Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Ignoring Academic Procedure

The last two days’ posts have explored the unusual relationship between President Brodhead and the Group of 88’s statement. Even as some members of the Group apologized for the statement’s effects, the president has suggested that he saw no need for signatories to apologize. And even as some members of the Group made clear, in writing, that the statement targeted the lacrosse players, Brodhead has portrayed the document as either a defense of unnamed minority students at Duke or an innocuous recapitulation of the faculty’s veneration for the race/class/gender trinity.

In early April, the statement’s point person, Wahneema Lubiano, e-mailed the chairs of the History, Cultural Anthropology, and Literature Departments, asking for input into the ad’s text. She then e-mailed several other department chairs, requesting that their department formally endorse the ad.

In her language, she was clear about who was funding the ad: “African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle about the lacrosse team incident.” In her customary purple prose, Lubiano noted that “the ad is built around student articulations.”

She elected not to send these “articulations” to most signatories—the anonymous quotes from alleged Duke students were props. Indeed, noted Lubiano, “we don’t have an email list of all department and programs chairs, and I don’t have time to put one together.”

This task would have taken around 15 minutes to complete—the Duke website has a one-stop listing for all undergraduate departments and programs. But even this short amount of time evidently could not be spared. As Lubiano (and all other Duke professors) knew, the DNA tests that Mike Nifong had promised would identify the guilty but also exonerate the innocent were due back any day. If the tests all came back negative, the anti-lacrosse faculty might have missed their opportunity to exploit the situation.

So, as a next-best alternative to looking up e-mails herself, Lubiano asked all recipients of her initial e-mail “to spam(!) this to other individual faculty or to your chairs to see if they’re interested in supporting the ad and so that as many faculty as possible have a chance to see it and sign on.” A few possible signatories, such as Literature professor Kenneth Surin, didn’t receive one of these spam e-mails before the ad went to press.

But the key for Lubiano was obtaining departmental endorsements. She stated that “we will not be listing the names on the ad itself (only the supporting departments and program units).” Academic departments rarely sign onto statements that do not directly deal with departmental concerns; if even a few did for the AAAS ad, it would attract notice. And to make sure that the message got through, then-AAAS chairman Charles Payne followed up, with an e-mail sent to his fellow department chairs late in the afternoon of April 3. Other departments would have until 11am the following morning to decide if they would sign on. Payne does not appear to have considered whether it was an appropriate use of his authority, as the chair of an academic unit, to have engaged in such a lobbying effort.

Over the course of the last year, Payne refused to respond to five e-mail requests from me asking if AAAS used departmental funds to pay for the ad or whether an independent benefactor privately funded the ad at AAAS’s behest. As the Lubiano e-mail made clear, the signatories were not asked to pay for the ad out of their own pockets.

If—as now seems likely—AAAS funded the ad itself, this decision would mean that a document cited by defense attorneys as among the reasons why Duke students could not receive a fair trial in Durham was paid for by Duke funds, funneled through the budget of the African-American Studies program. (The program since has been elevated to departmental status.)

The action also would seem to violate official Duke policy, last articulated in 2003, when future Group of 88 member Anne Allison used Cultural Anthropology departmental funds to pay for an ad containing student quotes denouncing the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Individual faculty can pay for ads about political issues, Provost Peter Lange wrote, but departments could not use their own funds for the purpose.

---------

In the event, five departments were listed as formally endorsing the ad: Romance Studies; Psychology: Social and Health Sciences; Art, Art History, and Visual Studies; Classical Studies; and Asian & African Languages & Literature. In fact, no departmental vote ever occurred in at least three of these departments (Psychology: Social and Health Sciences; Art, Art History, and Visual Studies; and Classical Studies). Lubiano listed them as endorsing the ad anyway. She has never explained why she put false information on the ad; when asked by me about her conduct in the case, Lubiano replied, in full, “Do not email me again. I am putting your name and email address in my filter.”

Could it be that Duke, unlike most academic institutions, doesn’t follow normal procedures, and allows a single professor, on her own initiative, to assert a departmental endorsement? That was the explanation provided for the Classical Studies Department’s “non-endorsement endorsement.” Department Chair Peter Burian described this violation of standard academic protocol as a “well-intentioned” decision that “needs to be understood in the context of the immediate, highly emotional reactions to the first reports of the incident.” In fact, the false claim of a departmental endorsement occurred more than two weeks after the first reports of the lacrosse incident.

In any case, departments that took seriously academic procedure acted in a much different fashion to Lubiano’s request. The then-interim chair of the English Department, Ron Butters, noted at the time, “I cannot imagine on my own accord—or even with the backing of the Chair’s Advisory Council—giving Departmental backing to such an ad without a Departmental vote.” He added that he hoped “that we all agree that we need to be mindful that nothing we do or say as a group should violate the conscience of any of the Department members.”

