Sunday, July 15, 2007

Sunday News

Stefanie Williams, a columnist for the University of Maryland newspaper, had a first-rate post last week in the Liestoppers forum, explaining her activism on the case. It’s reproduced below, and is a useful reminder about the absurdity of using caricature, as so often occurred over the past 16 months, in discussing events in Durham:

“I spoke out early and often when this case began, mainly because it actually hit home. I am currently a rising senior at the University of Maryland, a fellow Atlantic Coast Conference school alongside Duke University, and as a freshman, was the manager for the men’s NCAA division I lacrosse team. Beyond that, I grew up on Long Island, in a town called Garden City. Known mainly for its intense lacrosse team, beautiful homes, sprawling golf courses, tight-knit community, and “Leave it to Beaver” families, Garden City was an ideal place to grow up. Incidentally, Collin Finnerty, one of the former Duke lacrosse players who was falsely accused, indicted, and charged with second degree rape, kidnapping, and sexual assault, grew up only blocks away from me. I also attended high school with several of the men on the 2005-2006 Duke men’s lacrosse team. So to say I had a lot invested in this case was an understatement.

“I watched for almost a year as night after night, talk shows, news shows, and even comedy shows, focused on this team, including the parts of their lives that intersected with my own; I never knew that someone’s grade point average, family income, high school extra curricular activities, church, and property taxes had anything to do with being charged with a rape. I also never knew that underage drinking and strippers were “issues” that only affected white, upper-class, students at “elite” institutions. But apparently, I was wrong.

“I sat by as news papers, magazines, and news broadcasts labeled these men elitists, misogynists, racists, spoiled “frat boy” alcoholic brats who have had everything handed to them by their “rich daddies”. I watched my town come under fire as a breeding ground for racism. Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy condemned anyone who had ever so much as picked up a lacrosse stick as a rapist, and black “activists” used this case to further the idea that every white male who comes from wealth is automatically a racist pig out to destroy black people. I watched members of my own team at Maryland face the scrutiny, and found myself defending them often, clarifying that not only were the stereotypes surrounding the “culture of lacrosse” not true, but that in fact these men were the closest things to brothers I ever had. They were men who made sure I got home safe at night, picked me up when I needed rides, studied with me and helped me pass my intro to computers class, guys who stood up for me when other guys at the bars got too rowdy. These weren’t men who assaulted me, raped me, or treated me badly, nor were the guys I had come to know on the Duke team.

“After the case began to unravel, and when it finally came to light that the prosecution of the three men was unethical and false, I saw an even grosser side to the public; a ravenous, unfair, vengeful side that didn’t care for justice, only sought to see the rich white kids get punished for who they were. Suddenly, people began mocking their families, their parents, the way they dressed, the way they walked, anything they said in their own defense. In a recent article published by the Wilmington Journal, a certain Mr. Bailey even referred to the members of the team as “pampered white frat boys”. While sometimes referred to as “lax”, it does not represent lambda alpha chi, but instead lacrosse. A sport, an athletic commitment much like the other programs at Duke; highly competitive, where the members of the team are chosen from thousands of qualified lacrosse players around the country and world based on athletic and academic performance. As for the team being entirely white, as Mr. Bailey would lead you to believe, Devon Sherwood, a freshman player at the time of the alleged rape, is African American. And in terms of pampered, many of the players parents are working class members of their communities, including police officers, teachers, and firefighters. Why Mr. Bailey, or anyone for that matter, would judge a group of men so harshly and cruelly without researching their backgrounds first, let alone even meeting them, is beyond me. I find it funny that those who adamantly fight against racism, sexism, and classism against minority working class women, had no problem judging these men on the fact that they were white males from wealthy families. I guess it only matters when it’s going a certain way.

“I would like to also say that as a current student at a large and prestigious public research university, this “insane, wild, illegal” party the team threw, looks like a game of tidily winks compared to some of the parties I have attended in my four years at college. I stand proudly and say I, like 95% of the rest of students in college across America, have gotten drunk underage, seen a stripper, owned a fake ID, played a game of beer pong, attended multiple parties, watched other people do keg stands, and witnessed a whole lot of sexual exploration. Condemn me if you wish, but let he who has never “sinned” cast the first stone. This is college folks, like it or not, deny it or not. I speak on behalf of my generation. This is not a “white thing”, it’s a college thing. And to assume a black college student has never urinated in public, or said a dirty word, simply because Nancy Grace wasn’t highlighting it, is pathetic. Let’s get real people.

“Furthermore, the favorite topic of degradation many of the anti-Duke lacrosse community members enjoy has been the players’ socio-economic standing. For some reason, people have been lead to believe that because the three falsely accused men came from comfortable backgrounds, they are not human. They are not capable of feeling pain, of suffering, or of being kept down. People say that because they will still have “good lives”, we should not feel sorry for the Duke members.

“Let me tell you about pain and suffering. I grew up in the same town as Collin Finnerty, and the same lifestyle as many of the members of the team. I lived in a beautiful home, on an acre of property, had the best of everything given to me from birth. I went to one of the best public schools on Long Island, played lacrosse and field hockey, and enjoyed summers in the Hamptons. When I was sixteen, this all changed. My father, a prominent maritime lawyer, well respected on Wall Street and in our community, strong family man, had died during an open heart surgery. My life, and the lives of my mother and sister were changed forever.

“We cried. We grieved. We felt as though our family had been ripped apart. A piece of me was gone, and we had to deal. But I will tell you what we did not do. My family did not roll around in wads of money. We did not remind ourselves how “wealthy” we were. We did not pride ourselves on monetary comforts. We gathered around our family, and grieved over the loss of our father. At age sixteen, I gave the eulogy at his funeral. I stood before more than 200 funeral attendees and spoke of the lessons my father taught me; acceptance, understanding, patience, selflessness, graciousness, kindness, and love. Success, money, wealth, country clubs, cars, and bank accounts were never mentioned, nor thought about. So for those who believe pain, suffering, and heart ache are all “privileges” of the working class black man, think again. Rich or poor, black or white, we all bleed the same. And in most cases, no amount of money can relieve our pain. There is not a day that goes by that I wouldn’t trade my home, my cars, my bank account, anything, to be able to speak to my father again.

“Looking back over the case, I only wish my father had been here to see it all go down. My father, who often did pro-bono work for minority clients in his later years, right up until the night before his surgery in his hospital bed, would be heart broken to see the divisive nature of the NAACP and other “liberal” groups, who exploited the racial issues for their own agendas. He would have been heartbroken to hear people who had never stepped foot in Garden City, attacking a community he gave so much to. He would have been heartbroken to hear the testimony of Mr. Evans, father of falsely accused Dave Evans, who developed type I diabetes due to the stress the false allegations against his son had put on him, as he too suffered from diabetes. And above all, he would have been heartbroken to see so many people attacking these parents for being “wealthy”, and for giving their children a life most would die for. Because since when in this country, has it been considered wrong or improper to sacrifice everything for your family? Since when has it been deemed shameful to provide a life for your child where education, opportunities, and values are provided? Why was it wrong for these families to encourage success, education, and talent in their children? Why was it wrong that these families and parents worked hard to provide a life for their children that most would consider the American Dream?

“So to all those who had were so confident they really knew that team, to those who based their entire opinion of the men on one party, to those who judged my hometown, my favorite sport, my life, my friends, my classmates, and my values without ever experiencing any of it, I simply say thank you. Thank you for constantly reminding myself, as well as the rest of the world, how truly blessed I was to grow up in a world where jealousy, envy, revenge, and stereotypes did not control my life. People say money is the root of all evil; however, is it those who have it and use it wisely, or those who don’t and hate those who do, that are truly the evil ones?”

---------

Former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler was on the West Coast last week giving a lacrosse clinic, and the Contra Costa Times ran a lengthy, insightful interview with him. Jack Emmer, Pressler’s college coach (at Washington and Lee University), remembered his former player as someone who “wanted to be successful. He knew what it took to be successful, and he demanded that of himself and his teammates.”

Recalling events of spring 2006, Pressler noted, “It was mass hysteria. People prejudged us, the players, the program. Everybody rushed to judgment that this was true with absolutely no evidence.”

Pressler had positive—and accurate—words about his former players at Duke. “How they handled themselves—the class, the integrity—they stayed on the high road and never lowered themselves like so many adults did, trying to take them down.”

As for the University itself, Pressler said, “I’m a fan of the players and of some of the coaches, but you can’t do this to people and get away with it and not apologize for it. Nobody has gotten an apology from anybody. That to me is an amazing thing.”

Indeed.

---------

Liestoppers is running a wonderful “Wisdom of Mike” series, contrasting the boasts of the ex-DA, many from his campaign website, with the findings of the Disciplinary Hearing Committee.

The blog also has posted a poll asking visitors to speculate on which Whichard Committee witnesses will invoke the 5th amendment. Right now, it’s a neck-and-neck competition for the lead between Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and ex-Investigator Linwood Wilson. Cpl. David Addison—he of the repeated false statements in his capacity as DPD spokesperson—is running a surprising sixth, and Tara Levicy—she of the willingness to change her story along with Crystal Mangum—is well at the back of the pack.

Fans of Addison or Levicy need to show more support . . .

---------

Another excellent letter in the Wall Street Journal on the Group of 88. Peter McDougall of San Diego notes that it is time for Duke to erase the "culture of intolerance and fear." He writes,
Silence, and time, are a criminal's friend, and the Duke administration, by being silent, is an accessory to the crime that this group of professors committed.

The Sixth Amendment demands a speedy trial for those accused. Thus the saying, "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied." Perhaps the Duke administration, with its feckless treatment of its tenured staff, hopes that by being silent this will eventually blow over, and Duke can go back to teaching our children about justice, habeus corpus and the terrible villains that would deny us our rights to these things . . .

. . . And then maybe in another class, teach about irony.

But until the members of this Group of 88 publicly apologize for their actions, the moral authority of the entire faculty is questioned, and they have no right to discuss with our children about the values that we hold dear, and that brave men and women have died defending.

And it ought to be an apology as strong as the original message, say, a paid advertisement in a prominent newspaper with all of their signatures. But it should not be just one of them, breaking ranks and feeling a little guilty, claiming to speak for all of them in a 10-second sound bite.

I would never send my children to Duke, now that I can see that its faculty would gang up and deny its own students basic freedoms and rights that we cherish. I would not donate money to Duke, or attend its basketball games, since doing so supports this culture of intolerance and fear.

As long as the Group of 88, and the Duke administration, remain silent, they have the moral equivalence of a dictatorship. The original action of the Group of 88 was outrageous, but their silence and that of the administration is even more so.

163 comments:

Anonymous said...

Brodhead's deafening silence speaks loudly for his character. When will he apologize to the lacrosse team, the families, the coach he forced out and the students and alumni? Duke and its trustees should be deeply ashamed.

a respectful inman said...

I do not have a soft heart for the ravages of time have hardened me. But, as I read the account of Stephanie and the loss of her father, I was moved.

She is one well grounded young lady.

If only all young ladies were equal to her grace, her manner and her standing.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Williams cuts right to the quick with her piece. I still think that the main reason the likes of Nifong, Holloway, those cretins on the Durham PD, Levicy, and all of the other misfits who were part of the Group of 88, hated these young men had less to do with their families' wealth than it did the fact that they all came from still-intact 2-parent households.

It's all about love and DNA, Carla. It's all about not being a genetic dead end.

Anonymous said...

kc is any media outlet trying to interview Collin, Dave or Reid? Are you for that matter? How about Ms. Mangum, has there been any attempt on your part or the MSM to interview her? I imagine she would appear for a fee on certain TV shows. I"m surprised she has not appeared already.

becket03 said...

My sister and her family live in the same neighborhood as the Finnerty family in Garden City, and so must also be neighbors of Stephanie Williams. Small world.

My niece, now a senior at Tufts, has affected a hardline feminist stance in recent years, but the Duke case caused her to go quiet for a change. Like Williams, she knew these boys.

Lots of thinking kids have had their eyes opened by this case. They've seen who got it right, and who got it wrong.

beckett

Anonymous said...

12:28

I'm sure that Mangum's attorney will put the kibosh on any interviews until it is certain that Mangum won't be prosecuted.

If you're wondering whether Panties has retained a booking agent, I'd speculate that it's likely. Miss Mangum could make a lot of cash, provided she makes the right moves. Lots of people still believe that "something happened." I'm sure Panties would be pleased to BS her way to fame, glory, and dollars.

After all, we are not Communists.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Stefanie Williams, Coach Pressler, the players and their families have my deepest admiration because they have earned it.

Brodhead, Duke and the Gang have my contempt. They have earned that even more.

Anonymous said...

I grew up on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, from the mid-60s. Good schools. Summer home on Long Island. Smarts. Good looks. White.

Yet, somehow, from about 12 years old, for 25 years, I suffered with *major depression*.

But it don't matter, cause you're white, blah, blah, blah.

rrhamilton said...

The letter published by the WSJ and written by Peter McDougal is fine. The column written by Stefanie Williams is a travesty. It is sickly-sweet and I don't blame her for writing it, as this was a case she cared about deeply; but after writing it, she should've realized that it should never be published.

Anonymous said...

