Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Changing Standards at the Times

A college athlete accused of a gang rape (involving a 12-year-old girl of another race). Underage drinking acknowledged by all sides. A university (Oklahoma State) allowing the athlete to play despite the pending charges.

Surely these developments would arouse the fury of the New York Times, triggering multiple Page One stories and denunciatory columns from the likes of Selena Roberts and Harvey Araton.

Well, maybe not.

This time, the athlete under suspicion is African-American; his accuser is white.

Here’s how the Times played the story, under the headline, “Charge against a Player Raises Question of Justice.”

Here’s how local news sources (the Daily Oklahoman and the Texarkana Gazette) play the story.

The allegations of racial injustice that the Times detected don’t appear to have come to the notice of either the Oklahoman or the Gazette, even though articles in both papers, especially the Oklahoman, were not unsympathetic to the accused player.

As Clay Waters noted, “the Times seems determined to fit them into the same template of white-on-black racism it used in its botched coverage of the Duke ‘rape’ hoax.”

By the way, there’s been no sign of a Group of 88-like statement at Oklahoma State.

91 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, it certainly fits, not pun intended, and it has gotten to be old hat hasn't it.

Anonymous said...

What does the Houston Baker letter look like now?

Have a look...

Anonymous said...

Television screens tuned in to MSNBC on the morning of March 29, 2006 broadcast a headline in bold red: DUKE RAPE? At the bottom right corner of the front page of The New York Times on the same day was an article about the rape allegations roiling Duke University. How is a Duke community citizen to respond to such a national embarrassment from under the cloud of a “culture of silence” that seeks to protect black, male, athletic violence and which apparently prevents all university citizens from even surveying the known facts? How can one begin to answer the cardinal question: What have Duke and its leadership done to address this horrific, racist incident alleged to have occurred in a university-owned property in the presence of members of one of its athletic teams?

The alleged crimes of rape, sodomy, and strangulation of a white woman at a party populated in some measure by the Duke lacrosse team reportedly occurred on March 13. University administrators knew about and had begun to respond internally within twenty-four hours following the incident. But Duke University citizens had no public word from our university leadership until President Richard Brodhead called a press conference on March 28. Two weeks of silent protectionism left all of us vulnerably ignorant of the facts. Receiving emails and telephone calls of concern from friends nationally and internationally, we have been deeply embarrassed by the silence that seems to surround this black, male athletic team’s racist assaults (by words, certainly—deeds, possibly) in our community.

It is virtually inconceivable that representatives of Duke University’s Athletic Department would allow its lacrosse team to engage in regular underage drinking and out-of-control bacchanalia. It is difficult to imagine a competently managed corporate setting in which such behavior would be tolerated (and swept under the rug), or where such a “team” would survive for more than a day before being tossed out on its ears by security. Moreover, in a forthrightly ethical setting with an avowed commitment to life-enhancing citizenship, such a violent and irresponsible group would scarcely be spirited away, or sheltered under the protection of pious sentiments such as “deplorable”—a judgment that reminds us of Miss Ophelia in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, saying that slavery was “perfectly horrible.” Such timorous piety and sentimental legalism, in the opinion of the author James Baldwin, constitutes duck-and-cover cowardice of the first order.

There is no rush to judgment here about the crime—neither the violent racial epithets reported in a 911 call to Durham police, nor the harms to body and soul allegedly perpetrated by black males at 610 Buchanan Boulevard. But there is a clear urgency about the erosion of any felt sense of confidence or safety for the rest of us who live and work at Duke University. The lacrosse team—15 of whom have faced misdemeanor charges for drunken misbehavior in the past three years—may well feel they can claim innocence and sport their disgraced jerseys on campus, safe under the cover of silent blackness. But where is the white woman who their violence and raucous witness injured for life? Will she ever sleep well again? And when will the others assaulted by racist epithets while passing 610 Buchanan ever forget that dark moment brought on them by a group of drunken Duke boys? Young, black, violent, drunken men among us—implicitly boasted by our athletic directors and administrators—have injured lives. There is scarcely any shame more egregious than one that wraps itself in the pious sentimentalism of liberal rhetoric as though such a wrap really constituted moral and ethical action.

