Friday, July 27, 2007

Week in Review

In Lacrosse Magazine, Clare Lochary has a nicely done piece on Collin Finnerty’s arrival at Loyola. Coach Charlie Toomey was candid in his excitement with the decision: “It’s a new beginning, and it’s a great opportunity for him. And it’s obviously a great opportunity for us.” Lochary noted,

Snagging Finnerty was one of many adept recruiting moves that Toomey made this season. His incoming class is small in number (just eight freshmen plus Finnerty, a second-semester sophomore) but strong in talent. Last year's points leader, junior Shane Koppens, returns, but Toomey expects a new look on the offensive end of the field—faster, more athletic, and less reliant on pure shooters to get the job done.

It seems as if Brown will not be the only beneficiary of departures from Duke.

---------

Hal Crowther, the Indy columnist who penned one of the worst articles on the case, was back again recently, this time in a piece for Oxford American.

Amidst a rambling column on why people shouldn’t look down at the South, Crowther opined,

After waiting a year to find out what happened at that infamous off-campus stag party, we were told that nothing happened . . . The DA was virtually lynched, an unprecedented martyrdom that seems to have crushed his career and any hope of future happiness. The black stripper who pressed the charges was merely impeached, ostracized, and forgotten. The exonerated lacrosse players, according to my local paper, were “greeted like heroes” wherever Duke students gathered. Innocent was the word in general use, though all the Attorney General had actually determined was that they couldn’t be convicted—and shouldn’t have been indicted—on these charges brought by this witness (doesn’t that make them less innocent, technically, than, say, O.J. Simpson, who was actually acquitted?).

Actually, the Attorney General stated that “it was in the best interests of justice to declare these three individuals innocent.” Emphasis added, since Crowther seems to have missed this item.

More Crowther:

Their innocence was asserted so aggressively by the media that we were left with the impression that they had actually been studying in the library when the incident in question occurred.

Crowther never quite explained how an “incident” that never happened could have “occurred.” I don’t believe that either Reade Seligmann or Collin Finnerty ever left the “impression” that they were at the library. Instead, even using the timeline employed by Mike (“nothing happened”) Nifong, one was at an ATM machine, and the other was walking to a restaurant.

Crowther concluded with a paean to the Group of 88, noting, “Professors who used the lacrosse case to make a statement about over-privileged and under-restrained athletes are still receiving threatening e-mails from bullies with racial agendas.”

The Indy columnist appears not to have received the latest Group talking points, which assert: the Group’s statement had nothing to do with the case, and certainly nothing to do with athletes. It only was an attempt to defend unnamed minority students who were subjected to taunts from unspecified defenders of the lacrosse team between March 29 and April 6, 2006.

Crowther confessed that he experienced “extreme nausea” when reading Ruth Sheehan’s apology. Perhaps Group members can express their gratitude by sending him a bottle of Rolaids.

---------

A more realistic appraisal of the Group of 88’s statement came in the summer City Journal, courtesy of a lengthy lead article by Myron Magnet. He noted,

What the Duke “rape” case shows is that these attitudes about race have hardened into dogma among elites. Otherwise, who would believe for long the fishy charges of accuser Crystal Mangum, then 27, who kept changing her story about how many Duke students had assaulted her, what they looked like, and what they had done? Hired as a stripper for a lacrosse-team party (where she turned up “passed-out drunk,” a cop on the scene reported), the unmarried mother of two claimed that she’d been raped, beaten, robbed, and threatened with violation with a broomstick, by three or five or maybe even 20 members of the Duke team, though she picked out different young men from different arrays of police photos. Or maybe she hadn’t been raped but only assaulted—or perhaps suspended in midair and used sexually by three young men at once, in a tiny bathroom. State attorney general Roy Cooper understandably suspected that Mangum might have had a tenuous grasp on reality. “She may actually believe the many different stories that she has been telling,” the AG remarked, in declaring the students innocent. “You can’t piece it together.”

As Magnet observed, it’s not hard to understand the political motives that led Nifong to champion the case. “But,” he continued,

what led the Duke faculty and officials, along with the mainstream media, to treat this cock-and-bull story as gospel to the bitter end? Why did the university promptly suspend the three students, cancel the rest of the lacrosse season, and force out the coach? Why did president Richard Brodhead say, just after police arrested the trio, “If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn’t do it, whatever they did is bad enough”? As a lacrosse player recently told the student newspaper: “It was unfortunate that some of the subsequent actions that were taken by the University didn’t really imply a presumption of innocence.” . . .
Part of what a university should teach is the critical reasoning power to analyze situations like these, with claims and counterclaims, and determine what actually happened . . . But the professors sidestep this challenge, simplifying and flattening these complex truths about culture and consciousness. They reach the false conclusion that all descriptions of society and our nature are not just colored or refracted by our cultural assumptions but are mere propaganda, aimed at convincing others that the world is as our class or subgroup wishes it to be. Moreover, since the profs believe that not just the social order but also what we take to be “human nature” is man-made, whoever wins the propaganda battle gets to mold society and human nature—human reality itself—into the shape he chooses.
From these assumptions flows academe’s well-known mania for unmasking Western civilization (including its literature and art) as a machine for oppressing the nonwhite, non-rich, and non-male. This worldview—which grants its adherents a sense of superiority over their supposedly racist and sexist fellow men and also a belief in their own special power to remake the world by their words—appears so self-evident on campus as to be impervious to such realities as accelerating black success, for example, or the crowding out of male students by female ones on college campuses themselves.
So not only did many Duke professors feel that they didn’t have to think twice when stripper Mangum filed her charges; they scarcely had to think once. With one eye looking inward and the other fixed on the heavens, they knew instantly what must have happened . . . What to make of such almost comically irrational terror-without-a-name that the profs have stirred up with their specters of racists and sexists, like the nonexistent witches of old? Given the mass hysteria at this supposed seat of reason, the accused trio can probably count themselves lucky that they lost only a year of their lives.

Magnet moved on from the case to sharply critique rap culture. No doubt Group stalwart Mark Anthony (“thugniggaintellectual”) would be outraged.

---------

The most recent Chronicle features an interview with Coach K. When asked about the University’s handling of the lacrosse case, he responded,

It’s easy to look back and say everything that you would have done or that could have been done. Instead of rehashing those things—we could have taken care of the kids better, we could have done this better—Overall we could have done that better. Could we have done that worse? Absolutely, we could have done it a lot worse. Right now, especially [after the conclusion of the Nifong hearings], there’s a great deal of closure now that has happened with Nifong. We need to be in a healing phase, and I want to be a part of that as much as I can…. No matter what, you’ve got to be there for them—that’s the job of a parent, a coach, a school or whatever. There were so many lives to this thing that it got complicated, and in that complication, I think some mistakes were made, including the proper care of our kids.

Normally “healing” requires some acknowledgement of wrongdoing, but the University’s unwillingness to hold accountable those who didn’t adhere to the Faculty Handbook suggests that Duke is going to try a different approach.

---------

Wendy Murphy continues to make national news—this time in a laughably one-sided story in Time. The adjunct professor has abandoned her conspiracy theories on how the Duke case ended to criticize a Nebraska judge who prevented an accuser in a date-rape case from using the word “rape” in the trial. Instead, the accuser was told she could describe what the suspect allegedly did to her.

Murphy is now representing the accuser, claiming that “nobody in that courtroom was allowed to describe what happened as a crime.” Added Michelle Anderson, dean of the CUNY Law School, the judge’s ruling reflected an old-fashioned approach to rape: “The notion that the word rape is so charged derives from an historical willingness to place a higher burden on rape victims who come forward.”

Time spoke to the defense, but elected not to find anyone neutral to challenge Anderson’s portrayal of events—and so any reader could have fairly concluded that the judge in this case was retrograde, someone hostile to victims’ rights, perhaps even biased against women.

What neither Time nor Murphy mentioned: in the same trial, the judge allowed the women who had made unproven claims about the suspects’ sexual conduct to testify for the state. Imagine how Murphy or Anderson—or, presumably, Time reporter Meg Massey—would have complained had the defense been allowed to call to the stand two witnesses to make unproved allegations about the accuser.

---------

This week’s humor comes from Liestoppers, where Baldo looks into Durham’s peculiar arrangement of “two chiefs for the price of . . . two chiefs.”

Also, columnist Kathleen Parker—who was correct on the lacrosse case from the start—proposed a new ailment. Nifong Syndrome is “the mind virus that causes otherwise intelligent people to embrace likely falsehoods because they validate a preconceived belief.”