FIRST DRAFT OF GANG OF 88 APOLOGY LETTER:

Because of our actions in preparing and signing the "Listening Ad," and because of the harm it has caused to the Duke Lacrosse players, their families, Duke University, and the community at large, we would like to a... we would like to apo... apolo...


88er #1: I can't write it. You try.

88er #2: What is "a-paul-oh-gee"?

88er #1: We need some weed, man.

________________

SECOND DRAFT OF GANG OF 88 APOLOGY LETTER:

You farm animals with your drinking and your urinating and your vile history of ....

88er #3: Is that really the right tone to start off, Houston?

_________________

THIRD DRAFT OF GANG OF 88 APOLOGY LETTER:

We, as faculty members of Duke University, have had an opportunity to reflect upon our "Listening Ad" and our various other actions and inactions related to the Duke Lacrosse Case. We would suggest that a closer look at our "Listening Ad" would dissuade one from the belief that we did anything wrong in the first place.

88er #4: Technically, is that an apology?

88er #2: Can we put something in there about "something happened"?

88er #3: I give up, who's bogarted my bong. I'm outta here.

_____________

96% of all UFO sightings are explained by K.C. Johnson's unique abilities. The other 4% relate to really, really strong weed or aliens. FBI file stamped "SECRET." MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me whether rallies like these occur at Duke? Yet.

http://www.zombietime.com/

Anonymous said...

the group of 88 are better employed in a left wing country where freedom is something they determine ...wouldnt it be wonderful is broadrot were to be named president of havana university...

hman said...

The Gang of 88 should think more of the fact that a main reason this story became as big as it did and caused as much harm to their agenda as it did was their own wooden-headed persistence in holding to a wrong public stance in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
I mean, the spectacle of M. Nifong pretending to the very end to believe that "Something Happened" was stomach turning. It kept a lot of us angrier than we have been in a long time. The Bar findings against him made much of the fact that he never acknowledged his errors and showed remorse. He may yet see jail time.
In the eyes of fair-minded people, why should the Gang of 88 be seen in a better light? They knew the truth a long time ago, they are well paid professionals with a variety of obligations to deal in truth, and the longer they pretend otherwise the worse is the damage to society and its institutions.

TaterCon said...

RRHamilton (1:28), you have a heart of stone. Anyone who agrees with you has one, as well.

Stephanie Williams's ten paragraphs were eloquent and reverberate with class. To the extent I could ever be convinced "required reading" of a viewpoint column is a good thing, I would say her ten paragraphs would be appropriate reading for those unwilling to concede the damage caused to the three victims of the hoax, and to their families and friends. I also suggest it as something which should be read by those still clinging to a "race/class/gender" approach to this case.

The pity is that 50% of those who would do well to read the ten paragraphs are folk like you -- ones who would dismiss her thoughts as overly emotive and not appropriate for public forums. The other 50%, the "clingers", would dismiss her words as pure fiction, for not fitting into the underlying story line that drove the condemnation of the Duke Three and their teammates in the first place.

Your half, then, constitutes the "Hearts of Stone" half. The other half wallow in the "Closed Mind" abyss.

Thank you, Stephanie Williams. You tried to reach 'em.

Alan Furman said...

Here you go:

"I would never send my children to Duke, now that I can see that its faculty would gang up and deny its own students basic freedoms and rights that we cherish. I would not donate money to Duke, or attend its basketball games, since doing so supports this culture of intolerance and fear."

Shrug, Atlas, shrug!

Anonymous said...

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334

Anonymous said...

Most Think Political Bias Among College Professors a Serious Problem

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334

Anonymous said...

Where is Meeham in all this? The only one who has admitted under oath that he conspirted to hide exculpatory evidence from the defense with Nifong? What is that about? I think the truth about Levicy's non involvement is coming out. BTW, did you notice that Nifong said " The nurse's report confirmed a sexual assault?" We know that is not true at all. The report did not confirm the rape and Nifong lied yet again.

rrhamilton said...

tatercon said at 2:42 AM...

RRHamilton (1:28), you have a heart of stone. Anyone who agrees with you has one, as well.


All my life I have endeavoured neither to think with my heart nor pump blood with my brain.

How's the reverse working for you?

After re-reading William's column, it's worse than I thought.

hman said...

To the one person who keeps defending Levicy:
If she is so non-involved, then she must be looking forward to a long, happy career in SANE nursing.
Seriously, can you imagine her ever being asked to testify about a sexual assault case, after what she did in the this case? It would take the average public defender about 5 minutes to annihilate her credibility on the witness stand.
How could that be if her behaviour in this matter was the least bit consistent with good SANE practice?
All the players in this saga who were not solidly and publically against the prosecution since about late May 2006 lost their chance to be among the Goods Guys. That train left the station a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

Any good SANE nurse or social worker will tell you - rape victims and child abuse victims never lie. A little regression therapy and you'll find that all women and children have been or will be victims of white male sexual abuse. Successful white males belong in prison - where they should have their genitals mutilated and you know what? I may not have been born wealthy. Or with a nice body or a pretty face. But I have Zoe and I wouldn't trade her for any white heterosexual male regardless of how good looking and successful he was. In fact, if anyone fitting that description takes a class from me, I will make every effort to humiliate his sexuality and ridicule his socio-political ideologies. It's the one thing I do very, very well. Oh god, I hate them. I hate every last one of them. Life is so unfair.

Anonymous said...

4"30 I am not the only one who defends Levicy, I am the only one who has not been driven off by a lot of hate and bile, I think she has already fiven up this rinky dink sub speciality - the dollar extra a shift is not worth this hazzle, If the SANE is called to testify - she testifyies to the WHO,What,Where,WHen and How the rape mateials were collected. She is not testifying to her opinion as to whether a rape occured or no, The investigation is the work of the police, She won't be giving lectures to the jury or her personal views.
As she can point to the AG stating he had come to the conclusion from the Levicy/Manly exam that there was no evidence a rape occured and the boys were found innocent. That is a good resume to have. Contratory to popular spinion, these nurses are not experts unless they have PHDs. They don't present themselves that way. What is to shed?
I think she has blown off this little 84 hour certificate she received. That is my quess. stimony , u AF ,personal beliefs. Most o febint,, <0 , 0,irii th

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the errors - i had a a brain turmor removed recently and an still not on top of the spelling and puncutation game.

Anonymous said...

No one shredded her reputation at the bar hearing 0 none of the authority figures these called her a liar or perjured. As more information comes out, statements made about her are unsupported in fact. Just today, with a recap of Nifongs remars, the "Emergency nurse's report states the Victim's condition was consisant with a sexual assualt. We know that that sstatement is intirelly insupported by fact. The report itself says nothing to that effect. So now, her persecutatoring want to claim, she said it - there is no evidence that is true, gooing to bed - out of town for the next too weeks and will be bery glad to get away from the event.
Learning new evidence of the event is discounted immediatel, by those who should have the decency to review the materal. AAdios

Anonymous said...

Wow! Stunning post, KC. I totally agree!

Anonymous said...

Many of the responses to KC's posts--how long will he continue this blog and to what end--are so filled with anger, hate, and bile, it becomes ever more clear why there is such a divide over this case. Of course, the 80-something will not apologize. Many of you are engaged in a pissing contest and you are not content with anything but a scorched earth policy. You are more than catching up with the people whose behavior at the beginning of the case you so vehemently criticize. Quite frankly, I'd like to know where some of you live and what some of you do so I can encourage my child/children not to study or live in your part of the country. Of course, your part of the world may only be a state of mind. Imagine how much good (more good?) those of you who spend so much time and bile could do if you put all of this energy into volunteer work? I suggest Habitat for Humanity.

And, yes, I am white, female, and gainfully employed. Yes, I was raised in a united, nuclear family. No, I probably was not a beneficiary of affirmative action, since I seemed to score well on standardized exams. No, I am not a communist, but so what if I were?

Tawny said...

I agree with Tatercon that Stephanie Williams wrote an excellent piece that, in fact, articulated many of the points and arguments made on this blog over the past year and a half.

Among other things:

1. This woman grew up in Collin Finnerty's Long Island neighborhood and I can hardly blame her for being passionate in her defense of their hometown.

How many times did we hear the MSM more than suggest that habitues of such areas were undoubtedly white, elitists with little or no social consciousness? As Williams noted, actual evidence of the alleged crimes seemed to run a poor second to many columnists in favor of long articles dissecting the grade point average, family income, high school extra curricular activities, church, and property taxes of the Duke 3 players and/or their families.

2. I also understand why she would take umbrage at the stereotyped "lacrosse culture." Apparently, Williams went to school with some of the 2005-2006 Duke men's lacrosse team. I have no way of knowing how typical her experiences with them were.

But at least her interaction was personal and to me this gives her arguments a great deal more cachet than columnists who really knew nothing at all about the Duke players [or lacrosse in general] and were too damned lazy and/or prejudiced to do much research.

And in fact I don't think it made any different to them since they seemed to see both CGM and the Duke 3 not as human beings but as shallow outlines to be colored in anyway the writer wished. Thus, as Williams stated, for the Duke players it was "elitists, misogynists, racists, spoiled 'frat boy' alcoholic brats." For CGM, it was poor, exploited single mother "forced" by circumstance into a degrading profession.

3. I also liked the way she took to task the enablers, most of who now grudgingly admit that the Duke 3 committed no crimes but insist they still deserve chastisement because god help us they drank beer and hired strippers. As Williams stated, this is not a male thing, its not a white thing, its not a thing that only happens at "privileged" universities. Its a college thing!

4. On the fourth point, I'll simply quote verbatim since I believe she said everything I've felt about this case: "For some reason, people have been lead to believe that because the three falsely accused men came from comfortable backgrounds, they are not human. They are not capable of feeling pain, of suffering, or of being kept down. People say that because they will still have “good lives”, we should not feel sorry for the Duke members." One would only hope Terry Moran might be listening in but lets be honest, what good would it do.

So there you have it. I felt her article was intelligent and moving and made many cogent points. Others are obviously free to disagree.

haskell said...

Tawny 7:00

Stephanie's essay is truly excellent. Your last sentence "Others are obviously free to disagree" could be used as a litmus test for those who are prejudiced, intolerant, and bigoted. I would not allow such folks the courtesy of being free to disagree, I would turn my back and walk away. We are dealing with folks who have very pathologic personality disorders -- delusional states, if you will. They won't apologize because they see no need to apologize. BOT: Put these folks on sick leave and refer them to a mental health professional -- otherwise you are not doing your job.

Anonymous said...

Dear 6:29,

I think we are very different than the teachers, administrators, police and prosecutors in this case. We have no more effect on the above listed people than any other group sitting in a coffee shop discussing the high price of gas could have an effect on the cost.

Those groups had the power to change the lives of the team and their coach by their authority. Those in positions of power, abused that power. The situations are very different.

AJ

Anonymous said...

AJ,

I think, indeed, you are different. In a coffee shop, the words, like the coffee, disappear. The words stay on the blog. You do have power--in some cases, the power of the mob. A blog mob. You may not be among those who appear to be out for blood, but to me, at least, it looks as though some people are.

If this were just about getting out one's anger, fair enough. It's not. It's more than that.

Anonymous said...

Very good piece by Ms Williams. As for condemnation of those who enjoy a pampered existence , it occurs to me that tenured university teachers have an extremely pampered life. In addition to all the other benefits , they usually have a free college education benefit for their children and are accordingly relieved of one of the great burdens the reet of us must carry to keep the tenured in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed . The tenureds' existence is so free from distraction that they need not be concerned when they make a mistake such as the 88.

Anonymous said...

Bravo, Stephanie! Your message brought tears to my eyes. You get it, and so many out there simply do not.

I used to be a Duke fan. I considered contributions. I think there are thousands of us out there who are no longer Duke fans and will never contribute one penny despite former strong ties to Duke. On the other hand, if the Board of Trustees does the right thing relative to the Group of 88, the current Administraton and the takeover of the school by the far left, then fair minded people might consider coming back into the Duke family. If their response is "so what", then it confirms that they really don't care and don't deserve any support.

The very first thing the Board of Trustees needs to do is apologize publically to Mr. Pressler!

Anonymous said...

Well, Ms. Williams' essay worked for me on both an intellectual and emotional level. Well done. She ably pinpointed the undercurrents of hatred and poisonous assumptions that propelled this case and formed the basis of Mr. Nifong's utter demise and Duke's disgrace.

Coach Pressler is completely correct in his comments. How DARE people behave as the Group of 88 has and not apologize for the harm caused. How DARE they.

And, finally, to the commenter concerned about the negative attention currently directed by this blog towards the Group of 88...are you kidding? Irrefutable evidence shows the Group of 88 behaved abominably, and no apology is yet forthcoming. AG Roy Cooper stated emphatically that many people owed the former defendants an apology. Who do you believe he meant by that statement? The attorney general of the state indicates the defendants are completely innocent, apologies are owed, and the Group of 88 still cannot find its voice? As things currently stand, these people do not seem to even embrace the IDEALS of our justice system. They seem to prefer a justice system used to further their own political views and prejudices, not to sort out truth and dispense justice.