Duke University’s higher administration has engaged in precisely such a tepid and pious legalism with respect to the disaster of recent days: the actual harm to the body, soul, mind, and spirit of white women who were in the company of Duke University lacrosse team members as far as any of us know. All of Duke athletics has now been drawn into the seamy domains of Colorado football and other college and university blind-eying of male athletes, veritably given license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech, and feel proud of themselves in the bargain.

Many citizens have weighed in, and one hopes all departments, programs, and concerned members of our university community will speak out forcefully for swift and considered corrective action.

But of course, it is not exclusively our academic administration that seems to have refused decisive and meaningful action. The most deafening silence - and, quite possibly, duplicity (which is to say, improbable denial) - has marked, in fact, Duke’s Department of Athletics. Where was Joe Alleva before Tuesday’s press conference called by President Brodhead? Where now is the commercial charisma of Coach K, who could certainly be out front condemning Duke athletes who call people out of their name from the precincts of university-owned housing? Why aren’t such stalwarts of Duke athletics publicly and courageously addressing the horrors that have occurred in their own domain? We remember the very first day of our new President’s administration - how he and Coach K shared the media dais, and the basketball magnate was praised for his bold leadership. It all seems rather like an Indonesian shadow play at this moment of crisis. All a show.

What is precipitously teetering in the balance at this point, during weeks marked by inaction and duck-and-cover from our designated leaders is, well, confidence.

It is very difficult to feel confidence in an administration that has not addressed in meaningful ways the horrors that have occurred to actual bodies, to the Durham community of which we are an integral part, and to our sense of being members of a proactive and caring community. Rather, gag orders and trembling liberal rhetorical spins seem to be behaviors du jour from our leaders.

There can be no confidence in an administration that believes suspending a lacrosse season and removing pictures of Duke lacrosse players from a web page is a dutifully moral response to abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken black male privilege loosed amongst us.

How many mandates concerning safe, responsible campus citizenship must be transgressed by black athletes’ violent racism before our university’s offices of administration, athletics, security, and publicity courageously declare: enough!

How many more white people must fall victim to violent, black, male, athletic privilege before coaches who make Chevrolet and American Express commercials, athletic directors who engage in Miss Ophelia-styled “perfectly horrible” rhetoric, higher administrators who are salaried at least in part to keep us safe, and publicists who are supposed not to praise Caesar but to damn the unconscionable . . . how many? Before they demonstrate that they don’t just write books, pay lip service, or boast of safe citizenship . . . but actually do step up morally, intellectually, and bravely to assume responsibilities of leadership for such citizenship. How many?

How soon will confidence be restored to our university as a place where minds, souls, and bodies can feel safe from agents, perpetrators, and abettors of black privilege, irresponsibility, debauchery and violence?

Surely the answer to the question must come in the form of immediate dismissals of those principally responsible for the horrors of this spring moment at Duke. Coaches of the lacrosse team, the team itself and its players, and any other agents who silenced or lied about the real nature of events at 610 Buchanan on the evening of March 13, 2006. A day that, not even in a clich├ęd sense, will, indeed, always live in infamy for this university.

A responsible, and in many instances appalled—and yes, frightened—citizenry of Duke University is waiting . . . and certainly more than willing to join considered actions by bold leaders to restore confidence in a great institution and its mission. Today I polled my class whose enrollment is predominantly women and white. All said that nothing had happened in terms of this university’s response that had left them anything but afraid. The shame of this is unconscionable. Still, these women will surely sleep better this evening than the white woman injured at 610 Buchanan Boulevard by the black lacrosse team’s out-of-control violent partying will ever again rest in her life.

Anonymous said...

It isn't just the NYT doing this. It is the whole damned system . . . the police, the courts . . . whatever it takes to get atheletes out of whatever difficulties they are in . . . I think part of the outcry against the lacrosse team by others than the Duke administration, the Duke Group88, pot-bangers and their ilk is the fact that for the most part no one can say anything against a black athelete, right OJ. The outcry against lacrosse was mostly rascist ranting and justice is a mere second thought . . . the girl in this case was a 12 year old. There is no protection in the law for any of these young girls and nothing but fear on the part of those who would protect them . . . the same kind of fear that allowed the Duke administration to turn the law on its head to railroad the lacrosse team.

