Wednesday, June 20, 2007

McClain: Group of 88 Defiant, Despite Settlement

Incoming Academic Council chair Paula McClain (who last summer proclaimed that she would not publicly advocate due process for the three accused students from her own school) was defiant about the recent settlement shielding the faculty from liability. “I’m not going to be intimidated,” declared she, “into modulating speech.”

As for the faculty, McClain mused, “I don’t know if any faculty really felt any liability.”

Really? Here was fellow Group of 88’er Cathy Davidson, in a January 8 e-mail: “I have had lawyers look at the original [Group] ad and ambiguity of the language could be made, in a court of law, to seem as if we are saying things against the lacrosse team.”

It's nice to see that for the next two years, the Duke faculty will be led by a voice of such candor as McClain.

146 comments:

Richard Aubrey said...

Is there any independent entity which will be watching the 88ers and the rest of the faculty to see how the remaining laxers are treated in the next couple of years?

It doesn't look good, given the promotions of the worst of the nutcases.

Anonymous said...

The 88 Dukes of Hate will rise and spread. There appears no stopping the 88 For Hate except by sustained public ridicule.

Anonymous said...

McClain is another one of those G88 "gems" that Duke seems to specialize in. I'd strongly advise this idiot to wander down the Quad and check in with her law faculty colleagues to gain some remedial sense about the fundamentals of liability. While she's out in the real world, she might as well also ask Brodhead and the BOT why Duke paid some assuredly ungoldy sum of hush money if, as McCain puts it, "I don’t know if any faculty really felt any liability."

Is this really Duke's "best and brightest" when it comes to its faculty? If so, Duke is in even worse shape than I imagined. Then again, McCain is undoubtedly just mere "window dressing" for a University that genuflects at the altar of PC post-modern crap.

Thank God Duke ain't my problem. This fiasco endures.

Anonymous said...

Throw down the gauntlet....if you still stand by the ad as it was published back in march 2006...reprint it. Bring yourself out from under any coverage of the settlement and then have your day in court. See if it is trully protected free speech, or incitement to riot.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Johnson, I think you are a keenly aware of the "real" world as your writngs have clearly shown.
I have often wondered what a life in academia would have been like. Perhaps a Neverland where no one ever must face life outside of the ivy walls and ivory towers. Duke is an example of this. More than scary...

Anonymous said...

Perhaps, the 88 would prefer to waive the release and indemnification so they can say anything.

Anonymous said...

To all melanin challenged law abiding Duke students:

Paula has just put you on notice.

Anonymous said...

They will stop teaching hate WHEN they have no PAYING students. DUKE made a bad decision protecting those who teach hate. My teen will never attend Duke. Not in a million freaking years. I'll work 3 jobs if I have to so I can send him elsewhere. Peace of mind with my teen attending a good college or ulsers worrying if he's in Durham at Duke.

Anonymous said...

Let's reprint the ad for them so everyone can see them for what they are. This time in the New York Times.

Anonymous said...

Well ... I think the language of the settlement says that Duke is in the clear up to the date of the agreement, so the forward going statements of the 88 could come back to haunt them.

Anonymous said...

Of course, I wish KC would stop stone-walling and give us a day in the life of Mike Nifong during this period of paid leave. Also, why is KC covering up the letters Fried man put in the record at the last minute. People need to know who these idiots are. Any from the Duke faculty?

Anonymous said...

The Duke of 88 will spread ? Too late . Similiar groups have been spreading for years . Cells of anti male race-baiting leftist zealots exist on college and university campuses across this country . Let us not think that this is confined to one education of higher learning in one particular North Carolina venue .

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

The recent Duke settlement with the lacrosse players may have protected the 88 from liability for past acts, but if they shoot their mouths off in the future they may face additional liability not covered by the settlement. I wonder if they are stupid enough and vile enough to keep it up? Nothing surprises me about those academic quacks.

Anonymous said...

9:47 is right on. The Enemy within.

Anonymous said...

9:48

Yes there are. Thanks for asking, again, you funny little troll. Back under the bridge with you!

Teach1975 said...

The 88ers in this article again attempt to paint themselves as victims... While I don't doubt they have received hateful emails (as I'm sure KC has- instead he doesn't paint himself as a victim) it seems odd that as they turn these over to police there has been no actions... emails are not hard to trace etc...

Anonymous said...

Let these fools rant and rave all they wish. As of Sunday, they are no longer covered by Duke's settlement. Go ahead 88ers- If you thought the defense attorneys were good, wait until you meet the civil lawyers!

Anonymous said...

There are 44 families who have not yet been heard from , Ms. Dean Mcclain, maybe to quote another great American " when will the chickens come home to roost?"

Anonymous said...

Some people who visit this blog demonstrate that they are incapable of instruction. Unfortunately, 5000 years of recorded history indicate that this is a persistent condition..but it is fun to try educate because every once in a while the light bulb clicks on.

Anonymous said...

What is the job description of the dean of the Academic Council anyway?

Anonymous said...

McClain is disingenuous. She has no problem "modulating" the speech of others. She (and others in her groupthinktank)simply wants to be the arbiter of what speech is fit for the heavily regulated marketplace of ideas at Duke. Such speech regulation can no longer be achieved legally and directly through speech codes; therefore, universities, Duke chief among them, have instead utilized aggressive language, interpretation, and enforcement of "harrassment" policies to reach the same end. Imagine that the Duke students accused of gang rape were black. Further assume that certain faculty members and students took to the quad to bang pots, call for the castration of these students, and paste wanted posters on campus property that assumed guilt. The Duke administration would immediately and forcefully institute harrassment proceedings sua sponte against the offending faculty and students. In the lacrosse case, such abhorrent conduct by the likes of the 88 were not only welcomed by the administration as a sign of the university's commitment to truth and tolerance, but also pseudo-intellectuals such as McCain can now claim (from positions of faculty leadership) that they are speaking and behaving in the most noble tradition of "academic freedom". To all fair-minded Duke alums: clutch your Constitution and put away your checkbooks.

Anonymous said...

10:05 sounds like someone from the REDlight district

Anonymous said...

Incredible. Like spoiled, tantrum-throwing children, they have no conception of the trouble and embarrassment they have caused. Apparently, they also do not understand the true cost of having their own ideological playpen. The 88's stupidity almost certainly added significant costs to the settlements.

But, they come from and represent the members of society who do not understand where money comes from or the high costs of irresponsibility and intellectual indolence.

