Friday, July 06, 2007

Group Profile: Kathy Rudy

[Scheduling note: There will be daily posts through the Nifong contempt hearing on July 26, which I plan on live-blogging; and then twice- or thrice-weekly posts until the blog closes in late September, when I leave for Israel. A new feature will be a Friday profile of selected Group of 88 members, building off earlier posts on Wahneema Lubiano and Grant Farred. The posts will examine the scholarship and teaching of Group members, trying to show the mindset of professors who last spring abandoned both the tenets of Duke’s Faculty Handbook and the academy’s traditional fidelity to due process.

An item to keep in mind: in higher education, professors control new hires. So the people profiled in this series will craft future job descriptions for Duke professors; and then, for positions assigned to their departments, vote for new hires.]

Group of 88 member Kathy Rudy teaches in the Women’s Studies Department; she received both her Ph.D. (1993) and her M.Div. (1989) from Duke.

Rudy has published two books (the most recent appeared in 1997) attacking the ideas of the religious right and embracing a vague “community” ideal to gender issues that she has spelled out more directly in her published articles. She currently is working on a project “critiquing animal rights from speciesist perspective.” Speciesism, explained Rudy, “refers to the growing discourse in humanities which challenges the human/animal distinction around issues of language, memory, representation, and interpretation.”

It’s not easy to criticize the animal rights movement from the left, but Rudy has managed to do so.

In the classroom, Rudy has offered several courses dealing with her animal rights/speciesist critique. A class on “feminism and other animals,” for instance, explores such themes as, “The body has been central to feminist thinking in a variety of national contexts and across various historical periods, in part because of the way that forms of discrimination have often taken the body as both evidence of and alibi for social hierarchies; can this interest in embodiment be extended to, for example, great apes? To all non-human animals? What do we mean when we speak of having a human body, when, genetically speaking, our human body is closer to the genome of all great apes than the genome of the African elephant is to that of the Indian elephant?” Her other offerings are ideologically standard fare for most Women’s Studies Departments.

Rudy has published extensively in feminist journals. Many of her peer-reviewed articles use her own life experience as a template to examine strands within radical feminism.

For instance, in a 2001 essay in Feminist Studies, Rudy championed a “feminist version of queer theory,” in which the radical feminism that brought her to Durham in the early 1980s would be blended with the queer theory popular in some contemporary academic circles.

Upon first coming to Durham, Rudy recalled that she “moved quickly into the lesbian community because there was a growing sentiment in feminist discourse that lesbianism was the most legitimate way to act out our politics.” Within this “progressive” neighborhood in west Durham, “Many of us thought that by avoiding men and building a parallel, alternative culture, we were changing the world . . . I managed to live most of my daily life avoiding men all together, and spent most of my social time reading, dreaming, planning, talking, and writing about the beauty of a world run only by women, . . . free of [men’s] patronizing dominance.” Rudy and her fellow radical feminists oriented their activities around “the ideas that women were superior and that a new world could be built on that superiority.”

But problems soon emerged.

Durham’s radical feminists were white and middle-class, but Rudy’s social group had two “Black women.” The duo “began to use race as a category of political analysis, when they declared that they—as Black lesbian women—were more oppressed than the rest of us.” The two women exposed an uncomfortable truth: “If one identity-based oppression was bad, two or three or more was worse.”

Their action, Rudy reminisced, challenged the founding principle of radical lesbians in Durham and elsewhere: “That we—as women—were oppressed, so much so that identification as the oppressor then seemed impossible. For us at that point, the equation was simple; men dominated and oppressed women . . . Complexifying this equation to include race meant identifying ourselves as white oppressors; it meant, therefore that our politics were now less absolute, we ourselves less pure.” This development produced uncomfortable questions, such as “Could we stand to see ourselves as oppressors and still exist in such an ideologically pure community? Could we purge ourselves of racism by loving Black women but not Black men?”

Eventually, the community collapsed, and Rudy entered graduate school. In her essay, she sympathetically pointed to theorists who reasoned that “radical feminist ideology was just as oppressive to Black women as Western philosophy had been to women in general.”

As a Duke graduate student--taught, it’s worth noting, by figures whose ideology would guide the Group of 88’s approach to the lacrosse case--Rudy came to understand “that social oppressions were usually much more complex than identity politics made them appear.” She engaged with the newly-emerging queer theory, which contended that gender is a social construct, since “there are no fool-proof scientific tests for gender; there is no hormonal, chromosomal, or anatomical test that can be administered which in every case guarantees that the subject being tested is either a woman or a man.”

This more flexible approach to gender, according to Rudy, illustrated “the complexities of oppression,” drawing a line not between women and men but “between those who espouse progressive politics, especially around the issues of sexuality, and those who don’t,” opening the way for “coalitions across a wide variety of social issues, especially around concerns of race and class.” (The race/class/gender trinity, again.) The new theories, according to Rudy, also helped explain the “whole phenomenon [that] exists in queer communities, for example, of lesbians who sleep with men.” (Apparently the term bisexual was too limiting.)

Rudy worried, however, that queer theory overemphasizes male attributes, such as confrontation. Therefore, “contemporary lesbians associated with queer theory must maintain associations with a revitalized feminism in order to correct these problems.”

It’s not easy to criticize queer theory from the left, but Rudy has managed to do so.

Rudy’s scholarship also has celebrated non-traditional sexual communities. In a 1999 Journal of Lesbian Studies essay that was assigned in fellow Group member Anne Allison’s spring 2007 course, Group of 88 for Credit, Rudy criticized gays and lesbians for having “become experts at impersonating straight nuclear families; the only thing that’s different is that one of us is the wrong gender.”

Rudy pointed instead to “progressive communities [that] organize their sexual and social lives very differently. Urban-based gay male, lesbian, and mixed-gender sexually radical communities (such as leather and/or S/M groups) portray their interests in sexuality in terms of arousal and pleasure. These activities, often described as ‘anonymous,’ ‘promiscuous,’ or ‘non-relational’ sex, have been widely criticized as dangerous, immature, or immoral.”

Such people, the Group of 88 member argued, should be not condemned but praised, since they “have organized their sexual-social lives on a different model, a model that is fundamentally communal. In many of these worlds, allegiance to the entire community is often more vital and meaningful than any particular coupling within that community.” In fact, she reasoned, such sexual behaviors could “help shed light on new ways to think about progressive politics.” She never said how.

Rudy conceded that some might call her vision “utopic,” but, she contended, in urban-based gay male, lesbian, and mixed-gender sexually radical communities, “each sexual encounter shores up membership in the community and each person’s participation makes the community she finds stronger for others. Although she may not know the names of each of her sex partners, each encounter resignifies her belonging . . . Intimacy and faithfulness in sex are played out on the community rather than individual level.”

Commentators need a new language to describe such behavior: “not anonymous, promiscuous, or non-relational sex, but ‘communal.’”

Rudy, however, detected one key drawback with the communities she otherwise glorified. Most such groups contended that as long as both or all parties consented, any sexual relationship is moral. But “many women have so thoroughly absorbed the male gender codes that they have no idea what they really want, but have learned to want only what pleases men.” This approach, of course, is also a convenient way for Rudy and like-minded colleagues to explain why women disagree with their viewpoint.

Otherwise, however, Rudy had nothing but kind words for the urban sex groups, who “decide together what counts as good and bad [and] practice these activities with each other in ways that transcend individual identity and monogamy. They are functioning, it seems to me, as a participatory democracy that stands as a model for the postmodern.” As such, they provide a guide to “how we [Rudy assumes, of course, that all who read her scholarship agree with her politics] can oppose oppressive frameworks with locally-based communities,” such as the “right’s family values campaign.” Indeed, the Group of 88’er concluded, “Sex radical cultures stand as a model for all progressive Americans, testifying to the importance of belonging to a worthwhile cooperative as a way of making meaning in life.”

If this political analysis seems a little peculiar, consider Rudy’s perspective on the 2000 presidential campaign. “Progressives from all backgrounds,” she wrote in a fall 1999 essay, needed to unite to “plan their defeat” of a common enemy. George W. Bush? Not exactly. Elizabeth Dole(!).

What made Dole such a threat? She was a woman who embodied the ideals of “post-feminist” authors such as Christina Hoff Sommers, whose intellectual plan “is to make staying at home a viable attractive option for women.” Accordingly, declared Rudy, “Only by working together to combat every aspect and formulation of [Dole’s] campaign will we stand a chance against the rising hegemony of the Christian right.”

Dole, by the way, withdrew from the 2000 presidential campaign before the first primary vote was cast, short of funds and popular support--from the Christian right, which had overwhelmingly backed George W. Bush, or anyone else.

---------

Rudy, a tenured associate professor, will teach two fall 2007 classes: “Interpreting Bodies” and “Gender and Everyday Life.” She also serves on the steering committee for Duke's Kenan Ethics Program.

180 comments:

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

And I thought I had found something when I discovered that the person who registered the Internet Domain for the "clarifying" letter was a self-described radical Hispanic Muslim.

Anonymous said...

Come on Professor, admit it, you took this from a Saturday Night Live skit.

Anonymous said...

Wow! And Brodhead supports these professors. Are the Duke trustees aleep?

Anonymous said...

No wonder there is no relationship between Duke's faculty and the real world the rest of us live in. Is this really what constitutes an "education"?--Buddy

Anonymous said...

"..The blog closes in late September."

KC, your not taking DIW offline are you?

That would be a loss to so many people. If there were any justice in the halls of journalism, you would win a Pulitzer Prize. The myopic MSM would never in a million years give you any awards because you don't march in lockstep with their ideology.

Let me ask KC, have any of your peers in Brooklyn given you grief over this incredible blog?

KC Johnson said...

The blog will remain on-line; I'm not, however, planning on any new posts after it closes.

hman said...

When parody is redundant and irony is overflowing you know you must be in womens-studys-land.

Anonymous said...

It's funny how these studies types hijack the work of other scholars--note the speciesism work Rudy is doing. This is a big deal in legal ethics.

I have no problem with lesbians bashing men. But isn't that what most people do in a bar? This stuff is not important, or even serious, intellectual material. Why support it?

Anonymous said...

I first heard the idea that true feminism implies lesbianism in the early '70s. At the time my impression was that any ideology that depended on women not having sex with men was pretty much self-limiting. It's fascinating to see how it keeps popping up, and how it keeps meeting the same fate. It's also interesting to see that, while ostensibly aimed at men, the ideological weaponry winds up doing most of its damage to women.

Michael said...

I guess this is why Womens Studies prepares you for a career in teaching womens studies and just about nothing else.

There was a pretty humorous article on the usefulness of a womens studies degree floating around the web linked from DIW many, many months ago.

I'm guessing that this lady isn't a big fan of Proverbs 31.

Anonymous said...

I took a look at Rudy's CV. First listed was her work --

"M.K. Rudy. "Entertaining the Unreasonable." "


Well, as best I can tell, that's exactly what she has been doing for way too long a period of time. How in God's name did Duke (and other insitutions) allow such unbelievable tripe to become a core concern and topic of discussion. Couldn't she devote her intellectual energy to solving hunger or disease or homelessness or ... God knows there are 100's of worthy things to which one can devote one's life.