Anonymous said...

Where are the copper pots & kettles when you need 'em?

Anonymous said...

How is this any different than the Nazi press? Aren't white, gentile males the new jews? Has anyone heard of Professor Noel Ignatiev, the famous Harvard race hustler? If not, give him a browse.

Shouting Thomas said...

"Aren't white, gentile males the new jews?"

You left out one of the identifiers. White, gentile, heterosexual males is the correct identifier.

You get to be one of the "oppressed" if you are homosexual.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 5:15 said...

. . . the girl in this case was a 12 year old. There is no protection in the law for any of these young girls and nothing but fear on the part of those who would protect them . . .
::
I don't understand what you are trying to say 5:15.

No protection? How can that be? Fear on the part of the protectors? What kind of fear?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Is Duke a state school?

Anonymous said...

Duke is a private university. Why do you keep asking without going to the Duke web-site to answer the question?

Anonymous said...

Is Duke a communist?

Anonymous said...

Where is Newsweek? Where is everyone else?

Anonymous said...

The NYT also published an editorial about Genarlow Wilson, saying he should be freed and returned to his family, his record expanged. Now, this young man actually had sex with a 17 year old (who accused him of rape, and he subsequently was found not guilty of that rape at trial) and oral sex with a 15 year old. Yet NYT isn't publishing articles that this young man was no angel or choir boy, and thus should remain in prison. I wonder why.

Anonymous said...

Great news!

Ward Churchill--a tenured professor at the University of Colorado--has just been fired for misconduct.

Hey Duke......listen up.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Nothing Changing.

Black on white crime is the norm.

papers are not interested in reporting it, to everyday to be of interest.

mac said...

NY Times: lots of eye-speck pickin'
in a visual lumberyard.

Anonymous said...

Why does this come as a surprise? And no, I'm not talking about the Times, I'm talking about the crime. This girl got what she desevered. She went to a hotel room with a bunch of black bucks and got raped. Ohhhhh my goodnesssssss!!!!!!!!! But the chances of that happening were about 98%.

Why don't you just tie a steak around your neck and get in the cage with a lion. That would make about as much sense. She got what was coming to her. If you don't understand that blacks are predatory and barbaric (see, Michael Vick) by nature, then keep toying with them until you figure it out.

rrhamilton said...

Let me see if I have this straight:

When white lacrosse players were charged with raping a 27-year-old black stripper, they were expelled from college. But when a black football player is charged with raping a 12-year-old white girl, he gets a scholarship and a chance to preen for NFL scouts?

Sounds about like the state of race relations in America today.

I know the 88ists can produce a (pending) "articulation" that will explain how the different treatment is really just more evidence of the need for increased student diversity and increased funding for Hate Studies departments.

Anonymous said...

A QUESTION FROM POLANSKI

Strictly from a CONCEPTUAL standpoint, what organism is at the core of the "Duke lacrosse case"?

It's nouns and verbs time.

mac said...

Debrah 7:43

Thanks for the scoop!

It'd be interesting to be a wall on the fly...a fly on the wall...
of some of the 88 'bout now:
"Oh, my God!"

Except they would probably say:
"Oh, my gods."

(Trouble is, if I were a fly,
I might get a little Ward Churchill stuck to my feet.)

Anonymous said...

TO "mac"--

LOL!

Think about it. This must be a bit unsettling for the Gritty Gang of 88.

Tenured professors who engage in horrific conduct can be wiped away!

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Professor--re Churchill's firing

Could any of the 88 be fired from Duke in similar fashion? Churchill was tenured, wasn't he?

Anonymous said...

KC's post on the Times' standards is a vivid example of the media today.

Locally, the N&O....and the more egregious H-S....report in much the same fashion.

Why must we downplay the significance of perpetrators of crime from certain segments of society? Logically, this intercepts justice and impedes the safety of citizens who do not get the real story.

Isn't the public supposed to be served by reports of crime in a community?