She continued,

Michael B. Nifong, the North Carolina prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, was able to convince a credulous community of residents, academics and especially journalists that the three falsely accused men had raped a black stripper despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

Why? Because the lies supported their own truths. In the case of Duke, that "truth" was that privileged white athletes are racist pigs who of course would rape a black woman given half a chance and a bottle o' beer.

---------

The salutary effects of the case in North Carolina politics continue. This week, the state legislature unanimously approved a measure to establish uniform procedures for photo ID lineups throughout the state.

Among the provisions, according to the N&O:

  • “The person running the lineup must be someone who is not involved in the investigation and has no information about the potential suspect. That would reduce the opportunity for police to cue witnesses—intentionally or unintentionally—to pick a certain suspect.”
  • “The use of “fillers,” or people who aren’t suspects but who generally resemble the witness’ description of the suspect, would be required in a lineup.

State Rep. Rick Glazier, sponsor of the bill, conceded that “the timing of getting the bill through and getting a quicker consensus” resulted from the public attention given to the DPD’s misconduct.

Gary Wells, an Iowa State professor who’s a national expert in eyewitness identification procedures, praised the legislature’s action: It’s a near certainty that there will be a reduction in mistaken eyewitness identification . . . The cases that come along after this will be more pristine and more trustworthy. So not only will it save some innocent people from ever getting to that point, but it also makes sure that guilty parties are convicted.”

Hat tip: J.W.

[Note: As the case winds down, a schedule shift: Group profiles on Monday; roundup posts move to Friday; and I no longer will be making regular posts on the weekend, although I will post weekend items as news demands.]

128 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can't these hack journalists who continue to slander the innocent lacrosse players be sued for libel?

ben tillman said...

"...a Nebraska judge who prevented an accuser in a date-rape case from using the word 'rape' in the trial."

It was not a date-rape case. There was no "date".

One Spook said...

I have created a parody/photo for the enjoyment of all of you ...

Mikey we hardly knew ye!

Enjoy!

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Had to smile when writing an email to editor of the Oxford American .... my email subject: "Crowther - THE WORST OF THE SOUTH".

Crowther is either woefully ignorant of the facts in the case or willfully slanders the defendants in the hoax.

jmoo

Anonymous said...

This is beyond horrendous.

Just got home after a pleasant dinner and decided to check out Wonderland after an online order of another jar of my glorious Caviar Morning Pearl Creme. LIS!

The KC addiction dies hard.

I was in a great mood....until I read KC's post. Now I feel aroused in such a way unbecoming after the Midnight Hour.

Don't know what my strategy is right now....for I am just descending from the ceiling after reading quotes from Hal Crowther.

This whole topic is unreal to me at this moment. I desperately need sleep....since I get a mere 4 hours each night because of my devotion to the health of 17 year-old Kitty Diva.......however, this Hal Crowther person seems to have reached an early onset low with his latest offering.

I do wonder about his sanity.

There is no need to wonder, however, as to my reaction to his doiley-laced-Peter-Wood-William-Chafe-lunatic-sour-grapes-prim-little-BS fest.

Hal Crowther is an old pos who thought he was a celebrity 20 years ago. Imagine being Crowther today and your lift is writing presumptuous, trite, Nifong-dick-encompassing bs?

It's gotta be tough being Hillsborough's intelligentsia pussy?

Need some panties, Hal?

I am very angered after reading your words. I might stay awake for a while.

What Goes Around

When you had the chance to do right, you did wrong......again.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

For you, Hal baby.

Sincerely,
Debrah

What_Goes_Around

Kiss! Kiss!

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Spook--

Great work.

You're SO above average!

Debrah

One Spook said...

Debrah, unable to sleep and looking for something to do, writes:

You're SO above average!

Thanks, Ms LMTsO. That's the sweetest thing anyone has said to me all morning ... but it's still early ...

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Debrah-

No qustion this guy is bad news--but can you explain this in more detail:

Hal Crowther is an old pos who thought he was a celebrity 20 years ago.

Thanks.

Zeke.

Anonymous said...

Debrah--

Sorry. I got it now--I had wondered what pos means.

ZEKE

Anonymous said...

OK, Zeke...you asked for it.

In the 80's I was a hot little babe who used to go to the Chapel Hill Tennis Club. Mostly just to get a tan at the pool, but the locals like DA's, judges, law professors, and any other little up and coming type were members of that club.

It wasn't, or isn't, that big of a deal at all. But its reputation at the time of attracting important people prevailed. Actually, it's just an ordinary knock-off place.

Well.....I used to meet a friend of mine there on weekends to tan and whatever.....by the pool.

Hal Crowther and his now-wife, Lee Smith, used to show up. Both were so strange. People would whisper sotto voce that they were writers. ROTFLM-T-O !!!

He is a kind of husky character with luminous eyes behind thick lenses.......and his wife Smith, at the time, was kind of attractive--in a whitebread stereotypical Southern sort of way.

She used to show up with books and sit around talking loudly.....assuring anyone nearby that she was ready if they needed help with writing.

(Remember, at the time I thought her behavior odd perhaps because I was a hot little number only interested in getting a dark tan and how I looked walking back and forth from the clubhouse. LOL!!!)

We all know life at that stage.

In any case, I was well-traveled for my age and was not impressed with two local people behaving as if they were celebrities at some tennis club.

It was just strange.

Besides, Crowther's wife had one of the flatest behinds I have ever seen on anyone in a swimsuit.

LOL!!!

LOL!!!

Memories....may be beautiful, and yet......

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Hoo-ee! Now the lax players are "less innocent than OJ"? There's a concept. Where do these bitter-enders come up with 'em? I thought only I stayed up all night. Anyway, that's like being less profound than Kathy Rudy, or less reasonable than Shadee Malaklou: pretty tall order.

Anonymous said...

Michael Sheehan says:

I read Hal Crowther's Oxford American's article, as well as his 'Sympathy for the Devils?' of 21 June 06.

Golly ... does this guy have some anger issues!!

For him, life must really suck ... getting up every morning, knowing that he is surrounded by 'compleat idiots'.

What a hateful person.

Anonymous said...

KC, Another terrific post! Now I can start my day!

I guess I missed it. What will you be doing in Israel on your Fullbright?

Anonymous said...

Crowther concluded with a paean to the Group of 88, noting, “Professors who used the lacrosse case to make a statement about over-privileged and under-restrained athletes are still receiving threatening e-mails from bullies with racial agendas.”

Now, let's play a game of pop-up Word Boggle.

Professors who are bullies with racial agendas used threatening e-mails to make a statement about over-privileged and under-restrained athletes receiving the threatening lacrosse case still.

The simple fact is that the 88ers and too many of their colleagues on most every college campus have one motivation: to intimidate impressionable students into accepting their racial/sexual/class agendas. If you doubt this, simply scan the course offerings. I, for one, was dumb-founded at the ever growing list of dumb courses The course titles read more like sessions at agenda-driven conventions. No wonder education is in such deep doo-doo in the US.
WOW!

AF

Anonymous said...

Re: Crowther's comment on the AG's determination that "they couldn't be convicted"

He says that the AG said "they couldn't be convicted--and shouldn't have been indicted--on these charges brought by this witness (doesn't that make them less innocent, technically, than, say, O.J. Simpson, who was actually acquitted?)"

Is he kidding? Look at the circumstances. Simpson was acquitted by a jury in a city where race riots had done major damage physically and mentally after the Rodney King beating. The evidence in this case really didn't matter. The jury reacted with the heart not the head. Had the Mangum case gone to trial, the 3 would have been convicted because of the racially charged accusation in a predominantly black city. The evidence in this case really wouldn't have mattered. The jury would have reacted with the heart not the head.
DNA evidence should either be believed in all cases or in none.

Anonymous said...

Having read Crowther's article, I can only conclude that he has a scientific IQ not much higher than a mole rat’s.
He has such a perverted view of the South that I hope he never comes south of the North Pole again. Crowther and the 88. Monkey see, monkey do.

haskell said...

Hal Crowther?? I never heard of him.

Indy magazine?? About race cars, right?

G88?? Just a bunch of True Believers.

Brodhead, Burness, Alleva, Moneta ??
Hopeless.

Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

mac said...

Really obvious that Crowther's thorazine needs to
be increased.
He'd be a good target for a lawsuit, but the loathsome scum
probably has the same excuse as CGM.