To KC Johnson and the commenters, I say thank you for patiently and painstakingly assimilating the evidence about the case and about the Duke University response, and thank you for your persistent, well placed outrage.

Observer

Anonymous said...

7:52

At which universities do tenured faculty get full tuition for their children? Get a clue, Bozo. Check your facts. Many universities give a benefit, but it isn't often 100 percent. Moreover, how many university professors give up the huge amounts of money they could make in business?

You're so disrespectful of university professors. Did you go to university yourself? Did you not learn one thing? Or was it somehow different for you?

I hope you don't have a job in which analysis is necessary, because you state facts w/o proof.

Anonymous said...

8:22


You're just upset because you're not getting your way. How many times have you & your friends behaved badly and not apologized? I'll be you're a white guy & you just can't stand it. Tee hee.

Anonymous said...

Hi AJ,

A number of people who comment here don't seem to think that teachers have any effect on them at all. They assert doing little of importance for a grade, doing only what the teacher "wants," having not attended college, having learned nothing of importance there, etc. So, where is the importance?

If I wanted to prove the contention of many abroad that Americans are anti-intellectual, I'd have them read a number of the entries on this blog.

Haskell said...

anonymous 8:22

Be very careful with the race-baiting. You DO NOT want to go there.

People on this board clearly care about mutual respect.

anonymous 8:43

This entire blog is about intellectual honesty and integrity. Could you cite some specific examples of anti-intellectualism? Remember, intellectualism is not about neologistics and using big words almost correctly.

Anonymous said...

To Tee Hee,

I believe Duke University in general and the Group of 88 in particular have failed to appreciate the historical significance of this case. I expect that this case and their response to it will define them in perpetuity. They have chosen their position most willingly with plenty of opportunity to rethink and publicly alter their views. I cannot say they have shown much wisdom in that choice, but they seem quite content. So be it.

You are completely wrong in your assumptions about who I am. But my logic and arguments have to stand alone without reference to my background. So, enough said.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Haskell,

Are you really addressing my 8:22 comment or are you addressing a different comment? What in that comment struck you as "race-baiting?"

Observer

Anonymous said...

Haskell,

To clarify, "these people" refers to the Group of 88. It is my understanding that this group is very mixed racially.

Observer

AMac said...

Anon 6:29am/7:40am/8:36am/8:37am/8:43am --

You see before you the good and bad of this new, Web-enabled media environment. Actually, you see only the bad. Perhaps I can offer a more balanced perspective.

But first, some irony. You choose to comment as Anonymous, thus leaving no trace as to who the 'you' behind your words may be, and which other comments you may have left. By style, I suspect you are one of those who offered excuse after excuse for Prof. Harris on an earlier thread. But maybe not--the lack of accountability you condemn in others is yours to enjoy.

Onto The Bad of Blogs. It is as you outlined. People of various temperaments and abilities can have their say, anonymously, pseudonymously, or atop their John Hancocks. Some posts and comments are bilious, some are anger-filled, some are houses built atop facts of sand. Cocktail-party or coffee-shop conversations, but with transcripts. And partygoers and donut-eaters could also be advised to spend their time and energy at Habitat for Humanity. (At least, those whose politics differs from yours.)

Leaving The Bad to comment on The Good: this and similar blogs and their comments provide illustrations of the positive side of this new environment. To take the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame as an example, "the Media" joined other groups in supporting and enabling the Hoax/Frame. By May 2006, it should have been obvious that this case was bogus. Joe Neff of the N&O, Stuart Taylor of Slate, and Dan Abrams of MSNBC are most of the rare exceptions who broke from the Favored Meta-narrative to explore the actual story. Most of the top ranks of "the Media" began offering evidence to readers and viewers only after outrageous facts of the DNA conspiracy came to light. Some waited until the NC A.G. showed his unlikely courage and honesty.

Who gets the credit? Foremost, it's the defense team who forced the collapse of the D.A.'s various frauds. Yet these lawyers have been free with praise and credit for the tenacity shown by various blogs, including this one--both in presenting the outrageous lies of Law Enforcement and Duke's administration and faculty to the general public, and in sifting through the haystacks of evidence to find the needles that undid the Hoax/Frame.

Perhaps your "Habitat for Humanity" advice is directed at the wrong parties?


Which brings us to the Group of 88--attacks on whom you find so objectionable. What these fifty or so professors and forty or so hangers-on did was profoundly wrong. Read Prof. Johnson's posts on the subject for a refresher on the What, How, and Why. Under the Old Way of Doing Business, the fact that these professors went out of their way to slime their students, to reject Due Process, and to enable the perpetrators of the Hoax would be largely forgotten by now. After all, most of the Media and the Hard Left academic community are sympathetic to the G88's goals, and indifferent to the application of their methods when applied to apppropriate targets. Duke's administration agrees.

It is the Web that allows members of the public to read the damning original documents, and to access the commentary that puts the faculty misconduct in its proper, harsh, context.

If not from blogs such as D-i-W, where are the calls for accountability coming from? Granted, the G88 and their supporters are disappointed that the meta-narrative has turned to ashes. Granted that they have no interest in apologizing for their grotesque shilling. Granted that Duke's President, V.P.s, and Deans are sympathetic to their causes and persons. Granted that few among Duke's decent faculty have the appetite for holding 176 feet to the fire.

Resolved:

-- That the Group of 88's Listening Statement can only be understood in the context of a University whose visions of Scholarship and Teaching are seriously out of alignment with the Academy's traditional values.

-- That the scholarship of an appreciable number of the G88 professors appears mediocre, and that the scholarly record of some of the G88 is plainly deficient.

-- That the conduct of the G88, the scholarship of the bottom portion of the G88, and the response of the Duke Administration to the G88 provide strong evidence that Duke suffers from major structural problems in faculty recruitment, evaluation, and promotion.

-- That administrative actions over the course of the Hoax/Frame provide strong evidence of analogous structural problems in institutional governance.


Anon 6:29am/7:40am, why not pick a 'handle' and raise the caliber of the discussion? Stick around to evaluate the evidence, and debate what it says about how our society's elite institutions instruct our young adults. Perhaps you have some good ideas about what President Brodhead's favorite phrase, "moving forward," should actually mean.

If your interests don't run in that direction: What, exactly, do you suppose that you are contributing in this thread?

Anonymous said...

//9:05//

I can't speak for others who have a minority view on this blog, but I assume I am presenting exactly that. A different perspective.

Regarding Habitat for Humanity, perhaps anyone expending much angry energy//ranting on here//in whatever directon//might be well-advised to expend it elsewhere. Someplace where they can see a result. Not only Habitat for Humanity. There are lots of other places. I wouldn't suggest writing letters for Amnesty International here, because I would expect to get too much grief.

I don't say anything on this blog to defame any particular person. People who attack others by name should sign their own names as far as I am concerned.

I wouldn't want many of the apparently very angry people to know my name. The hassle would not be worth it. I have signed before using a pseudonym, have you? I didn't see one from you this time. I missed it maybe

Sign me,

MV (Not Martha's Vineyard, but Minority View)

Anonymous said...

to observer - I think Haskell was responding to a different post, the one right after yours. I see nothing at all in your original post that could be remotely construed as "race-baiting", and I thought it a very well written piece.

AMac said...

MV 9:23am wrote --

> I have signed before using a pseudonym, have you? I didn't see one from you this time. I missed it maybe

It should have come up on your browser as AMac (it does on mine).

Anonymous said...

AMac,

I found you. I hope that means you use a Mac instead of a PC.

Cheers,

MV

Anonymous said...

MV,

It always gives me a chuckle when someone comments to suggest that all the people participating in the discussion could spend their time better elsewhere.

Most of the folks following this case and commenting here are passionately devoted to seeing a gross injustice rectified. Obviously, we consider this as compelling and noble an activity as volunteering for Habitat. What is not so obvious is what you are doing here. I am not clear what exacly your minority view even is. Does it go beyond pointing out that in your view our time could be spent better doing something else?

9:25, Thank you. I think Haskell's comment must be directed towards a different comment than mine. But to the extent Haskell suggests with regard to "race-baiting" that I don't want to go there, s/he is correct, I definitely do not want to go THERE, even inadvertently.

As always, well said, Amac.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to Stephanie on an excellent article.

She expresses emotion, but that heart-felt emotion is backed by solid logic.

One of the things I have learned from this fiasco is to distrust the portrayals by the media of people in the news.

The media are quick to resort to stereotypes because accurate portrayals might mean some actual work-- caricatures fitting pre-conceived notions are a lot easier, especially on deadline.

Collin Finnerty was especially the victim of character assasination in this regard.

The Duke lacrosse team was composed of different people, with different personalities, and different backgrounds. Their past behavior was not perfect, but it also was typical for college students, as Stephanie accurately observes.

Sterotyping is the enemy of truth.

Anonymous said...

Hamilton ... I wonder how you would describe yourself, what race you are, etc.

While you might be nauseated that someone would express how they feel and their personal experiences, it's hard to deny that these three were persecuted because they were white, and from privileged upbringing. If you argument is that it's irrelevent, than I wonder if you argued that throughout this case? Of course wealthy, white people can rape and commit even more serious crimes. Think Kennedy family, think Slagel.

But the simple facts of this case have been laid clear, and paint a story of police corruption, political aspirations, rush to judgment, and prosecutorial misconduct, not rich guys gone bad.

I wonder too... have you ever seen a stripper, or pissed in public? had a adult beverage underage? Those are the first points that came out condemning these cretins.

Anonymous said...

Wll Nifong be allowed tohave his guitar in the pokey?

Anonymous said...

R R Hamilton says.. ``The letter published by the WSJ and written by Peter McDougal is fine. The column written by Stefanie Williams is a travesty. It is sickly-sweet ..``

McDougal must be so relieved! His letter was OK !! And poor Ms Williams letter, although perhaps sincere, was too sentimental for the self respecting Ms. Hamilton. However, I doubt she`ll be `regretting`publishing a letter that will probably be well received for both its perspicacity and good writing. You, however, are an appropriately unknown critic of negligible import.

No justice, no peace said...

Inre: Zogby polls

Noteworthy is that older respondents overwhelming acknowledge academic bias. One would guess this is likely due to the fact the older respondents are the ones hiring and must deal with prepared entrants joining the work force. The MSM will likely suggest that the result is due to older people pining away for the good old days.

Haskell: "...intellectualism is not about neologistics and using big words almost correctly."

Using big words almost correclty...now that is funny. For any who doubt this, they should go listen to the "closed" session by Lubiano, and others, that was held several months ago.

scott said...

Observer 9:01 and Anon 9:25 --

My guess is Haskell was referring to 8:37. That person both referred to 8:22 (Observer) and made the assumption of "whiteness" with no facts in evidence.

And ending with "Tee hee"? Has there been a more puerile comment in any post on this blog since its inception? Not in my book.

Haskell said...

Guys I totally screwed up -- was looking at 8:37 and 8:43. My bad.

Anonymous said...

Why continue to follow KC's posts and this blog? Because it is about consequences. Statements and actions have consequences. This blog is KC's record of events, with plenty of interested people calling him out for inacuracies or bias. I think it is a great way to vette (sp?) material for his book, which I hope will be an accurate historical record of the event. Let the evildoers and their actions live to be despised forever in this blog and in his book.

AMac said...

MV 9:35am --

> I hope that means you use a Mac instead of a PC.

Yes, an iMac Intel Core Duo (great machine).


Anon 10:29am --

Succintly stated.

scott said...

From the Peter McDougall letter:

"But until the members of this Group of 88 publicly apologize for their actions, the moral authority of the entire faculty is questioned, and they have no right to discuss with our children about the values that we hold dear, and that brave men and women have died defending."

The problem is many of the G88 and countless thousands of others involved in teaching from pre-school through graduate studies are not discussing the values that WE (I include myself) hold dear except to ridicule them or paint them to be racist.

To them, these values have no value. They have values of their own, including the one that says, when I've injured a white, male, who I perceive is of a certain class, I need not apologize.

This is likely based on their belief that if it turns out they were wrong on this case, their actions are justified anyway because the person(s) falsely accused undoubtedly did something in the past for which they were not punished or, at the very least, the falsely accused know someone who did.

Anonymous said...

“Noteworthy is that older respondents overwhelming acknowledge academic bias. One would guess this is likely due to the fact the older respondents are the ones hiring and must deal with prepared entrants joining the work force. . .”

10:10

I couldn’t agree with you more. As one of the “older respondents,” here’s what I had to say about writing skills a couple of days ago. My words then address your observation today.

“Before I retired from a major US corporation, I wondered why I would often read letters and reports from associates and subordinates that appeared to have been written by a high school student.

This was especially puzzling since most of the "writers" achieved a 3.0 GPA or better in undergrad and graduate school at many of the country’s most prestigious universities. Often when I rejected a communication from a subordinate and returned it to be re-written, I would do so with the following question?

What grade did you receive in English 101?

The answer was always either an “A” or “B” which did not seem possible considering their current writing skills. I honestly never understood how that could happen.

Now I do.”

Thanks 10:10, for understanding what has been so puzzling to me for so many years.

inman said...