Debrah

Anonymous said...

If that were my daughter, he and his pals would not be walking or playing ball. His color is really irrelevent, other than KC's position, which I think is that the outrage is non-existent when it's a black on white crime. When you've got a 12 year old that's had sex, consentual or not, and it's statutory rape, there's really NO defense you can offer with a positive DNA match.

Game, set, match. He should be in prison, along with his buddies.

inman peering from under his rock said...

For the benefit of those among us who are uninitiated, who is Ward Churchill and why is this of significance????

The woman who will not speak to me and to whom I have been forbidden to speak can address everyone else if she chooses to answer.

Anonymous said...

Miss Debrah//////////////

I do believe you are very close to correctly answering Polanski's question.

Anonymous said...

6:33

Are you a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Inman ... you really don't know that Ward Churchill is a kook professor from Colorado. Busted for plagiarism, writing under pen names so he could cite them as "original sources" in his "scholarly work", fake Native American, etc.

Just another blow hole that was hiding out in academia, who will hopefully get his due before judge and jury. He's been fired and worked for a state school. His case is about whether he's protected from termination as a tenured professor, and whether his tripe falls under free speech, yada yada.

IQ of an ice cube said...

I'm going to open myself to accusations of stupidity...was he related to Winston?

lol

Anonymous said...

So funny I forgot to laugh

Anonymous said...

even Vicks dogs were white. We just cant get away from it.

Anonymous said...

Ward Churchill was fired from Col U.

So I guess Brodhead will be introducing the group of 88 to a new colleague next week.

Anonymous said...

Back to worthless tenured professors.....below is the "website" of Paula McClain. She actually has her own.

There is a photo of a glowing McClain. She could be your considerate neighbor......your colleague.....your sista friend.

LOL!!!

But all these antimacassar niceties become irrelevant when you click on the sections comprising her "website".

Everything this woman stands for is useless, trashy, and destructive racism......dressed up in a photo with relaxed hair and a pleasant smile.

This woman is all about racism. She bleeds it.

Imagine anyone living their lives with a course of study as has she. Some of these people are so insular and so void of any broad and objective outlook on life that it is scary to have them teaching at any major university.

Just read about her course of study. People like McClain revel in their lucrative brand of indecent race-bleeding.

Ward_Churchill_would_be_proud

Debrah

Anonymous said...

We all know Paula is nothing mo than a U-Ho. Deb, do you care to share a glowing photo of yourself?

inman said...

Could someone please tell the woman that I cannot speak to that I think Paula is 'hot'? OK OK...at least luke warm. Damn...she may even be enough to make a white man wanna ... well (blushing)...you know...It's a white heterosexual male looking at a colored woman thing.

God, I am a stereotype.

Anonymous said...

re McClain's prose

In 1st sentence of 1st course she teaches about racism, she makes a common grammatical error==

"the definition and meaning of" takes a singular verb, since the false compound subject is referring to 1 thing. These people don't even know the rudiments.

No one responded to my question. Oh well.

Polanski

inman said...

Polanski,

What was your question?

I

Anonymous said...

TO 10:13PM--

I'd love to! However, this is not a place for posting personal photos.

Really, you shouldn't ask that question. It's dangerous.

Vanity is my middle name.

How's that?

Debrah

Anonymous said...

9:17

You cannot imagine my rage if it was my daughter. There is not a death painful and prolonged enough to describe what my animal self would want and potentially pursue. Yes, if there is anything that could make me singularly insane, that would be it.

Anonymous said...

McClain is an idiot--"definition and meaning"--does that sound redundant?

course is a "broad [sic] overview"?

In her racism class description, chech out where she inserts "hence."

This numbskull's new position at Dook is head of academic affairs?

Polanski

Anonymous said...

TO Polanski--

Did you click on the section "courses"?

That was the disgusting one.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

I

Posted at 8:49pm.

Don't worry about Debrah. A Big Mac and a glass of white wine may get you lucky.

P

Anonymous said...

Debrah

Thanks for link.

P

Anonymous said...

To me, Petey Sigal has been the most pathetic so far.