After Nifong's statement I don't think people like Crowther have any cover;
I doubt even the 88 would stand by Crowther's comments at this point.

Anonymous said...

What's up with the "no regular posts on the weekend" business? You've gotten us all addicted, now you're pulling the plug? What are we supposed to do, get a life or something? Sheesh...

scott said...

"Also, columnist Kathleen Parker—who was correct on the lacrosse case from the start—proposed a new ailment. Nifong Syndrome is 'the mind virus that causes otherwise intelligent people to embrace likely falsehoods because they validate a preconceived belief.'”

OK, I'll agree if, and only if, Hal Crowther isn't considered an intelligent person ... ever.

I read his piece linked to this post. What an asshat. And he's absolutely wrong when he asserts:

"...(doesn’t that make them less innocent, technically, than, say, O.J. Simpson, who was actually acquitted?)."

Well, no, Hal. O. J. Simpson was found "not guilty". That's not innocent. And even though there is a one in a billion chance that O.J. didn't commit the murders, they did happen, so someone committed murder. Newsflash, Hal: no rape, kidnapping or sexual assault happened at 610 Buchanan, Durham, NC, on March 13-14, 2006.

In this clown's POS article, he mentioned he lives in NC. Even though we're likely separated by over 200 miles, that I share space in the form of a state with such an idiot caused me to suffer "extreme nausea."

Ralph Phelan said...

"It seems as if Brown will not be the only beneficiary of departures from Duke."

I'd really love to see Brown and Loyola's coaches try to recruit transfers from Duke. "Want toplay lacrosse? You're welcome here."

Anonymous said...

Is Crowther a Communist?

Shouting Thomas said...

Oh, well.. it really is true:

Opinions are like a-holes. Everybody's got one.

bill anderson said...

Crowther may not be a "communist," but he is a committed leftist. These are people who see the entire world as something that can be fabricated through force. Thus, if he wishes to believe that the lacrosse players raped dear Crystal, then -- behold! -- they raped dear Crystal. No one can argue against him.

This also tells me that the "progressive" crowd that dominates politics in Durham and Chapel Hill and elsewhere really does not want to know the truth about anything. They just want to "remake" the world -- beginning with their little enclaves -- as long as it is with someone else's money.

Is it not most interesting that the people who constantly prattle on about "justice" are the same ones who still demand unjust results in this case?

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to make sure that everyone saw the good news. U.S. News and World Report has just released its latest rankings of colleges and universities in the United States, and Duke is ranked 8th, higher than four out of the eight Ivy League universities. Not exactly the steep decline predicted by many of the fanatics posting messages on this website. By the way, I did not see Brooklyn College in there anywhere. Must have been a clerical error.

haskell said...

anonymous 8:55

Duke clearly has great strengths, it is a shame to see the good people's reputation sullied by the actions of the G88 and the current senior administration. Do you have a guess how much they paid out to settle the lacrosse hoax? I bet they are number one on that list.

Anonymous said...

8:55

US News has questionable rankings. But you're right in pointing out that too many poters criticize Duke's academics. Here's the thing: G88ers and stupid affirmative-action cases are at ALL elite universities.

If you look at northern master's programs at US News, you'll find Brooklyn College, which is 1 of the jewels of CUNY, along with Queens and Baruch. To compare Brooklyn College to Duke is plain stupid.

Do you compare Miles Davis to Mozart?

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who's disappointed in how Coach K has handled this situation? Instead of using his considerable prestige to defend these athletes, and speak out against the 88 and its ilk, he's remained silent for the most part. Is he too much of a corporate stooge to know right from wrong? Even his latest statement with all the drivel about "healing," it was milquetoast as hell.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who's disappointed in how Coach K has handled this situation? Instead of using his considerable prestige to defend these athletes, and speak out against the 88 and its ilk, he's remained silent for the most part. Is he too much of a corporate stooge to know right from wrong? Even his latest statement with all the drivel about "healing," it was milquetoast as hell.

Anonymous said...

Re Duke rankings, vs. Brooklyn College: I know one Brooklyn College alum, and several Duke alumni. Brooklyn College guy is off-the-charts brilliant; the Dukies couldn't find their asses if they were on fire. What this means about the institutions is perhaps a little murky, but it's a long trip from a US News ranking to a conclusion about the value of a Duke education.

Anonymous said...

9:14

Well said. In addition, there's a big difference between a Duke alumni who took physics, Shakespeare, and Chinese and one that took testicle fondling in Mongolia, any black studies course, and sociology for jocks.

Anonymous said...

The damned professors who comprised the Group88 had a rascist agenda. They could hardly be concerned except to put the whole affair into a diatribe of race/class/gender without regard to the facts. The something that happened at Duke was to bring these people out from under their sheets . . . er, gowns.

Anonymous said...

9:14

Not to mention a Duke alumnus or alumna who took Latin. LOL

Steven Horwitz said...

US News rankings measure inputs not outputs for the most part, thus one should not put too much stock in them as a measure of what colleges produce, especially in terms of "value added."

That said, there's no doubt Duke is a "better" school than Brooklyn College, but why that would be relevant to the truth or falsity of KC's work on this blog, or his scholarship in general, is a question worth asking of our US News obsessed commenter.

Do you always judge the veracity of arguments based on the pedigree of the person making it?

Anonymous said...

Interesting that 28% of the Class of '11 at Duke is Asian (according to Duke Chronicle). From all accounts the number of Caucasian Duke students from Prep or Public schools in the notheast is dropping rapidly. Diversity is working, eh ? Or is there some substitution agenda being instituted? (I assume the latter)

No matter, maybe Duke can become the Carnegie Mellon of the South, albeit with a 150 PC Leftwing Humanities Proffessors to give the whole place a little "flavor".

Anonymous said...

Interesting that the Duke Alumnae don't seem to realize, in significant numbers, exactly what the current administration and BOT has in mind for their precious school. They'll take their money, but otherwise they have as much regard for their sympathies as one might have for the noisy neighbors next door. This DLAX controversy was made to order! Change is-a-coming, and if you don't like it, you can take a hike.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 8:55 said...

...Just wanted to make sure that everyone saw the good news. U.S. News and World Report has just released its latest rankings of colleges and universities in the United States, and Duke is ranked 8th, higher than four out of the eight Ivy League universities. Not exactly the steep decline predicted by many of the fanatics posting messages on this website. By the way, I did not see Brooklyn College in there anywhere. Must have been a clerical error.
::
I did. The Duke Chronicle has the listing on their website.

It appears to me that the ranking system for colleges and universities is taking on the appearance of the ranking for great cities. I'll call it the EXCEPT system.

NYC is a great city EXCEPT for this or that area of town.

Duke is a great university EXCEPT for {insert name of Anger Studies dept. here}.

So enjoy your visit but be careful. You might be intellectually mugged if you venture into the wrong area of the campus. Parents beware!
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Crowther states the Group of 88 “are still receiving threatening e-mails from bullies with racial agendas.”

Boy, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. The Group of 88 ARE bullies with racial agendas!

Anonymous said...

8:55 said - "fanatics posting messages..."

ALMOST got that post in without personal name-calling. Good try.

BTW, does this make you a fanatic poster?

Seriously, I am happy that Duke did well in these rankings. There are a lot of good people there. It has nothing to do, however, with the well-documented racist, sexist, and bigoted behavior displayed then and now by the 88, Brodhead and the administration, and many in the media. It is sad for everyone. People do get fanatical over (real) injustice, whether in the South in the 60's or at Duke today.

It is what it is.

Ed

Anonymous said...

I'm thinking Texas A&M looks good to me because they ran off that guy that KC profiled last week!

I'm glad Duke didn't drop off the charts for something that didn't happen, and I agree that there are left-wing fanatics at all the top schools but Duke just has the light shining on their idiots. I wish Brodhead realized that includes him.

Also disappointed by Coach K's non-leadership on this issue. Oh, well--you almost have to believe that a lot of people there that know how much wrong was done are really afraid to speak up, but I don't know why. Retaliation?

Anonymous said...

My estimation of Duke has dropped so far in the past year, it is about at rock bottom. Coach K--the face of Duke athletics--showed nothing but cowardice by his silence. The only thing I applaud at Duke now is the lacrosse team. Evertything else has been shown to be a sham, until new leadership can turn it around--probably take 20 years or more.
Fred in Raleigh

Anonymous said...

Jesus, the whole Coach K thing is ridiculous.

Someone said they wouldn't vote for Repubs if the FEDS don't get involved in a case the State is handling quite brilliantly (it takes time to uncover and punish the deeds of an elected official charged with the public trust)? What the hell is the matter with you people?