With the exception of Houston Baker and Maurice Wallace, Butters’ colleagues appeared to recognize the impropriety of a departmental endorsement of Lubiano’s ad. Thomas Pfau bluntly observed, “The English Department has no more calling than any other department to take a public position on what, to date, remains largely a matter of allegations and opinions.” Future Group of 88 member Ranjana Khanna said that she didn’t “think that the department as a whole could have any response that is outside the commitment to students and the pedagogical mission of the university.”

Even Karla Holloway--of all people--doubted the wisdom of Lubiano's quest for departmental endorsements. She suggested that “departments do not need to act univocally,” and added that “inflammatory language is completely irresponsible.”

Holloway, of course, would subsequently change her mind about the wisdom of inflammatory language. By the summer, few Duke faculty members’ language would be more inflammatory than hers.

Given that a figure as extreme as Holloway recognized the impropriety of departmental endorsement of the Group of 88’s statement, surely Brodhead could at least bring himself to criticize the statement on technical grounds, citing the established record of the ad listing departmental endorsements that never, in fact, occurred. Yet the president’s response to the apparent violation of Duke procedure in the funding of the ad and the grievous violation of academic protocol in the listing of false departmental endorsements has been silence.

---------

Amidst such a record, how is it possible to account for Brodhead’s persistent defenses of the Group’s statement—and his implicit rebuke of the Duke faculty members who have dared to criticize the Group? Only two reasonable explanations come to find.

The first: He was frightened of the Group. As they have made clear over the past 16 months, Group members are quick to condemn anyone who disagrees with them as sexist or racist or both. Brodhead—as a white, male president of a university in a majority-minority city—could ill-afford to be branded a racist by his own professors.

The second: Brodhead supports the Group’s agenda. His primary appointment is in English (32 percent of whose faculty belong to the Group), and upon coming to Duke, he took the unusual move of becoming an affiliated faculty member with the Women’s Studies program (72.2 percent of whose official members endorsed the Group’s ad). The decision sent a message to the faculty that the new president had a personal stake in the race/class/gender vision embodied by Women’s Studies and similar programs (like AAAS).

Beyond Brodhead, the list of Women’s Studies affiliated faculty reads like a Who’s Who of the Group of 88—Professors Neal, Wallace, cooke (she doesn’t capitalize her name), Deutsch, Abe, Boatwright, Litzinger, Davidson, Chafe, Koonz, Olcott, Thorne, Viego, Wong, Damasceno, Gabara, Greer, Aravamudan, Longino, Mignolo, Schachter, Beaule, Brim, Rego, and Hovsepian. Eight more—Sieburth, Gheith, Metzger, Radway, Albers, Gayton, Marko, and Quilligan—signed the “clarifying” statement.

In short, the full-time and “affiliated” Women’s Studies faculty included 36 members of the Group of 88, as well as 11 additional “clarifying” letter signatories.

Criticizing the Group, then, would require Brodhead to criticize the ideas that have defined his own academic career and the people with whom he has chosen to associate. This, it appears, is something the president will not do.

284 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 284 of 284
Anonymous said...

There is one word for a person like "Another Academic" and that word is "TROLL". This person's only purpose here is to attack with no rationale to back it up.

mac said...

Where-oh-where did my little dog go? Speaking of AA (Another Academic.)

He was getting so far from reality, I would guess he left to get his meds?

mac said...

12:53,
He likely fled when he found out that KC might be able to track his identity. Don't know if KC does that, but...
AA fled, nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

Good! Let's hope AA is gone!! Now maybe we can get back to having a nice, mature, intelligent conversation. :)

mac said...

12:55 (I aks myself) Pet meds?

mac said...

1:01
Thanks. I agree.
'Nuff silly stuff.

MikeZPurdue said...

Hey Wayne Fontes,

I take exception to being called a sock puppet,
I am at least at the level of a ventriloquest dummy.

Quite the contrary, liberals are the biggest group
of sock puppets that I have ever seen. They live
in their little bubble and believe what they want
to believe regardless of thr truth. I don't even
want to know what web sites they go to get
their marching orders, but it's both pathetic
and scary at the same time.

And can we talk about conspiracy theories (lol)
pah-leeeze, liberals spew out the most bizarre
conspiracy theories AND, again, go on beleiving
them despite all the evidence to the contrary --
kind of reminds you of this whole case.

Why don't you go hang out with Mikey -- he
could use some company.

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 2.32am:

The English chair sent out an email calling for a dept. meeting to consider formally endorsing Baker's letter. Shortly thereafter, he sent along another email from Wahneema Lubiano asking for a departmental endorsement. Pfau's email was a response to the first call (the Baker letter) but with an argument that applied to Lubiano's request as well. The Holloway and Khanna emails were responses to both.