But "Ethics, Feminism, Religion, Reproductive Technologies, Animals" ...give me a break ... I may be somewhat naive when it comes to double talk ... but how does ethics intersect with these other categories. Yes, that may be a little too black and white on my part. And "reproducitve technoligies" ... is that a study of the back seat of a '57 Chevy or what?

Sorry. I just don't get it.

Inman

Anonymous said...

Occasionally I have to hire people. If someone introduced herself using the same language that Ms Rudy does I would assume that someone was playing a trick on me and would probably burst out laughing. Probably not the reaction that a serious “academic” would appreciate.

Anonymous said...

Yikes!

I've been getting invitations from Duke's Kenan Ethics Program for years....and even attended a forum they held once in the Paul Greene Theatre.

Had no idea it was run by such goofy people.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

"when the going gets weird the weird go pro," Hunter S. Thompson.

New response to pot-bangers, "Complexify This, communal multiple identity-based oppressed unpure lovers of speciesistists".

It sounds like she tried to found a brave new world in Durham but lost steam when challenged on the purity level.

rrhamilton said...

I was laughing almost all the way through this. :)

Just to keep me straight (no pun), Is it "communal sex good, hook-up culture bad"?

I think if a psychiatrist examined Rudy (abandoned at birth!), s/he would close the patient folder with a final comment of "F.U.B.A.R."

Anonymous said...

Goofy People Indeed! Perfect.

ronmet

Anonymous said...

I would love to see a statistical analysis of the relationship between grades provided to females and grades provided to males who take her courses.

I would like to see the same, but including four distinct categories: male, female, female-lesbian and female-nonlesbian.

Anybody that afraid of penises is a candidate to grade based on penises. (I'm sorry, but the whole Curtis episode has made me a touch paranoid). For example, if you had a penis, would that cost you 3 letter grades? If you enjoyed someone else's penis, would that cost you 2 letter grades? Finally, if you did not like penises, but you tolerated other people who did, would that cost you one letter grade.

This is just my theory, an analytical model I have developed based upon my observations of the vegan community. (i.e. "You totally talked to that person, and I know he eats cheese, eeeewwww!).

Aren't "hegemony" and "postmodern" buzzwords for silly people?

I am inspired to write a new Haiku:

No Penis 'tween Us
Hegemony Postmodernity
Vagina Study

Save the Cows: MOO!

Keep up the good work, K.C.! Gregory

rrhamilton said...

I know "comment moderation has been enabled", but I think all my comments should be approved until I get to the one about interspecies lesbian sex.

Gary Packwood said...

Rudy said...

...“each sexual encounter shores up membership in the community and each person’s participation makes the community she finds stronger for others. Although she may not know the names of each of her sex partners, each encounter resignifies her belonging . . . Intimacy and faithfulness in sex are played out on the community rather than individual level.”

...She also serves on the steering committee for Duke's Kenan Ethics Program.
::
I'm trying to imagine Collin Finnerty Mom's reaction after reading this on Easter Sunday morning after spending years of her live and many dollars helping Duke expand capacity for religious life on campus.

Should we all get some Botox for our faces so we don't look surprised when the current administration and BOT enables Duke to implode?
::
GP

rrhamilton said...

I'd like to haiku
But it seems a silly way
to write poetry

Anonymous said...

rrhamilton: I was going to wait and let K.C. explain "interspecies lesbian sex." It is a phrase I never anticipated having to laugh at.

A final observation. I really believe that Women's Studies has moved into the realm of performance art.

Like modern artists who looked at Da Vinci and Raphael, and said, "I don't have the talent to do that," the Women's Studies folks have probably discussed everything you can discuss about the vagina and are now relegated to shocking the community. Just a theory.

The interspeciesest Cow says: MOO. Gregory

K.C. rules! We need you more than Israel!

Anonymous said...

I find that analyzing sex and body parts sterilizes the experience.

Excitement is derived from mystery.

But what do I know? I'm a penis lover.

Debrah

Gary Packwood said...

rrhamilton 12: 43 said...

...I know "comment moderation has been enabled", but I think all my comments should be approved until I get to the one about interspecies lesbian sex.
::
If you would take her course you would actually learn what it is that they actually do.
::
GP

Chicago said...

Never in my life have I witnessed so much stereotyping by one individual as I just heard from Rudy.

I am sure that all the individuals who make up those diverse groups Rudy lumps together appreciate being spoken on behalf of, with out their permission of course.

However, this is not surprising seeing how the Group of 88 took the liberty of speaking for entire departments with out the input of members of that department. I guess this is just par for the course for her.

I suppose since I am a male, I should just resign myself to the fact that all women feel I am capable of only oppressing them.

Anonymous said...

Utterly appalling tripe. Academic freedom, and tenure, for this? It is much worse than I thought possible.
Thanks for starting this series of vignettes, KC, although it is as painful and revolting to read as it would be to watch one's own colonoscopy without sedation or analgesia.
Tom

Chicago said...

Surely Brodhead would term Rudy's work as "a solid basis for some meaningful discussions on issues on our campus."

Never mind that she lumped people together and cut them down like a lawn mower.

Anonymous said...

Thank you again, Professor Johnson. Washington Duke and James Duke must be turning over in their respective graves. Professor Rudy - tenured (!) faculty at a prestigious university has actually debated with her colleagues that it is not enough to be a lesbian. True credibility doesn't emerge until you are both black and lesbian. I would suggest that black, paraplegic and lesbian would be the silver chalice of Professor Rudy's quest for academic acceptability.

Let's not mince words. I see anger on the part of these reproductive misfits. Professor Rudy is not enraged because of some affront to a black stripper with blue contact lenses. She's angry because Mr. Seligemann, Mr. Evans and Mr. Finnerty are straight. Their mother's love them, they will marry and carry on their DNA. Professor Rudy is a genetic dead end - as she should be. In 100 years, the descendents of these young men will have loving wives and caring mothers. No one will remember who Kathy Rudy was.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Rudy is utopic. Oh, it's very easy for all you smartists to poke fun at Rudy, just because her ideas are...well, so stupid. But remember, like everything else, stupidity is a mere social construct.

There are no fool-proof scientific tests for what is stupid. No hormonal, chromosomal, or anatomical test can be administered which in every case guarantees that the subject being tested is a complete idjit. True progressivism means accepting imbecility as a new species of meta-intelligence, one that sheds old notions of clarity and cogency and embraces confused thinking and nonsensicality not as a nuisance, not as a frailty, but as a welcome liberation from the oppressive tyranny of meaning.

There's the utopia, my friends. You may know it as Wonderland.

Alan Furman said...

It is said that Nineteen Eighty-four by George Orwell "failed as a prophecy because it succeeded as a warning." Evidently Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's polemic against the abandonment of reason by a collectivist intellectual establishment, has done the opposite.

becket03 said...

Withdrawal from DIW will be painful and sorrowful. Now that KC has given fair notice, I'll have to take steps to prepare for the loss. Otherwise my wife will be scraping me off the bathroom floor in full throes of delirium tremens come late September.

I've come to have some affection for this community and I'll hate to see it go. I wouldn't be surprised if KC feels the same. Some remarkably intelligent people have posted here.

KC, you've done a superb job of applying intellectual rigor and fairmindedness to his godawful miscarriage of justice. I can't wait to read your book, and I'll be very interested to examine matters of public interest that catch your attention, and cause you to make public commentary, in the years to come.

beckett

TaterCon said...

Is it "communal sex good, hook-up culture bad"? -- by rrhamilton

Great line. You've pierced the nuances.

I wonder if, in her rare reflections of self doubt, Miss Rudy muses whether the Empress wears no clothes ...

Alan Furman said...

Oh, and if you check out the Spring 2005 edition of Duke's Women's Studies newsletter you will read a typically smug account, by a certain Allison Brim, of her big adventure in enabling genocidal terrorism against Israel.

For a sequel, perhaps Professor Rudy can conduct field research on urban-based gay male, lesbian, and mixed-gender sexually radical communities in Gaza.

Anonymous said...

KC,

What is "queer theory?" I've heard of funny ideas or crazy stories, or general BS, but never a queer theory.

Can you explain?

Newport.

Anonymous said...

And I love the "theory" that male culture is sooooo oppressive but yet she thinks any woman who makes the choice to stay home and raise kids in a happy marriage is making the wrong choice! Her choices are OK but everyone else's are wrong!???

Of course, we're so stupid we don't know we're oppressed, I guess. Talk about worthless PhDs! Absent academia, could someone like this hold down a legitimate job? Never in a million years!

Anonymous said...

Is there any reason for gender studies, black studies or other < some group that thinks it's oppressed > studies other than teaching hate? Is there any value to any courses therein to any non-psychotic individual?
Is there any science there more valid than astrology or phrenology?

Parents and taxpayers are subsidizing this nonsense. Millions, if not billions of dollars are spent every year to fund this asinine "research". And academics will fight tooth and nail to control the hugh sums that tenure dumps in their laps without the chance of evaluation by anyone without a vested interest in protecting the professoriate.

The group of 88 is a highly paid and carefully protected lynch mob that depends on nonentities like Brodhead and self perpetuating tenure to control vast amounts of money in salary, benefits and grants. They can spout the idiotic ravings quoted above, damage the grades of students they dislike and get paid as if they were producing something.

If this case had occurred at any university in this country, the same so called scholars in the same half baked departments would have formed a similar lynch mob, safe and secure in the knowledge that academic tenure protected them from ever having to take responsibility for anything. The administration would protect them or it would be attacked by the media and forced to endure a show trial like Summers at Harvard. American academia is the new aristocracy. It is not enough that we pay skyrocketing tuition to have our children exposed to the Ward Churchills and Kathy Rudys, we also pay endless taxes to support a bureaucracy that parcels out some of that tax money to pay them even more. If we ever question the tenure safety net, we are accused of destroying academic freedom and opposing education.

If academics do not gain control of the con men in their midst, there will soon come a time when the well dries up. Worthwhile scholarship and research will suffer because those engaged in it would not stand up to the bigots who Professor Johnson so ably describes. If academics do not hold their own responsible, others, far less friendly, will.

a duke dad said...

KC -
As you are a tenured academic in a respected university, I'd value your opinion as to whether the inmates are running the asylum, or if we are just hearing anecdotal incidents that are not the norm.
4:29 AM's point does raise alarms - is it the common situation in US academia?

:

"If academics do not gain control of the con men in their midst, there will soon come a time when the well dries up. Worthwhile scholarship and research will suffer because those engaged in it would not stand up to the bigots who Professor Johnson so ably describes. If academics do not hold their own responsible, others, far less friendly, will."

Kwentin Kwisp said...

Newport, just type "queer theory" into google and you'll get all the info you need.

Anonymous said...

2:22, that comment had me laughing loudly throughout. Nice work applying Rudy's 'logic' to another 'identity' trait. Funny.

Anonymous said...

Even my very non-Ivy League Deep South university will not hire me to teach there because I got my graduate degree from there. They reason, correctly IMHO, that it is incestuous. The tree never branches enabling new ideas.