Coach K shouldn't have said anything. They weren't even his players. One thing is for sure: Coach K is neither a defense attorney nor a prosecutor. He isn't even an elected official. If he were to come out and talk about it -- in support or against the players -- it would have been improper.

Anonymous said...

Coach K describes himself as a "leader" (in the title of his book). Leadership is better defined in terms of his stature and his courage/ability to use that stature for good reason than whether or not they were "his players".

I am not impressed by his leadership in this huge issue that affected the Univeristy where he is probably the most visible and influential person there - I am disappointed in someone whom I have long admired.

Your use of Jesus as an expression of frustration rather than holiness, and "What the hell is the matter with you people?" doesn't add anything.

Ed

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

Michael Sheehan said:

I was actually going to write to Oxford American to comment on Mr. Crowther’s vitriol, but, after reading this (OA’s overview of the article), I figured that it would be a waste of my time.

"The Worst of the South

If some columnists pack a punch, then The OA's Hal Crowther opens early rounds with haymakers and sneaks rude jabs in after the bell. Okay, so we're getting a little carried away with the metaphor, but hopefully it conveys how much we admire his latest piece, one of Hal's bravest, most provocative yet. If this essay doesn't get you fired-up from whatever side of the blue/red divide you fall on, then you simply haven't been paying attention."

inman said...

10:23

Yes. It would have been improper for Coach K to have taken a public position regarding what did or did not occur, absent the facts. One could also argue that it was improper for Broadhead, implicitly and explicitly, to have taken a public position regarding what did or did not occur, ... again, absent the facts. Their public position and statements should have focused solely on protecting the young people who had been entrusted to their care --all of them -- and in part, that public position should have involved a scupulous adherence to truth, honesty and the tenets of our legal system. In Broadhead's case, his unfortunate public position was held hostage by a political agenda all too ready to abandon truth and our judicial heritage.

Yes, absent the facts, Brodhead should have remained a quiet observer when asked for his opinions regarding what did or did not happen.

And as the hoax unfolded, it became all too clear that many of the facts were indeed absent (or missing in action or just downright AWOL).

Anonymous said...

PRINCIPIA APOLOGIA

(w/apologies to Plato & Newton)

1ST LAW: The first law of apologetics is that a true apology must show complete remorse in a sincere fashion.

2ND LAW: The second law of apologetics states that the First Law is not true if you count makeup sex.

3RD LAW: The third law of apologetics states that people apologize for one of four reasons:

a. They feel sincere remorse;

b. Somebody makes them (the somebody could be society, e.g., a court or "good manners");

c. The apologizing person wants something; or

d. The apologizing person is silly or insane.

ECONOMIC MODEL - Nobody makes money with an apology. It is those who receive apologies who usually make money (or get the makeup sex). Note: In certain instances, once an apology is offered the apologizer can go back to some form of capitalistic enterprise (the "Mel Gibson Model"). This is why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson SEEK apologies, but don't MAKE them.

HISTORICAL MODEL - There has only been one truly sincere apology in recorded history:

EVE: "I'm truly sorry, but if you'd get your %$# off the couch and find a job, I wouldn't have to be nicking apples!"

ADAM: "Nag, nag, nag! What is it with you, woman! Oh, Eve, I'm so sorry to go off like that. We shouldn't fight."

[which begat Cain and Abel and so on]

ZOOLOGICAL MODEL: Chimpanzees apologize by picking nits off of each other. Dogs and wolves apologize by sniffing each other's butts. The Zoological Model is not altogether helpful.

NIFONG MODEL: Nifong's apology has already changed in shape and form. He started with cryptic "apologies" in the newspapers asking for a "healing" in the community. Then, at the Bar Hearing, he offered an apology that included a "something happened" component. Finally, he has offered a Contempt Hearing apology, with additional qualifiers (i.e. "It was someone else's fault," "It was only negligence.").

4TH LAW: The fourth law of apologetics provides that a changing apology is indicative of a lack of sincerity.

GANG OF 88 MODEL: The Gang of 88 know that, if they were to apologize, it would be as if the Emperor apologized for indecent exposure in front of the peasant children. From then on, the King is not known for his road building, aqueducts or triumphs in battle, he is remembered for his small penis. See also Sharpton, Al; Jackson, Jesse.

Using the Laws of Apologetics, it is easily seen why the Gang of 88 will not apologize:

1. No sincere remorse;
2. Nobody offering makeup sex;
3. Nobody forcing them to;
4. It would not pay to do so;
5. Not quite silly or insane enouugh;
6. If they apologize, they will be admitting to themselves and to the world exactly what they really are.
_________

K.C. Johnson has been scientifically proven to have never NEEDED to apologize. From: 5TH LAW of Apologetics, by Sir Isaac Plato. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Coach K is a frikkin' basketball coach, not part of the "MSM"... why the hell does anyone care what a non-attorney or school or public official or news analyst has to say about the case?

What should coach K have said "My experience as a basketball coach puts me in a unique position -- and makes me obligated -- to talk about a legal matter involving 3 kids who happen to attend the school I COACH BASKETBALL at, and who play a glorified club sport."

Would Coach K be "obligated" to speak if it were 3 engineering students who were accused? What the hell is the matter with you all?

Anonymous said...

Gregory,

You couldn't be more wrong. An "apologia" is a defense, as in Plato's defense of Socrates, or, on a conceptual level, Newton's defense of his own methodologies in "Principia."

The word "apology," as understood today, is simply an acknowledgment (sincere or not) that something an individual did was socially/morally (whatever) improper.

Therefore, the G88 can only offer an apologia, not an apology.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

Ralph Phelan

You are correct. I am very excited for Loyola and Brown.

My boys from Syracuse jumped on the bandwagon early in the case and chimed in basically saying to the Dukies that you are not welcome. Their loss.

Anonymous said...

To the "what the hell is the matter with you all" poster:

I believe that coaach K could have provided a calming approach, "wait till the facts are in," "serious situation that saddens us all," "difficult time for all involved at this University that I love" and such - it's not about him taking a stand on guilt or innocence. He knows how to choose words carefully and the words that he chose to say (and omit) did not impress me.

BTW, take a tourette syndrome test. It can be controlled with medication and make your cursing less offensive. Then, people may be more inclined to consider your point of view. :)

Anonymous said...

Yeah, upon further review, you're right.

Coach K making cliche statements would have made a huge difference.

Then, when asked about his team's championship hopes, he could have said "Well, you know, we played well tonight and you have to take one game at a time", and then he could say that the opponent -- who lost by 20 -- "really played hard, and the final score didn't really reflect how well they played".

Style over substance much?

Anonymous said...

Wow, maybe I missed hearing about it here earlier, but I just read Bernie Reeves piece in Metro Magazine -- a high end Triangle publication (metronc.com) which not only eviscerates Duke and G88, but says legal estimates are $18 million payout to the 3 LAX alone!
Reeves is local and runs in top circles, so he has credibility on this number, I'll bet. I hope so!

Anonymous said...

To Polanski: I apolgize or ... well ... hmm ... offer my humble apologia? *


*6TH LAW: The Sixth Law of Apologetics is that sometimes apologies are sarcastic. Didn't you notice the "(w/apologies to Plato and Newton)" at the top of the post?

If you would, Polanski, please explain the "Principia Apologia" to the Gang of 88, as I fear they still believe it is a new five-cheese pasta at "The Olive Garden."

________________

K.C. Johnson did a supreme job of fisking Hal Crowther, but there is enough material there for everyone! I especially enjoyed Crowther's use of hyperbole:

"The D.A. was virtually lynched, an unprecedented martyrdom that seems to have crushed ... any hope of future happiness."

1. Paraphrasing the "virtual lynching" from Clarence Thomas' "high-tech lynching" may be giving Crowther too much credit, but let's see how the game plays out:

"...it is a high-tech lynching for [corrupt district attorneys] who in any way deign to [cheat] for themselves, to [hide evidence] for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to [notions of Justice and Fairness], this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by [K.C. Johnson]." (with apologies to Clarence Thomas).

Note: I'm probably giving Crowther too much credit, as he most likely used "virtual" in the non-technological sense.

2. "Unprecedented martyrdom" is probably best left to Jesus and maybe Joan of Arc, methinks.

3. "Any hope of future happiness" is hyperbole as well. As long as Nifong can afford basic cable and a cheap pursuit such as horseshoes, he will have some measure of satisfaction in later years.