Does anyone remember the link to one of his articles from 1999 that I posted? He's been at his perversion a long time.

Now he's paid very well to practice it on unsuspecting students.

Professor Petey

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Debrah says this is not a place for posting personal photo's, yet she display's a Paula glamor shot. Vanity I think not. Vainess I think so.

inman said...

"Strictly from a CONCEPTUAL standpoint, what organism is at the core of the "Duke lacrosse case"?

It's nouns and verbs time."

OK...first, the notion of a fungus comes to mind. This particular fungus is covered with mold. Along the outer edges of the fungus is a spider's nest, with dead ants and flies and even a decaying bat, maggots burrowing into the bat flesh, enjoying a brief respite from the minute parasitic aphid-like creatures piercing their slime and sucking their inner blood-born and -bred maggot progeny. And the spider looks on, splaying and honing cilia'd limbs eager to devour the scraps of the maggots journey.

Oh..and importantly, this particular cocktail exists in the minds of too many Duke professors and DPD invest1gators and Durham DA's. The numbers 88, 3 or 4 and 1 or 2 come to mind.

P -- Is that what you had in mind?

inman said...

Does life offer an
Easy way to
Be simple and nice and
Really cognizant of
All that we
Have and have not.

I for one....

Am profoundly interested in
Making a concerted effort to

State with clarity
One thing certain.
Rough edges, I may have.
Ribald humor, I may enjoy, but
You, my dear, are...well you.

inman said...

That was lesson number 4.

Anonymous said...

Inman,

SHUT UP and go away.

Anonymous said...

Debrah

If you could link an article at the American Prospect site, I'd appreciate it. A writing intern there, Dana Goldstein, just posted an article about the new Potter book in which she deconstructs the text, G88 style, to show the book's racism and identity politics.

This is what BS Studies is doing to the culture, especially popular culture.

P

Anonymous said...

TO 10:36PM--

That was the only thing on her website. McClain defines herself.

If you think that photo was "glamorous", then heaven help you.

I called it pleasant. At least we didn't get a Wahneema redux.

Debrah

a burr in your saddle said...

10:49

NO.

Anonymous said...

Fire tenured faculty at Duke? Get real. It is my (informed) understanding that since the 1960s, there have not been any abrogations of tenure through the approved hearing processes. One faculty member was, in the 60s I believe, stripped of tenure, but his hospital privileges were only suspended for a short period (he had performed surgery while drunk). I know of MANY cases where faculty resigned with no negative public comment to future employers rather than face a hearing and the resulting public scandal (mostly sexual stuff, like groping, even raping, undergraduates or graduate students or staff members), but including drug use, and financial fraud and theft, and violent criminal behavior.

So if you think anyone on the faculty will ever be "fired" like at a public institution, you are dreaming.

Anonymous said...

10:49

you need a comma after "up"

Anonymous said...

Roman:

Goldstein

Debrah

Anonymous said...

How is it that D----- liked my ice cream comment several days ago and now I am a Pariah. I don't it.

The ice cream must still be frozen.

Anonymous said...

Re: 10:58

These people have way too much time on their hands.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, D--on phone

need to learn how to post links

P

Anonymous said...

Debrah me thinks you don't even compare to Paula in lookability. She is so easy on the eyes!

Anonymous said...

Regarding the photo -- she is using her hands to pull back her face.

inman avoiding confrontation said...

I did not say that.

Anonymous said...


inman said...

Could someone please tell the woman that I cannot speak to that I think Paula is 'hot'? OK OK...at least luke warm. Damn...she may even be enough to make a white man wanna ... well (blushing)...you know...It's a white heterosexual male looking at a colored woman thing.

God, I am a stereotype.

Jul 24, 2007 10:15:00 PM


Inman, you need new eyeglasses.

Romeo Hotel.

please don't smack me said...

my face is raw as it is

inman said...

RH...

Is it okay for me to say that Paula has a temperature -- neither elevated nor subnormal?

And a pulse....surely this is not controversial?

Anonymous said...

I think I'm going to have to stop coming to this blog. People like the poster INMAN are just cluttering the place with childish monikers and really just a bunch of feces. Using 50 different names.
Don't understand this silliness.

