Kathryn Jean is the first witness after lunch.
Appearing under subpoena with the State Bar file dealing with Nifong grievance.
Begins by discussing her grievance notice to Nifong re DNA—December 19, 2006 letter of notice and substance of grievance; and Nifong’s wild Dec. 28, 2006 response. A long pause ensues while Nifong attorney Jim Glover reads (for the first time?) the Dec. 28 letter.
Nifong response, as read by Kathryn Jean: in that, Nifong conceded that Meehan had told him about the unidentified male DNA. Also reads from Nifong response to the Bar: Smith’s “failure” to sanction him showed that Smith believed he had not behaved unethically.
[Nifong is, in effect, being hoisted by his own words, ad his varying stories in his responses to the Bar.]
In his Jan. 16 response to the Bar, Nifong conceded that Meehan had told him about the multiple unidentified male DNA.
Glover has no x-examination of Jean.
--
State rests without calling Meehan.
Glover:
Statements weren’t literally true, but weren’t intentionally false. Nifong turned over all the relevant evidence—just didn’t turn over the additional evidence. But this wasn’t all that relevant, since defense attorneys already knew no matches existed.
[What does any of this have to do with what Nifong said on Sept. 22 to the court?]
Glover: Nifong’s statement to court result of unintentional negligence. ‘The evidence turned over had already establish conflicts with the victim’s story about how this sexual assault occurred.”
Smith: motion to dismiss denied.
--
Meehan called by defense, and Mr. Obfuscation takes the stand, wearing his “DNA Security” shirt. Glover wants to be able to treat Meehan as a hostile witness, subject to rules of x-exam. Smith denies the request.
Meehan gives bgrd educationally and work; allowed to testify as expert witness in forensic DNA testing.
Meehan: “I get pretty nervous. Can I get a drink of water?”
Glover: wants to talk about Meehan’s terms.: Were you contacted by an investigator with the DPD named “Soushie”? [Actually, her name was Soucie.]
Glover: contention is that the only reason Nifong went to Meehan was that the SBI had found some evidence on fingernail, but couldn’t take it further, and therefore needed more sensitive tests.
Glover: Is it the practice to keep notes? Meehan: No.
Glover: key issue was when DSI got the fingernail evidence, and DSI didn’t get the fingernail evidence right away.
--
April 10 meeting. Glover goal now seems to be to expose Meehan’s obfuscationist tendencies, to show that there’s no way Nifong could ever have understood what the lab director was saying. Meehan is using his customary bizarre analogies, comparing DNA work to putting a piece of paper in a copier machine and getting 500 copies. He doesn’t say why this comparison is relevant.
Smith: “speed it up.”
Meehan: “I’m not sure where your question is going.”
Glover AGAIN focuses in on the fingernail—suggesting AGAIN that the only purpose of Meehan’s testing was for the fingernail, despite the fact that Meehan tested on everything.
Meehan continuing with technicalities of DNA testing—again part of Glover’s “bore-the-court” strategy.
Now compares YSTR testing to surnames in the phonebook.
Meehan: If I have a Y chromosome profile, how likely is it that Mr. Bannon has that profile?”
Glover “Let me back up.” Glover is now moving through a borderline incomprehensible line of questioning. He appears to be confusing Meehan, who in turn is confusing him.
Meehan rebukes Glover’s question—not a correct premise on use of DNA.
“takes a long time, takes a lot of training” to understand the DNA process; DNA profiling can’t be done off the cuff, “and we don’t allow it to be done off the cuff.”
Meehan is continuing to ramble on about specific DNA protocols that have nothing specifically to do with the case.
Glover: “Please correct me if I’m wrong, because I’ll make all sorts of mistakes.”
Finally, after around 40 minutes, gets around to specifics of the case.
Meehan: Evans DNA was the “big match that we found”
Meehan states that his lab continues to do sexual assault cases(!)
Meehan: “If you don’t mind, I want to rephrase your question a little bit.”
Glover: “let me take you back to the facts of this case.” (at 4.15pm, when he took the stand at 3.20pm)
Glover is now speaking in even more of a monotone, as he and Meehan inch through the specifics of what DSI received.