______________

In the Bizarro World, Hal Crowther plays the role of K.C. Johnson. Marvel Comics, Issue #1 (1943). MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

IMO, Coach K making general comments about due process, patience, and our hopes for justice based on facts would have been a welcome contrast to the potbangers and castrate crowd. He would have risked the media and racist profs labeling him as a jock supporter. I guess he weighed the all risks and made a decision (including recent comments) with which I disagree. Sounds like you agree with his actions - no probelm. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.

Anonymous said...

Yes, generally speaking, I do not view cliche statements by a basketball coach to be a solid addition to the public discourse... particularly when the justice system handled and is handling the misdeeds of Mr. Nifong quite appropriately.

Anonymous said...

www.metronc.com/charmingself
for the "Shame on Duke" piece by Bernie Reeves. I don't so links, so someone help me out here.

Anonymous said...

Between May and December of last year when everybody without an agenda knew these boys were being railroaded , the Duke administration sat on the sidelines hoping for a hung jury to get out of the conspiracy mess they had fallen into (ie FERPA violations, etc). Coach K could easily have stuck his neck out just a little bit, maybe not as much as the women's LAX coach did, but perhaps a tad and offered his support for due process and to demonstrate his faith in these athletes.

Instead he kept quiet like a little weenie. All that leverage, and he just sits on it! Well..what the heck..maybe some day he'll make the Weenie Hall of Fame! I'd certainly vote for him!

Anonymous said...

Again, why would Coach K -- a man whose opinion on the matter is worth even less than Debrah's -- go and make public statements about a criminal matter involving three glorified club sport athletes?

Anonymous said...

http://www.metronc.com/charmingself/

inman said...

The math of the $6 million per person sounds about right.

$6 million after tax would be about $3.4 million. $3.4 million is the present value of $200,000 a year for 40 years, discounted @ 5% (roughly the long-term applicable Federal rate.)

So, if the damages were calculated based on the assumption that Duke's actions, errors and ommissions ruined three lives and their income potential,...

...well, $200,000 a year for 40 years may be a little low for a Duke graduate and especially a Duke lacrosse player.

(Anecdotaly, I was with the CEO of a company last week who commented on how much he liked to recruit college athletes for his company. Something about self-discipline, goal orientation, team work, etc. --Go figure.)

Anonymous said...

Inman

This CEO must not need geniuses or creative people. Is he looking for investment bankers?

P

Anonymous said...

Inman,
$200,000 a year for 40 years is only the first pond though, right?
There are really big fish in City of Durham and DPD. $6 million may only be the Oysters Rockefeller, so to speak.

Anonymous said...

Is O.J. still looking for the real killers ? or has he given up on finding them?

Anonymous said...

Off topic

Ward Churchill finished!
KC administers coup d' grace

Even though Churchill made the most horrendous comment in the history of the universe about the most horrific event in the history of the universe, I was pulling for Churchill in the Colorado v. Churchill sweepstake. Why? Because I like to see high and mighty world class eminences brought down and shown to the world for the jive punks that they really are. Like hoity-toity Duke and it's world-class group of 88 faculty were shown to be jive punks.

However in today's issue of Minding the Campus an essay by KC Johnson about Churchill uses the following language:
engaged in research misconduct
academic misdeeds
Churchill violated academic standards
Churchill's academic misconduct
a woefully underqualified academic charlatan

KC's credibility rules.

Obviously KC has read the actual evidence against Churchill. You know, the actual words that Churchill wrote or plagerized or invented as opposed to the conclusions of committees which could have easily been a reverse image of what a group of 88 committee would have concluded about the lacrosse players.

Of course Churchill might still get a partial victory in federal or state court. You know how the nasty old ACLU has an aptitude for playing tunes on those buffoon judges.

Anonymous said...

I think they've gotten enough money for their troubles. How much is enough, really? This is ridiculous. They didn't "earn" it, lets be honest.

inman said...

P...

No, because if that were the case, the PV would have at least 1 extra zeros.

"You can measure a man by the number of comma's in his bank balance."

and its corollary

"Morality takes no prisoners."

and 12:43 --

Yep. And instead of ordering wine, they'll be able to order the whole damn vinyard.

inman said...

anon @ 12:52

The amount of money that is enough is zero -- if your name is Genghis Khan.

The amount of money is slightly more than zero if you live in the Amazon rain forest.

If you live in Guatemala (just for example) the amount of money that is enough is slightly more than $5K to $10K per year.

For the average family of 4 in the US, the amount of money that is enough is about $50k per year.

If you want to be in the top 1% or so in the US, the amount of money that is enough is about $200k-$250k per year.

If you want to be a master of the universe, the amount of money that is enough is...well probably a "unit" (I think that came from the Texas oil boom days -- a "unit" was $100,000,000.)

Finally, based on someone's prior posting, if you are interested in having an "anal relationship" with CMG, $100 is enough.

Does that answer your question?

Anonymous said...

I believe I heard on Thursday that at least some of the young mens' families had retained big NY firm for future civil cases. Assuming that to be the case, does anyone think City Durham and DPD will be advised by their attorneys to just pay out the huge bucks and avoid an ugly trial, or do you think the families really want to expose the evil through a very public civil case? Also, if the families file a violation of civil rights case, that by definition is a federal crime, correct? So the feds will be involved even if they have chosen so far not to be, right again?

Anonymous said...

Inman...

No, actually, it dind't answer my RHETORICAL "question"... even had I asked a real question, it was a nonsensical ramble that quite frankly seems to have been written by a mildly retarded person.

Anonymous said...

1:07
Duh

One Spook said...

This is the hyperlink to the Shame on Duke article by Bernie Reeves.

Shame on Duke

It's not a long piece, but it is quite good -- worth the read.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Thanks for doing the link for me :)

Ralph Phelan said...

Churchill's defense is going to be a variant on "selective enforcement," claiming that he never would have been investigated if he hadn't drawn attention to himself with his political comments. While I don't think that's a reason to keep him on the job, I do think it's probably true - could he really have been hired and retained be a serious scholarly department?

It might be fun to start picking Angry Studies professors at random and checking their CVs - especially for plagiarism, which is both damning in academia and relatively easy to prove.

Gary said...

the state legislature unanimously approved a measure to establish uniform procedures for photo ID lineups throughout the state.

This is heartening, not only to the months of innocently accused suffering being worth something, and an answer to why beating this case to death was worth it:

Because of this new due process measure, brought on by the unrelenting focus of bloggers et al on the case, many innocents who formerly would have gone to jail, will remain free. We'll never know their names, but justice will increase.

This alone almost makes the whole effort worthwhile. Kudos to all and especially KC.

Jamie said...

Crowther: "...the infamous off-campus stag party" [emph. added]

Hmmm. Ill-advised, no question -- but this was actually a pretty tame, even boring (and probably depressing) party on its own. Underage drinking, even hiring a stripper...Crowther, you don't want to start damning every college student who's been involved in one of those.

So who/what made this unremarkable thing infamous? The manipulations of Mangum, Nifong, the DPD, the rabid shrieking of the MSM, the unapologetic racism of Durhamites, the craven pandering of figures like Brodhead, and the revolting, fascistic rush to judgment of the 88.

Okay, but all of those infamous groups have been shown to be wrong, so why is this non-event, where "nothing happened", still infamous? Blame that one on the near-universal human inability to admit error. Guys like you just can't seem to learn that clinging to this as your pet example makes you seem like a complete fool: but take heart, Crowther, there's clearly no shortage of fools to keep you company.

Anonymous said...

ralph phelan...

...interesting thought, especially given the search capabilities of modern computers. One could key on particular phrases, and when a match is found, one could then analyze context for evidence of plagarism.

Is that what you had in mind?

Anonymous said...

12:11 wonders ..why would Coach K ..make public statements about a criminal matter involving three glorified club sport athletes?

For one thing, because it could very well effect his recruiting ability. Youve been here before and youre not the brightest crayon in the box, but a University that has lost its appeal to many of its alumni and a good crossection of its former student base just might be sending a signal to its athletic recruitment class that this is not the best place to be an athlete.

Oh, and it also would be the right thing to do, crackerhead.

Anonymous said...

There were two researchers at NIH who developed a computer program to look for plagiarism in medical journal articles and NIH proposals. They began to find lots of it and then they were shut down. One of them was going to go on a hunger strike. Don't know what happened.

Anonymous said...