If you, however, have material from Prof. Pfau stating that he opposed a departmental endorsement of Baker's letter but did not believe that his objections applied to the Group of 88, I'd urge you to share it--and, indeed, any such information that would give us a more complete look into the attitudes of the Duke arts and sciences faculty between March 29 and April 6, 2006.

KC

Anonymous said...

"Another academic" displays well behavior common in decadent academy. Another academic fosters doubt without evidence, disrupts analysis of any issue by a scattershot invocation of many unrelated issues, engages in name-calling and intimidation, misrepresents and distorts statements, and shows no respect for facts. In short, another academic attempts to destroy the possibility of reason.

What a sad state of intellectual life.

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

Or it could be KC, creating some kind of straw man to make himself look good and get a lot of attention from the rest of you.....

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 12:51 said...

...It takes a leader to be president of Duke University. Brodhead has never learned to be a leader. Oh sure he was a dean of something at Yale, but he still was not a leader. His past mistakes prove that. He was and still is an English teacher. That is why he associates himself closely with the English teachers and other artsy faculty. He cant criticize them? A leader would, an English teacher associated with the same group would not. Can anyone see the difference? Oh sure, Brodhead can talk a good game and mesmerize people by randomly quoting Shakespeare and other greats of literature. Some people like that and think that it is a sign of intelligence. Intelligence then is interpreted as leadership. It is not. Brodhead is proving that over and over again. He is not the leader that Duke BOT thought they were getting. He is the English teacher who can quote Shakespeare and others rather well.
::
What you say may be true but Richard (the chief royalist) Broadhead is still employed as are the G of 88 monarchy and their loyal followers/subjects in the Office of Student Affairs.

Looks to me like Broadhead is a pretty good royalist and leader for the monarchy within Duke.

I wonder how many thousands of alumni support the monarchy?

Are the results in for the fund drive that ended on June 30th?

Did they break a 'giving' record?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Simply put Broadhead is a coward devoid of any ethics. Great example for Duke students.

Cedarford said...

Because they aren't arguments. They are conjectures, and there is a different. KC has a long history of engaging in pointless disputes with people, in which he harasses people endlessly, claiming to have the "facts." It's a shuck.

Why don't *you* stop beating a dead horse? The lacrosse case is over. Leave these people alone. Who cares what happens at Duke? How about giving a shit what happens to all those nice white -- as well as black and brown -- kids over in Iraq who are getting their legs and heads blown off at the rate of twenty or thirty a week?

KC Johnson is a fictional character that used o be a real person who did real scholarship. Now he's just an athletic supporter with a large fan club.

Another Academic


AA is one dumbass tool, or a creation of a dumbass tool character by one of the more disruptive trolls frequenting Lacrosse case websites.

Accepting that AA is real, and not just the troll using a sock puppet (which he does frequently) to spin other posters and sabotage threads....

AA is wrong on lumping in KC Johnson's observations into the "conjecture" category. KC's stuff is open to review, his name and reputation go with his writings, and any honest reviewer can see he is doing an analysis of the facts as known. A pretty good analysis, IMO, as Johnson has been dead right 9 out of 10 times and has methodically eviscerated the hoax enablers. Any real "another academic" would not do so. Leading to the conclusion that AA is not a bona fide academic hence he does not ID himself OR, That AA is an "AA" benefiting from the "AA" that gave the dumbass an academic slot.

The dumbass Another Academic then goes into the recent Lefty mode when they are losing arguments of dragging in the dead troops in Iraq they claim they "care so much about" while of course opposing ROTC everywhere intended on giving our combat troops excellent officers. Notice too the typical Lefty tactic of infantilizing the soldiers - this time as "kids".

***************
If AA is not real, but is a sockpuppet - I do resent the troll's attempt to manipulate people and derail threads. In other sites, getting caught with sockpuppet cheerleaders or strawmen usually leads to banning after 1 warning.

KC might be well-served to crack down on sockpuppetry on his Blog in similat fashion.

Anonymous said...

I’m sure that his Brodhead were to defend himself he would say that you just don’t understand the complexities of the situation. At least that seems to be his excuse of the moment.

Anonymous said...

re 2:32 am
ok KC you publish Baker's email to the dept, since you seem to have access, and let's go from there.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, Anonymous Academic brings to mind something Terry Teachout wrote about Houston Baker:

"Neither is it worth summarizing Baker’s views on rap, since they are, controlling for polysyllables, mostly indistinguishable from those of the average thirteen-year-old, and are in any case asserted rather than demonstrated."

'Asserted rather than demonstrated' -- sounds a perfect description of AA's ridiculous assertion that every poster who agrees with KC on any point is KC regardless of how many points they disagree upon. I'd say that it's a good thing, showing the pathetic level of argument-from-ignorance the potbangers are reduced to -- but then again, they've been doing this all along, haven't they? Any time evidence came out that any reasonable person would have acknowledged was damaging to the Hoax, the potbangers completely ignored the content of the evidence and instead turned to irrelevant speculations that the information must have been put out by "defense lawyers" or even by a PR firm purportedly employed by the players.