I recently had a direct report within a major US corporation who was a mid-twenty year old Black women who was smart (she represented that she had scored a 720 on the GMATs and that she had been accepted for grad school at an Ivy-league school) attractive, etc.

But her work product was awful. It was riddled with errors. She seemed to not care. It appeared that her education and value system reflected one too many social promotions.

And when questioned about her work, she was all too ready to make race an issue. She was insolence wrapped in a race-card carrying demeanor.

How can one deal with that in the academy? Is that why there is an AA department? To allow one of a particular race to pad their grade point average with A's and B's so that future opportunities are more readily available. Do admissions directors at graduate schools have a mechanism to correct for departmental biases?

Just curious.

Anonymous said...

@ 10:09

You must not read posts here frequently or carefully. R. R. Hamilton posts here often and has been vociferous in denouncing the Duke Hoax.

Do you always assume that someone who disagrees with you about the tone of an article is of a particular race?

JeffM

Anonymous said...

Above should have been addressed to 10:01. Sorry JeffM

haskell said...

11:18 Inman

The sad thing is that the individual in question was ripped off in her schooling, and truly didn't have a clue that was what had happened. She was baffled. Her only response was: "What else could it be but race? I did good [sic] in school."

Anonymous said...

@ MV

As usual, I find what Amac has to say contains much wisdom. But I want to comment on your concern that the views expressed on this blog may have meaningful consequences.

Because many of those views, certainly not all, are concerned with issues such as the quality of higher education, an end to racist and sexist ideology disguised in pretentious jargon, and a respect for truth and integrity in public and academic life, I hope that those views do have meaningful consequences. If some of those consequences include making a lot of self-described "people of conscience" feel uncomfortable and foolish or holding them up to well deserved public scorn and obloquy, so much the better.

JeffM

inman said...

Re: 10:01

This clearly brilliant observer said: "I wonder too... have you ever seen a stripper, or pissed in public? had a adult beverage underage? Those are the first points that came out condemning these cretins."

a) re: strippers -- sure... on tv, at the beach, lots of magazines, at Las Vegas, in movies (I expecially liked the Demi Moore one), etc., etc., etc. ---
b) re: underage drinking -- I don't think I know anyone who hadn't had an "adult beverage" when they were underage (starting with communion wine at age 12 -- that's an adult beverage isn't it) -- but then again, I was brought up in the Whiskeypalian tradition
c) re: pissed in public -- When my young sons and I went for walks in the woods, exploring the outdoors and they needed to relieve themselves, I taught them to "do it like the indians" --- is that to what you're refering?

You are so off base in you're views as to invite condemnation. How can you possibly condemn these young men for such almost benign acts. Geez ... in what convent have you spent you're life. These behaviors, although not universally accepted as parts of the American melting pot culture, certainly don;t rise to the level requiring condemnation such as yours.

Why don't you focus your vitriol on something worthy such as pedophelia, under-age prositution, the drug trade or even....justice in the court system.

Gary Packwood said...

Polanski 12:37 said...

...If you're wondering whether Panties has retained a booking agent, I'd speculate that it's likely. Miss Mangum could make a lot of cash, provided she makes the right moves. Lots of people still believe that "something happened." I'm sure Panties would be pleased to BS her way to fame, glory, and dollars.
...After all, we are not Communists.
::
I doubt that Polanski. People who actually read books don't believe that something happened at that house.

However, you may have a point if her booking agent gets her published in STAR magazine or the equivalent.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

haskell @11:42 The college I graduated from in 1975 graded everything on a bell curve, includling physical education. It was a constant battle to made sure you were not a "bottom dweller". I entered a master's program at the University of Northern Colorado in 1997 and was amazed that nothing but "A"s and "B"s were given and for work that would never have passed muster during my undergraduate years. It made the term "grade inflation" very real.

james conrad said...

RE: INMAN......How can one deal with that in the academy? i'll tell you how academia deals with that, its called TENURE. according to the WSJ ( 1/10/05 ), only 50 to 75 tenured professors ( out of about 280,000) lose their tenure each year. indeed, as KC points out "An item to keep in mind: in higher education, professors control new hires." until tenure is abolished in academia there will be no accountibily and the duds that are hired will continue to hire more duds......

Anonymous said...

KC
I saw the LS survey asking who was most likely to invoke the Fifth during the Whichard hearing. But I ask again, since the committee has no legal standing to subpoena or question anyone who doesn't want to talk to them....why the nonsense about "Taking the Fifth?" Nobody has to even talk to them, much less testify to anything. And no findings from the committee will have any legal basis upon which any action could be taken anyway. Am I incorrect?

inman said...

GP @ 11:53

I'd be willing to bet that the Mustang Ranch, right outside Las Vegas, has sent Panties an offer letter and that the offer includes a six-figure signing bonus. The only hang-up would be the Ranch's request for exclusivity and Panties request for a specially-built and gilded pole with platform.

Anonymous said...

to 8:36 who wrote:
Moreover, how many university professors give up the huge amounts of money they could make in business?


Answer: Very very few. Advanced acacemic credentials translate into squat in the real world as you must know. The only obvious exceptions are in the professional schools. I don't recall seeing any ads reading: Fortune 500 company looking for vice president starting at 6 figure annual salary. Twenty years in the business or Ph.D. in anthropology preferred.

RL alum medicine '75

Anonymous said...

Inman

I think that 10:01 was trying to be sarcastic. Of course the sentence that you are discussing is virtually incomprehensible because the object of "condemning" is "cretins," a plural, so it can only refer to the innocent victims of the hoax that the writer seems to have sympathy for.

Ahh well. Even idiots can have their hearts in the right place. It's just that the idiot concluded that, because Hamilton dislikes the tone of an article, Hamilton must be an 88'er. Sad really, to see someone with such an innate sense of morals with so little judgment.

JeffM

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 6:29 said...

...Many of the responses to KC's posts--how long will he continue this blog and to what end--are so filled with anger, hate, and bile, it becomes ever more clear why there is such a divide over this case. Of course, the 80-something will not apologize. Many of you are engaged in a pissing contest and you are not content with anything but a scorched earth policy. You are more than catching up with the people whose behavior at the beginning of the case you so vehemently criticize. Quite frankly, I'd like to know where some of you live and what some of you do so I can encourage my child/children not to study or live in your part of the country. Of course, your part of the world may only be a state of mind. Imagine how much good (more good?) those of you who spend so much time and bile could do if you put all of this energy into volunteer work? I suggest Habitat for Humanity.
::
Before Blogs, decision makers anywhere in the USA could sit back patiently and wait for their crimes to be forgotten...sometimes within a week or two.

Bloggers have thoroughly messed with that model of assumed amnesia and that is ..a really good thing.

While working on a Habitat for Humanity project I can recruit Bloggers for Durham in Wonderland.

Lest we forget.
::
GP

rrhamilton said...

Anonymous said...

Hamilton ... I wonder how you would describe yourself, what race you are, etc.

While you might be nauseated that someone would express how they feel and their personal experiences, it's hard to deny that these three were persecuted because they were white, and from privileged upbringing. If you argument is that it's irrelevent, than I wonder if you argued that throughout this case? Of course wealthy, white people can rape and commit even more serious crimes. Think Kennedy family, think Slagel.

But the simple facts of this case have been laid clear, and paint a story of police corruption, political aspirations, rush to judgment, and prosecutorial misconduct, not rich guys gone bad.

I wonder too... have you ever seen a stripper, or pissed in public? had a adult beverage underage? Those are the first points that came out condemning these cretins.

Jul 15, 2007 10:01:00 AM


Yes, I have a response.... Uhh, WHAT??

Michael said...

I teach at Purdue University in Indiana. Purdue is generally
regarded as a conservative school. All I can say is that even
at a conservative school like Purdue, political correctness (PC)
is starting to get out-of-control, so I can't even imagine
how bad it is at Duke. Well, we've witnessed how bad it is ...

For example, and this was several years ago, my friend
who runs a Residence Hall had to attend some kind
of sensitvity training. When I saw him after the
training, he said to me: "As a white male, I am in
the majority and, therefore, by definition I am a racist"
Again, this at a conservative university!

http://p206.ezboard.com/fhackedbannedandlockeddownfrm45.showMessage?topicID=75.topic

inman said...

rrh

"Uhh, WHAT??"

Eloquent.

rrhamilton said...

Anonymous said...

R R Hamilton says.. ``The letter published by the WSJ and written by Peter McDougal is fine. The column written by Stefanie Williams is a travesty. It is sickly-sweet ..``

McDougal must be so relieved! His letter was OK !! And poor Ms Williams letter, although perhaps sincere, was too sentimental for the self respecting Ms. Hamilton. However, I doubt she`ll be `regretting`publishing a letter that will probably be well received for both its perspicacity and good writing. You, however, are an appropriately unknown critic of negligible import.

Jul 15, 2007 10:09:00 AM


Ms. Williams' article makes two points: (1) "I knew they couldn't've done it based on my personal experience with boys like them, and (2) rich people have feelings, too!"

If the article had been published 15 months ago, it would've been helpful. At this point, however, it comes across as a much-belated statement of personal angst and defensive self-sympathy that, after it was written, should've been filed in the folder titled, "Fine Writing that is neither Timely nor Helpful".

I urge you to re-read Mr. McDougal's letter.

Anonymous said...

rrhamilton @ Jul 15, 2007 12:31:00 PM

If the article had been published 15 months ago, it would've been helpful. At this point, however, it comes across as a much-belated statement of personal angst and defensive self-sympathy that, after it was written, should've been filed in the folder titled, "Fine Writing that is neither Timely nor Helpful".

Aside from the fact that, to this very day, there are writings of anti-Duke LAX, anti-white male, anti-white wealth, anti-innocence by cretins in varying levels of the media.

Her article was great and appropriate. Which brings me to...where's your article for us to critique? Still editing are we?

Antaeus Feldspar said...

rrhamilton -- "The letter published by the WSJ and written by Peter McDougal is fine. The column written by Stefanie Williams is a travesty. It is sickly-sweet and I don't blame her for writing it, as this was a case she cared about deeply; but after writing it, she should've realized that it should never be published." Your mileage obviously varies. I see none of this "sickly-sweet" you refer to; I see an intelligent, articulate young writer who clearly identifies her targets -- the presumption of guilt based on class and race, the enablers who now want to persecute with not even the illusion of a credible crime to "justify" -- and spears them with calm, precise recounting. Her logic and her prose, to be honest, are superior to anything I have seen from you, RR.

hman -- "It would take the average public defender about 5 minutes to annihilate her credibility on the witness stand." Quite true -- and the irony is that it's not her initial reporting that torpedoed her so much as her later transparent attempts to push an agenda. "Rape isn't about ejaculation but about power." Hello, Tara, the question isn't "is it possible that SOME form of rape still occurred?" but "is it possible that the bullshit story Mangum told still occurred?" to which the answer is a resounding NO.

Tara's Troll -- "No one shredded her reputation at the bar hearing 0 none of the authority figures these called her a liar or perjured." Again, we have a repeat of Nifong's "Smith defense" -- "I pulled my hijinks in front of Judge Smith and he didn't lower the boom on me then and there! Obviously Judge Smith thinks I did nothing wrong!" Nifong will be forcibly reminded on July 26th that "then and there" doesn't mean "now or ever".

Some idiot -- "I'll be you're a white guy & you just can't stand it. Tee hee." Thank you for demonstrating that some people are just too idiotic to waste effort on.

Another anonymous -- "Imagine how much good (more good?) those of you who spend so much time and bile could do if you put all of this energy into volunteer work? I suggest Habitat for Humanity." Habitat for Humanity is indeed a worthy cause. It should be taken up by those who are drawn to it by their passion. It is an insult to this fine charity to suggest that it should be used for diverting those who have an inconvenient passion for justice. If we were in the 1960s would you tell those with a passion for civil rights that they should instead volunteer at soup kitchens? Would you be proud in 2007 that you had done so much to slow the progress of civil rights?

Anonymous said...

Miss Habitat for Humanit


I'm sure most of the posters on this site give to their favorite charities (I'm currently establishing a fund for the dancers who are posing for a book I'm editing and producing).

Perhaps you fail to appreciate the gravity of the issues discussed here. Things like:

1. academic fraud
2. academic welfare
3. funding antiwhite studies departments
4. violations of constitutional rights
5. the viciousness of affirmative action
6. no sanctions for lying whores that rape good men's reputations
7. the mentality of "Durham" blacks--see groupthink
8. the irrelevance of most of what is being tuaght by the G88ers
9. fecklessness among college administrators in the face of black privilege
10. feckless state AGs who are afraid of punishing female thugs
11. vicious, lying MSM whores

Get the picture?

Great post Amac 9:05 & Inman 11:18

BTW, I agree with Hamilton re Stefanie: she should not have published the letter. How does one spell "treacle"?

Polanski

Stefanie said...

rrhamilton,

a similar article of mine (yes, mine) was published at the Diamondback back in January, before the case was droppd in April.

As for self-sympathy, I expect sympathy from no one. I do not need to be pitied. There are people in the world with far worse travesties in life than anything I have been through.