I would like Dr. Johnson to include a few personal facts about these profs too. Do they have children, are they married and where did they go to high school, and maybe even the economic status of their parents? Just curious how you get so weird...

AJ

Anonymous said...

KC

The use of "slim" in your descrpiton on Rudy's books //monographs?// seems snarky. We all know that the sheer volume of a particular book doesn't guarantee its worth. Perhaps press and number of pages would have been more useful.

On articles in peer-reviewed journals: please be sure you accurately describe them by discipline. Many women's studies faculty publish in interdiciplinary journals or journals in other fields than women's studies.

I am wondering how you are chosing to profile...wouldn't it be useful to explain your thinking? Are you using rank, PhD discipline, alphabetical order of family name? There are some academics with very strong credentials among the 88. You might want to profile them early on...

Anonymous said...

4:29

Why do you assume these programs "teach hate"? How many courses have you taken? I'd be careful about tarring with a broad brush...

Anonymous said...

12:41/Gregory

Do you also want to see the relationship between the grades given by white heterosexual men and the good-looking women in their classes vs. everyone else? Why would you assume that this woman can't grade fairly? Do you assume that KC can't? Or, were you just curious; no assumptions of bias implied?

No justice, no peace said...

Is M.Div a Divinity School Master's?

Remember this was once a Methodist school. The deconstruction is in full force.

It was in the last year that some, including the President of the College, attempted to remove the cross from the William & Mary Chapel. The almuni successfully changed his mind.

Also, no links to published works or articles...no light of day, no transparency, no accountability. Pitiful.

Anonymous said...

I wish that just one top school would close its "angry studies" departments and fire all of these whackjobs.

No justice, no peace said...

12:32 Debrah do they allow you to record/tape at the Keenan Ethic's events?

Kilgore said...

KC - Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Most people continue to believe that feminism is about the dictionary definition of "Equality." That is simply no longer the case. In your short post you illustrate that feminists are no longer concerned about equality, they are concerned about:

1. The Moral superiority of women

2. The destruction of the nuclear family

3. Blaming/limiting/avoiding the male population (Mary Daly called for the population to be 90% women and 10% men)

What is fascinating is that they have developed a very rigid HIERARCHY (they claim to despise hierarchy) of victimhood that gives power and control to those who can show they are greater victims! Some call it the "Victim Olympics"

I try to tell people I know about this and they simply think I am nuts. Normal people won't believe that feminism has anything to do with what Rudy is barking. Your post KC starts to help people see the reality of the hatred surrounding feminism today.

I can't thank you enough. Let's get the word out.

What a mess.

Anonymous said...

I have one reaction to this piece about Rudy: she gives lesbians a bad name.

no justice, no peace said...

2:30 Becket03 Inre: "...some affection for this community..."

Becket03, in the context of Ms. Rudy's thinking your comment is unsettling...

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

KC,

I wish you'd provide more context in your profiles. Anyone can skewer someone else. How has this woman's work been reviewed?

Shouting Thomas said...

One the one hand, gay activists insist that homosexuality is innate and that anybody who disputes this is a bigot. On the other hand, Rudy makes it abundantly clear that she has sex with other women for ideological purposes, and that she attempts to recruit young women to lesbianism for ideological purposes.

When I read this, I am reminded of the mind numbing propaganda of SDS in the 1960s. SDS morphed into the Weathermen. The Weathermen blathered the same insanity as Rudy. As they became more radicalized, they tried to ban monogamous relationships within the group and dictate who members slept with. Monogamy, you see, was the very foundation of U.S. imperialism.

They were sexual fascists, as is Rudy. The gay activist movement and the feminist movement harbor and tolerate a large number of these sexual fascists. You can laugh at them if you want, but they are exceptional dangerous people.

Twisting your sexuality for ideological reasons turns a person inside out. I know. I witnessed this first hand in the 60s and 70s in San Francisco. People are driven to madness when they distort their sexuality for the purpose of finding acceptance within a political movement.

Rudy makes it very clear that she is using the educational system in an effort to convert women to homosexuality, for ideological reasons. The viciousness and craziness of this should be apparent to all. Attaching the language of "discrimination" to it has blinded our vision. She's operating behind a smokescreen. If you call her on her Bolshevism, you are a "bigot"

Rudy's ideas are laughable. But the outcome of her ideas is very dangerous. As you can see, her endorsement of the assault on the Duke lacrosse team was motivated by the oldest of Bolshevik tactical strategies. Destroy everything that defines a person's identity so that the revolutionary can step in to seize power. It is a scorched earth strategy. It is, in fact, the strategy of Pol Pot at its extreme. Everything is to be destroyed so that we can begin again at Day One.

Anonymous said...

Dole is a "threat" to anyone who doesn't like her politics. What's the problem there? Why couldn't Rudy oppose her? Dole, was, afterall, a North Carolinian... Don't you think you wandered there?

Haskell said...

anonymous 4:29
These specimens of American academia are not the new aristocracy. Instead, they are a nouveau riche Mafia who have blackmailed their way to the top. As many other posters have noted, these emperors wear no clothes, but most folks (like poor Carrie Smith) cannot recognize this fact and are continually baffled by the bullshit -- or,worse, buy into the con for personal gain. Brodhead, Moneta, and cronies are enablers.

Anonymous said...

KC,
This is a very good post. Nevertheless, it is profoundly sad. Rudy's anger at the world is unsettling. I feel sorry for her. While I can feel some compassion for Rudy (there must be legitimate personal underpinnings for her rage), I can feel none for Duke in its shameless institutionalization of this type of misandry. While such personal/political subcultures may have a place in a university setting in the context of non-academic, social affinity group support, these subcultures should not be drawn into the academic mainstream as university "departments".

AMac said...

Rudy celebrates a vision of communty where "each sexual encounter shores up membership... and each person’s participation makes the community she finds stronger for others. Although she may not know the names of each of her sex partners, each encounter resignifies her belonging..."

Randy Shilts wrote And the Band Played On to connect the genesis of the AIDS epidemic with the sexual practices of the gay communities of New York and San Francisco.

What Shilts wrote would have given any intellectual pause before publishing the sort of tripe that KC Johnson quoted in this post. As Professor Kathy Rudy proves, inconvenient, even lethal, truths pose no problem for a privileged class of academics.

Anonymous said...

I accuse Duke Faculty of jingoist species-ism! Why is only homo-sapiens represented in our community? We need farm animals, pigs and cows, in tenure track positions in order to fairly address issues of classism and species exploitation in the new department of Species Studies.

sst

Anonymous said...

Duke Board of Trustees Chair Robert Steele announces seven new additions:

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/07/trustees07.html

Does this mean that Steele continues as Duke's BOT Chair? What happened to the rumor that Steele was to be replaced by John Mack at the July meeting?

It is extremely disappointing to see Steele remain in his position of weak leadership of Duke University.

Anonymous said...

How do people like this explain the power of someone, an exotic dancer, to have the power to move several institutions in such a way that they have been made to look foolish, incompetent, or evil. How does this person's, Rude's, theory allow her (this is a her is it not) to understand anything? The answer would appear that her "knowledge" allows very little understanding. Her speculations are filled with absolutes (women cannot lie about rape) and poor assumptions about gender. She doesn't even pay attention to her speculations about gender before she makes her assertions. If the purpose of a modern academy is to maintain a kind of hot house or zoo filled by a particular simian species, Duke has found its niche.

Anonymous said...

Newport

Queer Theory is one of many critical theories with which one can read a text. It is a lens through which homosexuality and its associated characterisitcs is brought into focus.

As with all critical theory, if you look for it, it's there, whether it ever occurred to the author or not. When I took two Theory classes as part of my coursework for my Ph.D. in English, I did indeed feel as if I were Alice in Wonderland shouting, "You're just a pack of cards!"

I have never politics before morality, which I why I will never teach at the college level.

gots

Anonymous said...

Kathy, the Christians are right.

AMac said...

For a moment, consider the case of the career trajectory of the estimable public intellectual Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado. There are a few simple questions that, to my knowledge, have never been answered for the general public:

"Who served on Prof. Churchill's promotion committees?"

"Who were the C.U. administrators who signed onto his promotions?"


As far as I know, the composition of committees formed to review applications for tenure and promotion are not secret or confidential. Yet the identities of those who have acted in the name of the University to celebrate the scholarship of the Ward Chuchills, Wahneema Lubianos, and Kathy Rudys almost never see the light of day.

Why?

Surely the Hard Left -- that doughty vanguard of trailblazers busily leading the proles to utopia -- would shrink at the notion of hiding their accomplishments from The People.

Surely the question of who-validates-whom honors the finest traditions of the Academy, rather than recalling the practices of the top-hatted backscratchers of Tammany Hall and Teapot Dome.

Surely.

Anonymous said...

As I read, I thought Rudy is celebrating “sexual bonding” whether animal or human or possibly animal and human. How ironic that at the core of the criticism of the Duke Lacrosse players was that they were a community apart and they were characterized as the epitome of one form or of male sexual bonding (Ever been in the military?). Possibly Rudy may come to see the Campus Culture initiative as intellectually schizophrenic at worst or hopelessly muddled at best.

Sadly for Duke the elevation of intellectual bonding seems to have become passé.

Anonymous said...

Professor,

We are at least grateful that you leave us your blog for reruns. We anxiously await your return from Israel and to this blog. You have blessed us with your insight and powers of investigation. You have exposed the ironies and injustices of the educational system. We will miss you but look forward to your return.

As for Rudy,Stupid is as stupid does and Rudy is doing stupid on a regular basis. The only good thing that can possibly come from her ideal society--there can be no procreation amongst this crowd. End of a DNA generation--thank goodness. Find out what happened. Someone poured bleach into that gene pool and mixed in a few nuts. Hopefully that "generation" will dispose of itself in short order. Go back to the closet--permanently. Please.

Anonymous said...

re: 1:59
"I would suggest that black, paraplegic and lesbian would be the silver chalice of Professor Rudy's quest for academic acceptability."

I don't think she's gone as far as she might. What if she were to add 'mentally disbled' to that list?

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

TombZ

Anonymous said...

All I can say about Rudy in my most articulate manner is "WTF?"

Anonymous said...

Not being a full time professor but just an adjunct (I still work, out in the world), I happily miss Ms. Rudy's kind of "research" at the business school where I teach. She gets paid for this? She ought to be paying somebody to grind out this crap.

Anonymous said...

She is paid for this? I miss all of this type of "research" at the business school where I teach as an adjunct. She ought to pay a school for the opportunity of wasting time and resources on her "research". What a bunch of crap!

Anonymous said...

KC

Perhaps, if you read some of the rabid postings here, you will be encouraged to be very careful to provide more context for your postings about faculty. I'm not sure what you have in mind here, but why don't you discuss some of the signees who have really CLEARLY stellar CVs? (Maybe, they aren't such convenient targets?) I'll be glad to provide suggestions. I'm sure others will as well...

Anonymous said...

Fascinating post, as usual. We will really miss you in September.

2:22 AM,

You were thinking pretty clearly for that hour of the morning. Very funny.

I took a couple of classes with a lesbian feminist twenty-five or so years ago. Back then there was no Women's Studies, of course, and the feminist focus was on how to live in uncharted territory with other women as women freed themselves completely from the patriarchal mold that directed social relations. I vividly remember participating in a survey about rape which included the question, "Do you believe a prostitute can be raped?" Well, of course.