So, sorry, AA. You're not even mining a new sewer. All you're doing is proving Lane Williamson to have understated the case: not only did some look foolish, not only do some still look foolish, but some are actually shouldering to the front of the line, wanting to have as much of an audience as possible as they show off their foolishness.

mac said...

Well-put, anon 3:23 and GP 2:52.

In this latest round, they started up with the "what are you threatened by" and "what are you afraid of" with regard to women in academia.
It was a pointless, pitiful argument, based upon a false assumption that
1) we are somehow threatened and frightened.
2) that they represent great minds in academia.

BTW, they got pretty flustered when the same tactic was thrown back at them, resorting to "short-white-dick" type insults.
No threat from these types; they can't even rise to the level of a qualfied Sophist. Perhaps they could get lessons.

mac said...

Meant to say:
1) that we are somehow threatened and frightened by women in academia
2) that they (the im-posters) represent great minds in academia.

Anonymous said...

These people do not obey the rule of law. They violate their own rules and the rules of a decent society. What do they care as long as they obtain power. They can rationalize and explain always to their purpose. I might be more impressed with them if they had argued to respect the law. This damned university is just hogwash.

Anonymous said...

What the Group88 assert is fear. Thet affect Brodhead, the Board, and the larger community, but these potbanging fools are not fools about their affected assertions. They knowingly pose, poster, and perform and assert fear roiling the community with fear, and everyone rolls over knowing nothing different could be explained to them because in the end, they get their way. As we know "something happened" in the bathroom of their minds.

Anonymous said...

This is simply a superb post by KC.

He hits the target on every point with laser beam precision.

It is still quite a disappointment that the underbelly of Duke University and those Gritty Gang of 88 "professors" will not be fully illuminated along with their illegal and unethical actions in the aftermath of Mangum's hoax.

No question. Duke's administration and Brodhead were terrified that the public would be made aware of their hideously clandestine maneuvers.

Dirty. Very dirty people.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

You people -- on all sides -- are truly insane.

Have a psychiatrist read these posts and figure out what you are doing here, spending your time like this, writing these crazy things. What makes you think that this kind of insanity is desirable from the point of view of the young men who on the lacrosse team who had all this trouble in the first place?

signed,

the mother of a Duke student who stumbled on this by mistake

Anonymous said...

to 5:08

Best to stumble on but remember there was someone running this blog and other bloggers that helped save three innocent Duke students from an administration that wanted to castrate them and a crooked DA that wanted to put them away for 30 years. Let's hope your Duke student never needs KC's or other bloggers help.

Anonymous said...

TO 5:08PM--

Well, then......try stumbling right back out......on purpose.

You are obviously either an imposter.....or some provincial and insular parent whose sole purpose is to keep your head in the sand.

This is the Fourth of July. Many of us not only value independence and freedom in this country, we value JUSTICE FOR ALL.

And we get off on bringing malicious forces--who deliberately seek to impede JUSTICE FOR ALL--to their knees.

KC is sizzling on this very significant post.

So hot! No need for fireworks on this Fourth of July!

Debrah

Anonymous said...

5:08

"you people" ?

Are you sure you're not some Durham hoodlum?

Anonymous said...

KC, I just read the story about your tenure battle. Many thanks for providing the link.

As in the Duke hoax, I think F. Scott Fitzgerald was spot on when he said, "Forgotten is forgiven."

May we never forget, else the mediocity of the deconstructionists shall be our end.

Anonymous said...

The last time I looked, 5:08, castrating students was not in the university handbook. But then, how to deal with sex workers that you hire wasn't in the hand book either, and clearly that's something all students need to know. So go figure.

Anonymous said...

KC asked: "I'd urge you to share it--and, indeed, any such information that would give us a more complete look into the attitudes of the Duke arts and sciences faculty between March 29 and April 6, 2006."

I was at a dinner party at the home of an A&S faculty member and spouse (also a professor elsewhere) on April 1, 2006. It was an ugly evening as the hosts ranted about the evil lacrosse team and the certainty of the rape/assault.

Mild protest that "I don't know what happened and neither do you" were met by "those players are animals, and I know a number of them and of course they did it."

I was told that he spoke out within his department -- informally like at lunch -- a non-humanities department, berating Div 1 athletics in non revenue sports. He has been silent for months.

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

Cedarford,

Perhaps KC should also ban anti-Semites who never have original ideas.

Trinity '69

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

Polanski, why don't YOU identify yourself? Because you are one of KC's alters, that's why

an interested observer

Michael said...

re: 11:04

I don't think that a tutor is available this week due to the holiday.

When he's had difficulties in the past, I've usually just given him something from my math library to read or had a look myself.