Anonymous said...

TO 11:02PM--

Ha!

You're right. I don't compare to Paula at all.

Not in the slightest. :>)

Debrah

Anonymous said...

11:10

I understand how this could tax your brain. My suggestion for you:
People Magazine.

rrhamilton said...

Can we get back to the subject of KC's posting -- the incredible double standard that saw Seligmann and Finnerty expelled from the university while this alleged child-rapist gets to plan his football career while on a full scholarship at a Division 1-A university?

And keep in mind, the DNA on this guy came back positive, unlike that of Seligmann or Finnerty.

We need to put the spotlight on Oklahoma State U.

Anonymous said...

Is Debrah?

inman said...

rrh...good point

inman said...

Just looked up at 11:10 --

Suit yourself. I am not offended at all. You are an anonymous .. well ... someone who has been here often enough to make an erroneous and provactive assumption ... with no standing. Irrelevant as far as I'm concerned ... just like every single other anonymous poster. It's so damn easy to hide behind that "anon" pseudonym. Its almost as easy to hide behind these one name monikers. (Barbara or Sally or Becky or Debbie ... many other single name women's monikers come to mind).

KC doesn't do that. He owns everything that he publishes. His work has integrity. I respect that.

Its easy to throw darts or burn crosses or lynch people when you're wearing a hood. The KKK proved that truth.

Now, with all due respect, I understand those who wish anonymity. But attack squads veiled in that anonymity are like..well...shooting blanks.

Happy hunting!

Anonymous said...

Deborah is a cunt

Anonymous said...

Inman

The answer is parasitism, so you're correct.

P

Anonymous said...

Re the NYT. Remember this:

1. The terrorist attack at the WTC on 9/11 has had essentially had no effect on that paper. None. If anything, they are even more sympathetic to anti-American retoric.

2. On 9/11/2001 the NYT had a very sympathetic article (published just before the attack)about some home grown US terrorists from the 60s. To my knowledge they never have apologized or even officially acknowledged the juxtoposition. (go ahead--look the article up in the NYT archives--one guy was named Ayres).

3. This is also the paper that had a long (very complementary) article about the retiring Gary, IN mayor. He did a fine job, decided to retire after 10 years, etc. Gary, of course, is heavily African American. Did the Times mention this reelected mayor was a White guy, married to a local Black woman? No chance. Not relevent to the Times.

4. This is also the paper that once published an article that Jackie Robinson didn't do nearly as much as he could have for the civil rights movement.

ZEKE

Anonymous said...

rrhamilton @ 11:58 -- agreed. Further, the guy pretty much admitted that he had sex with this child. Whatpart of statutory rape is not understood by that university? They must be the same folks who taught him how to speak.

Anonymous said...

Where's the outrage from the feminist 'Sista's' too?

Where's Marcotte's angry scribbling on the subject? This is one she could actually get right.

ubg said...

I just read this article on Ward Churchill's dismissal:

"Lane plans to file a lawsuit in Denver Wednesday alleging Churchill's First Amendment rights were violated. He says Churchill was targeted because of his views."

I thought that was amusing in the light of this youtube clip.

Ward says: "I don't believe you have a first amendment right because that bounces off against my ninth amendment right..."

Ralph Phelan said...

>>... I think Paula is 'hot'? OK OK...at least luke warm. Damn...

>Inman, you need new eyeglasses.

Or at least take off the "beer goggles."

Are there any women you don't find attractive?

no justice, no peace said...

A couple of observations: "There can be no confidence in an administration that believes suspending a lacrosse season and removing pictures of Duke lacrosse players from a web page is a dutifully moral response to abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken black male privilege loosed amongst us."

Houston Baker and the other racist Gang of 88, Duke alumni, and any that have followed their actions think the Duke administration is incompetent. With everyone agin'em who is fer'em? Where is the BOT?

Also isn't it the "esteemed" Camille Paglia who has no problem with sex with children? Maybe 12 is too young for her?

Shouting Thomas said...

While, in general, I agree that most colleges are obsessed with the PC line, I think that the "double standard" refrain here doesn't work.