I had absolutely no idea then how radical, silly, and destructive the feminist movement would become as most of us graduated, went off to work, married, had families, and became absorbed with creating stable, loving homes for the rearing of children who surprised many a feminist of my generation with the sheer fascination and pleasure of being a parent. Those left within the feminist movement, which played an essential role in women's history, ultimately charted a strange course indeed, and it is deeply disappointing to those of us who understood and embraced feminism's original, idealistic goals. Surely, feminism is not the only social/political movement to lose its sense of rational purpose and adopt irrational, self-absorbed foolishness, but it is painful to watch--a little like seeing Lady Liberty, say, with egg on her face.

Observer

Anonymous said...

I am now stearing my son towards trade school. I figure he can be a self employed electrician and I can save over 100k in tuition. Hopefully my son will wire Ms. Rudy's house someday (if you know what I mean).

Anonymous said...

KC - I must have missed a post. What will you be doing in Israel?
an enormously appreciative Chapel Hill reader.

Norman Rogers said...

Whenever talks to me about "gender", I respond, "Words have gender ... People have SEX. Do you have a problem with sex?"

Anonymous said...

If Farred really wants to uncover the veil of “secret racism,” perhaps he should start a little closer to home, and take a look at the motives of his colleagues in the Group of 88.

His little glass house has come crashing down, hasn't it?

As for Wahneema, I'm sure that before long she will post in her publications the magnificent poster of the Klan of 88. At least that one CAN be documented.

Now we have Rudy.

When will the Who's Who of American Nescience be removed from Duke and other venues of alleged academia? The politically correct (an oxymoron in itself) clan need to be returned to the netherworlds from whence they cometh.

The amazing thing remains that normal people allow this type of racially, sexist garbage to be employed. Do we have the moral fortitude to take back our systems? Only if we appreciate the KC's of academia and loose the bonds of the radical left (the Klan, Ward & cronies, etc). Show me the money--or lack of contributions. That, they understand. Support institutions of higher learning that employ reasonable professors. The loony bins that employ the radicals should be left penniless. Bankrupt them financially. They have already bankrupted themselves educationally and morally.
AF

Anonymous said...

Let's not miss the distorted perspective in these leftists. They attack Western Civilization, but ignore the medieval practices of Middle Eastern societies (which actually oppress, torture and murder women on a continuing basis) or the distatorial practices of Communist societies which block the individual expression of thought by women.

I guess they just cannot imagine what would happen to them if either of these social orders took over here.

gk

Anonymous said...

A nice pic and article on noted ethicist Kathy Rudy from Duke Magazine in 2005:

http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/091005/depqa.html

RL alum medicine '75

Anonymous said...

Don't forget folks. This woman probably has a drivers license.

Anonymous said...

Ewww! Yuk! I shouldn't have read this before breakfast! Now I may stomach is too upset to eat! Yuk!

Anonymous said...

"Is there any reason for gender studies, black studies or other < some group that thinks it's oppressed > studies other than teaching hate?"

In potential, yes. There are actual valuable works out there which examine the same basic issues as women's studies, but from a perspective of understanding the situation first, rather than trying to apply labels of blame. An example would be Deborah Tannen's excellent You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation. Tannen explores how different social sub-groups are raised to have different expectations for conversation -- what goals conversation is meant to achieve, and what role is expected from them -- and how conflict between the groups frequently emerges from these differing expectations. Tannen stresses that even though men and women tend to default to different conversational styles, neither one is inherently superior to the other.

The problem is that excellent research like this can be so easily hijacked by idiots with agendas. I know of no better example than when my alma mater announced a very heavily promoted course that was going to take You Just Don't Understand as its key text with one major exception: it was going to teach that women's conversational style was superior to men's, and that it was men's obligation to abandon their conversational style and learn the superior style of women. Seriously. It really takes some chutzpah to say "well, we admire this person's research enough to teach all of it but we don't like her conclusions so we're going to replace them with exactly the conclusions she says should not be drawn from her work."

mb said...

What. A. Loon.

I can see why these folks can only get published by specialized journals like the Journal of Lesbian Studies - no credible journal would touch this sort of babbling nonsense. "Peer review" - heh. Once again, the inmates running the asylum.

That said, KC, I'm glad you looked into Rudy and her ilk - it sheds light on the women's studies crowd and the feminist movement in general, which appears to be little more than shameless female chauvanism with a heavy dose of queer thrown in. I've always had the strong suspicion that feminism isn't about equality, but rather, female superiority/supremacy, and now I'm certain of it - they say so themselves.

So what next? I know: In the name of 'diversity' I think that Duke and other elite universities that have Women's Studies departments should create White Studies departments in order to accommodate the white supremacist loons. Oh yeah, and let's creat some Nazi Studies departments too. Yeah, that's the ticket! Gotta have more and more diversity now, don't we?

Anonymous said...

Fwiw, I would like to point out that the root of patriarchy is not "pater"( father) but "patria" (country). It would be fun to watch the game of Twister Professor Rudy and her colleagues would be forced to play when they realize that a favorite signifier of oppression does not mean what they thought.


Brant Jones

Anonymous said...

It's so very sad, with hundreds of pressing problems in the world, the US academy promotes this "ism" thinking as worthwhile. Thanks for the expose, KC.

I say these institutions, all of them, have waaay toooo much money. They can afford to be wacky navel-gazing centers of "anti" whater. If they lived closer to the bone, they'd have to make more real world choices.

The answer? Starve ALL US higher education. Give your educational dollars to boys and girls clubs, scouts, 4H, missionary schools abroad,...charter schools in New Orleans. Pleaces where life and death are more immediate so they don't tolerate goofy studies.

It might not solve the wacky quotient, but at least you won't be part of the problem.

As a CPA and university financial professional, I love the 88 cent solution, but recommend perhaps 4 cents as more helpful in lowering the average donations faster. Or a letter saying you contributions WOULD have been, say, $3000, but now you will be sending it to some school in Honduras, instead, where it will be spent paying the annual salary to a 9th grade math teacher.
Thereby improving society, not wasting effort by "deconstructing" society.

AMac said...

Anon 6:34am wrote --

"I am wondering how you are chosing [whom] to profile... There are some academics with very strong credentials among the 88. You might want to profile them early on."

Prof. Johnson, Anon 6:34am raises an excellent point; please do offer some thoughts on it.

Like most of your audience, I will stipulate that there are eminent scholars among the Group of 88. William Chafe comes to mind.

For the purposes of understanding What's Going Wrong, demonstrating that "Duke's hiring and promotion processes often work as those on the outside suppose they should" is less insightful than an examination of those cases where things seem to have run off the rails.

If there are only one or two such cases among the 88 faculty who unapologetically acted to condemn their students with a Rush to Judgement, then ideological straitjacketing and slovenly thinking may not explain very much.

On the other hand, if there are one or two dozen professors with c.v.s of the Barnum & Bailey variety, that would identify a possible structural problem at Duke.

Would there be similar proportion of clowns and poseurs among those professors who have spoken out in favor of respecting Duke's students and honoring Due Process? (How about among the faculty as a whole?)

Examining the c.v.s of these individuals and reporting on the results might be a useful exercise for the Group-of-88 apologists (members?) who often comment anonymously at this blog.

AMac said...

KC Johnson:

You have presented a view of the scholarly accomplishments of Prof. Kathy Rudy. If Prof. Rudy should choose to email you a link to a rebuttal web-page, would you pledge to share that link with your readers at D-i-W?

Anonymous said...

This is what counts as serious scholarship at my university?!? Good thing I haven't eaten yet, or my half digested food would be all over my computer monitor.

It would probably have more to say than Dr. Rudy.

KC Johnson said...

To Amac:

Absolutely, I would post such a rebuttal link.

AMac said...

Some Group-of-88 supporters are likely to take the occasion of this post to send anonymous, threatening, obscene, and obnoxious emails to Prof. Rudy and her colleagues, supposedly on behalf of those who are outraged by the Group of 88's role in promoting the Rape Hoax.

I hope that none of D-i-W's readers who are genuinely affronted by the conduct of the Group of 88 will be tempted to add to that trickle.

Gary Packwood said...

AJ 6:18 said...

...I would like Dr. Johnson to include a few personal facts about these profs too. Do they have children, are they married and where did they go to high school, and maybe even the economic status of their parents? Just curious how you get so weird...
::
I believe that you are making an important point.

When the Katrina survivors poured into Houston after the big hurricane we asked the same question. Who are these people and why do they seem so weird?

The answer turned out to be fairly simple.

The survivors from New Orleans were just like the rest of us except they ...and their parents and grandparents... had lived in a protected environment for decades where community expectations were minimal.

Duke like New Orleans, has few expectations for their G88 and nothing will change until expectations are linked to the checks that arrive each month in the mail.

If Duke alumni wish to subsidize a welfare community for professors it may be advisable for them to organize an anti-gang task force with assistance for the US Department of Justice.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/spotlight/gangs/facts.html

The G88 are after all, a Gang!
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Norman Rogers--

If one assumes that sex is biological and gender is socially constructed, people can have both. Words--especially in other languages--may have gender, but Slavic words seem to have "sex," given that they has masculine animate and inanimate...

KC Johnson said...

A quick reply to a few questions.

1) D-i-W is a staff of one (me). This series will have 12 or so posts--beyond Farred and Lubiano earlier. In terms of how Group members are selected, between 20-25 of the 88 have little or no scholarship--so they automatically cannot be profiled. In that respect, the series will skew toward the more accomplished members of the Group. Chafe will be among those profiled.

2.) That said, Rudy has two books and several peer-reviewed articles: she is, in fact, among the more accomplished Group members in terms of scholarship.

3.) In terms of the quotes being taken out of context, I'd invite readers with academic access to read the articles themselves. (The post links to Rudy's CV.) The claim that any of these quotes are out of context strikes me as difficult to sustain.

Anonymous said...

KC,

Your comments on historians who signed might be more on target, since you're an historian yourself. Of course, the historians--at least some of them--have excellent publishing (and probably teaching) records, so they aren't such interesting targets.

Anonymous said...

Rudy needs to read Eckhart Tolle.

Gary Packwood said...

Chicago 1:18 said...

...Surely Brodhead would term Rudy's work as "a solid basis for some meaningful discussions on issues on our campus."
...Never mind that she lumped people together and cut them down like a lawn mower.
::
That is exactly the management challenge at Duke and also the reason that legitimate scholars are so frightened of these people.

They can see and hear that lawn mower all day, everyday as they attempt meaningful discussion with their peers and their students.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

To amac (10:00)

As a D-i-W reader, I don't know that I appreciate the deprecating insult that you are implying here.

Michael Sheehan

I also promise not to steal the tip money that other people leave at the diner.

Anonymous said...

I can think of three members of the 88--two from literature and one from history--who are far, far stronger than the person you described today. If I can think of them, surely you can, too.

Your blog will do a huge service if you can talk about really strong people whose opinions differ from yours and who support various kinds of interdisciplinary studies programs...