Anonymous said...

So, Duke has an ongoing problem that can't be resolved because hateful faculty were given extra authority before the vulcano erupted. For this reason, prospective students and their families should steer clear of Duke unless they enjoy tension and don't mind professors who can't figure out the real meaning of events and don't understand their responsibilities or anticipate accurately their place in history. Fifty years from now the Duke 88 will be understood as having been hateful and racist towards their white male students from successful families.

I also believe this case will turn some tides, but not as the 88 would hope. We'll see a backlash of less tolerance and support for oppressed groups. Hate always begets hate.

As helpful as KC Johnson's DIW has been by calling repeated attention to the injustices in Durham, and by ferreting out truths, I've noted that a few of the bloggers here are hateful and biased. Warning: as soon as you find yourself characterizing all of any group in a pejorative way, you are on a wrong (and hateful) path.

Anonymous said...

KC: One of my Father's favorite sayings:

"If you argue with an idiot, pretty soon you start sounding like one."

These people meet that definition. They are discredited, and don't even know it. Arguing with them does no good, though I am equally outraged at how they threw their own students under the bus. At this point, it may counter-productive to try to get through to them.

Another favorite of the Old Man: "A fool may be wrong, but rarely in doubt." Let them stew and level their lances at the next windmill.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

Well said 10:10.
I have full confidence based on todays post about McClain that suits will follow as some of the g88 go forth with more slander and lies. They are banking on the families being too tired to fight back.
It's wonderful to know the settlement actually did have an impact on them, they are already speaking up. Maybe will go too far before school starts and can be let loose so as not to due Duke anymore harm.
There may be more possibilities for success than I thought.

Anonymous said...

I'm no defender of Paula McLain, but the way this post is written, it implies that McLain says she will not be "intimidated into modulating speech" by the settlement agreement. In the original N&O story, she is talking about "furious e-mail messages" as the things that will not intimidate her.

It's fair to characterize her as defiant, and her idea that no faculty members feared liability seems naive at best. But the implication that she is directly protesting the settlement goes too far, seemingly contradicting her statement that the settlement makes good sense (whether or not it was "necessary").

Anonymous said...

the Gang of 88 really needs to issue a public apology in a broader delivery/circulation than the initial article. Thus, the message of the retraction should be twice the admonishment, and reach 10 times as many people.

Each and every one of them should be required to sign this apology or face sanctions.

It disgusts me this has not happened already. Despite the financial settlement, Duke's reputation is becoming mediocre at best. Some things are greater than money...dignity and integrity cannot be bought, but earned.

Anonymous said...

"Warning: as soon as you find yourself characterizing all of any group in a pejorative way, you are on a wrong (and hateful) path."

Amen to that. ULtimately this becomes the mirror image of the kind of stereotyping that led to the rush to judgment in this case.

Anonymous said...

"Duke family"?

Like living with a wealthy but abusive and alcoholic stepfather.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:28

"stereotyping that led to the rush to judgment"

And for which the state of NC has corrected publicly and sternly without financial reparations (yet). Duke just jumped into the financials. The group 88 needs to issue a public apology.

Anonymous said...

Duke's faculty has forgotten what it exists for - to teach. And these are the lessons?


Gross.

Anonymous said...

From the article:
"I don't know if any faculty really felt any liability," she said. "But in a very litigious society, anyone can sue for anything."

*sigh*

Yet another person putting it all on society's doorstep, and avoiding the notion of personal responsibility.

Shouting Thomas said...

This problem is not limited to Duke. My alma mater, the University of Illinois, is in the same position.

50 years of racial and sexual quotas, along with demands for political conformity in academic hiring processes, have produced this nightmare.

Every humanities department in every major university demands conformity to the nutjob neo-Marxist agenda as a prerequisite to employment. KC Johnson's tenure fight is a testament to this.

The fiasco at Duke will be repeated. Many times. Until the chokehold of the neo-Marxists is broken, these quacks will rule.

jim2 said...

Let us be sympathetic towards the 88.

After all, the lacross team may have lost a season, the coach fired, grades dropped, had to hire lawyers, and three were indicted, but, but, but the 88 have had their SYLLABI SCRUTINIZED!

Anonymous said...

To be fair to McClain, the article presents her quote about refusing to be "intimidated" as a response, not to the settlement, but to allegedly received hateful and/or threatening communications.

However, to be fair to the rest of the world, several G88ers have described as 'hateful' and/or 'threatening' communications which any reasonable civilized person would describe instead as politely worded messages expressing disagreement with the G88's actions and statements. One stellar example shows the level of self-deception G88ers can sink to, so one does wonder if there's some fire behind the smoke, or just smoke.

Anonymous said...

I never thought I would be happy to see any of my kids disappointed, but the day last spring when my son received his Duke rejection was one of the happier moments in the whole college search process (only slightly overshadowed by the award of a big honkin' merit scholarship from Someplace Else).

Looks like it will be a long time before anything changes at the Tobacco Institute.

Anonymous said...

I love it.
The 88 are giving the finger to everyone. They mistakenly believe they are so much smarter than everyone else.
Do they not hear other intellectuals laughing at them.
Exactly who can we thank for putting these losers in a place of power?

Duke better do something fast before their entire faculty are the laughing stock of the academic world, if they are not there already.

Anonymous said...

""I don't know if any faculty really felt any liability," she said. "But in a very litigious society, anyone can sue for anything."

OK, I'm not a lawyer, but is "liability" something you "feel" or is it something you "are?" I thought "liablility" was a state of being, not a state of emotion.

Anonymous said...


Amen to that. ULtimately this becomes the mirror image of the kind of stereotyping that led to the rush to judgement in this case.


Of course, when you see a group of people who are supposed to be intelligent fail to carefully consider their actions and simply follow the herd in rushing to judgement, you start to wonder if they are the appropriate people to be teaching.

Anonymous said...

She won't modulate speech, but she sure can take her liberties interpreting civil rights and various other laws like "innocent until proven guilty".

I encourage all Duke students to not modulate their speech to her.

Anonymous said...

To 10:48: An idealistic "high five"!

Unfortunately, most Duke students are smart enough to keep their mouths shut in the presence of the McCains on the faculty. They fear going the way of Kyle Dowd. A lawsuit is not the most efficient way to dispute a grade!

Anonymous said...

" I don't know if any faculty really felt any liability."