Glover: “evidence on a fingernail . . . is how all this got started.” [an extraordinary misreading of this case in general and the role of DNA in this case specifically]
Has phone call with Nifong re unidentified male DNA—Nifong says “not easy to understand,” and they set up the first meeting.
Meehan: “That’s a great question” (re partial profiles and whether they matched any of the lacrosse players)
April 12—receive add’l information—public hair combing, fingernails
Now showing Meehan SBI report
Glover: “extracted DNA is ultimately what you profiled” in testing.
Also—suggests that Meehan was constantly getting new info to test; Nifong’s response therefore appropriate
April 21—focus of meeting was possible match to Dave Evans’ fingernail.
Meehan supplementary report—28 March 2007
While Glover constantly uses the name of the falsely accused—Dave Evans—he never uses the name of the false accuser—Crystal Mangum. She’s generally described as the “alleged victim.”
Glover is now referring to a Defendants’ Exhibit 2—which doesn’t exist.
Glover is now asking Meehan to speculate on what could have been discussed at April 21 meeting.
At each meeting, “we discussed what we had data on prior to that meeting”—recapped previous meetings, and then talked about new items.
Glover: in first two meetings, was there discussion of a report? Meehan: discussion about a report early on, perhaps even in phone calls. “we both agreed that that was a concern” (the privacy issue)
April 21st—discussion of report in greater detail: “gist of the conversation was that Nifong wasn’t prepared a conclusive report on the case, but he did have a need” for report
Nifong said he didn’t need it right away, but that he would call before he needed report. His understanding was that it was one of a series of reports that would occur before trial.
Meehan: Most labs don’t report DNA profiles; his does, and he’s always done so.
Smith lectures Meehan: “When you hear an objection, stop talking.”
Meehan on why May 12 report was prepared: “I don’t know why I know it now, but I know it.”
Nifong “agreed” with his concerns—“he didn’t object to it.”
No agreement to withhold exculpatory evidence.
[But, of course, the decision to withhold on privacy grounds, in the context of this case, led to the withholding of exculpatory evidence.]
“It was my opinion that he was concerned with the same thing that all of our clients are concerned with—whether or not those evidence items matched any suspects.”
[Again, Glover doesn’t seem to be dealing with the events of the Sept. 22 hearing at all.]
Meehan: “interim report”—usually conveyed verbally. “For whatever reason—it was unusual—Mr. Nifong needed the report in writing. He was my client.”
“I don’t think that the term ‘interim report’ ever came up.”
[Glover’s apparent strategy: suggesting that because Meehan is so boring, there’s no way Nifong could have remained awake during their meetings, explaining why Nifong couldn’t recall the conversations.]
97 comments:
We are witnessing the birth of a legal superstar in Brad Bannon.
Meehan is one awkward piece of work!
What a rambler he would be, maybe some gypsy blood causing all that rambling!
Nifong is paying for this defense?
1) I did it, but you can't prove I intentionally did it.
2) I never read reports but wait for a trial
3) That damn puppy!
This was the District Attorney of Durham County???
Er, I just woke up after falling asleep during Meehab's testimony.
What did I miss?
For the contempt charge, it does not matter if Nifong told Meehan to leave the evidence out or not, only that Nifong knew about the evidence.
I would put it a little differently, because I think it goes to the heart of what Nifong is trying to argue:
For the contempt charge, it does not matter Meehan intended to tell Nifong about the evidence, only that Nifong in fact knew about the evidence at the end of the conversation. (Or, more precisely, on Sep 22.)
Every day in schools all over the world, teachers tell their students things. Then they give their students tests, and it is obvious that the students don't actually know the things that they were told. We certainly don't think that whenever a student gets less than 100% on a test that the student is lying about his/her ignorance, right?
The standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Having watched Meehan communicate, can you really believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it is impossible for Nifong to have simply misunderstood Meehan?
lol 6:07, I did too. Unfortunately I DVR'd it and went back to watch. Don't bother, KC summary says all you really need to know -- besides it would probably put you to sleep again :o)
What's the time line for this hearing? Is it expected to go beyond Friday?
I was shaving my legs when Meehan was on the stand, and when I heard him whine about getting nervous I laughed so hard that I sliced the side of my ankle.
LOL!!!
That guy is so goofy; I wouldn't trust him with a fecal slide.