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't let a daughter go within 500 yards of that critter.

Anonymous said...

Didn't I read that Antioch College in Ohio closed its doors due to low enrollment AND failing rates of alumini and charitable trust finances --- all as a result of the ultra liberal/socialist/feminist/Angry Studies/PC path the school had taken? In addition to alumini, I've heard of trustees who revoke the annual giving set up by their forebears because they no longer tolerate the institution. How does one find out who the largest donors to Duke are----they are more important to direct this info to than the BOT.

Anonymous said...

8:32 --

You've been leaving a lot of comments on this story with the same message, it seems. "I'm not sure what you have in mind here, but why don't you discuss some of the signees who have really CLEARLY stellar CVs? (Maybe, they aren't such convenient targets?)"

What would be the point of such a thing? The question is not whether the targets are "convenient" but whether they are deserving. Does a health inspector say "Well, let's focus on the dishes at this restaurant which didn't have rat droppings in them"?

There are, to be sure, some circumstances where a focus only on the problems that manifest themselves is inappropriate. An example would be something like, oh, say, the Coleman Committee report, which looked at both the good and the bad of the lacrosse team. If KC was claiming to be making a comprehensive survey of the Group of 88, then yes, it would be deceptive for him to start with the most blatant examples. However, he has never made such a claim, and there is no reason to assume it. Instead, KC wishes to demonstrate (pardon my paraphrase, KC) that there is a seeming tendency to promote people of the right agenda even in the face of embarrassingly poor credentials. I can't think how an intelligent person would think that for such a purpose, it would make sense to start with the "really CLEARLY stellar CVs". Do you think that it makes sense, or do you just think that the tendency to promote people of the right agenda even in the face of embarrassingly poor credentials is something from which attention and careful examination should be deflected?

Anonymous said...

You’re invited to join us in sending the Class of 2011 off to campus. This is a wonderful opportunity for new students to meet their classmates, and for parents of new students to meet and mingle with Duke alumni – all in a fun and informal setting. Don’t miss the chance to connect in your local Duke community.

When:
Wednesday, July 25
Time:
6:00 - 8:00 p.m.
(A barbecue dinner will be served)
Hosted by:
President Richard H. Brodhead and the Duke Alumni Association

Where: Fox Student Center at the Fuqua School of Business
Duke University

Parking available. Please use the Fuqua entrance on Towerview
Drive
If you would like to attend, please register at www.dukealumni.com/triangle.

Questions? Contact Betty Jones at betty.jones@daa.duke.edu or (919) 684-2787.

FYI
Duke med '83

duke 85 (before Fish) said...

The first chapter of Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed" has an excellent explanation of the origins of this type of thought. The push is to challenge all accepted fact.
Apparently, the assertion that "there is no hormonal, chromosomal, or anatomical test that can be administered which in every case guarantees that the subject being tested is either a woman or a man” should have figured prominately in this case. I also need to tell my husband and sons that we could have been wrong about their gender and they might not need those pesky jock straps.

Anonymous said...

AMac --

I pledge here and now that I will neither send nor support the sending of any e-mail that a reasonable person would rightfully describe as "threatening, obscene, or obnoxious".

Unfortunately, we have already seen that simply questioning whether a member of the group of 88 acted wisely, or rightfully, or in a way that respected all people and not just those privileged by their membership in an oppressed group, will probably result in your questioning, no matter how civil it is, being labelled and libelled as "hate speech", and you as a "provocateur" and "mother of farm animals".

Anonymous said...

10:19

Let's make the a priori assumption that there are numerous extraordinarily strong people in the Gang, people who have been venerated for their intellect and their scholarship. (And I suspect that there are.)

As a corollary assumption, lets suppose that there is a District Attorney who has never prosecuted a case in an unethical and fraudulent manner.

Are you suggesting that the past behavior and actions of that District Attorney would preempt any possibility of his/her pursuing a criminally biased prosecution?

And likewise, are you suggesting that the stature of intellectual accomplishment preempts the possibility that very problematic and morally untenable positions can be steadfastly held?

huh?

Thomas Inman '74

No justice, no peace said...

8:32 Which have stellar CV's? Do they link/post their publications?

How do you define peer review?

Anonymous said...

After reading this profile, I checked out Rudy's 2001 Feminist Studies paper, titled "Radical Feminism, Lesbian Separatism, and Queer Theory." It really took me back. I still remember my amusement in the early '70s when a friend, then studying anthropology at Stanford, told me that among her colleagues, there was a serious debate as to whether one could be a feminist without being a lesbian. I guess it took a while for this sort of thing to spread to Durham. In any case, Rudy's paper is a good portrait of the era and gives a picture of what it looked like from inside the bubble. It also gives a fairly detailed picture of the ideological gyrations through which the radicals have gone over the past couple of decades, and, without trying to do so, makes the point that none of this is on very firm intellectual footing.

Good enough to get you tenure at Duke, though.

Anonymous said...

8:16 - you forgot Spanish surname. That joke goes back to the 70s, at least, at the very beginning of corporate favoritism. Sad part is that what was a joke then is reality now.

Anonymous said...

It's a shame that today's young uns don't listen to olden-time stars like Gene Chandler anymore.

The 88-strong academic lynch mob need to be labeled as haters, the 88 for Hate. Can we get them to help out in this? Don't look now but --

The Group of 88 sing:
Eighty-eight! Dukes, dukes,
Dukes of Hate! Dukes, dukes,
Eighty-eight! Dukes, dukes,
Dukes of Hate! Dukes, dukes,
(repeat)

Spotlight on Kathy Rudy, though it could just as well be Paula McClain or any of the rest of the 88. Kathy Rudy sings:

As I-I-I
Blather and prate,
Nothing can stop
A Duke of Hate,

And youuu,
You're on my plate,
And many can hurt you,
Oh yeah-eah!

Yes, Iiiiiiiii
Oh! I'm gonna slime you,
Oh come on let me railroad you darlin',
'Cause I'm a Duke of Ha-yate!
So yeah yeah yeah yeah yeaaah!

And wheh-eh-en
I railroad you,
You'll be my victim,
My subject of hate,

We'll walk
through my dukedom,
And an inferno
you will take!

Yes Iiiiiiiii
I know I'm gonna hate you,
Nothing can stop me now,
'Cause I'm a Duke of Haaate!
So yeah yeah yeah yeah yeaaah!

Feee-eee-eee-eee fie!
Foh-oh-oh-oh-oh!
Fum fum fum!

(Watch Gene Chandler perform
"Duke of Earl," dude is very cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwBdU1kSfOM
(Watch the Beach Boys perform
"Duke of Earl," what the heck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gXkRtl8t2c

mac said...

Thanks for the great work, KC!
I'd say your time has been well-spent,
and that the best way to change anything
is to put it under a spotlight.

Many thanks to all of you bloggers,
too; I've enjoyed your company and amusing,
informative and entertaining commentaries!

Michael said...

KC, it strikes me that what you're doing in publically reviewing the faculty of a major university wrt scholarship is rather unique.

Is this notion correct or does this happen from time to time in other venues?

wayne fontes said...

To AMAC & KC:

You both realize the chance of any G88 member accepting the challenge to post a rebuttal hovers just above nil. I'm searching my memory for any G88 member who has publicly defended themselves in the last year and I'm coming up empty. I don't count one-off OP-EDs in the local papers or the no record, no rebuttal "Shut Up and Teach" event as legitimate attempts at a dialogue.

Anonymous said...

KC wrote:
"2.) That said, Rudy has two books and several peer-reviewed articles: she is, in fact, among the more accomplished Group members in terms of scholarship."

KC, surely you jest. If Rudy's CV is among the, as you describe, "more accomplished, Duke is in a whole lot more trouble than I realized. This is simply scandalous.

Anonymous said...

2:22 - Very Clever - Very Funny. You really have to laugh at this nonsense - or cry.

Anonymous said...

To the Gang of 88 poster above who challenged my hypothesis regarding Ms. Rudy's grading practices, I provide the following:

1. Kim Curtis.

2. Anyone who would presume guilt with absolutely no evidence (other than absolutely rock-solid proof of skin color and gender) and would attempt to assist in the verbal "castration" of the presumed-to-be-innocents, may have a deeper agenda that affects her other day-to-day decisions.

3. It is a hypothesis, silly. Nothing has been proved. Yet. Until that time, Ms. Rudy is presumed to be innocent.

_____________

On another note, Ms. Rudy asked me to pass the following message on to K.C. Johnson. Similar invitations have gone out to Mr. Gaynor and Mr. Anderson:


Dear K.C. Johnson,

You are cordially invited to continue your investigation on our private island paradise. You will be amazed at all we have to offer, including, amongst many other offerings, utopian lesbian government, a burgeoning honey industry and tall wicker statues of men. This will not be a major "sacrifice" for you, as we will cover airfare and lodging. Hope to see you soon.

Sincerely,

Dr. Kathy Rudy*

__________

*not real letter.
__________

Your shining light is making 'em uncomfortable, K.C.! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Yes, ladies and gents, the inmates ARE running the asylum. Duke and the events of the last two years are exhibit A. The radicals have taken control, and though they may be a minority on campus, too many otherwise decent people on the faculty won't stand up to them for two reasons. Firstly, many faculty generally sympathize with the liberal social views that these radicals claim to espouse. So they are reluctant to publicly chastise advocates for things they agree with, at least in the abstract. Secondly, the faculty who oppose the allegedly progressive view of the radicals are denounced as racists, sexists, or in some other way beyond the pale. Being publicly denounced as a racist or sexist is painful, and no one wants to expose themselves to this - let alone the possibility of the expense of defending against a formal disciplinary hearing on charges of racial or sexual discrimination. Not surprisingly, the zealots are able to count on a majority of faculty minding their own business and not protesting if they take extreme positions, knowing that they can effectively squelch most of the few who have the nerve to argue with them.

If you think this is over stated, let me simply point out that this is precisely what happened to the blog's host, KC Johnson. He wasn't even suspected of voting Republican, just not being progressive enough, and, presumably, arguing that empirical facts, rather than deconstructed texts supported his understanding of history.

Now that the radicals control faculty governance structures, as well as departmental hiring practices, it does not take more than a few radicals and a majority of passive people to allow the radical agenda to take full form, as it has at Duke. The radicals insure that no one who thinks like a KC Johnson is hired, because such a person will not support their theoretical framework and shoddy scholarship. No need to ask if a genuine conservative or a Libertarian like William Anderson would be hired at Duke, or at Harvard. Not with the existing radicals in charge. And make no doubt about it, Broadhead IS afraid of them. Look what the academic Jacobins did at Harvard - they got rid of a president who wasn't sufficiently supportive of ideological study instead of the scientific method. The 88 and their associates are like the Jacobins. They just haven't got a guillotine yet, but they have no problem, they charge racism and sexism and threaten to sue, and get results that way.

Or Ward Churchill, as mentioned above. Utterly unqualified, but hired with the full support of Evelyn Hu-DeHart, who thinks scholarship should serve ideology. Churchill was hired and tenured in ethnic studies because he claimed to be a militant Indian. His scholarship is crap, just like the material Rudy writes. Any adult with a high school education and some time can chase down the references, and see that it is garbage.