From a New Jersey lawyer. I read Crowther's article. It's biased, willfully ignorant, and possibly libelous. The Duke 3 are described as "bruisers," suggesting they are violent. There is no evidence of violent activity by Reade Seligmann (e.g., his Duke disciplinary record is clean). I don't recall that David Evans' offenses included violent ones. Apparently, except for the dust-up in Georgetown (during which he apparently did not throw a punch), Collin Finnerty's record is clear of violent activity. So, why are these guys "bruisers"? Also, Crowther seems unable to provide any evidence that the AG's investigation of Duke Lacrosse non-incident was a white (emphasis on "white") wash. His omission in that regard borders on criminal given that he is attacking the integrity of a lot of people. Crowther also seems not to understand the presumption of innocence. The AG need not have declared the Duke 3 innocent for them to have been innocent. As a result of the presumption they (and we) enjoy, the Duke 3 were Innocent unless and until it was proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Crowther seems very worried about the "lynching" of Nifong. On that I can say Nifong looks a lot better than the pictures I have seen of the victims of real lynchings. Perhaps Crowther and the writer who compared Nifong to Jesus can build a shrine to him and worship at it!!!!

Ralph Phelan said...

Re: Crowther.
Dudes, take another look at 10:48 AM.

"If this essay doesn't get you fired-up from whatever side of the blue/red divide you fall on..."

This is not "journalism" with the goal of finding truth. This is "journalism" with the goal of attracting eyeballs to the advertisers by sparking controversy. Much like the cable TV "shouting heads" shows.

This guy's words are unworthy of consideration. When we even mentioning his name to refute him we're playing his game and he's winning. As with a toddler acting out to get attention, the best thing to do is ignore.

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

OK, I'm the guy who started the coach K comments, so I'll interject some more.

Coach K is not just a basketball coach. For the last 20 years, he's practically the face of Duke. Honestly, how many people outside of Duke have heard of Brodhead and Aleva, let along the Group of 88 idiots before this case? But you mention Mike Krzyzewski, and instantly, you identify him with Duke.

He could have been a calming influence from the beginning. He should've gone out and offered some support when the case was unraveling as the economics professors did. And this furthers his own self interest, too: When he goes recruiting, he would be able to tell the parents that if something goes wrong with their kids, he'll defend them until proven otherwise and he wouldn't allow the school to sell them down the river like the lacrosse team.

He has considerable prestige and pull and he didn't choose to use them. That's not leadership. He was waiting to see how the wind blows, like a politician.

SC

Anonymous said...

Anon at 11:47:

Thanks for noting the Metro Magazine article by Bernie Reeves, "Shame on Duke": http://www.metronc.com/charmingself
I hope that the print edition of the Triangle publication is widely distributed on the campus. The article captures succinctly how the race-class-gender professors operate at Duke and on campuses nationwide. Because these professors (and their minions) are so politicized, they have a disproportionate effect on matters of promotions and hirings and course offerings. At Duke their politicization came to a head and erupted, as it did earlier at Harvard when Larry Summers was in the line of fire.

As the article mentions, Duke needs a housecleaning. Administrators like Burness, Brodhead, and Monetta, who give these politcal faculty more latitude than they would give other faculty members or the lacrosse players, need to be replaced by administrators with spines and a sense of justice.

I was doubly outraged by the administration's favored treatment of minority student activist, Chauncey Nartey, which was in stark contrast to the treatment given to the lacrosse players. Not only did the Nartey story reveal administrative favoritism at the student level but it also encapsulated the way the administration has dealt have with the Group of 88. These outspoken faculty, who spend a great deal of time scrutinizing the University, especially its student body, through their race-class-gender lenses, can act egregiously and hatefully and yet are favored and rewarded over others. Paula McClain as speaker at the convocation of Duke's Graduate and Professional School parallels Nartey as speaker at "Duke Conversations." Will Kim Curtis address the incoming freshmen in the fall?

John Burness, have you had that dinner with Karla yet?

I wish that the editor had waited until September to publish the article, giving it greater exposure on campus.

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

3:00
Unfortunately, I doubt Metro Magazine makes it much onto Duke campus, certainly not distributed to students. It is an upscale metro publication featuring restaurants, cultural events, and expensive advertisers such as architects for your Outer Banks property! Its readership is decidedly upscale, so at least Bernie's message is getting to powerful decision-makers in the entire Triangle, maybe some current or future board members, and certainly alums.

haskell said...

Kathleen Parker's Nifong Syndrome explains the buy-in:
"Michael B. Nifong, the North Carolina prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, was able to convince a credulous community of residents, academics and especially journalists that the three falsely accused men had raped a black stripper despite compelling evidence to the contrary.
"Why? Because the lies supported their own truths. In the case of Duke, that "truth" was that privileged white athletes are racist pigs who of course would rape a black woman given half a chance and a bottle o' beer."

The more pathologic True Believer's Syndrome explains the perseveration:
The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder?
--M. Lamar Keene http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html

Anonymous said...

"It was not a date-rape case. There was no "date"."

Isn't that one of the points that the accuser and the defendant disagree on? If the lacrosse case taught us anything, it was "things are not always the way an accuser claims they were, just because he/she claims it."

One Spook said...

Polanski (Beta) writes:

I totally disagree with Reeves's conclusion that the G88 were responsible for the rush to judgment.

You and I--and everyone else that posts here are responsible because we're letting the ENABLERS ENABLE thw G88s of the world.


Well, using that logic, Adam and Eve must be responsible then, but let's not split pubic hairs with semantics.

We enable them, yes, and *WE* should do something about that.

But, in this case, the Klan of 88 wrote the letters that incited the not too bright citizenry of Durham and environs who stand spring-loaded to blame white American males for all of their woes.

I believe that the Klan of 88 is responsible for this rush to judgment.

One Spook

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

To "pampered butt" Polanski:

"Coach K is a fuck'n basketball coach, which places him in the same cognitive category as kindergarten teacher and molasses taster. Should we also blame the chief custodian?"


Yours is an invalid analogy.

Posters have expressed disappointment that, given his bully-pulpit status, he could have been a influence calling for calm heads in the midst of the potbangers. This has more to do with his high-profile and celebrity status than the ancillary fact that he coaches basketball - the custodian has a low profile. In addition, he is a self-described leader (not just basketball).

Also, comparing the cognitive requirements of a high profile college basketball coach with kindergarten teachers/molasses taster is not valid. All are important but require very different cognitive and other skills - in addition to their disparate abilities to get the media's attention for good cause.


Ed

Anonymous said...

Hal Crowther is sick, but his is a sickness of interpretation that too much infects the thinking of the left. His ideas about the South are so narrow minded and bigoted as to make a reader think that his mind has not turned over in a long time. In his references to Duke, Crowther just hasn't gotten his facts straight. One thing that bothers about people like this is their assumption that only certain people can go out into the streets as if certain others are to be intimidated. It doesn't have to be that way at all. No one should be intimidated as all of us should be protected by the law. That this was not the case was one of the horrors of the situation at Duke. It would seem that no one honored the law there not the Duke administration, the Duke Group88, the Durham Police Department, the pot-bangers, and especially the mainstream media and commentators like Crowther who would write to prove the spirit of ignorance and Jayson Blair are still alive and well.

Anonymous said...

To nitwit vulgarian Polanski..

To compare the ridiculously famous successful Division I basketball Coach K to a "mollasses taster" just shows your willful ignorance/ arrogance. Duke arguably would be stuck in Furman University class if not for Coach K, a fabulously famous and successful "ambassador" with a lot of pull and influence. The fact that he sat on his ass while the sports program at Duke was dragged through the mud (and damaging lacrosse damages basketball, for sure) just shows you that fecklessness is a contagious disease.

Anonymous said...

To One Spook @ 3:32: "... who stand spring-loaded to blame white American males for all of their woes." Sweet!
________________

I read the Bernie Reeves article "Shame on Duke," and it is very good. It also drips with evidence of "The Billy Mumy Postulate" of "Pathos Theory."

There is such a large "Number" of PC-ers at Duke who have so much power, and that "Power" is not subject to any normal, rational defense or "Likelihood" of suppression, that it creates widespread fear on campus.

(N x P) - L = F/Amount of Fear

At least one commentator above noted that Coach K was likely fearful of the prevailing political winds. There is no doubt in my mind that the most hated man in Duke among the Angry Studies crowd is the white male basketball coach earning more than 10 times the salary as the average angry professor. (1.5 mil. in 2005)

Reeves, in his article, speculates that Brodhead fears the PC crowd at Duke (or that he fits right in with them). Reeves also describes a spooky and pervasive aura of political correctness around Duke that preceded the Hoax and enabled it.