McClain's comments do not surprise me. The Group of 88 (-1) are so lacking in common decency that they still believe that they did nothing wrong. They are used to having their ideas accepted as gospel truth by their students and the fact that the lacrosse case
has pulled the curtain on them and exposed them as morally bankrupt charlatans must be quite disconcerting.

No one is trying to intimidate the Group of 88 (-1). This is not and never has been an issue of academic freedom. It is a simple matter of accountability. The professors have the right to say whatever they please but they should be willing and able to defend their positions. They talk about "dialogue" but after very loudly and publicly making their own statements they don't want to hear any critical responses.

Duke is a great institution but I have deep concerns for its future. The very fact that Paula McClain was elected Chairwoman of the Academic Council does not bode well for Duke. Duke wants to move forward but the Group of 88 (-1) has effectively hobbled it. Until the professors take responsibility for their role in promoting the hoax, at best, Duke University will limp into the future.

Anonymous said...

How interesting that THIS story has disappeared from the N&O website/first page.

Does this mean that someone other than the three has to sue Duke and Brodhead?

Ralph Phelan said...

'"If you argue with an idiot, pretty soon you start sounding like one."'
However pointing and laughing doesn't incur that risk.

"it may counter-productive to try to get through to them."
MAY?!?!?!?!
That point is long past.
The question now is how to get rid of them.

Anonymous said...

Does the settlement protect the faculty forever, or only for remarks/activities prior to the settlement?

Anonymous said...

The Group of 88 would be toast if Brodhead had a spine.

Anonymous said...

10:57
Only for remarks/conduct before 6/18.

Steven Horwitz said...

Both 10:25 and 10:38 are correct about the context of McClain's defiance. KC's headline is very misleading. The quote about not being intimidated is NOT referring to the settlement but the hateful emails she is, apparently, getting.

The G88 have done enough real stuff that's wrong and it does none of us any good to give them opportunities to question the fairness of their opponents.

Anonymous said...

This farce of a teacher LIVES for modulated speech. Her liberal tendecies demand it.

What a liar. To hear that from the left-wing is disgusting. They feed on modulating everyone's speech.

I think she needs a background check.

On another note...the 3 boys and families can't sue Duke, does not mean no one else can go after the Gang of 88.

miramar said...

“I’m not going to be intimidated into modulating speech”...because I have Daddy Duke's deep pockets to back me up any time I make a complete jerk out of myself and slander somebody.

Once again we see the contrast between those hooligan lacrosse players, who owned up to their mistakes and apologized immediately, and the gang of 88.

Anonymous said...

Duke University could have been the hero in this whole episode.
Since the investigation was so flawed from the very beginning, the school should have seen the problems and not jumped to judgement.
It was all right there for them to take the high road and show parents and students that we have your backs.

Basically, if they just would have kept their mouths shut until there was real proof, their (alleged) good reputations would all be intact.

But they decided not to wait and to go on the attack. Now they not only look foolish but also dishonest.

Duke will not again be considered a school of higher education until a ea 88 losers are gone from the faculty..Goodluck with that one.

Anonymous said...

If I were one othe 3 boys, or a parent of, I would not have agreed to any settlement that that did not include a public reprimand of these 88 sub-par professors.

Anonymous said...

I have no doubt that Davidson's attorneys are correct to note that it would be difficult to sue sombody for the message of the listening ad, but I don't think that this is because of its ambiguity. Instead, since Lubiano doesn't know how to write, she prepared a virtually incoherent criticism of the situation at Duke claiming that something happened to this woman, the we must keep her central to the discussion, that there is terror at Duke, that Duke is full of racists, etc. The whole thing is so disjointed (much like the thinking of the group) that a jury would have a hard time deciding on its true meaning as long as some good attorneys were around to cloud the waters. While in sports they say it's better to be lucky than good, in this case it's better to be dumb than intelligent.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with 11:07. I think Duke just took a big hit to it's reputation as a top tier school, by failing to appropriately recognize the liability and public damage caused by these rogue instructors.

Brian Carnell said...

Tenure means never having to say you're sorry.

Anonymous said...

The Group of 88 represent a very small fringe group of professors out of a total faculty of about 1500 (IIRC). Also, all universities but especially elite ones, have scads of these types on their campuses. All the 60s hippies and their buds went into academics! Why not? You never have to argue with logic and reason- you can just feel (or not) everything. You don't have to meet a payroll or compete in the real world. Other than working for the government, what could be more suitable?

Anonymous said...

11:13 am--
Fine as a statement of what you would have done in these circumstances. But if you are implying a criticism of the families for settling without this statement, with all due respect, MYOB. The listening statement ad is a major concern of the people who comment on this blog, but my guess is it is/was pretty far down the list of concerns for the Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann families, who had much more pressing issues to deal with. I don't think we should presume to criticize their choices unless/until we have walked a mile in their shoes.

Anonymous said...

I'm about tired of hearing the unsubstantianted bullcrap about the "threatening" emails that the 88 bring up everytime they they a hit. Show 'em to us. Nobody here supports "threatening" emails, and I have long doubted their existence. This is just another attempt to smear bloggers and anyone else that disagrees with the 88 and their metanarrative.

Anonymous said...

anon 11:22
Whatch out!!
"fringe group".
That's what they called the nazis in 1929.

Anonymous said...

To those posters who keep saying "No child of mine will ever go to Duke!" blah blah blah, I say your child probably wouldn't get in regardless of your opinion. I say that not knowing your child but rather, knowing the acceptance rate at Duke which is very low and getting lower. The chances of a non-connected, non- athlete, out of state (Duke by charter takes a higher number of NC students than other states), non-development (big donor) kid getting in are extraordinarily low. Consequently, you get the Reade Seligmann's of the world there: great kids well prepared in good high schools who are bright, engaging, loyal and fun.
Duke remains one of the very few top tier schools at the 5,000- 9,000 size that has great academics plus great sports. Northwestern, BC, Notre Dame, Stanford, and Georgetown would also fall into that category. Of those Duke definitely has the best weather.

Anonymous said...

anon 11:33

I do not disagree with anything you say, but those are pre "fiasco" statistics aren"t they?

Anonymous said...

It's probably true that any lawyer could defend the 88 based only on the listening statement, but what if they subpoenaed all the emails? I wouldn't be surprised to see a number of the 88 in deep crap under those circumstances, so while they talk tough, you can bet that they are breathing a collective sigh of relief.

Anonymous said...