Duke and OK State are separate institutions. They have the right to deal with similar situations in differing ways.

I'm not saying I approve of what OK State is doing. The bottom line: Duke is a bottom of the barrel football school. Football is an after thought at Duke. Football is a religion in Oklahoma, and OK State suffers from a terrible inferiority complex in relation to its sister state school, Oklahoma. OK State would probably recruit a young Freddy Krueger, if he was a hot football prospect.

I also doubt that Oklahoma is a hotbed of PC, as is North Carolina. Oklahoma is cowboy country. All in all, I think I'd rather be in Oklahoma.

Duke and OK State are not acting in concert.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Changing Standards at the Times "

What do you mean changing? Black = good, white = bad. It's pretty constant.

HeatherRadish said...

Bouncing off of what Shouting Thomas said...Big XII football is a whole different animal than Duke lacrosse--there's been years where half the Nebraska team had at least one felony conviction. No one should be surprised that a private "elite" university and a state school treat their athletes differently.

That said, the NYTimes double-standard is certainly despicable. "Raises Questions of Justice"? When do they care about justice all of a sudden?

Anonymous said...

Paula McClain is a racist. Any university ignorant enough to condone her classes is just that ignorant. She is the type of person that uses the race card as an excuse. Poor, pitiful, "oppressed" Ms. McClain - pathetic. She fuels the fire of the uneducated and the university allows it. And I suppose only African Americans opened doors for her.

Anonymous said...

I am white. White is a race. Do I get a race card too?

Anonymous said...

NYT standards haven't changed. Blacks = OK no matter what they do, whites = not OK no matter what they do, truth = irrelevant.

Ralph Phelan said...

12:42

Yes, you get the two of clubs.

Unfortunately in this game the high card is the ace of spades, so to speak.

Anonymous said...

Ward Churchill was fired not solely due to his sphinctoral behavior. The University of Colorado has a lot of that among other faculty members, too. He lied to CU in the following ways: 1) false degree credentials 2) falsely claimed Native American ancestry 3) wrote and published fictional articles under pseudonyms and then referenced those articles and authors in support of the works he published.

As to OkState (btw, in the same conference as Colorado), they're projected one of the most improved teams in the Big 12 this year. The Texarkana paper states the player's DNA was a match. The player is not suspended pending the trial. Lots of money at stake for OSU and the player.

TombZ

Anonymous said...

Is Duke a state school?

mac said...

UBG

On the U-Tube clip,
I think Churchill was arguing -
(with respect to the 9th amendment) -
that he has a right to misrepresent himself, and a court
appointed attorney will be granted
if he chooses to let someone else
misrepresent him.

I think he does just fine by himself.

Granted under his version of the amendment is the right to lie,
to fabricate and to fornicate
(I added the last one, because it
sounded in-character for a narcissist
on his level.)

Stephen said...

How can he say that he and his family has been suffering for the past 16 months, like the falsely accused players? For most of that time, he was the media darling, reveling in the attention and the "million dollars in free advertising". His suffering is only recent and self inflicted. How can he equate his suffering to those boys and their families? I do not believe there have been pot banging demonstrations outside his house with "Castrate" signs. I do not believe he received verbal death threats in the courtroom at his bar hearing or today. I do not believe he had to walk a gauntlet of taunts and smears as he entered the courtroom. I do not believe he will spend anywhere near the 3 million dollars that the INNOCENT young mens families had to spend. He is a whining, pathetic weasel. I do not know the motive for his "apology" but I will bet my last dollar it was self serving.

Anonymous said...

The allegations of injustice seem to come from the NAACP. In the event that you read the NYT article,

Benjamin Dennis, president of the N.A.A.C.P. in Texarkana — whose population is roughly 60 percent white and 37 percent black — said that some of the city’s black residents were concerned about the handling of the case, particularly the delay in trying the four men.

“If they were guilty, then the evidence should have been presented in a timely fashion,” he said. “They should have been tried, and if convicted, sentenced. Justice should have been administered at least.”


Your inflammatory accusation aside, how does that implicate issues of "racial justice"? How is it actually inconsistent with their coverage of the Duke case?