_________________

If I were a Duke undergraduate, I would get a bunch of my friends to join me in signing up for Gang of 88 classes. I would spend the first week of those classes openly disparaging the professors' lame arguments in front of the other students. Then, I would spend the second week dropping those courses. Let 'em feel some political and economic pressure.

__________________

To Polanski: The fly in your ointment, is, and this is just one example, Condoleezza Rice. She is not only brilliant, accomplished and motivated, but she's oozes smart-chick hotness. Bush is a nit-wit at best, but he "chose wisely" in her case.

___________________

K.C. Johnson was forged out of a super-strong alloy to be virtually indestructable while still maintaining his incredible sharpness and suppleness. From - 3:00 a.m. Infomercial. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

What will we do without KC?

Locomotive Breath said...

If I were creating a ranking service, I'd poll businesses who employ recent grads from all the ranked schools. Assure respondents that all names would be kept confidential.

The WSJ did that by asking employers about B schools rather than asking B schools about each other. Let's just say that the two lists were not identical.

Anonymous said...

TO Gregory--

Pray tell....what is the Billy Mumy Postulate?

Debrah

Ralph Phelan said...

re: college rankings - Cut the subjective stuff. I'd like to see median starting salaries and median ten-years out salaries of their graduates by major.

re: Secretary/Dr./Professor Rice - MILF alert! MILF Alert! WOOHOO!!! I especially liked the time she had those boots....

Anonymous said...

When I moved here 10 years ago from Pittsburgh, I quickly fell upon (not literally) Bernie's column in Metro and recognized him as a very un-PC guy, unafraid to poke fun at the pretensions of the locals (of which I gather he is one) and pretty outspoken about wrongs and stupidities. Anyone from around here know much about him? Is he pretty respected in the Triangle? Seems very literate and entertaining to me.

One Spook said...

1 Polanski opined:

"I'll meet you halfway--the G88 are responsible today, but having been warned, its alumni will be responsible tomorrow.

Duke alumni have to learn to say no to its protected mediocrities."


I'll go with that ... in fact, I couldn't agree more.

One Spook

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

Forgive me, but at this point in the lacrosse disaster, I have to ask Professor Johnson: "What's the point?" Nifong has been hung out to dry, exposed and punished, with more to come. The Duke administration has also been exposed, vilified, and rightly so. The Gang of 88, a collection of disgruntled, racist homophiliac faculty members is getting dissected, almost one by one. The Durham police, the media - it keeps on going. No one is apologizing; no one is going to apologize except Nifong, about whom no one cares. Not the faculty, or the administration, not the so called journalists, sports or otherwise. Duke University is going about it’s business to the dismay of the posters here, who find it incredulous that mac, Polansky, Deborah and the other acolytes are being ignored. How can it be that the Board has not appointed them to a committee to fix Duke?! It seems to me that KC Johnson’s blog is playing this out like the final scenes in the Godfather, where Michael Corleone asserts his omnipotence by violently blowing away all those he considers to be the bad people in his life. I guess he wants to go out guns blazing, but I also think that KC knows the piranhas on this board will gobble up anything he tosses into the water

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 4:43 said
...If I were a Duke undergraduate, I would get a bunch of my friends to join me in signing up for Gang of 88 classes. I would spend the first week of those classes openly disparaging the professors' lame arguments in front of the other students. Then, I would spend the second week dropping those courses. Let 'em feel some political and economic pressure.
::
Really!

Have you forgotten that throughout the semester you will be communicating with the resident hall cleaning people; the cafeteria staff; the book store employees; the clerks in the registration offices and the campus parking ticket writers? The little people some might say.

The G88 snuggle up REAL close to those LITTLE people with the help of the Office of Student Affairs staff....because don't you know ....the little folks need protection from white privileged brats...who think they can bring down political and economic heat.

You mean someone would look in Reade's and Collin's waste basket? You don't think so?

You as students are going to make fools out of the G88?

I don't think so and if you do then please, you need to return to your veranda - your efforts have given you the vapors. Please fan yourself, or have others do that for you, and do not return until you are sentient. No, really...
::
GP

inman said...

Gregory:

So that lesser beings would fear no longer, KC Johnson offered himself as the only clinical test case and for the first-in-man study of the now readily available antidote to kryptonite. Superman (volume 1) #61 (November / December 1949).

inman said...

ralph @ 5:10

Condaleeza Rice is not a mom.

But those boots and the black leather coat were truly awesome. She looked ready for the Matrix.

I wonder if she owns a whip?

Gary Packwood said...

Bob H. 5:51 said...

...Forgive me, but at this point in the lacrosse disaster, I have to ask Professor Johnson: "What's the point?"
::
So the kids won't be hurt again.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

A luscious Diva truffle for the Wonderland crew:

Opera_di_Nifong

Debrah

Bob H. said...

GP@6:01

I do not readily appreciate how this scorch the earth approach by KC Johnson is going to keep the kids from being hurt again. The Gang of 88 is unrepentant, on the record that no apology will be forthcoming; the Administration is not on the record about anything, about any part that Brodhead or his senior officials played in creating an atmosphere of intimidation, of failing to show support, of speaking out in defense of their own students in a time of crisis. Professor Johnson has certainly done an admirable job in highlighting their thin academic credentials, their obsession with seeing the world through the eyes of a homosexual, or a black person, or a black female lesbian, for that matter. Duke continues to rub everyone’s nose in it (at least everyone on this board, the rest of the world does not follow things quite so closely) by its awards and appointments. Durham’s new police chief is a big unknown, but given the make up of the Council and the community pressure and demands, things are not likely to change in that regard, either. So, it was a job well done, KC, but the success in vindicating the lacrosse players is probably a one off experience.

Anonymous said...

To Debrah @ 5:03: The "Billy Mumy Postulate" is derived from the classic episode of The Twilight Zone TV series in which normally cute child actor Billy Mumy read people's thoughts, and when they thought about him disparagingly, he killed them. In other words, there was an atmosphere of fear based upon one's expression of thought, much like in present-day non-fictional Durham.

The amount of fear is based on the NUMBER of people with the POWER to inflict damage, minus the LIKELIHOOD that someone or somebody would intercede to stop the PC facism. In the Twilight Zone episode, Billy Mumy was all-powerful and there was little likelihood he could be stopped. Therefore, the town lived in great fear.

The same has happened to Durham and Duke, except all that power has been spread around in a number of angry professors and professional protestors. The likelihood that they will be thwarted is also small, as they will call any potential thwarter a "Racist." The equation looks like this:

(N x P) - L = F/Amount of Fear

_________________

To One Spook @ 5:17: This case "put me on notice" as far as newspapers, PC academics and the whole anti-white thingy. I thought everyone just saw us as a bunch of Homer Simpsons. Fool me once, etc...
__________________

To Polanski and Ralph: I like the "Jackie O" descriptor. I had never thought about it like that, but that's it.

Ms. Rice was also the Soviet and Eastern European Affairs Advisor during the breakup of the Soviet Union and during German reunification. Last I heard, unless they are sneaking back together at night, the Soviet Union is still fragmented and Germany goes by one name and not the old "North Germany" and "South Germany."

Plus, she's hot. Brost!
_______________

When K.C. first discovered his calling the cavemen said things like, "What the internet?" (back then, cavemen verb problems). From - European Cave Drawing. MOO! Gregory

haskell said...

bob h. 5:51

I believe your point is very well taken. KC mentioned that he is winding down the blog, as he should. I do feel it is useful to continue to wrap up the loose ends and I for one would like to get a feel for what happens at Duke during the coming Fall semester. You can bet your last dollar that the spin by Burness and colleagues is not going to be reliable. If Duke were straight up, this blog could end tomorrow. I just don't believe that those folks are trustworthy. What a sad note to end on.

Anonymous said...

TO Gregory (6:23PM)--

How clever! You are a treasure trove of pop culture info--old and new.

The fact that you weave it all into Wonderland analogies is simply orgasmic!

Debrah

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

haskell said 6:25: What a sad note to end on."

Don't pack up so soon. The story is not over, it's just less dramatic and behind the scenes. We need to look at the administation and faculty over several years. What changes will have been made? Who's still there and who's not? How are the Angry Studies faring?

K.C.'s examination of individual 88'ers will serve as a usual measuring device.