Please write to President Brodhead to urge him to condemn the British faculty boycott of Israeli academics, as the President of Columbia Univesity and the Chancellor of UC, Berkeley have already done.

This would be a good opportunity also for the Group of 88 to stand up for the academic freedom of others, i.e., the Israeli professors (but somehow I believe that they will not!)

Anonymous said...

As I said previously, there are 44 families that are not constrained by any agreement, " let the chickens come home to roost."

Anonymous said...

11:33 Anonymous: I honestly think at least 3 of my 4 kids could get into Duke, and partially because I'm an alum and they have done well in school so far. One's graduating this year and is headed to NCState's engineering school by his choice (we used to live in NC but are now in TX). My second son has been exposed to Duke just about since birth but has no interest in attending (he's a rising high school junior right now). My daughter's more interested in the Ivys.

Don't generalize. You'll usually be wrong.

Anonymous said...

As a parent with a near future college student son, it is good for me to hear about the 88 on a faculty.
Safe to presume every college has their own 88?
I would have not known of their impact on students if it were not for this "fiasco"
Thank you, I guess.

Anonymous said...

No, those are not "pre-fiasco" statistics. Duke's yield this year wa much higher than anticipated giving them a freshman class above 1700 which is more than they really wanted. Their minority enrollment is way up, also- the class of 2011 is 40%+ minority. As much as those of us here want the G88 to be punished or at least humiliated, the applications to Duke are not where that is going to happen. Last I saw the annual fund was very high as well. I did, however, blast them when they sent me a questionniare as a Duke parent. It asked all sorts of harmless questions about my son's experiences there and then had a "anything to add" section. Let's just say I had a LOT to add!

Anonymous said...

11:47: I'm not generalizing- I specifically stated that my comments were based on the numbers. The odds of a random poster on this blog having a child who could get into Duke are very small. I didn't say yours couldn't get in.

Anonymous said...

"Tenure means never having to say you're sorry."

Interesting twist, Eric Segal who wrote the original quote was turned down for tenure by his colleagues. Rumor has it they were jealous over all the money he was making from his novel, Love Story.

xutag77 said...

"Duke is a great institution but I have deep concerns for its future. The very fact that Paula McClain was elected Chairwoman of the Academic Council does not bode well for Duke. Duke wants to move forward but the Group of 88 (-1) has effectively hobbled it. Until the professors take responsibility for their role in promoting the hoax, at best, Duke University will limp into the future. "

The rest of the paragraph contradicts the first sentence. Until we are will to eliminate the first sentance, the Duke will feel no repercussions.

Because the the way Duke has reacted to this situation, Duke is not a great school, because a great school would have reacted differently.

Anonymous said...

I can understand a parent of a student at Duke defending the university.
But the show is not over yet.
I personally like and respect Duke and students, and I hope the university does not take a hit.
Buy the epitaph has not been written for this story yet.

Anonymous said...

Shouting Thomas said...
50 years of racial and sexual quotas, along with demands for political conformity in academic hiring processes, have produced this nightmare.

The big trouble started with Clinton. He pushed racial quotas to a whole new limit. If a liberal (anti-white) person gets elected, this country will be on it's way to hell.

Anonymous said...

I am going to say right now that I want my daughter, who is a rising senior to go to Duke. My 3rd son is there and loves everything about it. He and all of his frat brothers wore "innocent" bracelets all year and fully supported the LAX team as a whole during the entire fiasco.
Any good school she attends is going to have a G88 contingent. It is a given these days. Duke has a spectacular campus, great academics, very high graduate/law/medical school acceptance rates. More than anything, though, I just love the kids that go there. They party but they are also smart and hit the books when they have to.
It has been hard dealing with Brodhead, b/c I actually like him a lot. He is the most charming, creative and articulate person you can imagine. I strongly disapprove of the way he handled this case, however.

Anonymous said...

Most or all of the public actions of the 88 occurred before the indictments; thus all 46 members of the team actually have cause of action. At that time the 3 who were indicted had not been singled out.

Anonymous said...

The chutzpah of the 88 frauds, who have been shielded by the responsibility of their venomous words through DUKE UNIVERSITY's money, is mind-boggling. One can only hope that things will not stop here. After all, the terms of the settlement do not stop other wronged/threatened/abused students to sue the bastards, and they definitely do NOT stop Duke University students from protesting in front of the classrooms of the frauds, demand in no uncertain terms that the wicked clowns be fired, in the interest of Duke University truly, not cowardly, putting this fiasco behind it, and truly moving forward.

People of Paula McClain, Holloway, Farred, Curtis, Davidson's ilk have no business being anywhere near children, or young people, as they pray on the young and the vulnerable.

Do NOT let this sad story end here. This shameful cover-up may shield the impostors from their immediate legal responsibility, but they still have - and they shall have - to answer in front of the larger Duke community.

This cover-up shall not stand.

Anonymous said...

I recently spoke with two well educated people here in Chapel Hill who maintained that "something happened that night." I pointed out that one of the reasons Nifong was disbarred was his insistence that "something happened that night." This was greeted with a shrug.

I also pointed out that it does not follow that an unproven serious crime means that a lesser crime must have occurred. We might conclude that if there had been inconclusive evidence for the serious allegation(i.e. not enough evidence to convict) then the boys got away with something. However, if there is no evidence whatsoever of a crime, then there is only one logical possibility: nothing happened that night and the woman is a liar.

My suspicion why people still believe something must have happened is because of the initial hysteria in the spring of 2006. The outrage must have signified something. People don't have such strong feelings for no reason. If my suspicion is correct, it would indicate that the logical fallacy of question begging is a contagion approaching epidemic status.

Brant Jones

Anonymous said...

10:28

As a "wealthy but abusive and alcoholic stepfather", I resent being lumped in with the Gang of Hatey-Hate.

Anonymous said...

I am neither left or right wing. I try for common sense that tells me that Brodhead - and more specifically the 88 - have behaved with bigotry. Their resentment, stereotypes, and racism have shown through - as well with the NAACP, Black Panthers, et. al. If those had been right wing groups, I truley believe that they (and like-minded faculty) would be alternately barred from campus and reprimanded, if not forced to resign.

BTW, to earlier post: "I'm not generalizing- I specifically stated that my comments were based on the numbers."

That IS stereotyping - making specific characterizations to one (parent) based on generalizing from a group (bloggers).

Someone has a blind spot...

Ed

Anonymous said...