I've always encouraged him to try to figure things out himself before asking anyone else and he's pretty good at doing this.

I'm generally pretty good at learning on the fly but he's basically moved quite a bit a head of me (and I'm a software engineer) in this area.

You posited about taking language and literature in translation instead of a language as a weakness in the student or graduate. My point is that different people have different strengths and weaknesses and that one may prefer to take literature in translation to fulfull their degree requirements.

Michael said...

A lot of strange stuff to wade through tonight. This AA person seems to just lob in insults and seems to make no points of substance.

As far as KC goes, KC seems to be a fairly modest person trying to do a good job at fairly evaluating the actors that make up the threads of history. He usually ducks credit when it is due him and usually keeps his name out of the limelight deflecting the limelight to others.

If AA has some great revelations to make, perhaps he could convince the folks on Nightline to give him some time to make his case.

Anonymous said...

Polanski is James Clyne. He used to post with his name here. Sometimes he still does. Depends if his condition kicks in or not.

Anonymous said...

Hello,

Today's attacks on Another Academic and Duke Mother reflect my major criticism of this site: some of you engage in personal attacks on people with whose ideas you disagree. Much of your vitriol is aimed at academics in general. I'm not convinced these attacks would be supported by members of the LAX team, much as they have probably appreciated the support that KC Johnson's blog provided. Moreover, I wonder if these are doing KC any good with some of the people who thought he ought not be tenured.

One can agree or disagree with his approach to reporting the LAX case, but he has been civil. That isn't the case for some of the posters.

Anonymous said...

Dear 7:09,

I think you misread my post. I merely wondered if those who were quoting/citing Marx with such certitude had actually read his work in the original. That's all.

Your son? Lucky him. He's good in math. My son works with a friend who is a math educator when he has a calculus question. She's really good at explaining the WHY that is usually his concern. That's why I made the suggestion.

Anonymous said...

Another Academic needs to learn how to spell.

I'd bet a Ben Franklin it's a Duke Faculty88 member trolling here.

Anonymous said...

to 7:38

maybe you want to get together around a campfire and sing "Kumbaya?"

but before we do, maybe you and the 87 can apologize for robbing 3 innocent young men of a year out of their lives.

Anonymous said...

So Johnson-haters 1 & 2 (Another Academic and Duke Mother) come on here and launch personal attacks on Johnson ("mysogynist," "obsessive" etc.) and then Johnson-hater 3 (Anon 7:38) complains that he doesn't like Johnson's site because it contains too many personal attacks by commenters...

Anonymous said...

Hello,

This is 7:38. I don't mind KC Johnson; I've never met him. Moreover, I had nothing to do with Duke or the LAX team. I was initially interested in the discussion here, because I have a teenaged son who is looking at universities. But, the intolerance evidenced in your comments sort of proves my point. You accuse me of being an 88er because you disagree with my comments? What's your problem? I guess your tolerance is v. limited. Sort of like the 88ers you so happily attack.

Anonymous said...

PS 8:00

Naw, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near you to sing Kumbaya or anything else. Why would I? So you could make boorish comments?

Anonymous said...

**8:20

Anonymous said...

Chauncy Nartey is nothing more than an opportunistic racist. He has played the race card and hidden behind it at the same time. This whole situation at Duke is sick.

Anonymous said...

Cmments about Johnson miss the point of his blog. By and large Johnson has let Duke, the Duke Aministration, the Group88, Nifong, and the Durham Police Department do in themselves. He has done what would be called a close reading of these people. He has paid attention to what they have been writing and what they have been saying. Needless to say, the whole horrible hoax has unraveled before their very eyes. Thank God for this man's efforts.

Anonymous said...

It's Another Academic here.

You people obviously have no appreciation of the depth of my compassion for my fellow man. So why can't you show a little love for me? I think it's absolutely despicable that this blog would entertain the racist rantings of a Polanski, someone so vile that he accuses hard-working educators like yours truly of receiving academic welfare. AAAS is a crucial voice for all people going forward, given the simple fact that what is good for Africa and African-Americans is good for America. AAAS teaches the music, history, literature of Africans and African-Americans whose brilliance has transformed America. Miles Davis, Toni Morrison, Benjamin Bannaeker, John Coltrane, Sojourner Truth--geniuses all! How dare you imply that AAAS doesn't deserve to be financed liberally by exploitative Caucasians who cannot appreciate all the wonderful cultural, artistic, scientific, and religious contributions we have made to the American experiment.

Now do you people know where I'm coming from? Have I been specific enough?

Go in peace.

Another Academic

mac said...

The mother of a Duke Student who stumbled on this by mistake 5:08:

We all have our reasons for writing and observing KC dismantle the hateful 88 (good name for a book, eh? The Hateful 88?)
If you go back and read all of KC's
posts - and I'll admit that you would be reading for a very long time - you'll see the engineering of the Hoax, perpertated by some VERY sick people.