JLS says....,
I guess Nifong really believes no publicity is bad publicity? Why he did not just plead no contest, claim it was unintentional and throw himself on the mercy of the court, I will never know. He certainly does not benefit by the rehashing this case yet again.
Cathyf,
Meehan is being prompted by the questions to be incoherent on direct examination. The questions will be much more clear under cross examination. - "Here is the transcript; did you or did you not say under oath that you told Mr. Nifong about the DNA from unidentified males?"
It is beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone at that meeting didn't know that Evan's DNA was on the fingernail, and 4-5 unidentified males' DNA was in the rape kit.
Nifong's defense that he is too stupid to even tie his own shoes let alone do anything even remotely like doing his job is really, really doing damage to our criminal justice system.
Mike S
It's a shame the court doesn't have access to one of these...a no lie MRI.
Nifong would make an excellent beta candidate, would he not?
Maybe CGM could sign a deal to become their spokesprostitute.
No Lie MRI
I believe amac made a very important comment on the previous thread and, in case it might be overlooked by people moving on to this comment thread, here it is again. Please forgive me if this is a repeat for some of you:
AMac @ 6:05PM writes:
Steven Horwitz --
On prior threads, I've appreciated your insights on faculty governance and on the realities of academic politics. Posting under your own name makes your reflections more valuable.
You're one of a small number of academics that has publicly disapproved of the actions Group of 88. That the specifics of your opinion are not the same as 'most' DiW commenters is neither here nor there. More importantly, you've contributed to the dialog.
Intellectual diversity is to be preferred over groupthink.
> Getting the lesson away from the "personal" toward the "structural" is a really important piece of the story here.
Yep."
Indeed. But what I am troubled with by Horwitz's commentary, is, while he does disapprove of the Group 88 actions, I believe the good professor understates the damage that the Group of 88's actions caused and can cause.
Secondly, I believe that Horwitz, like SEK who has posted here, is far too quick to give these folks a "pass" simply because they are fellow academics.
This is not a "personal" thing ... it is indeed "structural."
While any reasonable person can agree that a professor does not have the power over private citizens that a DA might have, members of the academy are granted an immense amount of power and prestige by virtue of their postion in society. They are further shielded by "academic freedom," "tenure," and the protection of an institution, many of which are very wealthy and powerful in their own right, like Duke.
If a private individual had made public comments such as many of the 88 did, ie. Houston's Baker's outrageous and slanderous statements, that individual would have probably lost a career and been sued by the LAX families for all they were worth, without the protection of a Duke University to "settle" for them.
With all of these "shields" enjoyed by members of the academy, comes a higher level of responsibility and a far, far greater need for the academy to police its own ... and that includes examining the shoddy scholarship and ideological obsessions that lead these miscreants to inculcate students and indeed to lead them into activism that clearly violates the rules of the institutions they represent and the spirit of the academy.
More members of the academy (besides KC Johnson) need to take a close look at what some professors are doing and examine their behavior.
It galls me to no end, as we saw in a comment a few days ago from a Duke alumni rep who reminded an alum who complained about the Group of 88 that "they have a right to speak."
NO ONE and no commenter here I have ever seen has questioned that right! Such a reply is tantamount to someone saying of the Va Tech shooter, "Well, you know, he had a Second Amendment right to bear arms."
Please.
More of you in the academy need to question what some of your peers are doing, and police your own before your worst dreams of a "Horowitzian" world come true.
One Spook
It gets better the No Lie MRI company IS seeking test sites.
To Become a No Lie MRI Testing Center
TO 6:57PM--
Most troubling is that the poor guy fabricates and flames...then doesn't have the balls to apologize or even take responsibility for his gross behavior.
He's so envious of KC that it oozes.
KC is even more appealing because of how gracious he is always.
Pardon me.
My previuous post should have been addressed to 6:50PM.
What's most distressing to me is that Nifong might get off the hook exactly the same way Precious did--by being so incompetent or stupid or emotionally distraught or mentally ill (take your pick) to not know his/her stories were complete lies.
It worked for her and he's obviously trying the same strategy.
Thanks amac, and thanks One Spook for bringing it over.