10:57

don't even think about gonads

Anonymous said...

Mr. Jones:
Are you saying that the news of last spring hit a nerve in NC and thus people are reluctant to give up their outrage (b/c it felt so righteous at the time)?
I am disappointed to hear that there are still those who believe "something happened". It's just so easy to say and so very destructive!

Anonymous said...

11:33

Duke has the best weather except for the 88 black clouds

Anonymous said...

Ed- If someone has a blind spot, it isn't me. What I said was that the odds of a child applying to Duke being accepted are very, very low. I said that statistics say that a random blogger's child would have the same odds as the general public= 1 in 10 or similar. In other words, it is extremely difficult to gain entrance to Duke and that applies to the children of the posters here the same as the general public.
I would be a lot more impressed by someone who said their child was accepted but turned it down b/c of the LAX case. Of course, that child probably would not have applied in the first place. All this "no child of mine is going to Duke!" blowhard is just bravado. They talk as if they can just walk right in and I am saying that isn't the case.

Anonymous said...

What you said was "I say your child (not anybody's child, not any child in general) probably wouldn't get in..."

That is a generalized stereotype, no matter your rationale.

If you had said, "odds are any given child..."

But, that's not what you said.

Anonymous said...

to 11:33

I don't disagree with you, and frankly the character of the three accused players is a testament to the quality of students at Duke as well as the high quality of the families that send their kids there.

But I cannot fathom how, after this fiasco and the continued recalcitrance of the G88 and Broadhead, any parent would be willing to take the risk of sending their kid to this school. One would hope that $40k+/year would at least buy some compassion for youngsters entrusted to its care.

Anonymous said...

What does it say about ourselves when we limit our compassion to a certain group of people only? What does it say about ourselves when we start going "boo hoo, poor me" at someone just because that someone is perceived to belong to a privileged class and is therefore not worthy of an apology or sympathy? Humility is still a virtue. And it's a good thing to have.

Anonymous said...

12:26 said:

"All this "no child of mine is going to Duke!" blowhard is just bravado. They talk as if they can just walk right in and I am saying that isn't the case. "

You don't know, maybe their child is bright, wealthy, whatever...

Again, making specific characterizations from the general.

Stereotype: "Verb 1. stereotype - treat or classify according to a mental stereotype; "I was stereotyped as a lazy Southern European because some Southern Europeans are lazy"

The analogy, "your child probably can't get in because few can, and, chances are, yours can't...

Meets the definition.

Ralph Phelan said...

"No, those are not "pre-fiasco" statistics. Duke's yield this year was much higher than anticipated giving them a freshman class above 1700 which is more than they really wanted."
I guess they panicked and dropped their standards more than they really had to.

"Their minority enrollment is way up, also- the class of 2011 is 40%+ minority."
Yup, sounds like that's what happened.

Maybe they're going after Spellman's market niche. In which case keeping and promoting the racist 88 is probably an effective way of getting the kind of student they've decided they want.

Anonymous said...

The AG's statement of innocence (along with Williamson's reiteration of that innocence) and Duke's settlement of everthing for everyone at Duke up through 6/18 means that slander and libel become more easily definable, and Duke will not stand behind any in its community charged with such. While Paula took a defiant stance, she did not rekindle the lacrosse meta-narrative the G88 is so fond of. Despite her protestations she gets the message. The G88 will move on to the next faux outrage.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Duke's yield this year was much higher than anticipated "
What was their yield last year?
What was their anticipated yield this year?
University admissions departments don't give out any raw data, which means they can spin, manipulate, and flat-out lie with impunity.

Anonymous said...

McClain is so dim and unintelligent. It hurts to know they have let her inside the door at Duke.

Anonymous said...

This faculty group should be watched closely and monitored for similar abuses by them in the future.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The Group of 88 represent a very small fringe group of professors out of a total faculty of about 1500 (IIRC). Also, all universities but especially elite ones, have scads of these types on their campuses. All the 60s hippies and their buds went into academics! Why not? You never have to argue with logic and reason- you can just feel (or not) everything. You don't have to meet a payroll or compete in the real world. Other than working for the government, what could be more suitable?

Jun 20, 2007 11:22:00 AM

==================================

Most of the Duke faculty has been totally silent. They watched this train wreck in silence.

And by the way, do you think a guy like Grant Hill would even go to Duke at this point?

Ralph Phelan said...

"My suspicion why people still believe something must have happened is because of the initial hysteria in the spring of 2006. "

It's cognitive dissonance.

To accept that "nothing happened" is to accept that:

(1) Your ideology is flawed. An intellectuals' ideology is part of his identity. The psychological cost of questioning it is high. It's a marker for membership in his peer-group. The social cost of questioning it is high.

(2) You got played for a sucker. To admit that all the blog hooligans, right-wing talk radio hosts, students, jocks and others you look down on got the right answer over a year before you did is to admit that maybe you aren't the smartest guy in any and every room you walk into. For an intellectual that isn't just part of identity, it's the core.

From what I know of cognitive dissonance, once people start shrugging off facts you both know are true, BACK OFF. If you force them to confront reality, the next step is violent, vindictive rage. "Something happened" is the last tattered rag of their intellectual pride, and they won't give it up easily.

Steve said...

They consider asian americans to be a minority in the south. On the west coast they are not considered a minority. A majority of anteaters are asian americans for example.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

I saw someone who is or claims to be an academic say that tenure has outlived its purpose on a thread last night. I think the case of the case of the 88 makes exactly the opposite case.

Tenure is needed to protect those with ideas different than the majority. What Duke needs is a reform of hiring and thus administration.

The Duke administration should immediately grant a new position to the economics department with a charge to go out and hire a young Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell. They probably need to hire such a person with enough of an academic resume to merit hiring them with tenure. This person could teach regular economics courses and a cross listed AAA course in economics of race. [Notice this person need not be of any particular race. They might be black, white, American Indian, Chinese, ect.] Perhaps, this course shoud even be required for this area of study.

This would bring real diverstity to Duke and tthe AAA program, that is DIVERSITY OF IDEAS. Similarly other not radicalized departments could be given new positions to bring DIVERITY OF IDEAS to Duke humanities programs. [These deparment should understand their charge is to balance out the 88.] These people need merit teunure to be protected from the tenured rable at Duke now.

Anonymous said...

University admissions departments don't give out any raw data, which means they can spin, manipulate, and flat-out lie with impunity.