However, if you read multiple blogs like I do, and stay up to date with the fact that people are still attacking these men, their cmmunities, and their families, simply because of who they are, what they look like, where they grew up, you'd understand my frustration. This is my community. I am not saying they "couldn't have done it because I knew them". I am saying the fact that people are using them as targets for hate, jealousy, and envy, is sad and people should acknowledge how wrong that is.

And yes, "rich people do have feelings too". As many, if not most, seemed to completely overlook in this case and after. I did not use the death of my father to garner pity, but rather to remind everyone that money does not protect anyone from the realities of life, the pain every single person is capable of feeling, regardles of their paychecks at the end of the month. People lost sight of that in this case. I was angry, yes. I am no longer angry, but frustrated.

If you think it's wrong for someone to stick up for their community, their friends, their family, their lifestyle, their values, then I guess I'm wrong. But when you see constant attacks on things you genuinly believe in, and you are just another stereotype, then perhaps you'll understand why I still continue to speak out on behalf of my friends, family and community.

Take care,

Stefanie Williams

haskell said...

I often ask myself, what is the game within the game? If I were a college administrator, working under current real life conditions and under current federal dicta, equality in hiring would be a necessity. The available talent pool, however, is of very uneven quality. I would fence off the less talented hires, and restrict student access to them. I think one previous poster alluded to the fact that this is the case in major corporations -- not because of prejudice but because you just gotta get the work done. Without strong academic benchmarks and a meaningful evaluation process, kids may well be short-changed by the less talented faculty. The brighter kids can play the game, and do. When I was a Duke, in the 1960's, it was well known that many faculty members were crazy as bugs. Their preachings did not affect or influence the brighter kids, who compensated nicely. Several posters have mentioned that this is the current case at Duke as well. Those less able, or less bright, often buy in, and do not fare so well.

In real life, there is a lot of money available to fenced-off and politically correct disciplines such as Women's Studies or African-American Studies. If they pay their own way, fine. But I would keep student contact minimal and keep the faculty on a short leash. Hence, a Faculty Handbook. Unfortunately, in the Duke case, some of the faculty got out of control. The senior administrators were unable handle the crisis and over-reacted. Yet these are smart people. So the question is, what is the dynamic at Duke driving their current behavior? What Machiavellian agents stand behind the throne and pull the strings? That group would have enormous leverage at this point on the faculty and administration. I suspect that the BOT may well be in this position, they have those involved by the short-hairs. It remains to be seen what the board's longer term agenda might be.

By the way, I would mention that, for example, in the field of medicine, when something goes wrong the lawyers advise never to apologize. An apology may be taken by a jury as an admission of guilt. Now that Duke has settled, though, I see no harm in a public apology. Psychiatrists talk about a "Golden Bridge", which allows patients to save face as much as possible. Nifong's machinations offer such a bridge to those involved at Duke, and it is a mystery to me why they have not taken advantage of that avenue.

Anonymous said...

I'm not trying to be cute. Please help me understand how someone growing up in a nice house, good family, nice neighborhood--is "privileged."

Did Mr. and Mrs. Finnerty come from a rich family? Do they sit around the house all day?

Bad behaviors have consequences--as do good behaviors.

Polanski

haskell said...

Stefanie 12:40

An absolutely fantastic post. Perhaps the best I have seen on this blog. Congratulations on your insight. Very sincere thanks. Haskell

Anonymous said...

JeffM and Inman, thank you both for your support :)

--RRH

Anonymous said...

Dear Polanski,

I do think I understand the importance of the issues discussed here. Mostly, as far as I can tell, by disgruntled white men. And, I disagree with you. I don't think what you're addressing is what you listed here. And what you've listed is bad enough. The viciousness of affirmative action? Yes, right. As if AA's really been put into place. I don't think so.

Sometimes, I agree with your postings. Often, I think they're smart, but wrong-headed. Especially when you go on about race and gender.

Get the picture? Yes, we see. That's when I fell for the leader of the pack. (As in pack of what too often appears to be rabid posters who are scared of women and people of color.)

MV

No justice, no peace said...

12:55 Rabid?

Who bangs the pots?

Who encourage Black Panther violence?

Who encourages "Castration" banners?

Who grade retaliates?

I think it more appropriate to characterize the posters on this forum as demanding transparency, governance, and leadership.

When gender, race, and class warfare agendas are based upon lies and fraud one has nothing to fear in exposing those frauds.

No justice, no peace said...

By the way, I'm off to see the thoroughbreds run and will placing wagers on the ones I think are the fastest and best suited to the distance. Color and gender will not be considered in the winners circle or in my wagering, though I do consider those that are handicaped and required to carry extra weight.

Anonymous said...

MV

Polanski afraid of women? You have no idea how funny that is given my preference for working with women. I collaborate with female choreographers, photographers, writers. That is an absurd allegation.

Scared of "people of color"--Excuse me, are you referring to African Americans, a k a blacks? Of what, pray tell, are you accusing me of fearing?

Yes, affirmative action is vicious, because it populates universities with untalented lowlifes like Nartey, Lubiano, and Holloway. These people are stupid, immoral, and parasitical.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

I need to go but hopefully can return later to respond to Ms. Williams and others.

RRH

Anonymous said...

@ MV

Your true stripes appear. "Disgruntled white men" indeed.

Many of the people who post here seem to be quite successful in their chosen fields and gruntled to a T. Quite a few are women.

You, on the other hand, just proved yourself to have racial and sexual biases. I know: you prefer to group yourself with the self-proclaimed "people of conscience."

JeffM

Anonymous said...

Polanski,

I'd feel better if you didn't seem always to go after black people as in your 1:14 post. How come you never refer to any of the vicious white males who long populated American universities? You know, the ones who kept out women and other non-white males for the longest time... And I mean as students, not faculty.

I don't think you know what you're talking about on AA. The three people you named may have scored well enough on standardized exams and in secondary school to have gotten into selective undergraduate (Nartey, who strikes me as a nasty person, but not stupid) and graduate schools (Holloway and Lubiano). You don't have to like their research or consider it important. And, yes, Lubiano seems not to have produced much. But there are plenty of non-white faculty members who you are egregiously insulting my going after AA. I wish you wouldn't.

MV

Anonymous said...

JeffM,

Read my post. I didn't say all of 'em were white males. Some of the posters identify themselves. You really need to be accurate when you attack.

I'd say you're probably just about who I mean. And, you can be disgruntled, even if you've been successful in your chosen field. Duh.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Stefanie Williams' post was well-balanced from an intellectual, emotional and social perspective.

She seems to be the kind of person I would want to work with or have as a family member, friend, or representative of my organization.

Anonymous said...

MV

And your evidence that "most" posters here are "disgruntled" is what? That you disagree with them?

Your evidence that I am probably disgruntled is what? That I disagree with you?

I'd recommend that before you close your argument with a "duh," it does not summarize it quite so succinctly.

JeffM

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

I am amazed at the nasty posts on Stefanie's letter. Ironic, isn't it, that the nasty stereotyping her letter protests mirrors the nasty stereotyping SHE gets.

Personally, I think the thing in her letter that stung the nasties the worst is her refusal to use the death of her father as a self-pitying crutch to lean on for the rest of her life.

Boy, nothing pisses off a nasty more than to be told he/she must let go of their crutch! If the Hoax has taught us anything, it's the fact that there are way too many people who hate standing on their own two feet!

Anonymous said...

MV

I'll get back to you on that.

P

AMac said...

At 12:55pm, MV describes most of the commenters on this thread as a "pack of what too often appears to be rabid [disgruntled white males] who are scared of women and people of color."

MV, your words may provide more insight than you realize.

They would be less meaningful if defenses of the Group of 88's conduct and scholarship typically addressed, well, issues of conduct and scholarship (e.g. refer to my 9:05am comment). Then your ad hominem would be an outlier.

An angry and bilious outlier, readily dismissed as irrelevant to the ongoing discussion.

As it is, your remark is a mainline G88 talking point. If it's representative of G88 defenses, it can't really be dismissed.

Please keep writing in.

Anonymous said...

1:59

I have nothing to do with the G88. I speak only for myself.

AMac said...

MV 2:10pm --

Likewise, I have nothing to do with the lacrosse team or Duke, and speak only as a citizen.

My point remains that your remarks are about as good a defense of the G88 as I've read. That is, alas, faint praise.

mac said...

AMac 2:23

Yup: the 88 are blades of grass who somehow managed to start the lawnmower.

Anonymous said...

"“I would like to also say that as a current student at a large and prestigious public research university, this “insane, wild, illegal” party the team threw, looks like a game of tidily winks compared to some of the parties I have attended in my four years at college. I stand proudly and say I, like 95% of the rest of students in college across America, have gotten drunk underage, seen a stripper, owned a fake ID, played a game of beer pong, attended multiple parties, watched other people do keg stands, and witnessed a whole lot of sexual exploration. Condemn me if you wish, but let he who has never “sinned” cast the first stone. This is college folks, like it or not, deny it or not. I speak on behalf of my generation"

Until this part, I was sympathetic to the writer's arguments. After I read it, I accepted it as true, and then I thought less of the writer and much less of the team. Drunken and dishonest behavior, always excused by "everybody does it," is not some new thing invented by this generation --- like it or not, it has been around for thousands of years. It is not regarded highly.

mac said...

I think I stole that from someone, but I can't recall who wrote it...

mac said...

3:42
I dunno. It sort of got my attention, in a way...

Anonymous said...

I don't know whether the comments all came from the same person, but...

"--how long will he continue this blog and to what end--are so filled with anger, hate, and bile..."

The anger and dislike here toward the 88 For Hate are nothing compared to the unfair hatred which they expressed and incited, and which they have never renounced or apologized for.

"Imagine how much good (more good?) those of you who spend so much time and bile could do if you put all of this energy into volunteer work? I suggest Habitat for Humanity."

Why don't you suggest to the 88 For Hate that they stop their hatemongering and go to work for Habitat For Humanity?

Insofar as the words and deeds of the 88 For Hate continue to resound, it would be wrong for others to cease to denounce the 88. Duke U itself is morally diseased in its failure to do so. One of the 88, McClain, has even become head of the faculty council. That is a rancid scandal.

No, I am not a communist, but so what if I were?

Then you would be embracing the harebrained and cultlike idea that there is a kind of dictatorship which leads miraculously to the withering away of the state. And you would be identifying yourself with the murder by communist regimes of somewhere between 80 million and 100 million of their own citizens during the 20th Century.

"I think, indeed, you are different. In a coffee shop, the words, like the coffee, disappear. The words stay on the blog."

The words of the 88 For Hate have not disappeared, the words and images which they helped stir up across the USA have not disappeared, and live in many memories, and the 88 themselves continue to push their race, class, and gender hatreds with the blessings of the Duke regime.

"I do think I understand the importance of the issues discussed here. Mostly, as far as I can tell, by disgruntled white men."

With that argument ad homimem or, if you will, ad gentem, we see that a "friend" of the 88 For Hate likewise sees race (and class and gender) are more important than logic and facts. With friends like that and with hatemongers like themselves, the 88 For Hate hardly need enemies. People who go out of their way to make themselves the objects of negative emotions feel a sometimes ill-concealed pleasure in succeeding at it. Nifong & the 88 have some things in common.

Anonymous said...

3:42

The point was to say that this was not something privy to the lacrosse team. I'm not excusing it by saying everyone does it. I'm saying I find it funny that everyone acts as though they are the only ones who have done this. If that's the case, I've never seen so many people get so up in arms about a party. They happen every day. It's hypocritical to act as though the lacrosse team is any worse because of it. I don't think something typical of college age students makes them bad people.

Anonymous said...

MV--how about YOu inform us about these phanyom "vicious white men who populated the universities?" Like who? Give me an example.

This is just like the "millions" of black women who were supposedly "raped by the slave masters." Of course nobody can ever name a single verified case. White on black rape today is nearly non-existent--and we are to believe that 200 years ago white men couldn't wait to get their hands on black women? I think 99% of this crap is just urban legend. Most white men don't find black women attractive at all.

Conversely-- black on white rape has skyrocketed in the past three decades. 20,000 cases in 1996, for example. Whites are the victims and people are waking up.

Anonymous said...

"Most white men don't find black women attractive at all.

That's ridiculous. I'm the 3:49 commenter -- very anti-88. I'm a white man -- not disgruntled. I've found many black women very attractive, on many levels, and I know many white men who have felt likewise. I wonder what red-blooded man of any race wouldn't.

mac said...

4:09
I'm a sucker for women's voices.
(Kind of a connoisseur, actually.)
I don't care how good a woman looks - (black or white) -
but if she sounds like Aunt Esther...shrill and demanding?

(Too many black women sound like that, just like many German
women's voices sound like a shovel being dragged over a ragged sidewalk.)

BTW: my wife has a lovely voice.

Gary Packwood said...

From the Contra Costa Times article...

Pressler visited with his former players in the locker room ...Johns Hopkins in the NCAA championship game..

My message to them was that they were the teachers and the world became their students, How they handled themselves -- the class, the integrity -- they stayed on the high road and never lowered themselves like so many adults did, trying to take them down.
::
And not one word of hate or criticism towards Duke or Durham from the team. Great teachers they are.

::
GP

haskell said...