So why does this stuff get glowing reviews? Because peer review has broken down. The radicals, the Jacobins, have given glowing reviews to intellectually weak work that supports a favored goal. They review each other's work, and claim it is good. That was what happened with Michael Bellesiles' article on guns in the US in the Journal of American History. Or, as in Ward Churchill's case, they accept work from non-academic sources as if it were comparable to peer reviewed scholarly work.

Administrations submit to blackmail from ethnic and gender studies people for fear of being called racists. Unqualified persons are hired and promoted, shoddy work is accepted without question, all to avoid appearing to be racist or sexist.

So where does it leave us? Well, the parent recommending their son go to trade school and become an electrician is wise. A much better value for the time and money than a degree from Duke or Harvard these days. No folks, the problem won't be cleaned up until the universities are forced to do it. That means cutting off the money. Yes, it WILL hurt Duke. But tell me, how else do you hope to save Duke? Clearly not with the existing administration and faculty leadership. They will stay until they are forced to go. Because most of them cannot do anything meaningful or productive, like being an electrician or a plumber. Both of which careers are far more valuable to society than all the ethnic and gender studies graduates combined.

mb said...

To those who appear to be threatened by KC shining light on the more dopey members of the G88, I would ask you this: Let's say the Golden Gate bridge failed later today, causing massive death and destruction. Now, when examining the reasons why the bridge failed, would you focus on the parts that held-up, or would you, at least at the outset, focus on the parts that were weak and ultimately failed? Or how about the tragedy of the space shuttle Challenger: Would you have ignored or de-amphasized the failed O-rings on the solid roacker boosters in lieu of focusing on, oh I don't know, the control surfaces of the wings? These are not trick questions.

The moral structure of Duke failed last year when 88 racist, sexist and classist faculty, enabled by a spineless and possibly complicit administration, created a climate that was nothing short of a lynch mob. Professor Johnson is absolutely on-target when he examines the G88 members who failed so that we might try to understand what went wrong.

How come now that the "Social Disaster" isn't what the G88 thought it was, they now want us to look the other way and "move on?" And yes, that was a rhetorical question.

Anonymous said...

"Do you also want to see the relationship between the grades given by white heterosexual men and the good-looking women in their classes vs. everyone else? Why would you assume that this woman can't grade fairly? Do you assume that KC can't? Or, were you just curious; no assumptions of bias implied?"

You might have missed the part where Rudy is quoted about her past participation in a community built around the ideas "the ideas that women were superior and that a new world could be built on that superiority". If all I know about a professor is that he is a white heterosexual man, I have no reason to think he might be grading unfairly. If I know that in the past he was in a community that espoused the superiority of some over others due to their color, sexual, or sexual orientation, I have reason to wonder whether he still holds such ideas and lets them affect his grading.

After the Kim Curtis lawsuit, it seems extraordinarily naive to get up in high dudgeon about the implication that a member of the Group of 88 might be grading unfairly.

Anonymous said...

TO AMAC--

I must totally concur with poster (10:18AM).

You have always had a mysterious penchant for picking apart any issue for the sake of appearing fair and balanced.

In most circumstances, that trait is a positive one; however, with respect to most issues on this blog, it often does not serve you well.

We all recall how you spent so much valuable time doing cyber gymnastics with an imposter who continually defended Tara Levicy's unprofessionalism....which gave aid, comfort, and support to rogue prosecutor Mikey.

That troll never surfaced with "his wife's detailed analysis of SANE techniques", did he or she?.....or anything else promised by that humanoid troll?

It's nice to sit back patiently and hear all sides to a story over and over again. However, with respect to the Duke lacrosse case, the script has long been written and the dirty tactics of the Gritty Gang of 88 have long been verified and documented for the entire country to see.

Indeed, among the Gritty Gang, you will find some decent scholarship; however, why not just send those few professors a holiday card for the upcoming season or any other sycophantic message you wish praising their scholarship in their chosen fields--although it is quite clear that few of the Gang are true scholars.

You mention William Chafe. Yes, this professional Procrusteanizer of academia has some plausible work behind him which serves as a prop for his true quest: Forcing conformity by ruthless means.

Poor, overrated Chafe planted his flat posterior amid the depths of immoral effulgences when he feverishly attempted with frequency to compare the alleged behavior of the lacrosse players to the Emmett Till saga of the early 20th century.

William Chafe is an example of what sewer residue looks like in a petri dish viewed under a microscope.

There is no "out" or any way to ameliorate this man's behavior, having put forth such deliberately inciteful falsehoods at a time when one possessing true intelligence and scholarship--not to mention, decence--should have allowed the facts of the case to surface.

KC has done the right thing throughout by exposing these fraudulent members of our society who are doing damage to future generations with the erroneous bile they spew daily.

Hey, it has been said that Hitler was a fine and attentive pet owner....and I'll bet Eva Braun could regale us with what a fine and virile lover he could be; however.....

....like Hitler......like Nixon......and like so many majorly flawed, yet accomplished, characters we know so well....

....the outrageous and deliberately damaging antics by this group of 88 at Duke---true scholars or not---eclipse the knowledge or the information that one might glean about their scholarly works.

Their true fundamental character has long been revealed.

Lastly, I'm sure that it is not the business of yours whether anyone here chooses to communicate with another person by e-mail or by any other avenue.

Like most people on this blog, I have never even entertained the thought of corresponding with the Gritty Gang of 88.

It is a courtesy that I offer any opinions I might have out in the open. To converse directly with such bottom-feeding maggots of our society would surely not be good for my disposition.

If you want to do a good deed for anyone....and in a place where it is truly needed....make a sizable donation to your local animal shelter.

Human beasts like the Gritty Gang of 88 can take care of themselves.

Debrah

Stephen said...

11:50 and 11:52 are brilliant posts. Actually, this blog has had many articulate and intelligent comments from many people who genuinely seem to care. Thanks K.C. for providing an avenue for these discussions. You will be missed.

Michael said...

re: 11:52

There's a more concrete example at hand: the Big Dig in Boston where a tile (concrete) fell onto a car and crushed a young wife and mother. This resulted in much of the road being shut down for many months.

You'd want a thorough investigation of management, engineering, construction, etc.

bill anderson said...

So why does this stuff get glowing reviews? Because peer review has broken down. The radicals, the Jacobins, have given glowing reviews to intellectually weak work that supports a favored goal. They review each other's work, and claim it is good. That was what happened with Michael Bellesiles' article on guns in the US in the Journal of American History. Or, as in Ward Churchill's case, they accept work from non-academic sources as if it were comparable to peer reviewed scholarly work.

Administrations submit to blackmail from ethnic and gender studies people for fear of being called racists. Unqualified persons are hired and promoted, shoddy work is accepted without question, all to avoid appearing to be racist or sexist.


Someone understands the drill, that is for sure. Also remember that many of the most vocal faculty members at Duke teach in areas in which the scholarship is suspect. For example, the Identity Studies really are a creation of the 1960s and 1970s, when student protesters went to the barricades and threatened to destroy universities unless these academic areas were established. (I cannot call them academic "disciplines," since no discipline is involved with those studies.)

At Duke -- and elsewhere -- we see the administration siding completely with the most radical faculty members. That tells me that Duke University is most hostile to the people who pay the bills, and who do the most to make the university a good place. That should tell you something.

Anonymous said...

A person who signed the "Listening Statement" is neither eminent nor a scholar.

Anonymous said...

11:11

I understand double-blind peer reviewed as exactly that. One submits an article: the editor sends it out for review. The reviewers comment. The author is asked to revise; the article is accepted; the article is rejected. Or some variation on this.

When I referee articles, I do it in my field/s.

Anonymous said...

Elizabeth Kiss, Founder of Duke's Kenan Ethics Program, was just appointed to BOT at Duke....so nothing changes. It just gets worse. Now she has her tenured buddy Rudy on the Ethics Program board. They are consolidating troops on the border....!

Another Historian said...

To Anonymous at 10:19. Fine, let's talk about them. William Chafe has done work that his peers lauded in the past. But that doesn't mean that his current work, or his participation in the campus discussions about the lacrosse qualifies as 'strong.' Many senior scholars write work toward the end of their careers that isn't as good as their previous work. Some of it really is the kind of stuff that should have been given closer review, and maybe the author should have been discouraged from publishing it. Charles Beard's book on FDR and the US entry into World War II suffered from Beard's anger with FDR's failure to be sufficiently progressive. It was an interesting theory, but not really great history, and not the ideal volume to close out an otherwise distinguished career.

Chafe's use of the Scottsboro case to support the prosecution of the lacrosse players was a case of getting things 180 degrees out of sync. His support for the "listening ad," and the follow up to it do not show an indication that he understood that he had helped to railroad innocent men - which, of course, is precisely what happened in Scottsboro. An honorable person might have made the decision to sign the first statement, though I think it would stretch good judgment to the extreme limits, because the ad really was intemperate. However, Chafe did sign it. Now, had he apologized after it became clear that there was serious doubt about the DA's case, and had he not mis-used the Scottsboro case to defend the DA's actions, or signed the clarification statement in support of the listening ad, I think I could see Chafe as an honorable and honest academic. But that isn't what happened. He is still arguing that he has been correct all along, and we are misunderstanding him.

Chafe, like Beard, may have been doing good work at one time. But now, either he is getting confused, and should retire, since he confuses basic facts about well known historical events, and he sees nothing wrong with the 'listening ad;' or he is an ideologue who promotes ideology ahead of factual accuracy. I don't see any other logical reasons for his behavior. Either way, it is time for him to retire.

Honest people can disagree. But there is a strong element in the academic left that sees nothing wrong with placing ideology ahead of academic rigor. If William Chafe were able to honestly and openly recognize the justice of the three players' case, and still support his political views, I would have more respect for him as a scholar and as a man. some people do this. Norman Levitt is politically left of center. He is also the co-author of _Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science._ I recommend it to all who are interested. There is a problem with politicized research in history, and the various ethnic and gender studies. I think readers of Gross and Levitt will find it gives them a better understanding of what is wrong with the so-called 'useable history' that Chafe and many of his colleagues now support. Levitt is one left of center academic I can respect, and K.C. Johnson is another one. Mr Chafe needs to hang up his robes and call it a career.

rod allison, detroit said...

I'm sure there several genuine scholars among the G88, but that isn't saying much when people like Frank Lentrecchia are considered scholars.

But what is of interest are the total academic frauds like Rudy. The only thing they have to offer are their hatreds, which they pass off as scholarship.

It was this culture of hate that led so many to go after the Duke3 with a vengeance.

Keep these profiles coming. These sick people like Rudy need to be exposed.

Anonymous said...

12;32-
Chafe didn't use the Scottsbors case. That case would have destroyed his efforts to railroad three innocent white men.

bill anderson said...

Understand that Rudy is claiming that people have no more rights than animals -- and probably deserve fewer rights.

Praytell, then does that mean people should be free to kill and prey upon each other, since they are nothing more than animals in the Animal Kingdom? Rudy's "logic" tells us that is the case. And she is held up as being typical of Duke "scholarship"? We cannot make up this stuff!!

Anonymous said...