Actually there is quite a bit of raw data available, perhaps not for this year yet, but for past years. That, of course, doesn't mean Duke won't, "spin, manipulate, and flat-out lie".

Here are the links for the stats for the last 2 entering classes.
http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2009profile.asp
http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2010profile.asp

Ralph Phelan said...

Ok, if they're telling the truth, class ranks and SAT scores have not changed significantly, black & hispanic have increased a smidgen, and the primary change from the class of '09 to '10 is that Asians have replaced Whites for about 4% of the class.

I guess they feel a little safer from PC witch-hunts? While they're not a protected class, they're not a target class either.

Anonymous said...

I see my original comment expressing relief that my son rejected by Duke has been deleted, presumably for being off-point, but figured I'd chance another comment since a number of related comments have since appeared. Yes, admission to highly-selective schools is as much a matter of chance as anything else. As far as qualifications are concerned, my son had GPA and test scores well up in the range reported for Duke's freshman class, good extracurriculars and a batch of alumni family members; we also have enough money to hire good defense attorneys should it be necessary to do so. The sentiment I was trying to express is "there but for the grace of God go I." And I really do think that the college planning process has to take into account the attitudes of the faculty and administration, as well as those of the locals, toward students. Why fork over a couple hundred thousand bucks for the privilege of being abused by Duke?

Anonymous said...

xutag77

I stand corrected.

As the parent of a Duke alum, I find it hard to say that Duke "was" a great institution but the way that Brodhead and the Group of 88 reacted to the fiasco has forced me to reconsider my son's alma mater.

I'm not prepared to completely write Duke off but if my child were applying to college today Duke would not be on his short list.

10:53AM

Anonymous said...

In a war, right and wrong are not so much the issue as winning. I suspect that g88 considers themselves at war even if many of their opponents do not. Hence fairness does not enter calculations.

Anonymous said...

anon 2:05
war is always about right and wrong, that is why men and women give their lives.

If g88 considers themselves at war, then just more silliness to add to the growing pile of their defective thinking.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Is there any independent entity which will be watching the 88ers and the rest of the faculty to see how the remaining laxers are treated in the next couple of years?"

Civil lawyers ;-)

Anonymous said...

12:03--
Good for you! Both of my daughters have attended Duke (one graduated in 2004, the other is a rising senior), and while neither has found it a perfect institution (what institution is perfect?), both have gotten solid educations, made good friends (including a few lacrosse players), and had a lot of fun. The idea that it's somehow a toxic cesspool that no sensible person should attend is just silly. Of course it's not the right school for everybody--but it's not the wrong school for everybody either.

Anonymous said...

I would still send a child to Duke, and if I were 18 again I'd have no reservations about going there myself.

At the end of the day, the things that make Duke great (its students, its student culture, its academic and professional reputation, its alumni, and its excellent sports) have all remained unchanged.

The group of 88 have countless counterparts at every school that can call itself Duke's peer. If anything the fallout from the LAX case has hindered extremism at the University.

jim2 said...

2:21 -

You know, I think 2:05 may well be right!

The G88 may feel that they are fighting for their existence, and always are and have been.

Let me hypothesize that they are true believers in their semi-religion that fems [or insert other group] have always been repressed and enslaved throughout history by white males, and that such remains the case today. Next, hypothesize that their doctrine is that only by their aggressive tactics will this grossly unfair and terrible state of affairs ever be changed.

Instantly, the ends justify the means, and any who turn out to be innocent (when the facts catch up) are simply outliers from the wide-spread cultural norm of oppression of fems. And, even if those individuals cannot be proven guilty of the instant crime, doubtless they or theirs are guilty of others, so it does not really matter anyway.

Thus, for them it is not about fairness. It is instead all about making the world fair for them on their terms.

Anonymous said...

I do not think anyone is calling it a "toxic cesspool" as it stands today.
I think the direction it is heading is what more of the comments refer to.

Anonymous said...

What I said was "I say your child probably wouldn't get in regardless of your opinion. I say that not knowing your child but rather, knowing the acceptance rate at Duke which is very low and getting lower. The chances of a non-connected, non- athlete, out of state (Duke by charter takes a higher number of NC students than other states), non-development (big donor) kid getting in are extraordinarily low". Those are facts, not stereotypes.
I responded to the person who said he/she thought 3 of his/her 4 children could have gotten in that I didn't doubt what he was saying.
Honestly! I think my point is quite clear. I'm not just referring to this blog. I have seen these comments ever since the case became known 14 months ago. There were lots of them on the Free Republic threads.
I just get fed up with people bloviating on a subject about which they have no knowledge. (Duke admissions) Some people (even on this blog) have stated that Duke is a state school.
I also think some people just like to argue for its own sake.

Anonymous said...

2:30 and 2:31:
Sanity, at last! Thank you!

Anonymous said...

I love 12:10's coinage, "Group of Hatey-hate.

mb said...

Anonmymous 11:07 said: "Duke University could have been the hero in this whole episode.
Since the investigation was so flawed from the very beginning, the school should have seen the problems and not jumped to judgement.
It was all right there for them to take the high road and show parents and students that we have your backs."


I don't think it's fair to paint the entire Duke community with such a broad brush: Most of the faculty, staff and administration did not slander and libel the LAX team members, etc., and some acted honorably (e.g., the Econ department). However, the fact that many of the people who did engage in reprehensible and grossly unprofessional behavior re. the LAX team were leaders on campus is shameful. The BOT should be seriously considering major, MAJOR leadership changes at Duke, especially with an eye on Broadhead, Dean Sue, McLain, et al.

It's one thing to have some two-bit ditzy clowns from Angry Studies shooting off their mouths and making fools of themselves - that's expected from their ilk - but for leaders to do it is unforgivable.

Anonymous said...

It is unlikely that the 88 will have any effect on Duke enrollment, admissions and/or status either short term or long term . It has long been a prestige institution and will remain so immutable to the 06 lacrosse anomoly . The bad that men do lives after them , the good is interred with their bones . And so let it be with the 88 . Their persistent defiance invites continued attention to their agenda along with dis-credit to themselves.

Anonymous said...

If she truly believes that she had no liability, I'm sure the settlement can be amended to exclude her from that umbrella of protection.

Funny the things you say AFTER a settlement that absolves you of responsibility has been reached.

They're all punks.

