we're dickering over my sources I'm still waiting for you to offer up even one legitimate, peer-reviewed citation for your claims. And so it goes.

Not a G88? Could have fooled me.

Anonymous said...

I can't resist - PT Barnum said "There is one born every minute."

Jack said...

Mac, in your 11:20 post, you accuse me of not wanting to see Duke become a better place. That is a mischaracterization of the exchange we had on another thread, wherein I asked why it should be up to YOU to “save Duke”? There is no indication that Duke wants to be saved, that Duke feels it needs to be saved. As a private institution, Duke is free hire who they want, teach what they want. What is your stake in saving Duke? Are you from Durham? Are you a Duke graduate? If so, then I could understand your vested interest in the university establishing goals, following principles and ideals that have been absent in the way the school has conducted itself as respects the lacrosse players. I would have empathy for you and other alumni who feel so terrible about how the school they came of age in has transformed into something that now pains them. For local citizens, having a major university in the community has numerous cultural and economic benefits, although it appears Duke has skimped on it’s investment in local good will in recent years.

You say I should count up all the attributes of Duke University, so as to appreciate the value the school returns to society. Why? There are things about the school I do not like, so I choose not to support it, my kids will not go to school there. And guess what? Duke does not give a hoot about how I feel, or you for that matter. So, remember, I am stating it clearly: it is not that I do not want Duke to become a better place, it is that I am indifferent; I am not willing to invest myself emotionally in an institution that has chosen a path, philosophically, so very different from mine. KC Johnson staked a claim in this issue (forgive me if I am presumptuous, Professor) for three reasons: The injustice perpetrated by the governmental authorities against three innocent students; the horrendous behavior of the Duke faculty in their demonstration of contempt for their students (offended, in a professional sense by his [sic] peers); how all of these amazing, bewildering, infuriating, outrageous elements will provide KC with semesters worth of material for academic application. Oh, yeah, and the book. Well, everyone’s entitled to make a buck.

Institutions like Duke certainly do play an important role in society, something I can recognize. But your attitude is one I disagree with. Saving people from themselves! I’ve heard that before. We have a vast, overarching social services system that operates on that premise. How about General Motors? They need to be saved, they provide expansive direct and indirect economic benefits to society, and they are tottering on the brink. They made choices over the past 25 years to make more Hummers and Suburbans, more V-8 engines, lobby Washington to relax mileage requirements, safety standards, re-classify SUV’s to truck status. They are a private entity that did what was expedient to serve their own short term interests. They are now paying the price in falling sales, and soon may disappear from the American landscape. Do you want to save them, too?

Anonymous said...

It's entirely reasonable that, after divorce, men's living standards ON AVERAGE increase and women's decline. Or, if the living standards of both decline, that men's living standards decline less than women's. It simply reflects that, after divorce, both parties tend to revert to their pre-marriage standard of living. And, on average, like it or not, men as a class earn more than women.

Anonymous said...

I am the parent of a Duke student. And I am becoming more and more concerned as the administrative bungling and incompetence on the part Duke's leaders is exposed.

So - what to do - recommend leaving Duke? Or not? I am pissed that I have to try and determine whether or not Duke's leaders will work to keep my kid safe, or be complicit is helping set them up for problems.

Clean it up guys - be professional, and do the right things for the right reason.

And I thought Animal Houses' Dean Wormer was fictional.

mac said...

Jack,

Certainly not up to me to "save"
Duke. And it's not up to you
to tell anyone not to offer
free advice, nor to question
why we should care about Duke's
future.

I guessed right that you wouldn't
look at what Duke contributes
to society with regard to science
and medical research and all
that, but I'm not your guardian.

So why should you care if I
make suggestions to Duke?
Do you want to make improvements
to the DIW "Mac" model?
How is that YOUR responsibility?

Anonymous said...

3:13 pm and 4:13 pm

That it a 10% difference - not 6%.

Math major here.

Anonymous said...

Thanks math major. Not a wash by any means.

Jack said...

Mac, why do always object so harshly when I don’t completely buy into your assertions, and why must you always respond in such a condescending, mean spirited way? This little exchange began when I responded to your declaration: “What's happening at Duke is a symptom of a disease. There's an outbreak-(call in the CDC!) -and almost an epidemic. You don't abandon one patient in the vain hopes of curing it in another who carries the same bug: you stop it where it lives. Duke could be saved, and it should.”

I offered my opinion that the patient does not consider itself diseased, nor does it want any help. Several exchanges followed, in one of which you clearly stated that many people feel the need to save Duke, regardless of how it became so sick. All I have been trying to ascertain is why, why do you, presumably, as well as others, feel this need so strongly? Alumni? Local residents of Durham that can appreciate the benefits that a major university can have on its local community? I am not a fan of Duke, that much I have made clear, and Duke has chosen to go the way it has, which it is free to do. I do not care that you make suggestions to Duke, but, actually, you’re not. You are making them on a chat board, where their value is questionable. That is why it would be helpful to me, and perhaps others, if you could give a more substantive reply as to why you feel this university must be saved, and how you intend to do. And try not to lace all your posts with such pithy, backhanded remarks. I don’t believe any of my posts contained any combative or derisive remarks directed at you.

mb said...

9:07 and 10:32: Without knowing what the variance in the data is, we personally can't say whether or not the 10% difference is a wash vis-a-vis statistically significant difference, i.e., different than zero - only the researcher who had the data can make this determination. And according to Braver, who actually analyzed the data, the difference was indeed a wash, as in "it disappeared."

Math major? Maybe. Statistician? Surely not.

For me, I'll trust the guy who actually did the research to make that call. But hey, you think you know better than the researcher who actually analyzed the data? Ok, whatever - keep dreaming. Whatever maintains your faith.

Anonymous said...

I am not a stat major or a math major, but I know that 8% and 2% are not the same and can not be a wash.

mb said...

5:05: Then clearly you don't understand basic statistics and science. This is how and why so many people are fooled by manipulators like the G88. I believe that the phrase "dazzle them with BS" is apropos for those folks.

Anonymous said...

Kc, bill anderson and a lot of the posters on here are ridiculous with this separate and equal nonsense. there is a long history here of duke students getting off lightly for drug charges; just the last two weeks a duke student mailed several pounds of MJ to himself and got off with just probation; young black durhamites get time for those type of offenses. the dukies are usually treated lightly; the only reason that there was a change in policy and a get tough attitude with the duke students was at the request of the affluent folks in the trinity park neighborhood who had had to suffer from the boorish out of control behavior of these students. the students did not respond to previous efforts to police the area and the result was the crackdown and subsequent arrests. you guys are acting like the dpd woke up and decided to oppress duke students but the fact is that the students have a long history of transgressing in the neighborhood and the town and people down here are into law and order, especially around affluent white neighborhoods like trinity park. these problems have been well documented by the local papers and is the reason duke was buying the houses and renting them out in the first place. that is also the reason no one is upset over the so called revelations that dpd may have treated the students more harshly; everyone here knows about the past problems and agrees with the crackdown. gottlieb is seen as a hero here in trinity park. most of us here do not loose much sleep over a crackdown on drunken public urinators bringing down our property values. dont lose too much sleep waiting for the people of durham to protest that policy.