I think the request that K.C. look at the more accomplished* of the Gang of 88 is a surprisingly clever ruse by the extra-dumb members of the Gang.

They are responding the way Homer Simpson did when he was confronted with a difficult and dangerous situation:

"Don't take me. I have a wife and children. Take them."

I like the fact that the Gang of 88ers have to sweat a bit, waiting to see who next faces the firing squad of truth. Is it Justice? An eye for an eye? Or, just good, clean fun?
___________________

* "Accomplished" used in a relative and minimalist sense.
___________________

Hey Bill Anderson:

Word of caution -- Do NOT go to "Women's Study Island." The invitation is a trick!

I eagerly await the next installment, K.C. Gregory

Anonymous said...

"Response?"

"Yes. I have a response. Um, WHAT?"

Anonymous said...

I look forward to your profiles on Premilla Nadasen, Amanda Springs, Barbara Winslow, and Patricia Antoniello. Keep it fair, KC

Steve said...

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana
I love utopians; we can make our lives have meaning by dropping out of conventional society. Been there done that in Oregon it was called Rajneeshpuram. The only memory we have of this group is they instigated the largest germ warfare attack in the history of the United States.

Anonymous said...

The slower members of the Gang of 88 have gotten together to post on this blog like the cows in the advertisement holding up the signs that read, "Eat mor chikin."

Somebody's fretting! MOO, indeed!

Anonymous said...

Awesome! I'm thrilled you decided to make this a reoccuring feature. I look forward to next Friday's.

Anonymous said...

No, Thomas I., why would I assert that? Why would you think I was?

My thinking is this: it is a great deal more difficult for KC to be nasty about the work of more widely known & more respected faculty that it has been for him to go after the three he has already discussed.

That's all.

I'm just challenging KC to discuss them. I don't think he will. I could be surprised.

Gary said...

I get it, just like it makes the Jacuzzi feel all the better if you first roll in snow, KC's reading all this clap-trap just prior to leaving for Israel and studying something more substantial.

Rudy is the kind of infantile Prof that makes one squirm. She discovers that believing in the utter and exclusive superiority of her group ... has some moral problems. Yep, perhaps if she read a bit about the Nazis it would have saved her some time. Instead, it was a transcendent moral revelation to her, worthy of analytical prose -- rather than a diary note: "sheesh was I ever a dope when I was young".

What is a revelation is that these people still exist, and for this I blame Prozac. All these post-modern adventures run into the void/despair. Rudy writes about finding: "worthwhile cooperative as a way of making meaning in life" but Rudy will soon bump into the impossibility of even defining "worthwhile" and so have no (superior mind you) cooperative to join. She's just delaying her eventual place in the suicide queue .

Meanwhile, the rest of life goes on, with friends not collectives, in blissful unawareness of their flawed political theories and philosophical errors.

Anonymous said...

Dear Gregory,

I'm not an extra-dumb member of the 88. I'm not a member of the 88 at all.

I think differently than you do, so I'm dumb? Or, an extra-dumb member of the 88. I suppose I'd rather be that than an extra smart member of any group you belong to. You're a name caller & I thought that went out with the sandbox. Guess not.

AMac said...

Another Historian 12:32pm --

You wrote a useful and informed critique of Prof. Chafe's embarassing conduct during the Hoax/Frame. It is unfortunate that a teacher who has earned the protection of tenure by producing a sizable output of high-quality scholarship would then, later, run off the rails.

However, it seems to me that having to endure episodes like this is a predictable price that the institution of tenure exacts. American universities' implementation of this (or any other) version of "academic freedom" will have its plusses and minuses.

Is Kathy Rudy similar to William Chafe in this regard? That would suggest that she had, indeed, produced a body of scholarly work that merited promotion to a tenured chair--irrespective of however misbegotten her position on the Hoax/Frame in 2006 and 2007 may be.

But it seems to me that an unimpressive record of publications at the time of a successful tenure review would suggest the existence of a deeper problem. Or a radically different vision of scholarship than you used in your discussion of Prof. Chafe.

Anonymous said...

It is so easy to lose the pertinent point in all of this . What Rudy does or says within the context of the Academy is de facto protected , however unreasonable that may seem to the observer who lives and functions outside that context and for whom her work is barely sane .

BUT the point of this is that the 88 broke the unwritten agreement of that protective context when they went to the community at large with their " listening ad" . This violation opened them up to an analysis that is not limited by the exceptions normally attributed to those in that academic context who respect those unwritten rules .

So let's remember that the 88 made a far larger mistake than it seemed at the time with repercussions for ALL of the faculty and administration at Duke . They decided to play with those who have far better skills and far deeper roots in reality when they crossed that Rubicon in the Spring of '06

Thus an analysis of Rudy et al in the larger context of reality was invited by that transgression and any protestation of it as unfair , is thus mitigated .

Anonymous said...

1:15's comment is so sadly brilliant.

"What is a revelation is that these people still exist, and for this I blame Prozac. All these post-modern adventures run into the void/despair. Rudy writes about finding: "worthwhile cooperative as a way of making meaning in life" but Rudy will soon bump into the impossibility of even defining "worthwhile" and so have no (superior mind you) cooperative to join. She's just delaying her eventual place in the suicide queue ."

AMac said...

From Prof. Rudy's c.v., I followed the sole link to the text of an article, Revisiting Standpoint Theory (1999).

Reviews in The New Republic or The Atlantic are often the jumping-off point for a reviewer ready to share an intriguing point of view. Alas, the book review is also the well-remembered format of our high school years, "The author said... , The author thinks that..."

This particular essay is Rudy's synopsis of a 1998 Marxist-Feminist tract, "Constituting Femimist Subjects." Like Mikey with Life Cereal, She Likes It. Beyond that, she describes her subject adequately enough to convey its pedestrian premises.

It's almost as informative as the Wikipedia article on Standpoint feminism, though Wiki goes farther in offering contrasts with postmodernism and difference feminism.

scott said...

amac @ 10:00 AM --

I could send an email to Rudy that contains clear, concise, and logical points that disagree with her theories in the attempt to engage in an intelligent dialogue wherein, after some reasonable back and forth, we both could walk away with something to think about.

My belief is, however, given what has been the case to date with other G88 members and their incessant whining about receiving "hate" mail, if I did that, she would consider said email to contain threatening, obscene, and obnoxious comments because I disagreed with her.

I would never waste my time communicating with these asshats. It would be the same as pissing into the wind (from the back porch at 610 N. Buchanan, no less).

Anonymous said...

Are you kidding me? What type of student attends Rudy's classes? I am an adjunct at a business school (not Duke but am a Duke graduate)and enjoy teaching as a way to give back. I continue to have a real job out in the world. It amazes me how schools pay people for producing the 88's kind of meaningless trash. She basically is getting paid to to do self analysis. She should be paying Duke for that waste of time and resources.

Anonymous said...

Gary,
Your comment reminds me of that comment made by Hillary Clinton during, I believe, Bill's first campaign. She made the comment about just recently "discovering there was something larger than herself," or some such adolescent moment of self-awareness....a comment which caused hilarity among those of us adults who had discovered that decades before, when we left the artificial cocoon of academia and started making a living in the real world. I wish someone could find that quote...I know talk radio had a hoot with it. Reminds me so much of our gal Rudy's comment here.

Anonymous said...

In the real world , Rudy, her C.V. and a buck-fifty will get you a cup of coffee.

Anonymous said...

The Duke Group88 are bascially rascist, sexist pigs. It is that simple.

Anonymous said...

The lesson here isn't the misguided and woefully unintelligent Rudy. Its the nation-wide dry rot at colleges that allowed this pap.

First, becasue they thought it was trendy. Then they let it grow because pampered academics liked it better than "boring" history, economics and traditional english. Administrators lacked the nerve to shut it down. After all, its funded by "other people." And the crowd admiring the emperor's new clothes wouldn't be caught NOT recognizing its "value."

Meanwhile, Rudy and peers chomp on subsidized food, lounge in faculty lounges intended for "real" professors, garner retirement benefits--and for what? To "teach" this nonsense that is unusable, makes any acolyte unemployable, and panders to the worst sentiments.

Anon 4:29 and 11:50 have it right: this can only be stopped by some ballot initiative giving people--those contemptible taxpayers--the right to veto tenure by some popularly elected committee.

College Administrators won't do it. The legislature is too busy expanding their own public ensions to endanger anyone else's.

An entire generation is skipping US History, english, economics, classical literature for crud taught by pseudo-intellectuals.

Where is the candidate who willmake this an issue? The votes are waiting!!!!

scot said...

ok first off thank you KC for your fair unveiling of Kathy Rudy. What I like about you KC is you read and "listen" so to speak.
Its like a history of the 60's left come to life in people.
Rudy's journey from Radical feminist to Queer woman to interspecist?
Why I admire you KC so much?
You are calling her and all those "radicals" out.
For their qualitative degeneration in calling for the State to imprison innocent people.
Im gay and the same age as Rudy.
Was a radical and still am but i cant understand these people really.
I know people like her.
Defending women from those crazy right to lifers blocking abortion clinics and those "radical women "trying to say men arent allowed! And we went anyway and those mostly young women wanting an abortion greatful for a few big strong guys to give a had!
And then she moved on to being a "Queer"
And having to defend gay marriage to these people. Not just that but me having the Right to not call myself Queer!
I live in San Francisco and defending the duke boys from these degenerating people was hard in the begining. But then the facts came out and more and more regular people came to see this massive injustice. Your Blog KC helped me with the people I know come to see what was happening.
They the "88" and all the holders-on will degenerate further. How much remains to be seen.

rrhamilton said...

Stephen said at 12:13 PM ...
11:50 and 11:52 are brilliant posts. Actually, this blog has had many articulate and intelligent comments from many people who genuinely seem to care. Thanks K.C. for providing an avenue for these discussions. You will be missed.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Jul 6, 2007 12:13:00 PM

Anonymous said...

Speciesism, explained Rudy, “refers to the growing discourse in humanities which challenges the human/animal distinction around issues of language, memory, representation, and interpretation.”

What the hell does that mean? Anyone?

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

Looking for a future culture clash when Coach P returns to Durham from Russia.

Maybe she will have the G88 over for tea and to read passages from "Atlas Shrugged".

Don Stubbs
Summerfield, NC

rrhamilton said...

Hear, hear!

anonymous at 1:20 PM said,

It is so easy to lose the pertinent point in all of this . What Rudy does or says within the context of the Academy is de facto protected , however unreasonable that may seem to the observer who lives and functions outside that context and for whom her work is barely sane.

BUT the point of this is that the 88 broke the unwritten agreement of that protective context when they went to the community at large with their " listening ad" . This violation opened them up to an analysis that is not limited by the exceptions normally attributed to those in that academic context who respect those unwritten rules .

So let's remember that the 88 made a far larger mistake than it seemed at the time with repercussions for ALL of the faculty and administration at Duke . They decided to play with those who have far better skills and far deeper roots in reality when they crossed that Rubicon in the Spring of '06

Thus an analysis of Rudy et al in the larger context of reality was invited by that transgression and any protestation of it as unfair, is thus mitigated.


Emphasis added.

Gary said...