Kudos also to Peter McDougall for his letter in the WSJ. I don't know as I would go so far as to skip the basketball games though. The basketball program clearly demonstrates diversity, inclusiveness, and teamwork. And Coach K screams at everybody irregardless. Maybe the G88 could start an intra-mural team or two.

Gary Packwood said...

haskell 12:46 said...

...So the question is, what is the dynamic at Duke driving their current behavior? What Machiavellian agents stand behind the throne and pull the strings? That group would have enormous leverage at this point on the faculty and administration. I suspect that the BOT may well be in this position, they have those involved by the short-hairs. It remains to be seen what the board's longer term agenda might be.

Now that Duke has settled, though, I see no harm in a public apology.
::
What Machiavellian agents stand behind the throne and pull the strings?

I think the 'throne' is the problem. Duke has more than its share of faculty, staff, managers and alumni who are Royalists and see themselves as part of some monarchy. If so, pulling the strings is easy. The monarchy's primary job is to maintain the monarchy at all costs. White male athletes and frat boys are just 'throw away people' to the monarchy.

With respect to the public apology, I for one, don't think the legal aspect of this case is anywhere near being over to include probable cause to investigate the Duke University, Duke Hospital, Durham Police Department, Durham City Council and Durham Crisis Center ...racket.
::
GP

inman said...

Dear 3:49 anonymous, regarding Black women and the notion that White men have a peculiar fascination with them, including raw, wet-dream blue-steel fantasies:

1) Whitney Houston --- hot

2) Whoopie Goldberg --- great comic mind

3) Betty ***____ (the woman who cared for my children and home for 13 years and with whom we still communicate) -- part of our family

4) Diana Ross --- hot

5) Tina Turner --- really hot & humid

6) Sally Hemings --- a legend in her time

7) "Seal" (her nickname) -- my grandparent's housemaid -- from what I recall, really nice

If I struggled real hard, I might be able to remember some other Black women / girls about whom I have a favorable opinion.

All others, from my prespective are irrelevant. I don't think about them, they don't think about me, and that particular status quo is perfectly acceptable. And frankly the Black women that I find attractive as I walk down the street generally have what one could call a "western European or anglicized" appearance. Of course, I suspect, that to Blacks who are more closely akin to their African heritage, I look like an ogre trying to upgrade to troll status.


*** intentionally omitted

Anonymous said...

" The moral equvalence of a dictatorship " - MacDougall WSJ letter , is a very ggod way of describing the position of the 88 . They call for an abandonment of our system of constitutional rights and a trial on the evidence because the victim is black and the alleged perps white athletes who play a white sport .( 'tho I think lacrosse derives from a native american game ) . The 88 make libelous statements , long since established as such and defiantly refuse to apologize . They remain un-touchable . they remain in a position to propagandize . While a civil action and the discovery process may have peeled back the curtain , Duke purchased safety and immunity . ( I do believe the boys deserved every penny of the settlement ) The 88 and Brodhead remainin control . Duke probably receives federal or state funds , and society has no opportunity for relief .

Anonymous said...

3:53

This was the entire class of men--white--who ran American universities. Read a history book. Find out when the first American woman was permitted to graduate from medical school. (Later than in Europe, I believe) A history of Oberlin, which I believe was pioneering in respect to race and gender among its Students (and didn't seem to have suffered a dumbing down as some on this list have alleged women and non-white men cause), should provide some information. Names? Why names? This was a race, class, and gender action. But, is it a surprise?

Who peopled the faculties and administration of southern segregated state universities in your life time or that of your parents? Overwhelmingly white males.

Anonymous said...

A question for Imman,

Are you really that aware of the skin color of people you see on the street? I mostly notice clothing rather than skin color.

Anonymous said...

What's this all about?

inman said...

Answer to 5:37

I evaluate everything.

Skin color, hair color, shape of nose, smile/frown, other emotive expression, the willing ness to interact with me***, clothing, gait, disabilities (if any), phone habits, interaction with other people and the environment, breast size in women, tightness of buttocks, physical conditioning.

In the next five seconds, I move on to an inventory of other stuff.


*** I love to walk down the street and say "Howdy" to everyone, just to test responsiveness -- and type of response. I find people are for the most part friendly. The worst I get is someone who's ignore's me, but that's okay...I was trained for that at home.

Anonymous said...

5:57 --

Looks like drama involving Stefanie discovering elsewhere just how much of a vindictive and unstable personality the notorious "justice58" is.

Of course, most of the other posters there look none too stable either, like the person who in April of 2007 was displaying a "Castrate Duke Miscreants" tag of some kind. Uh, hello? The people advocating castration back before it became clear that Mangum was crazy and Nifong was a corrupt liar were looking stupid then calling for cruel and unusual punishment in response to unproven charges. Doing it in April 2007 in response to disproven charges pretty much screams out "Hey, world! I'm looking for a rabblerouser to exploit my useful idiocy! I'm too prejudiced and stubborn to see what's plain as day, and so violent as to be a danger to myself and others!"

Anonymous said...

July 15th 2007. Each black person over 18 in the U.S. is given a choice of anonymously pushing a "LAX 3 go to prison for 30 years" or a "LAX 3 go free" button.....how would it go down?

Anonymous said...

Whoopie is as funny as she is beautiful.

inman said...

6:43

You make an excellent point about the failure of our justice system. The average American's penchant for believing that the "rules" are only effective if consistent with a TV game show certainly foreshadows the result of your imaginary push button vote.

But then again, didn't the Roman mob under Caligula also have a vote at the Colloseum?

But to answer your question directly, "guilty" 82% "not guilty" 13% "undecided" 15% --- (The votes would not total to 100% due to voter fraud.)

Now, consider this,...if you are a resident of a modern American city with a population over 500,000....you are likely to have the mob mentality in charge of the justice system.

A juror in Washington DC: "Whether or not he is guilty, someone should go to prison for all that our group (black, hispanic, polish, disbled, gay, etc.) has suffered in the past."

Now, for all you professional philosopher's out there...wasn't the structure of our electoral system -- based on the philosophy of John Locke -- intended to indemnify our system of government against the perils and passions of the mob?

And isn't the notion of one man, one vote directly at odds with the notions of our founding fathers...for in fact, and although they believed that all men were created equal in the eyes of the law, they DID NOT in any way believe that all men were equal in their abilities to construct the law.

And THAT is a significant difference and relates directly to the construction of a peer jury.

And the administration of justice.

Anonymous said...

REVERSE CIVILIZATION: Cultural Marxism and the Duke Persecution

"So long as the young generation is, and continues to be, well brought up, our ship of state will have a fair voyage; otherwise the consequences are better left unspoken."--Plato, "Laws"

So, let's just say it out loud: "PRIVILEGED LACROSSE PLAYER" has the same meaning as "BOURGEOIS factory owner." We all know what the comrades wanted, don't we? They wanted to expropriate your possessions. Such expropriation is flourishing all over America, but the Duke hoax has highlighted the degree of the expropriation.

Yes, economic and cultural Marxism rely exclusively on expropriation. The G88 and their comrades are not as naive as we paint them--not by a long shot. They know that in a declining America it's easy to justify nonsense--eg, "all history is about which groups have power over which other groups."

Today, we see this Marxist cultural expropriation materialize in quotas and vicious intimidation by the so-called weaker groups.

They will succeed in destroying this country, brick by brick, if they are not confronted and defeated. Duke alumni have an opportunity now to act.

Duke needs a fumigation.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Segregation in education was "vicious?" Why? Blacks having one school and whites another was vicious? I guess this is indicative of the fact that black people wither and die if they are not allowed to sit at the same table as us superior whites.

Man let's all hold hands and cry.

And another thing before you get any more hysterical--Those university heads didn't mandate segregation, state and local governments did.

You don't name names because you don't know what you're talking about.

50 years of desegregation, bussing, magnet schools, race-norming, increased budgets, black teachers and administrations blah blah blah still hasn't improved black test scores or graduation rates. Nothing works. Nobody knows what do--the black underclass is going backwards. No amount of fantasizing about the white bogey man is going to fix black problems and white people are getting tired of your excuses. Everybody is.

It's like dealing with children.

inman said...

Polanski,

Do the less than critical thinkers on this blog need to be informed that the communist perspective went far beyond the economic realities underlying its birth?

Communism has all too often only been associated with a discussion of enconomic consequences, in contrast to and comparison with capitalism, socialism, etc.

We need to be reminded that the notion of "economic consequences" was once associated with the expanded concept of "political enconomy."

And one could state with some trepidation that what truly needs to be studied is "Culturally-based political economy."

True?

Anonymous said...

The sad truth is that black communities did better before desegregation. Educated black professionals stayed in their communities and helped preserve those neighborhoods. businesses stayed. social pathologies were far less pronounced than they are today. In the fifties, for instance, the percentage of blacks having children out of wedlock, which is the cute way of saying a male who impregnates a female and then abandons her and his offspring, was hovering between 30-40%. Today it hovers at 70%, ensuring social disaster. The black homicide rate, as everyone knows, is skyrocketing despite the media's attempt to gloss over it.

There are intelligent, hard-working black people who are trying to change all this but the clock is ticking. White people need to stop making excuses and even moreso, they need to stop feeling guilty. Chrystal Magnum needs to go to jail. Nifong needs to go as well for pandering to racist black hatred, both real and imagined. Let him spend some time with the "community" that he so willingly sacrificed those white boys for.

mac said...

7:52
Another issue in the black community is sexual predation
of the young: pedophilia is common,
both hetero and homo, and prisons
are full of young men who were sexually abused.

Single-parent households have a lot to do
with this trend, if you can call them households.

But don't gloat just yet: the AA community is usually the canary in
the common coal mine: what happens to it usually happens to the rest
of us.

Too bad the 88 aren't interested in seeking real solutions,
much less understanding the nature of the injury:
if we don't stop the 88, they'll allow the venom to reach all parts of the body.

Better to develop an effective antivenin rather than to use the old tourniquet.

Anonymous said...

I don't see why anyone would "gloat" over the misery of others. I wrote some of the posts here, and I take no joy in telling what is so obviously the case with the black underclass. I believe that part of the reason black males are turning to crime is because there is no hard societal pressure on them. Nobody cares--or we'd be all over them. If white kids were shooting each other over nothing, white people would be raising holy hell. As race pimp Jesse Jackson once said, correctly, "When white people kill blacks, we want to riot. When blacks kill whites they want revenge and the death penalty. When blacks kill blacks, nobody cares."

As a recovering liberal, I find black behaviour the ultimate betrayal of certain values I used to entertain. There is a dog park at my apt complex where a bunch of us go--we've all become friends. One night the subject of crime came up. Everybody told their personal stories of crime that had happened to them--everything from armed robbery, to burglary and attempted burglary, assault, even one guy's sister was murdered in the 90's while using a car wash. Every single crime was committed by black males.

It is, in my opinion, time to start being honest that there is a huge problem happening with too many black males in America. They are preying on everybody. There was a time when people didn't live in fear in this nation.

We will never solve this problem if people do not talk about it.

Anonymous said...

White people will pander, apologize, enable and go to bed guilty in order to keep his stuff intact. Believe me, there are very few black people out there trying to change anything. Why should they? Successful blacks realize that most blacks are total losers. They don't want to yield to the conststant pressure of having to share their success with other blacks. Instead, they use their influence to divert the black man's attention to white injustice. If they can't find this injustice, they'll find some (Katrina) pretext for it. Then there's the suburban white liberal coward who is quick to demonstrate solidarity with any group he's scared of. He thinks it adds an element of flexibility to his life. He can quickly revert to his white-bread self if necessary or wrap a do-rag around his head and march with illegal immigrants or wander around campus with "castrate" signs. By the time he's 35 years old...assumming he's not a developmentally stunted professor, he's just another capitalist pig trying to figure out how to not pay taxes.

Fact - the last 42 years have demonstrated that American taxpayers will never be able to pour enough money into the black community. There will never be enough affirmative action. Never enough job quotas. Reparations? How much wealth transfer will be enough? Has it changed attitudes? Upper middle class black people still view themselves as victims. We've been at civil war for decades. The white taxpayer continues to pay to delay bloodshed. But the fact remains, America is well-armed and seething with hate.

progeny of the slave-holding inman said...

WOW...let me repeat WOW

8:43 has just informed us that the revolution of the black extremist is upon the land.

"...the last 42 years have demonstrated that American taxpayers will never be able to pour enough money into the black community."

This is someone who believes that extortion if the appropriate way to "heal" our society.

This is someone who clearly deserves the abhorrent and societally-condemned moniker "NIGGER".

And let me emphasize that I think that particular word is in fact abhorrent. I never used it as a child and I certainly don't use it now in daily discourse.

But in your case, it is well deserved if only to accentuate the extreme nature of your views.

Anonymous said...

Inman

What do you mean when referring to the need to study culturally based political economy?

Polanski

inman said...

Polanski

I am suggesting that political economy focuses on a -- rational -- relationship between men.

Culturally based political economy would focus on the visceral (and historical) predicates to a rational relationship between men.

Bosnia and Iraq are modern test tubes.

Anonymous said...

Inman, re 9:05

I don't get your point. Are you being sarcastic?

Polanski

inman said...

Polanski @ 9:35

No

Anonymous said...