The suspense remains. Will Paula McClain rise to Provost (a la Conde Rice)? Will Kim Curtis and hubby find a twofer appointment elsewhere? Will any other university hire Wahneeba, or will she be awarded a full professorship at Duke, whose press will publish her forthcoming book? Will a new Terry Sanford replace the anemic Brodhead? Will Bob Steele continue to lead the BOTS? Will the rot spread or be contained? Will the new African African-American Studies be well funded or on an economic lease. Will it hire jokes like Grant Farred or real scholars who study the complex African continent? Will Womyn's Studies demand departmental status? Will the rot that rose so visibly to the surface in the aftermath of the false accusation spread or be contained?

The epic will go on, mostly outside the press, and it will be fascinating, but who can replace KC as our investigator and chronicler once he moves on?

Anonymous said...

TO Roman--

Jared_Taylor

Debrah

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

thanks, Debrah

mac said...

5:51
Bob H,

The gang of 88 may be unrepentant,
but they are surely smarting
from being exposed.

And the book isn't out yet:
you think the story is over?

Students will likely give them
(the 88) some ground, but will be far
quicker to challenge 'em when
they're back to their usual bullying (see Kim Curtis: grade retaliation, eh?)

Impunity went out the window when Duke settled.

Maybe you don't think KC has had
an impact upon the administration,
upon its willingness to settle?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!


As for me: I expect to be ignored;
I suspect that I usually am,
long-winded as my posts are
(most of the time):
why would I expect anyone at Duke
to pay attention to my not-so-subtle satire?

However, there are the brilliant
examples of satire, best expressed
by MOO Gregory (today's are great BTW!)

Maybe, just maybe, because extreme lefties can't abide
in humor at their expense,
and that they have no perceivable
sense of humor - (much less honor.)

Why trolls come to DIW and
call us - (Debrah, Polansky, MOO Gregory, Inman and others) -
silly names?

Nope. I don't think we're so very important. On the other hand,
you've taken the trouble to NOT ignore us. Thanks! It's a compliment.

And I do believe that KC has enjoyed our company, even if you haven't.

Gary Packwood said...

Bob H. 6:21 said...

GP@6:01

...I do not readily appreciate how this scorch the earth approach by KC Johnson is going to keep the kids from being hurt again. The Gang of 88 is unrepentant, on the record that no apology will be forthcoming; the Administration is not on the record about anything, about any part that Brodhead or his senior officials played in creating an atmosphere of intimidation, of failing to show support, of speaking out in defense of their own students in a time of crisis.
::
You most certainly could be right but I am sticking around just so that the G88 will know that we are watching and that is not OK to introduce the concept of 'Throw Away People' into the academy.

I do admit however that your observations about Broadhead and his senior officials is nearly a perfect summary of the truth which leaves me less than enthusiast about the future for kids on Duke's campus.

::
GP

inman said...

Debrah,

I think I love you.

You could melt the North pole.

Too Hot...

...the sun basks in your glow and relies upon you for its tan.

Kiss.

Anonymous said...

12:52 --

"I think they've gotten enough money for their troubles. How much is enough, really? This is ridiculous. They didn't "earn" it, lets be honest."

How much money do you think they've gotten? Today is the first time I've read anyone claiming they know what the figure is. Bernie Reeves' claim that the settlement was $18 million might be right, or it might be wrong; the details of the settlement are not public knowledge so I wouldn't put too much trust in the figure.

As for whether they "earned" it, let me pose a question: let us say that you worked for yourself for a year as a self-employed entrepeneur and at the end of the year, after taxes and expenses, you made $40,000. Now, let's say that Hal Crowther breaks into your home one night, threatens you with a weapon to get your bank card and your PIN, and while you're recovering from the blow on the head he gave you, he's taken the card and PIN to an ATM and cleaned the $40,000 out of your accounts. (This is purely hypothetical, of course; I'm not suggesting that Hal Crowther is the kind of dubious bruiser who would do such a thing. He's merely a defaming blowhard who can't get his facts straight even when it's as simple as reading press releases.)

So, tell me. You earned $40,000. Hal Crowther stole $40,000 from you. Obviously, you'd like it if the police caught him and made him give you $40,000 -- after all, he owes you $40,000. But if we're to be totally consistent with your principles, you didn't earn that $40,000. Oh, sure, you earned a different $40,000, but Hal Crowther spent that $40K already. So what did you do to earn that second $40,000? If we go by your standards, merely being victimized by someone else's grossly unjust and even illegal behavior doesn't mean you've "earned" any sort of compensation.

Oh, what's that? You think things are different? What's different, the fact that it's you, or the fact that it's easier to fix a price tag on just how badly you were victimized by someone else's behavior? Let's give you the benefit of the doubt, that you didn't consider the players to have earned any compensation for their mistreatment because you didn't have any immediately obvious monetary figures to suggest how much compensation it would be. Well, I believe it is public knowledge that each of the players' families had to spend over a million dollars in legal fees. Why are you so confident that a settlement in the millions of dollars would be too high? We don't have, and probably never will have, the full and complete story on everything Duke did to perpetuate the hoax and put their own students in jeopardy, but there's considerable reason to believe it included illegal activity -- most notably, the turnover of key-card data in violation of Federal privacy protections. As well, I'd be surprised if there was no legal violation involved in the administrators advising the players not to tell their parents about their legal jeopardy, or in citing a completely imaginary "student-faculty privilege" to try and get damaging admissions. I am not a lawyer but I strongly suspect that in either or both of these actions, Duke administrators may have committed the unauthorized practice of law. Furthermore, it's pretty obvious that in doing so, they pretended to be looking after the students' legal interests while actually putting them in very serious legal jeopardy. If you don't think that Duke's actions victimized the lacrosse players to the tune of several million dollars, it may be only because you don't know all that Duke does about what victimization they committed.

Anonymous said...

Duke University settled because of the key-card violation. Steele is probably still saying "WTF."

Anonymous said...

Well put, mac! Inman, Polanski, Debrah and you are often attacked. You guys are the old guard, and the trolls really target the old guard - to your credit.

I noticed that about their senses of humor/honor, too! LOL!
_____________

To GP @ 5:57, I'm not suggesting that these 18, 19 and twenty-somethings take up an M-16 and fight in Iraq, I'm suggesting they could audit a course, ask some pointed questions, and then drop the class.

When I went to my undergraduate Constitutional Law final exam, I wore a t-shirt on which I had printed in 5-inch letters, "F$#k the Draft." There was no draft at the time; it was a parody of my liberal instructor.

The pony-tailed professor told me later that he gave me an extra half-letter grade for the creative use of the knowledge I had gained in his class, but he took the extra half-letter grade back when he noticed that, snuck in a paragraph in the middle of the second-to-last page of my third bluebook, I had written the question: "You don't really read all this crap, do you?"

I know that that is not a shining example of bravery, but, really, it isn't like the Duke students would be defending Hogwarts from Lord Voldemort, is it? Is the danger to Duke students already as bad as you suggest?
______________

I just read K.C.'s Ho blog above, and I'm so pissed. It is as if Professor Ho crafted that article with the specfic intent to piss Professor K.C. Johnson off!
______________

Every 4 years, they let K.C. Johnson compete in a "shadow" Olympic games as it would be unfair to allow him to compete against the non-bionic athletes. "The Olympic Tradition," by Howard Cosell. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Duke settled because they did not want the real lives of people they hire like those who are a part of the Gang 88 to be exposed to the public.
Can you imagine if everyone as well as Duke alumni had people like Mark Anthony Neal, Wahneema Lubiano, and all the other hires who have no business teaching there spotlighted. We'd all get a good look at exactly what they teach and how the administration has yielded to their coarseness and their lack of scholarship.
The alumni could just see the value of their Duke degree going right down the toilet. There are many many reasons Duke settled. None had anything to do with making things right with the lacrosse players. Brodhead and company needed to keep a lid on what goes on and what went on last year, away from public view.

Anonymous said...

9:32 PM said: "Duke settled because they did not want the real lives of people they hire like those who are a part of the Gang 88 to be exposed to the public."
Can you imagine if everyone as well as Duke alumni had people like Mark Anthony Neal, Wahneema Lubiano, and all the other hires who have no business teaching there spotlighted. We'd all get a good look at exactly what they teach and how the administration has yielded to their coarseness and their lack of scholarship."

Do you think that Duke can settle with KC before the publication date of his book?

Anonymous said...

No, KC's too hot to settle.

He's a babe-magnet about now. And once you've become a babe-magnet, the sky's the limit.

No settlin'.