Anonymous said...

its CLEAR that this proxy professor wants to deny the confidentiality of the agreement

her comments are in contravention of the agreement

and as such she can be separated by a court judgement from the agreement

if she wants to CONTINUE to indirectly slander the players and those that remain, she needs to be served and prosecuted until she apologizes

why duke allows her to get involved in a legal matter shows that broadrot has no control of his employees and is as much a management disaster os george bumbrain bush

the players must sue her to enforce the confidentiality agreement

send her resume to oberlin

Anonymous said...

Ambigity of language my ass. You were saying things against the lacrosse team. By the way, ass here does not mean burrow, mule, or donkey, but rather, it is an expression of utter contempt for a group of dishonest academics.

Anonymous said...

Broadhead (sic) reacts to his faculty the way he does because he was trained the way they were trained. He didn't/doesn't have a clue except fear of everything but that the three would be found innocent. Everyone of them (Broadhead and Group88) knew that was impossible. They would make it so.

Anonymous said...

The ordinary members of the Group of 88 like McLain had negligible liability exposure before the settlement. So I think she's right on that point.

My issue is more with the fact that Faculty members like McLain remain so steadfast in defending their decision to publically spit in the face of innocent men. If the players were actually guilty, as the profs thought at the time, I could excuse or at least understand their actions. But now that everyone knows (and has known for the last 6 months) about their innocence and the gross injustices perpetrated by Nifong, I don't understand why they're still defending their decision to kick these kids while they were down. It shows a total lack of respect or class.

Anonymous said...

The ordinary members of the Group of 88 like McLain had negligible liability exposure before the settlement. So I think she's right on that point.

My issue is more with the fact that Faculty members like McLain remain so steadfast in defending their decision to publically spit in the face of innocent men. If the players were actually guilty, as the profs thought at the time, I could excuse or at least understand their actions. But now that everyone knows (and has known for the last 6 months) about their innocence and the gross injustices perpetrated by Nifong, I don't understand why they're still defending their decision to kick these kids while they were down. It shows a total lack of respect or class.

Anonymous said...

For crying out loud! Leave Bush out of this! He has nothing to do with it!

lm said...

Why wouldn't the young men and their families settle with Duke quickly? They don't seem the sort to relish the role of professional victim. People who lead productive lives would not want that role - endless appearances on daytime TV and being fawned over by the Nancy Graces of the media. It is enough that they took time out to come back and face Nifong.
They can't fix the mindset that greased the wheels of this fiasco, whether at Duke or anywhere else. As parents it is easy to worry about the sort of influences our young people will be subjected to in college, but how many students are rapt devotees of the 88 vs. just paying enough attention to pass the class so they can move forward to lives of economic affluence? These 60's leftovers will die out, people are more aware that hate- and fear-mongering involve fraud and lies, and that knowledge will hopefully keep overreaction in check.
On the other hand, professional victimhood will still be around: my local news has a story about a pre-school (all black) celebrating Juneteenth. A teacher earnestly described how important it was for these 4-5 year olds to learn "where their ancestors came from" and about the horrors of slavery - something not one of these children will ever experience. The next crop of professional victims is already being trained.

Anonymous said...

There are 44 families who havenot settled with Duke, ITS NOT OVER!

Gary said...

The problem of the G88 is as old as the problem of parasites. Love to delete their salaries and use the money for something useful, but it won't happen. I'm not from Duke, nad would rather send my kids to Stanford when the time arises in 8-14 years, but -- Duke has some very good engineering and medical Profs who by and large never had time for banging food implements together. I wouldn't condemn all of Duke for this nor withold my money from Duke if I were an alum. I might earmark it though. If I were a wealthy alum, I might just endow a KC chair in the history department dedicated to fact based study.

LarryD said...

A two word warning for Duke University: Antioch College.

Anonymous said...

"If g88 considers themselves at war, then just more silliness to add to the growing pile of their defective thinking."

How about if we change next to the last word above to "defecative"?

Just seems to fit better with "growing pile"!

Anonymous said...

There is such a thing as objective truth in the social sciences. If you don't seek it out and learn, and if you manage to have major societal decisions taken in ignorance (or from narrow interests), you wind up running uncontrolled, large-scale experiments on society. Over time and across societies, what accumulates is data. With enough data, you can largely make up for the lack of scientific controls. Think of twin studies.

The way to arrive at the objective truth is to recognize that most histories are presented through an agenda-driven narrative. You need to seek out and take in as many of these as possible, to get the full picture and to become more adept at recognizing things that fit the objective facts and those that do not. Then, you look at the data, at outcomes, unintended consequences, patterns, norms, exceptions, adjustments, etc.

Having done this, you can begin to see things for how they are. If you get together a number of individuals who have done the same and have a diversity of thought, experiences, and opinions, you can discuss and debate, drawing on the strengths of many to carve away falsehood and sharpen insights. You develop theories and try to use their predictive power to test the theories and understand developing situations.

I’ve done this. There are numerous examples where both left and right have been in the wrong. However, there is absolutely no question that most of the leading lights of the G88 are utterly bankrupt in most regards, including as arbiters of any sort of justice. They are shining exemplars of many of the troubles of some of those who self-identify with the left. In my view, the main trouble they have is that they are intolerant.

They cannot abide any diversity of thought. In fact, feelings and dogma trump thought and there can be no dispassionate analysis of the past, of difference, of whom is the victim of what, and so on. Why would anyone expect that there are not individual and group differences? Heredity and environment, education and social policy make us what we are, individually and collectively. There is a biological basis for many things.


I don’t suppose I am going to convince anyone of how things actually are. However, it would seem that the departments that employ the G88, and the counterparts at many other universities, ought to have people across the spectrum and they ought to be free to say all sorts of things. Instead, all too often, there is a critical mass of ideologs to the left who have managed to take control and kill off all dissent. We see one result here.

Anonymous said...

It's been mentioned a number of time and deserves to be said again.

Duke alumni donations = leverage. Enough $1 donations with short notes explaining why - will get the attention of the BOT. Let them figure out how to repair Dukes' 88 broken toilets.

Anonymous said...

these players werent parasite illegal spics and bush could care less about the players civil rights than katrina or 100000 other events his bumbrain refuses to react to...bush is the same uninvolved intellect as broadrot who consulted his scumbag athiest advisors and said ok pile on the lax

Anonymous said...

The gang of 88 to Brodhead.
"Let me hold up the carpet, so you can sweep this mess right under there. hey look, lots of room for our future fuck ups".

becket03 said...