8;42--Careful what you wish for. Do you really think blacks would win such a confrontation? That's almost funny. Whites avoid such a confrontation because we are engaged in this society would prefer anything ugly--in other words we aren't dumb enough to throw away our lives and careers over a group of people we no longer care much about. If you think 20 million illegal Latinos are in this country by accident you are in denial. The truth is that these black ghettos have become so dysfunctional, so hopeless, so failed--that the populace has to be dispersed and replaced. I will never forget the time I saw a round table discussion between Bush Senior and Bill Clinton shortly after Katrina where they said the same thing in more genteel words.

The sad truth is that blacks are not oppressed as the party line has brayed on and on about for fifty years--blacks have simply been abandoned. Blacks no longer have anything that anyone wants.Latinos don't give a damn about your problems. They are replacing you.

Anonymous said...

Inman

I could be wrong, but the poster appeared to be a disgruntled white.

The deeper I analyze this fiasco, the more I'm convinced that the biggest villain--by far--is Brodhead. His cowardice and pasty fecklessness is a wake-up call for ua all. His total abrogation of moral authority repulses me to the max.

The time is right to pounce on these thugs at Duke--and the worst thug is Brodhead.

Polanski

inman said...

9:46

Are you suggesting that allowing the repopulation of the United States with Hispanics, legal or illegal, was a conscious decision with the objective to dilute the racist agenda of Black America?

mac said...

9:53
No, maybe it was an industrious,
somewhat ingenious way to replace cheap labor,
when the old labor pool wouldn't
cooperate anymore.

Not that I blame them - the old labor pool -
nor do I blame the corporations: blame the Chinese;
they're convenient scapegoats, especially in sight of
recent events involving pet food and toothpaste.)

Corporate America wants illegals.
Ask Coulter, if you think I'm some
left-wing panderer (I'm not.)

BTW, it's an observation, not a condemnation/acquiescence.

It's what I call "a fine pickle;"
We've gotten ourselves into a fine pickle.

Anonymous said...

Not racist black America, failing, not producing anything but criminals black America. Trust me-- I was stunned when I heard the candor with which these two ex-presidents were discussing the post Katrina breakdown. Clinton said something to the effect that he always felt that exposing these "youth" to positive role models was the key. Of course nobody mentioned that the only group that didn't leave NO when told to were blacks.

This situation underscored the attitude that blacks would stay and wait for rescue, or at worse wait to loot. And of course, that is exactly what happened. How many whites did you see demanding rescue? How many Asians? How many Indians? How many Latinos?

inman's taste buds said...

But mac...

,,,I like pickles.

Anonymous said...

You guys can throw around every right wing and left wing cliche you want, but open your eyes. Latinos are being allowed free pass into this country despite the fact that 90% of America is demanding that the flood be stopped.Of course part of it is the fact that there is a huge ocean out there of cheap labor--but beyond that, what else is true? As a guy who is very anti-illegal alien from a we-need-to-obey-the-law POV, I also need to be honest and say Latinos work hard as hell, have manners, and genuinely appreciate the fact that they can make money here. I have a friend who used to work as a welfare counselor--he told me that his clients, mostly black, would actually come to sessions with a pad and paper, and would add up how much they could make from Section 8 Housing, food stamps,welfare, Aid to Dependent Children, ect and compare it to how much they could make working. My friend said that the average number was about 9 dollars an hour--and most low skilled jobs didn't offer that much. This is the critical concept that people need to "get." We are offering more money to not work, than work. Gullible illegal immigrants don't understand that yet--or they have a lot of pride and want to actually earn their keep.

Anonymous said...

11:20

What's your point?

Polanski

Anonymous said...

I watched the ESPYs. They had a Power Point presentation set to music. Anyway, it included the Duke lacrosse guys in a positive light and then they had Nifong and clearly stated he was disbarred. I was glad to see it, since it really was a part of the sport's year.

rrhamilton said...

I said at 12:31 PM ...

Ms. Williams' article makes two points: (1) "I knew they couldn't've done it based on my personal experience with boys like them, and (2) rich people have feelings, too!"

If the article had been published 15 months ago, it would've been helpful. At this point, however, it comes across as a much-belated statement of personal angst and defensive self-sympathy that, after it was written, should've been filed in the folder titled, "Fine Writing that is neither Timely nor Helpful".
(emphasis in original)

stefanie said at 12:40 PM ...

rrhamilton,

a similar article of mine (yes, mine) was published at the Diamondback back in January, before the case was droppd in April.

As for self-sympathy, I expect sympathy from no one. I do not need to be pitied. There are people in the world with far worse travesties in life than anything I have been through.

However, if you read multiple blogs like I do, and stay up to date with the fact that people are still attacking these men, their cmmunities, and their families, simply because of who they are, what they look like, where they grew up, you'd understand my frustration. This is my community. I am not saying they "couldn't have done it because I knew them". I am saying the fact that people are using them as targets for hate, jealousy, and envy, is sad and people should acknowledge how wrong that is.

And yes, "rich people do have feelings too". As many, if not most, seemed to completely overlook in this case and after. I did not use the death of my father to garner pity, but rather to remind everyone that money does not protect anyone from the realities of life, the pain every single person is capable of feeling, regardles of their paychecks at the end of the month. People lost sight of that in this case. I was angry, yes. I am no longer angry, but frustrated.

If you think it's wrong for someone to stick up for their community, their friends, their family, their lifestyle, their values, then I guess I'm wrong. But when you see constant attacks on things you genuinly believe in, and you are just another stereotype, then perhaps you'll understand why I still continue to speak out on behalf of my friends, family and community.


First, Stefanie, as we seem to be on "the same side", it's probably a waste of time for us to debate.

However, in the interest of constructive criticism, I will continue. Because as a journalism grad I know that most criticism of one's writing is taken personally, I think it's only fair, as you have revealed something of yourself, that I do the same. I married a girl probably a lot like you, back in 1989. Her family is from New York City and is rich. She was the richest girl I ever dated anyway. Before we married, she told her parents that in order to get ready to meet my family, they should go see the movie, "Tender Mercies". If you're not familiar with that movie, just imagine being in a room with of Tommy Lee Jones, Matthew McConaughey, Anna Nicole Smith, and Sissy Spacek multiplied over and over again.

Your article started, for me, on the wrong foot when you said, " Known mainly for its intense lacrosse team, beautiful homes, sprawling golf courses, tight-knit community, and �Leave it to Beaver� families, Garden City was an ideal place to grow up. " It was too reminiscent of Eugene Robinson's April 25, 2006, column in which he said, "privileged white kids who play lacrosse, a sport that conjures images of impossibly green suburban playing fields surrounded by the Range Rovers of doting parents".

Next, when I said "self-sympathy", I was referring not to you personally, but to you as a member of a tight set of -- what did you call it? -- "community, friends, family, lifestyle, and values" -- nearly in alphabetical order. It makes it sound as though all those halcyon years in the acred- and ivyed-estates made you forget you are white. If we use, as many do, the image of the radical worship at the altar of "the trinity of race, class, and gender", then we must acknowledge that race is God of that trinity. You have a duty to defend all whites under attack by what are often called "diversity racists", not just the ones with whom you feel a social connection.

Next, you seemed to feel the need to hide behind poor Devon Sherwood: "As for the team being entirely white, as Mr. Bailey would lead you to believe, Devon Sherwood, a freshman player at the time of the alleged rape, is African American." That seemed a very weak thing to do. Btw, do you need to keep calling it "the alleged rape"?

Next, you defended the fateful lax party: "this �insane, wild, illegal� party the team threw, looks like a game of tidily winks compared to some of the parties I have attended in my four years at college". Why? Anyone who is still trying to make the argument, "but they weren't choirboys", is not someone who you can convince anyway. Your defensiveness about the party, like your defensiveness about the lacrosse team being perceived as "all-white" (even though Mr. Bailey never said it was), seems to me to weaken your point.

Then you say, "Let me tell you about pain and suffering", and launch into the death of your father, and how in your eulogy, "bank accounts were never mentioned." Ouch. It reminded me of the line in "The Aviator" in which Howard Hughes' character retorts to the mother of Katherine Hepburn, "Rich people don't talk about money because they already have it." It seems to me that when someone tells me that she's gonna tell me about pain and suffering, and then highlights a funeral where no one's worried about money, she isn't telling me a lot. (I just realized that Howard Hughes was another Texan.)

Next, you say, "Looking back over the case, I only wish my father had been here to see it all go down. My father, who often did pro-bono work for minority clients in his later years, right up until the night before his surgery in his hospital bed, would be heart broken". So you wish your father had been there for a heartbreak? And why did you feel it necessary to mention he -- "right up until the night before his surgery in his hospital bed"! -- did pro-bono work for minority clients? Seems defensive, doesn't it?

Finally, your second-to-last paragraph ends with a series of "Why?" questions (some disguised as "Since when?" questions). "Why ... why ... why ... why?" It reminds me of a case I was involved in some years ago. A young woman went to the laundry room of her apartment complex one night. She was grabbed and held in a headlock by a male assailant and was stabbed repeatedly in the neck. The assailant in his later confession said that the girl kept saying "Why ... why ... why ... why?" He raped her while she her life drained from her neck, and he said her final words were, "Why ... why ... why ... why?" Your "Why" questions, like hers, strike me as both useless and pathetic.

I know, Stefanie, that you are a young writer (and a good one, I'll add), and this has been harsh criticism. I hope it is also constructive criticism, but that is up to you.

Best wishes,

R.R.H.

Anonymous said...

Hamilton

second to last=penultimate

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Inman

Put down the crack pipe laddie. 8:42 is an old white man who remembers 1965 very clearly. It's the year LBJ started the funneling of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the Great Society. It marked the beginning of the end. The genie is out of the bottle. Does anyone think "Ah....there we are. The last dollar has been spent to prop up black people. Now they're just like us." All of the dem party presidential candidates at Howard University a few weeks ago were talking about pumping more money into the black community. To deafening applause. It plays out on a mobius strip every four years. How can it not end badly for the U.S. and white people in particular. Finito.

Anonymous said...

Polanski,

Are you saying something about my 1:01 AM's second-to-last paragraph?

Any comments on the others?

RRH

Anonymous said...

I am amazed how many individuals imagine a nefarious government regulation or law that prevents every group from having equal percentage in the group as in the general population. This is just crazy. Some times it’s by choice, likes and dislikes, tradition, bad choices, lack of skill, etc.

My home town was on the central coast of California. It was a bit rural and we were very involved in 4-H. We probably had about 40 4-H clubs in the county. At one point we were audited and told that we had a racial imbalance in our clubs. There was a suggestion that racial discrimination might be the reason. I of course was furious. Like so many youth organizations, they are staffed by volunteers. Anyone can join or start their own club. We would pass out fliers in September to the schools around our homes.
We were told that we would have to actually go out and make special presentations and detail our efforts in trying to find a racial balance. How stupid. Our imbalance was due to no Asians or Pacific Islanders in our clubs.

It was hard to do. We had an Asian population that was less that 1%. Anyway, I went around looking for Asians. The only Asians I knew were professors. You can imagine how silly I sounded when I went around asking who had kids between the ages of 9-18. I had to write a report. I asked every kid to join our club. 100% said NO. I had to ask why. They were interested in playing chess, or astronomy club, or math club, or playing on their computer.

By the way, at that time, there we no Asians in my son’s soccer, Little League, ski club, or swim teams. My mother happened to be Chinese, but I am an American. I refused to check off a racial identity. (I do not look Asian, except my complexion is a little yellowish.)
cp

Anonymous said...

RRH at 1:01

I know, Stefanie, that you are a young writer (and a good one, I'll add), and this has been harsh criticism. I hope it is also constructive criticism, but that is up to you.
::::

While I might agree with some of your observations, I not only thought it was harsh, it seemed like a public flogging.

I wish you had started with your last paragraph, instead. Thousands of people read this blog and it would have been nice to tell her she is good and then make your criticism.
cp

ps. I enjoy your observations.

Anonymous said...

cp,

Thanks for your constructive criticism of my writing.

While I may not write sympathetically of Ms. Williams, I am quite sympathetic. I have written columns just like hers -- intensely personal and defensive. I realized after a few such columns that while they may be therapeutic to write, I needed to file them, not publish them. So, some of the best writing that I've ever managed has ended up never seeing the light of day.

R.R.H.

Anonymous said...

Stefanie,
Ignore Mr. Hamilton's so called constructive criticism, his long winded explanation tells you> he hasn't gotten over his own roots and still harbors resentment for those better off.
What you wrote was from the heart based on your life experience. I see it thus:
You weren't asking anyone to embrace it, just see the point of view. You tapped a nerve because after all the analyzing and posturing by the various sides on this event, your voice is the voice of innocence and simplicity. What alot of people who have injected adult interpretation to all of this have forgotten is that young, college students were the victims. There is nothing wrong with being successful, smart, hardworking and fun loving. You have every right to stand tall and appreciate the wonderful life your parents have given you and nothing to feel sorry or ashamed about. It's everyone's dream to do the same whether they admit it or not.

inman said...

1:17

Thank you for the gentle nature of the well-deserved rebuke. I am now quite aware that my thinking skills decline considerably after the seventh scotch. (maybe I should switch to crack?)