It is probably the case that here on DIW I've portrayed myself as more sympathetic to the G88 than I "really" am because so many here have taken positions that I find to be extreme and/or ignorant. Not surprisingly, that pushes me farther to the other side as a way to try to get some balance. And I think there's been times I've probably gone too far.
I think One Spook and others over-estimate the damage that faculty can cause - and I doubt any would have been called as witnesses (if you think Meehan was boring on the stand, try listening your average faculty member for an hour or two ;) ).
But there is no doubt that there are problems in academia today, and that they are structural. I've thrown out some ideas about how to fix them here but what worries me the most is turning the universities over to the political process. (I'm against nationalizing any industry. :) )
I would further point out that, as a libertarian, these dilemmas are inherent in public education: folks who live off of tax dollars should not be surprised when the taxpayers come calling with a desire to make sure their funds are used "appropriately."
I will defend academic freedom a long way and think more political control over higher ed is an awful thing, but I'd say of anyone who is surprised by taxpayer outrage at higher ed that he or she is pretty naive.
It's worth asking whether a more privatized (note: these could still be non-profits) higher ed system would have fewer of the problems that folks around here are so upset about.
What I can also say is that in the almost 20 years I've been at my institution, with many colleagues who broadly share the intellectual and political views of the G88, I've never seen those colleagues treat their students the way the G88 did, and I can also say that they are generally committed to a classroom of tolerance and focused on our students' critical thinking, reading, and communication skills.
When folks here start extrapolating from the G88 to academia in general, I feel compelled to stick up for my friends and colleagues who I know do not fit the description that is so common here.
Sounds to me like a case of "birds of a feather flock together" in that Nifong has managed to seek representation from someone who is incompetent as he is and is equally ill prepared. Of course knowing that he is guilty, this may be his ultimate strategy, "Your honor, I had incompetent counsel."
And who says God doesn't have a sense of humor or justice.
One Spook @ 6:50 - Nice Post!
I have noticed what appears to me to be a linkage between a blogger's profession and the #1 villian in the Hoax that person ridicules.
For example, for nurses, nobody angry's up the blood more than Levicy.
For K.C., it seems that he has shown a special kind of affection for the professors and school administrators.
For the journalists, it is Stevenson or Ashley or Duff or (on and on).
For me, it is Nifong because we are both lawyers. [Correction - one of us is still a lawyer ;) ]
I have not noticed the same correlation with professors. I know there are professors on this board who come down hard on the Gang of 88, but there seems to be a lot out there that just want to give the Gang of 88 a pass.
I also would need to figure out how much this phenomenon relates to the fact that, for example, when the topic of nursing comes up, the nurses are the ones who speak out most (and have the greater knowledge of the profession and presumably the greater knowledge about standards and deviations from standards).
_____________
Bold prediction: K.C.'s book will be most intriguing in how it details the "timing" of certain events. This is pure happy, fun speculation.
______________
Bold prediction 2: Nifong goes down! This is based on watching the hearing and the performance of Nifong's lawyer.
______________
"When K.C. asks Brian Meehan a question, the response is always 'yes, sir'" STRANGE BUT TRUE COMICS #3. MOO! Gregory
I guess I'll add one more thing, especially for those who think I've given the G88 "a pass."
I have consistently from the start criticized both their rush to judgment in the form of the Listening Statement and the disingenuous "Clarifying" Statement and their consequent refusal to admit their error and apologize for their role in the attempted railroading of three innocent men.
That is not "a pass."
Where I have "defended" them is in saying that I do not believe that their actions above *ipso facto* make them monsters in the way that many around here have chosen to characterize them. Some might be, some not. I'm also willing to defend more of their scholarship as legit than many of you are. Finally, I'm NOT willing to say that the G88 are somehow representative of faculty "as a whole." The differences among types of higher ed institutions are part of that story, and one that many here are simply ignorant of. I see enough variety in colleagues at my own school and others to know the story is more complex than is often portray by critics here.
Whatever one thinks of my views, I really do hope I'm not lumped in with those who have given the G88 "a pass." The textual record is clearly to the contrary.
Thanks, MOO Gregory!