The Duke students who were very nearly put on trial have thanked
KC - as well as the Bloggers - because KC has exposed, documented and enumerated so much of the criminal conspiracy against the students, including a conspiracy that caused Duke to have to settle for three issues:
1) firing Coach Pressler and allowing intimidation of his family - (including by one of those Duke has seen fit to honor as a "student leader.)
2) grade retaliation by Kim Curtis against a Lacrosse student.
3) causing emotional pain and suffering to the accused, allowing them to be subjected to harrassment, threats (including threats of castration) and kicking two of the three of them out of school.

Maybe you didn't know these things?

Without Bloggers - particularly KC and Liestoppers, Bill Anderson, Wendy McElroy and others, the young men might be settling in for a trial.

Perhaps you aren't aware of the dynamics here: there are still people (maybe yourself?) who believe that "something happened,"
that the young men committed some unknown crime.

Main Stream Media (MSM) took a LOOOONNNNGG time to understand that this was, indeed, a Hoax that had many relatives.

If you took the time to educate yourself on the subject, you might see things differently, and you might conclude that some of the 88 - Grant Farred, Wahneema Lubiano and others - are either in need of medication or should just give up ganja weed.

mac said...

AA,
Polanski, you sly troll, you!

Michael said...

re: 7:41

I got the answer on a trading forum. He just posted an example of where they're used and my son was happy with that. I'm on a few financial forums where there are a fair number of engineers of all shapes and sizes.

Our son has taken undergraduate and graduate courses for a few years and some of the stuff he's doing is outside of my field.

Anonymous said...

Another Academic (9:00pm post)

I am trying real hard to make peace with you. Here is my thinking.

If you and your friends were claiming that African Americans contributed to the American experiment there would not be any problems. Believe me we can happily accept that, and we do. It is when we are told that African Americans are superior to white people in every possible way that the problems surface.

Just a simple example: my son was taught in his theater class at Duke (by his professor) that if it wasn’t for African Americans, there would not be theater in America. Come on, isn't that pushing it a little too much and stretching it a little too thin? Look at Europe. Don't they have theater, or did black Europeans invent it for them? All we expect is a little reality and balance. Is that too much to ask?

kcjohnson9 said...

As I have explained before (though apparently not since "AA" joined the ranks of commenters), blogger software doesn't allow me to ban commenters.

I try and remove any racist comments (on either side); but it's not possible for me to moderate all comments all the time. I urge people to email me when they see bad comments, and I will delete them.

To the 7.38:

I agree with you that this case has featured some general attacks on the academy--which I (as an academic) consider unfortunate. That said: if I didn't know better, I would suspect that the Group of 88 were really secret agents of David Horowitz, behaving in such a way to discredit academia in general.

Michael said...

re: 5:08 Duke Mom

There was a video on WRAL I think around the time of Nifong's trial where one of the three accused players' lawyers credited the bloggers for their contributions to vindication.

Some of the lawyers post on the liestoppers web site, another blogging and forum site.

DIW is open to all and allows anonymous posting so anyone can come in here, claim that they are anyone and take potshots at anyone so readers have to be careful as to what they read as the poster may be trying to troll or stir things up.

Liestoppers is a far friendlier place as registration is required and posts are moderated.

This place tends to have a lot of bright people and these bright people enjoy argumentation in a rough and tumble way.

mac said...

8:37
See my 9:19.
Take my advice about looking up/studying KC's archives.

It's hard to remain civil when someone who is clearly lying continues to do so in the face of evidence. The 88 (perhaps minus a few by now) are perpetuators of a lie, supported by liars like Wendy Murphy and (formerly) Nancy Grace and John Feinstein and and and and...
The cast is so large!

Didn't you hear the Bar's examination of Nifong, when Mr. Williamson stated that this case has made fools out of a lot of people, and continues to do so?

Guess not. You can choose to educate yourself, if you wish.
No one is making you.

Anonymous said...

So true that the existence and the behavior of Duke's Gang of 88, Brodhead, Burness, Moneta....etc......

.....have made David Horowitz's work so much easier.

It's almost as if Wahneema is his new best friend!

LOL!!!

GOL!!!


Debrah

Anonymous said...

KC,

At this point, I would say that some of your commentary about the LAX case has become tedious and rather boring and redundant. Obviously, you have and always have had an agenda that goes way beyond pressing for dismissal of the charges against the players because the charges have been dropped but you are still flogging the case for all its worth. This case is really just a vehicle for you to promote your right-wing political and social agenda. Say hi to David Horowitz and all your friends at FIRE for me.

Cedarford said...

Polanski is James Clyne. He used to post with his name here. Sometimes he still does. Depends if his condition kicks in or not.

Agree, I was being polite in not mentioning the Troll and his coterie of sock puppets, but then Clyne - or Polanski took offense and launched a Troll+ 3 sockpuppets attack on me.