To all and especially 8:43: Please accept my apology for getting out of hand.

Oh, and to the 88 --- That's how it is done.

Anonymous said...

TO RR (2:51AM)--

I couldn't agree more.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

"Moreover, how many university professors give up the huge amounts of money they could make in business?"

For just a moment, I thought 8:36 was being serious. You almost had me.

Yes, how much would a person who almost finished projects they had been promising for years make (see the hordes of would-be authors with "forthcoming books")? What is the street value of someone who recklessly defames people in the absence of any facts, and then refuses to allow any contrition whatsoever (See 87 of the 88). What is the private sector value of a person who knows a lot about hate studies and how to concoct new and creative ways to blame other people for all of your problems (but knows nothing else)? Is it the common practice of private sector employers to grant immunity to its employees who slander others, indemnify the same with tens of millions of dollars and refuse to bring even the general notion of some consequences to bear on them? Besides, what is the annual rate of compensation when you extrapolate a Dook professor's base salary by the hour, given the fact they work 10-15 hours a week, 28 weeks a year? How many Fortune 500 companies routinely post help wanted ads for "Professional Victims", "Immature and Irrational Imbecile" and "part-time work, full-time pay racists without any marketable skills". Just curious...

Good one.

Stefanie said...

Hello all, sorry for the late reply,

RRH-

I don't take one criticism to heart anymore than I take another. I have written enough volitile articles to know some people will agree, some won't, some will be on the fence, and some are just waiting for you to pack up and give up. That's the world, I accept it. I have had worse criticisms of this piece, and I have also had a flurry of supportive "thank yous" littering my email inbox the past two days. So please, don't assume to think you are the first person to critique me, nor will you be the last I'm sure. But if I listened to every single person who ever disagreed with me, and took their advice as something I should always listen to, I wouldn't be writing my own articles, would I?

In any light, since you were kind enough to respond to mine, I'll repond to yours. I'll put my answers in parenthesis under your observations.


Your article started, for me, on the wrong foot when you said, " Known mainly for its intense lacrosse team, beautiful homes, sprawling golf courses, tight-knit community, and �Leave it to Beaver� families, Garden City was an ideal place to grow up. " It was too reminiscent of Eugene Robinson's April 25, 2006, column in which he said, "privileged white kids who play lacrosse, a sport that conjures images of impossibly green suburban playing fields surrounded by the Range Rovers of doting parents".
(I don't understand. In general, that's Garden City, like it or not. I personally don't have a problem with that outlook, because like I said, I think it's a place everyone, say it or not, hopes to live at some point. I am not trying to make lacrosse, or my town, into anything it is not by denying what it is. So if that outlook offends you, I'm sorry. But that's my hometown, and I've never had a problem with it. If you do, that's not my problem.)

Next, when I said "self-sympathy", I was referring not to you personally, but to you as a member of a tight set of -- what did you call it? -- "community, friends, family, lifestyle, and values" -- nearly in alphabetical order. It makes it sound as though all those halcyon years in the acred- and ivyed-estates made you forget you are white. If we use, as many do, the image of the radical worship at the altar of "the trinity of race, class, and gender", then we must acknowledge that race is God of that trinity. You have a duty to defend all whites under attack by what are often called "diversity racists", not just the ones with whom you feel a social connection.
(I suggest, if you have the time which you may not, you read my article "not a black and white issue". It is about the Tennesee couple (white) who were raped, tortured and murdered by five AA men and women, and the lack of media attention. I have also done an article on the media's bias for missing persons, as generally it is white, middle to upperclass females they highlight. I don't base anything on race. I see equality as a main goal, total equality. Not special treatment. This article referred to my community, and my friends, because generally most of those who attack collin, dave, and reade, indirectly (and at times directly) attack my friends, family, and community. I'm not going to go out on a limb and talk about random people and places when it has no bearing on the topic. Garden City, lacrosse, "privilege", those were topics a lot of people who attack the guys go after. Seeing as I am part of both the GC and lacrosse community, I chose to "defend" if you'd like to call it, my communities that were being attacked.)

Next, you seemed to feel the need to hide behind poor Devon Sherwood: "As for the team being entirely white, as Mr. Bailey would lead you to believe, Devon Sherwood, a freshman player at the time of the alleged rape, is African American." That seemed a very weak thing to do. Btw, do you need to keep calling it "the alleged rape"?
(Hide behind him? No, Mr. Bailey's article refered to the lacrosse team as "pampered white frat boys who pulled together a boisterous, raunchy party to which they invited two Black strippers to “perform". Now, call me crazy, but just because the team is almost entirely white, should we completely overlook Devon's existance? That was simply my point. People change "facts" to suit their own stereotypes. Mr. Bailey made it seem as though all 47 players were white and "pampered" for that matter. Neither of those facts are true. I would call that "bad journalism". But that's just me. I am not hiding behind anyone. I am simply highlighting how quickly people get comfortable with stereotypes in order to advance an idea. Because admitting that the entire lacrosse team WASN"T white would throw a kink in Mr. Bailey's harsh and factually incorrect rant about white privilege and them not being choir boys, wouldn't it?)

Next, you defended the fateful lax party: "this �insane, wild, illegal� party the team threw, looks like a game of tidily winks compared to some of the parties I have attended in my four years at college". Why? Anyone who is still trying to make the argument, "but they weren't choirboys", is not someone who you can convince anyway. Your defensiveness about the party, like your defensiveness about the lacrosse team being perceived as "all-white" (even though Mr. Bailey never said it was), seems to me to weaken your point.
(I am not defending the party. But i suggest that he who never sinned cast the first stone. Why? Because people use this type of thing to blame others. Why are the same people (for the most part) who condemn the laxers as "not choirboys", who condemn them for boorish and piggish behavior, whose mantra has become "public urination", seek freedom and vindication for Genarlow Wilson, who engaged in similar, if not worse behavior (or do you consider having sex with one girl and then 15 minutes later puting the same penis in another girl's mouth "choir boy material"? That's my point. The same people who are clining to the last attacks on these guys by using public urination and underage drinking, are out there martyring Wilson like some saint, highlight his academic and athletic ability. How about the fact that he fascilitated a wild party where EVERYONE was underage, where illegal drugs were present, underage sex was being publically practiced, and above all intoxicated minors were being videotaped giving blow jobs to guys? Where's the outrage there? Haven't heard it yet. THAT was my point.)

Then you say, "Let me tell you about pain and suffering", and launch into the death of your father, and how in your eulogy, "bank accounts were never mentioned." Ouch. It reminded me of the line in "The Aviator" in which Howard Hughes' character retorts to the mother of Katherine Hepburn, "Rich people don't talk about money because they already have it." It seems to me that when someone tells me that she's gonna tell me about pain and suffering, and then highlights a funeral where no one's worried about money, she isn't telling me a lot. (I just realized that Howard Hughes was another Texan.)
(I don't agree. Because the idea I was tapping into was the one that many people who attack Reade Dave and Collin use; that all people who have money focus on is money. You don't know the financial strain my mother endured after my fathr's death. We almost lost our house. My point was that in times of grief, crisis, or pain, money is never a factor, whether you have it or not. People seem to think the wealthy are "untouchable", that nothing can hurt us. Obviously, it's not the truth.)

Next, you say, "Looking back over the case, I only wish my father had been here to see it all go down. My father, who often did pro-bono work for minority clients in his later years, right up until the night before his surgery in his hospital bed, would be heart broken". So you wish your father had been there for a heartbreak? And why did you feel it necessary to mention he -- "right up until the night before his surgery in his hospital bed"! -- did pro-bono work for minority clients? Seems defensive, doesn't it?
(Defensive? Yes. Because I am indeed defending my life, my friends, family, community, etc, from those who choose to stereotype. No, obviously if I could have my father back, it would be for more than one case consideration. However, I do wish my father had been around to see this case because it would have been more than interesting to hear him rip it apart and discuss it with him. He and I were two of a kind. As for the pro-bono work, which is entirely true (the last case he worked on was for a mexican immigrant named Carlos who my dad was very good friends with and who didn't have the money to pay for a lawyer, so instead he gave my father fresh lobsters and shrimp from his market in Brooklyn, and who still keeps in contact with my mother today), and yes, he was working on the file the night before his surgery. I included it because I think people have the idea that those who grow up like I did, those who have the life my father did, don't do anything for anyone but white buddies who they can golf with. They don't care about anyone outside their community. My dad wasn't like that. Why should he be stereotyped?)

Finally, your second-to-last paragraph ends with a series of "Why?" questions (some disguised as "Since when?" questions). "Why ... why ... why ... why?" It reminds me of a case I was involved in some years ago. A young woman went to the laundry room of her apartment complex one night. She was grabbed and held in a headlock by a male assailant and was stabbed repeatedly in the neck. The assailant in his later confession said that the girl kept saying "Why ... why ... why ... why?" He raped her while she her life drained from her neck, and he said her final words were, "Why ... why ... why ... why?" Your "Why" questions, like hers, strike me as both useless and pathetic.
(Really? Because I think they do a fabulous job of highlighting the stupidity people use to argue why the duke kids don't deserve pity. Can anyone who says they are white pampered and privilege so we shouldn't care about them explain to me why it's wrong for a parent to give everything for a child? If they are so adamant about money and wealth and those types of lifestyles being unfair, and wrong, I would love to hear why. No one has yet to answer those questions. I doubt they will. You might think it's pathetic, I thought it was truthful Agree to disagree)

I know, Stefanie, that you are a young writer (and a good one, I'll add), and this has been harsh criticism. I hope it is also constructive criticism, but that is up to you.
(Like I said before RRH, you are no better or no worse than anyone else who expresses an opinion about my writing. This is not harsh, it's an opinion, one you're entirely entitled to have, as I am my own. You make no difference on the way I write, just as those who express immense gratitude and support have no bearing on how I write. I write what I feel, what I know, and what I think, not what anyone else does. If you have a problem with it, so be it. But I know journalism students (as I am not one). I know the one thing they love to do more than anything is announce their experience when it trumps someone else's (as you did in your first paragraph) and use it as a reasoning to give critique. You don't care how my career goes, nor should you. And instead of saying you just wanted to state your opinion about my article, something you are entirely welcoem to do and I encourage, you used your "experience" and a "journalism grad" to "critique me". I haven't learned much from your critique. I don't consider it much of a critique in fact. So please don't worry that my heart is broken, my spirit ruined, or my drive tarnished. You are just another name in the pile of those who read and comment on my work.

Take care,

Stef Williams

inman said...

OK. Stef & RRH:

This has clearly escalated to DEFCON 5 with a nuclear exchange imminent.

Frankly, if more than just a few paragraphs of information is provided at any one time, my alzheimer's training gets in the way of comprehension. All I remember is that some Beaver had underage sex with a suffering journalism grad.

Did I get that right?

Anonymous said...

Stef Williams said, among much else, at 2:35 PM ...

But I know journalism students (as I am not one). I know the one thing they love to do more than anything is announce their experience when it trumps someone else's (as you did in your first paragraph) and use it as a reasoning to give critique. You don't care how my career goes, nor should you. And instead of saying you just wanted to state your opinion about my article, something you are entirely welcoem to do and I encourage, you used your "experience" and a "journalism grad" to "critique me".

Actually, what I learned as a journalism student was that non-journalism students were usually smarter, better writers, and harder workers than journalism majors. My first substantive paragraph -- the one providing the biographical information -- was the last one I wrote. I inserted it there to give you something to counterattack. It seemed only fair to give you the same chance at me that I was taking at you.

I'll leave you with two quotations. The first is my twist on one by Oliver Wendell Holmes -- a twist that occurred to me only today: "The mother of reason is not logic, she is experience." The second is from one of my college roommates many moons ago: "Never let college interfere with your education." I hope one or both is useful, since my earlier comments were not.

Best wishes,

R.R. Hamilton

Anonymous said...

lol Inman! I was writing my response when you posted your last comment.

Far from a nuclear exchange, I've unilaterally disarmed :)

RRH

Anonymous said...

inman, no nuclear exchange warranted. It's possible to disagree and still have civil debates. Nothing wrong with having differing opinions.

Stef

Anonymous said...

to Stef - It's good to be able to defend what you write or beleive with lots of conviction.

To RRH - It's a sign of graciousness not to always have to have the last word.


Bravo!

inman said...

I WANT THAT LAST WORD!

Anonymous said...

Good for you Stephanie - not letting the blog bullies intimidate you. They are are no account.

Anonymous said...

RRH isn't a blog bully. He (she?) is totally entitled to their opinion. I value it simply because he (she?) proved that they at the very least read my article thoroughly and considered it. That's all I hope people do when I put something out there. When people go beyond it an comment, regardless of negative or positive, it's just an extra bonus. :)

I hold no grudges, don't you worry. I'm too laid back.

Stefs

Anonymous said...

Check out the portrait of Nifong as victim at the "Leave the Man Alone" blog
http://www.leavethemanalone.com/2007/07/perspective.html#links
- July 16 post. The "man" seems to think Nifong was disbarred because he called some lacrosse players a bad name.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Stefanie Williams, for verbalizing all that I couldn't.