Esquire:

"If you argue with an idiot, pretty soon you start sounding like one."

Another appropriate aphorism that's crossed my mind more than once when contemplating the G88 comes from Nietzsche:

"...those who fight monsters should see to it that in the process they do not become monsters themselves."

The G88 see themselves as nobly carrying on the fight against the monstrosity of racism and racial oppression. In their mind's eye they're marching on Selma with Dr. King.

But decades have passed since that day of glory, and in the changing times, many of King's epigones, much his inferior, have converted nobility into monstrosity.

beckett

Anonymous said...

The G88 are proof that quotas are the way to lower standards. Certain populations wind up concentrated in certain departments and the rot begins to spread, forcing others out.

Rob said...

Quote:"The Duke of 88 will spread ? Too late . Similiar groups have been spreading for years . Cells of anti male race-baiting leftist zealots exist on college and university campuses across this country . Let us not think that this is confined to one education of higher learning in one particular North Carolina venue."

Very true. I think though, that if nothing else, many many people (and especially men) will start to see the underlying danger that lurks on all US campuses. The problem for many men has been that they have never actually felt threatened by the Women's Studies/ gender feminist extremists that inhabit their work and living space. Their paths, courses and lives probably rarely interacted. If one good thing has come from this, more and more males are waking up to the seething hatred for them that these people have, and the power they wield on campus. The PC zealots and campus feminists have long been viewed as a hornet's nest. Don't prod them, and they'll leave you alone. In actuality, the Duke case shows that any single male can be a victim of a higher and more symbolic "justice" at the slightest sniff of blood. At the very least, many of these campus piranhas US wide will be maintaining low profiles for a long while.

As for the Group of 88, well, the internet has a long memory. Jobs, promotions, prospects and advancement are a diminishing pipe dream for most of them. And outwith their little benign pool of fellow zealots, they have a whiff of the "untouchable" about them. I mean, would you want on your CV/resume that you took Political science and WS at Duke?

Anonymous said...

McClain and her ilk didn't feel any liability toward "innocence until proven guilty," or to "due process," or to the "rule of law" either. No, they don't feel any particular liability for that. So much for rational, intellectual academia and their "feelings."

Anonymous said...

2:30

Wow, your child associated with one of "them"? A lacrosse player? What next, you are going to say that some of her best friends are "black"? For shame. The meme never changes, only the word between the quotes.

Anonymous said...

Eliminate race norming and affirmative action. Paula McClain will be unemployed.

Do Caucasians owe blacks a living? I think not.

Anonymous said...

Would it be "racist" to wonder what Duke's US News ranking would be if it only ranked black students and black professors.

Next topic: black parasitism.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Check out Paula's publishing history. What a lightweight!

She luvz dah afarmativ akshun.

Anonymous said...

The 88 prove, every time they open their mouths, precisely why they are sequested in adult liberal daycare behind tenure and away from any amount of accountability. Curiously, the American economy marches on without their contributions in the private sector.

I hope that stupid idiot thinks she has no liability, because as has been pointed out, events post 6/18 are not covered under the settlement. Ideally, she will be foolish enough to renew that statement. In all likelihood, actual adults at Dook have had a sit down with her and told her to shut the ^&&* up (probably the "intimidation" she perceives) and get back to promising to write a book some day, and leave comment on anything relevance to a person who has gone through emotional puberty.

Well, Dook can try to sooth the wounds its national reputation has taken by the cut of its own blade by pointing to what amazing "diversity" it has at the faculty level. Other schools will just have to settle for competence, to make up for the boredom that comes with not having to have exposure meetings and cutting checks to make up for reckless and grossly negligent statements of its "esteemed" diverse faculty.

Anonymous said...

well said, 10:18

Anonymous said...

The key here is that there are another 39 potential plaintiffs to bring suit against the 88. They should be just a little bit nervous.

Das said...

becket 03

I was thinking the same and reminded of Eric Hoffer who pondered the America-hating leftoid professor phenom harder than any modern essayist. He believed that professors 1) looked down on daily humdrum America with its materialistic persuits and 2) they wanted to lead lives of grand purpose, laden with meaning, the stuff of legend. I think I can buy that. Notice how quick the professors are to cry "oppression" or "racism" or "male colonial hegemony" when none exists? Opportunities to become a legend are few; you've got to jump on any little thing that comes along; infuse it with your unmistakable passion for justice; write petition, manifesto, puree, bake, serve hot...

Anonymous said...

Gee 8:23, I'm not sure why my post set you off so much, nor why you have made such a big deal about the quotation marks that I didn't actually use in my post and the meme that only you saw there. And try as I might, I can't find any reason to feel shame over my remarks.

I included the reference to lacrosse players as what I thought was a light-hearted way of saying that my daughter, like the son of the commenter I was replying to, could support and be friends with members of the lacrosse team and yet she, and I, could still feel that Duke was a good place to go to school--that those two things are not mutually exclusive.

I'm trying hard to read my post the way you did, but I'm struggling--did you see it as an implied criticism of lacrosse players, or perhaps as a kind of condescending "see I'm so--what? liberal?-- I even allow my daughter to associate with lesser beings like lacrosse players" statement? Wow, that's sure not what I meant. So I guess it's either remedial reading for you or remedial writing for me--maybe both.

Legal Eagle said...

It's good to hear McClain speaking out for her rights.

This is as it should be, no matter the writing on the wall:

...Cathy Davidson, in a January 8 e-mail: “I have had lawyers look at the original [Group] ad and ambiguity of the language could be made, in a court of law, to seem as if we are saying things against the lacrosse team.”

Yes, it's kind of like yelling fire in a crowded theater. There are consequences, the innocent get trampled.

Other 88's will say they weren't the instigators and bear no responsibility for yelling their second-hand accusations, but a competent lawyer will ask the jury if the yelling was reasonable, given the circumstances and position of the speaker(s). Would a reasonable person do the same... set fires where none existed.

No.

But I think McClain may be an exception, and therefore should not feel hampered in her right to speak out about anything and anyone, regardless of the content or consequences.

LE

No justice, no peace said...

Maybe they, the Group of 88, could publish a book, a compendium, of all the hate email they received.

They don't appear to publish much of anything else, so this work could be a start.

Anonymous said...

I don’t know if any faculty really felt any liability.”

Come on, KC, this is rabble-rousing. She said she didn't know.
q:"Really?"
a: Yes, she didn't know.