Speciesism, explained Rudy, “refers to the growing discourse in humanities which challenges the human/animal distinction around issues of language, memory, representation, and interpretation.”

What the hell does that mean? Anyone?

Jul 6, 2007 2:45:00 PM

I'm a little surprised that Deborah didn't jump on this, so I will:

Speciesism, explained Rudy, “refers to the growing discourse in humanities which challenges the distinction around issues of BBQ sauces, basting techniques and cooking times.”

Gary said...

I'm on a roll, can't stop myself:

What we have in Rudy's discourse is not a commentary on communal sex, but the prosaic stain left from too much mental masturbation.

Anonymous said...

Kathy_Rudy

Uh-humm.


Debrah

duke09parent said...

I ingested a feminism in the 70's that meant equal opportunity and I still believe in it. There is very little that a man can do that a woman cannot, simply because of her sex. Size and strenght differentials may matter in many occupations and discrimination based on those qualities in appropriate circumstances is quite OK in my book. But the criteria should be sex-neutral. For instance, Alison Bales (Duke Women's basketball center last year at 6'7") would make a better soldier than Elton John (or Dick Brodhead for that matter). So, for example as a taxpayer in Virginia I supported the acceptance of women at the state university, VMI.

This latter-day feminism of Prof. Rudy is a different animal indeed.

Anonymous said...

Does this chick think that "transcending individual identity and monogamy" with communal living arrangements and communal sex is something new? Lots of people have tried it. Ever heard of the Manson Family, the Symbionese Liberation Army, or the Branch Davidians, to name just a few? But I guess these groups failed because they were mixed gender groups, not lesbians. Oh wait, that can't be right, because there's no such thing as gender -- it's just a social construct. In that case, I guess these groups failed because they were just a bunch of self-involved idiots -- like this Rudy chick (with apologies to any chickens who might be offended by the cross-species metaphor).

Anonymous said...

It always seems that the strangest looking people are the ones obsessed with sex.

Anonymous said...

Re: Kathy Rudy. It amazes me that there are parents who are paying $40,000+ per year for their children to study that nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Found this on Google Images. The article can be found at http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/alumni/dm30/register.html I'm not sure what year Kathy Rudy was "Teacher of the Year".

"TEACHER OF
THE YEAR
Rudy: a challenging, encouraging, and attentive educator
Photo:Jeffrey A. Camarati
ngaging, challenging, and encouraging were some of the ways students described Kathy Rudy, this year's Alumni Distinguished Undergraduate Teaching Award recipient. Rudy M.Div. '89, Ph.D. '93, an assistant professor of ethics and Women's Studies, was chosen from a field of forty-two student nominations representing thirty-three different Duke faculty members. The annual award is sponsored by the Duke Alumni Association.

"She has an amazing ability to engage every student in class discussion," wrote one student in nominating Rudy. "She gives every student her undivided attention when they are speaking, and she challenges their ideas by encouraging them to further explore and build upon the ideas they are forming."

Another student wrote that Rudy "stands out as the most dynamic, inspiring, and gifted teacher I have ever hadÉ. She did a truly amazing job of elucidating what can be very baffling topics (e.g., post-structuralist feminism, subaltern studies, transnationalism, epistemological issues in ethics), and her course will have a long-lasting impact on the intellectual and personal development of her students."

Rudy, who earned her bachelor's at the College of the St. Rose in Albany, New York, was a visiting research fellow at Princeton University's Center for the Study of American Religion before joining Duke's faculty in 1994. In 1996, she received a Trinity College Distinguished Teaching Award. She is the author of three books, including Sex and the Church: Gender, Homosexuality, and the Transformation of Christian Ethics, published by Beacon Press.

The Alumni Distinguished Undergraduate Teaching Award is administered by a student committee, which presents its selection to the alumni association's awards and recognition committee for approval. It includes a $5,000 stipend and $1,000 for a Duke library to purchase books recommended by the recipient."

LarryD said...

Yes, Antioch College will suspend operations on July 1st, 2008.

There's a post on American Thinker about it with a follow up here.

Anonymous said...

Rudy_on_Plastic_Surgery

My advice: Get some.

I know that many will want to slam me for this candid observation; however, if these well-paid and well-tended misfits at Duke can assume a perch of being experts and proceed to give advice about the universe to everyone else, then they should at least look into a mirror on occasion.

I have a question.....a not-so-rhetorical question: Is there even one member of Duke's Gritty Gang who is good-looking, attractive, or otherwise might possess even an impression that they know anything about human sexuality from personal experience?

Most other professions require one to deliver the goods. These urchins seem to sit around aimlessly throwing out silly and infantile ideas which appear to be little more than their own idle fantasies.

Debrah

rrhamilton said...

Debrah said at 4:37 PM,

I have a question.....a not-so-rhetorical question: Is there even one member of Duke's Gritty Gang who is good-looking, attractive, or otherwise might possess even an impression that they know anything about human sexuality from personal experience? (Emphasis added.)

Given the quotes KC gave us on Rudy and speciesism and great apes and communal lesbian sex .... Damn, this is soooooooooo tempting .... (VEG)

Anonymous said...

rrhamilton--

LIS!!! GIS!!!


Debrah

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

It is worth noting....and not so trivial, IMO.....that tomorrow will be (7/7/07).

The last time the date was comprised of all sevens was way back in July of 1977.

Does anyone remember what you were doing on that day? If you don't, then you should be concerned. You were either not yet born or you were old then....and even older now..... and possibly suffering from early onset. LOL!

The next time only sevens will comprise the date will be the year 2077.

Scary, eh?

Debrah

Anonymous said...

A few (perhaps provocative) thoughts on the 10:50 comment, with which I agree completely.

These ideologues are actually stealing many a page from religious doctrines. The schizophrenic twisting of sexual desire is inherent to many religions, certainly to Christianity (which is one that I know the best, not that I want to single it out). The fact that flesh and blood people have trouble living according to the tenets is a *plus* because it conveniently provides (1) something to continuously rally against, and (2) a distant utopian goal, which will never be reached, but has to be strived for.

The power these people hold in the academia is pretty much absolute. Even a minor disgreement will eliminate you from any position of influence (chairmanships, hiring and promotion committees, course committees, etc.). And a major public stance against them is likely to cost you your career -- which dean will defend a professor charged with racism or sexism when a hundrend vigilantes are ready to occupy his/her office?

It would be a *big mistake* to view the Duke case as a defeat for these radicals. Even with the facts decidedly against them they managed to intimidate pretty much everybody and consolidate their power at a major university. The one marginal threat againt them (lawsuits) was eliminated by buying off the opposing parties. But, you may say, but how about this blog, and a few similar ones? This question would prompt no more than derisive laughter from a G88 member.

For me, the NC AG "innocent" decision was the only major surprise in the saga, and a proof that there are still people who will take a risk for the sake of a principle. There are very few such people in the academia. Thus I see little prospect for improvement in the near future. But I may be mistaken and would welcome any constructive thoughts.

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

RL alum medicine '75 9:03 said...

...A nice pic and article on noted ethicist Kathy Rudy from Duke Magazine in 2005:

...http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/091005/depqa.html
::
Interesting article and good example of how to keep someone busy who has nothing better to do.

The Triangle is most certainly NOT a hub for Hispanic Immigration in the USA and Latino Mom's and Dad's purchase WAY TO MUCH Ice Cream for their kids. They smother their kids in love and affection...and food.

The following data might be helpful for the good professor if she is going to actually publish anything that is truthful.
::
GP (Houston, Tx)
::
Estimates of the Unauthorized Migrant Population for States based on the March 2005 CPS

CPS = 2005 Current Population Survey
(In thousands)
U.S. total 11,100 (10,700–11,500)

California 2,500–2,750
Texas 1,400–1,600
Florida 800–950
New York 550–650
Arizona 400–450
Illinois 375–425
Georgia 350–450
New Jersey 350–425
North Carolina 300–400

Reference:
Pew (Foundation) Hispanic Center
www.pewhispanic.org

Anonymous said...

5:33

Sure you don't have Ranjana Khanna confused with Roseanne Roseannadanna?

Anonymous said...

Thanks KC. You provide such a service. I really enjoy most of the blogs, especially those that add humor to their insight. On top of that, some of our famlies are just not that 'involved' in this mess, so I know where I can go to talk to like-minded folks (meaning those wanting to discuss Duke, not group think). I'm on vacation, but this is one of the fun parts of my day.

Unfortunately, the funding for these depatments will NEVER end. I mean NEVER. I remember that it began slowly. I think that the few that brought it up were considered alarmist. I think that the biggest major funding came from the Ford Foundation. I cannot remember where they practically started a mini-department. They give hundreds of millions of dollars for all these studies. I think their income revenue the last few years is in the neighborhood of $1 billion plus per year. That's revenue, not principle. All the parents in the world cannot compete with this kind of money. Besides, universities like Duke would rather keep the leftist at Ford happy, or they (Ford) will keep their billions and go elsewhere.

We send our kids to great universities, becasue we want them to get good jobs. In certain fields, the right university is really important. Where can you send them? You might say, forget the California University system (Cal, UCLA), Michigan, the Ivies, Duke, etc.

So what to do? Well, 'Train a child...and when he goes to college, he will not depart from it.' Let them go anywhere. But start reading the Classics, Western Civilization, Religion, Ethics, etc. when they are young. Discuss these using reasoned discourse rather than coersion. Practice disciplined inquiry. Teach them that logic is a science and so they have to shed emotional appeal as the only way to support their position. Don't preach. Then, when they go away to school, they will know how to judge their professors, an know when someone is just blowing smoke...

There have been some studies that undergrads are not as susceptible to these kooky indoctrinations as we may fear. It's when they go to grad school, that they are really at risk. So, have them skip grad school, and instead go to medicine, dentistry, law, vet school, etc.

It kinda works. Both our kids are a little more liberal than us, but still grounded in the real world.

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

to 4:13 Funny!

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

Carolyn says:

Kathy Rudy preaches gang banging.

So why in hell did she throw a snit when Crystal practiced what Rudy preached? I mean, since Rudy gushed over how totally kewl it was NOT to know the names of whomever you screwed, Crystal not only didn't remember the guys' names, she didn't even remember what they LOOKED like! And that's kewl because, like Rudy explained, because "Although she may not know the names of each of her sex partners, each encounter resignifies her belonging.." Woo hoo! Crystal 'belonged' so much she even took on 6 more guys (of course, Meehan's lab still hasn't finished counting yet).

So my question is - what is Rudy's problem when someone actually practices what Rudy preaches? (And don't tell me I haven't been 'listening' correctly to what Rudy's been saying.)

Anonymous said...

Correction:

CMG didn't have sex with anyone at that party. Accordingly, Rudy would be dismayed.

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

"There have been some studies that undergrads are not as susceptible to these kooky indoctrinations as we may fear. It's when they go to grad school, that they are really at risk. So, have them skip grad school, and instead go to medicine, dentistry, law, vet school, etc."

this is the biggest crock I've read on this website - and that's saying a lot. I guess my Bio Ph.D. means I'm kooky too hmmm? You're espousing a "professional degree" mentality that would be an incredible detriment to our educational system.