Wow! Am I supposed to be cowed or impressed by the "power of Polanski" and his alter egos?

It is actually sad, because you sense this lonely outcast character Polanski is intelligent and has things to say. I think he was the source of "Angry Studies"

But he seems unable to be accepted and once his deceits are sniffed out, he is banned from another Blof and trolling for another to infest.

Pity, because if he focused his thoughts, became ethical vs. manipulative, and picked his own issue rather than ride in and tell 20,000 other people on KC Johnson's Website they are beneath the All-Wise Polanski....

Maybe the Tool would actually have something to contribute.

Best of luck, Clyme!

mac said...

3:02
You certainly are a troll: you know nothing about KC if you think he's "right-wing."

Interesting how that term is thrown around to mean anyone who
disagrees with you.

As far as my use of "troll" goes?
Your post fits the Wikipedia definition like a glove: you obviously are someone
who has just shown up to let a couple of blog-farts for all to enjoy.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mac,

I think you have a problem with opinions that differ from yours. If you're in the extreme right, you wouldn't consider KC right wing. I think that KC probably is center/right of center on a number of social-domestic issues. I draw this conclusion based on some his comments on this blog awa his admittedly unpleasant tenure case. You can think otherwise & it's ok. Don't you understand this?

mac said...

Let's see: supporting OBama doesn't qualify anyone as "right-wing.

Besides, if the pursuit of facts and truth is what KC has been doing,
what's wrong with that?

Why are you so threatened by this?

Anonymous said...

Mac,

Asserting that I--or anyone else with whom you disagree--am threatened by (in this case) what KC is doing is the kind of attack/rant you resort to rather too often.

BTW, supporting Barak Obama for president doesn't necessarily qualify KC Johnson as non-center/right wing in some of his social-economic stances. You can't extrapolate Professor Johnson's entire political worldview from this. I'm not threatened in the least by Johsnon's attempt to obtain data/facts. "Truth" often depends on your viewpoint, now doesn't it?

Life is complicated & messy, Mackster old son, and you behave a bit like a bratty teen when you go after anyone and everyone. It's not very useful.

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

I believe that the very worst thing that KC could do would be to 'let it go' and 'move on.' This is exactly what the G88 want, but IMHO if we do this we risk allowing those scoundrels to do this to more young men in the future. The LAX hoax was caused by the racism, sexism and classism promoted in Angry Studies, so we need to shed light on this so that the public can work to eliminate programs and faculty who promote such bigotry.

There are some arguable benefits to AAAS, such as understanding the basis leading to the important cultural contributions of African Americans (and I'm not referring to Cornell West's rap record here), however, some programs (e.g., women's studies) seem to have little or no value to the greater good of society. Indeed, such programs appear to exist simply to indoctrinate students to adapt a mindset of, among other things, hatred towards white males; in that sense, programs like women's studies appear to simply promote a cult, i.e., feminism. And frankly, such endeavors are not only harmful to society, they are antithetical to the mission of the academy, i.e., promoting knowledge, because as we've here time and again, it's not about the truth, it's about politics and ideology. We have yet to have a serious and honest discussion about the merits of the Angry Studies ghetto departments and programs in academia, and IMO that's exactly what the likes of the G88 want. As we've seen here, they don't want to 'discuss,' they want to dictate.

Keep it KC. I don't recall who said it, but it's never been more applicable than with the G88: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It's long past time to clean house in the academy.

mac said...

8:45
You don't have an argument, so have to resort to name calling.
Hmmm.

Very good. Learn that in GF's class?

Anonymous said...

Mackster, old son,

Consider it a term of affection for you despite what I consider your antideluvian attitudes. If you look back upon your recent posts, you've shown a tendency to call names and be rude when you disagree with someone.

BTW, I don't consider "right" wing or "left" wing an insult. Not even "center." I think of them as relative political descriptors.

Important in this post was not dumping on Duke or its faculty, the important question was, as reflected in KC Johnson's title, the issue of academic proceedure. Failure to follow academic proceedure is not a left or a right issue. Certainly, one can site cases where the culprits come from across a political spectrum. Its a question of governance and one that is important to all faculty.

I believe you cheapen the possible
contribution this particular blog article makes by your intemperate remarks. I wish you would calm down.

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

KC,
I see a lot of references in your posts to your failure to engage your nemesis via e-mail. Do you ever try calling them at their offices? No doubt they would try to evade you under any circumstances, but if you are only contacting them by emails, your determination to speak to them does not seem to be too high either.

David W.
Irvine, CA

Anonymous said...

David W., KC has posted on the reception that he and others get when they encounter these people in person (e.g., Sally Duetsch) so IMO your criticism is on weak grounds. Further, I believe that KC has tried to call various persons on the telephone, and has been met with the typical "no comment" by most if not all players. Besides, if a person like Lubiano refuses to even read emails from KC, what makes you think that they would engage KC or anyone else who is not sympathetic to the 'metanarrative' in conversation, via phone, in person or otherwise? Seems to me that if someone is so narrow-minded ideologically and/or terrified of being exposed for they really are that won't even read an email, then it's not worth wasting a lot time to try and engage after the first, second and surely third time.

Anonymous said...

11:09

I don't think it should be any surprise that some of the people KC Johnson calls refuse to discuss the situation with him. I suspect they don't want their name to appear on his blog. No matter how measured his remarks might be, there would be little or no way for them to defend themselves against the people who anonymously post here.

mac said...

10:33
I always assume that my posts - (which are too volumnous) - are open to criticism.
I'm an unpublished writer - (small wonder?) - and I'm editor enough to see where I am deficient.
I post several types of things:

1)satire
2)rebuttals
3)interpretations of KC's posts

Perhaps you take issue with my satire -
and that's great; I am neither seeking your approval,
nor do I covet your admiration.

I sincerely question anyone - anyone - who uses the term "right-wing" because
it is so all-encompassing that it means absolutely nothing. Just like the term "racist."

Certainly there are racists and there are those who could be
called "right-wing" - but the terms are so frequently abused
(including by yourself) that they lack any coherence.

Thanks for commenting on my posts;
I hope you will remain a faithful reader! (DS)

Anonymous said...

11:11 am,

I must say that one is on very shaky ground if they feel 'threatened' by remarks made on a blog.

For crying out loud - "defend themselves"?! Sheesh, you make it sounds like remarks by the likes of me and others are dangerous in real way.

Give me a break.

Reality check: Remember what your mom told you: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Adults aren't afraid of commentary if those adults live an honorable life.

Anonymous said...

MB

I don't think you'd like to be belittled or see a member of your family belittled in the way some people from Duke have been on this blog.

Threat? No one is talking about a threat. Strawperson, there?

Quite frankly, at a certain level, all many //not all// of the 80s must do is keep a low profile. Eventually, much of the yipping will quit. Me? I'd follow this road, too, if I had done something really wrong in a very public way if the alternative was having my name batted around in the blogosphere, where there is no almost no refereeing of remarks.

mac said...

4:53
Yup. I feel really sorry for those people who (almost) helped three young men get sent to jail to satisfy their metanarrative.

I feel sorry for Nancy Grace, and the 88, and Dick Brodhead, and Wendy Murphy and John Feinstein
and...Mike Nifong! Oh, yeah.

Had they been able to have their way, they could have sipped wine in their local cafe, tipped their hat when they saw each other, all satisfied that they were right, all along, truth be damned:
it's the belief behind the truth that counts!

I feel so sorry for them.
Wahhhh!
I think I need to go call them a Wahhmbulance!

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

Polanski,
Doesn't everybody have a metanarrative? Or only those w/ whom you disagree?

In general--and you don't have to like it--people you want to speak up and apologize aren't going to if they don't have to because they don't want to deal with people like some who post on this list. I'm thinking it has v. little to do with the original LAX fiasco. Some may even sorry about that.

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

Hi Polanski,

The problem is that some of these professors teach things that others of us consider valuable. Is there room for conflicting opinions on this?

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

Polanski,
Do you like Thomas Sowell?

Anonymous said...

I can't comment on anything but Women's/Gender and GLBT Studies. I can understand why these interdisciplinary programs/majors exist. Some courses are indeed cross-listed. I consider these to be reasonale and cohesive areas of study.

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

If anyone wants to let U Chicago know what you think about them hiring a guy like Charles Payne, the Provost of the university is Thomas Rosenbaum (t-rosenbaum@uchicago.edu) and the dean of the School of Social Services Administration is Jeanne Marsh (jmarsh@uchicago.edu). It might be a good idea to let the dean of the College John Boyer (jwboyer@uchicago.edu) know about his qualification to slander/teach undergrads should he have the opportunity.

Anonymous said...

4:53,

Ok, I cede the point that nobody stated that they were "threatened." I do hope that you call-out any and all feminists when they say things like "(white, hetersosexual) men are threatened by strong, powerful women," yadda yadda yadda when in fact none of those (white heterosexual) men have explicitly stated that they were "threatened" by such women.

Still, "defend themselves?" Give me a break. This is s a blog for crying out loud. Nowhere near as close and personal as a classroom with, e.g., Kim Curtis, Wahneema Lubiano, et al. standing in the front 'teaching,' or whatever the h*ll it is they claim to do.

Anonymous said...

11:09

I may be incorrect, but isn't the School of Social Services a graduate program? John Boyer, as the Dean of the College, probably had little to do with the hiring of this man. You--and anyone who follows your suggestion--will just make yourself look like a frothing, rabid dog.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 284 of 284   Newer› Newest»