:>)
jjj
did anyone go to the back-to-school dog fight hosted by wahneema lubiano and karla holloway? i heard it contributed greatly to the diversity of duke's culture, and was quite entertaining.
windbag
JLS says...,
Sorry steven horwitz, but from this tenured prof's point of view, the danger is that American universities are already going the political ways of the highly politicized universities in some other countries.
I have not seen your solutions, but I do agree I would not give our universities over to the government to micromanage nor would I throw away academic freedom. I would hire presidents and charge them to make sure that hiring and tenure decision work to bring their university and its research more diverse and more like America.
I seriously doubt there is much academic freedom in the angery studies departments at Duke. I doubt very serious if they accidently hired a mainstream scholar who was highly productive, that they would vote to tenure them.
Steven: I had great professors (and teachers in high school). One professor let me work pro bono researching for him for 2 years. Best education I ever received, and I will never forget. I will also never forget catching him double-checking my cites late at night in the library! I was at once frustrated, embarrassed and annoyed. Now, of course, I do the same thing. We will, however, quibble about the merit of most of the Gang's scholarship!
_______________
Debrah: Thanks! P.S. "Shaving legs" -- you fogged up my glasses!
________________
[INSERT WITTY JOHNSONISM - I'M RIGHT OUT] MOO! Gregory
To steven at 7.21
Marvin Olansky makes a good point about the harm that is caused by the extreme left in the academy. He concedes that is really not as big a problem at the undergraduate level. In an article a few months ago he said: …
"Some 31 years ago, as I was writing my doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan, the chairman of my thesis committee, Marvin Felheim, was on a leave of absence.
That meant he did not know how my worldview had changed as, through God's grace, I left Marxism and rethought my theological and political views. So he was shocked when in spring, 1976, after reading my dissertation draft, he saw that I had become conservative.
Felheim hated that change, and he saw it not as a shift but as a loss of brainpower. Before he read the draft, he wrote a recommendation to potential academic employers that began, "Marvin Olasky has made the most distinguished record of any of our graduate students in recent years. He is a phenomenally good student."
I quote that praise because Felheim retracted it after reading my new work. He resigned from my dissertation committee, and sent me one last note: "Oh, well and all along I thought you were one of our most intelligent students." He could not believe that a smart person would abandon the atheistic left.
This all happened only a month before I was scheduled to take my final doctoral examination. Since Felheim was the chairman of the American culture program in which I was scheduled to receive a Ph.D., other professors did not want to antagonize him -- and in any event, they shared his politics. Desperate, I turned to the history department, which partly overlapped American culture, and the one professor (out of 38 or so) known as a conservative, Stephen Tonsor.
Tonsor had multiple reasons to turn down my emergency request that he not only join my dissertation committee, but chair it. My dissertation was on American politics and film from the 1930s through the 1960s; Tonsor's field was European intellectual history. I had taken no classes from him. We had not even met until I came to him with my strange appeal.
And yet, when I showed him Felheim's bitter letters and the controversial chapters of my dissertation, he quickly agreed to assume the chairmanship. He asked good questions about parts of the thesis and then approved the whole. He guided me through the dissertation defense, where prospective Ph.D. recipients have to field critical questions from other professors. He could not have done better by me had I been his student for years, working through the whole process under his guidance.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/05/31/no_student_is_an_island
I am not free to name the person, but that happened to my advisor when she was at Duke. I don't know the year, but she left Duke, and started again at another university. A wasted 3 years.
cp
JLS writes:
I would hire presidents and charge them to make sure that hiring and tenure decision work to bring their university and its research more diverse and more like America.
No argument from me there. Much can happen if you have good leadership. But getting good presidents is not all that easy, and finding ways for them to cajole tenured faculty into play the president's game is even harder.
I seriously doubt there is much academic freedom in the angery studies departments at Duke. I doubt very serious if they accidently hired a mainstream scholar who was highly productive, that they would vote to tenure them.
This question implicit in your answer is the right question to ask in my view. I should also point out that "mainstream" can refer to a candidate's electoral politics, or his/her methodological perspective in the discipline, or the ares of the discipline he/she chooses to study. Frankly, in economics, folks whose methodological leanings aren't those of the "mainstream" have a tougher time finding jobs whether their heterodoxy is left or right in terms of electoral politics.
It's also worth asking whether such a person as you describe would be more or less likely to get tenure at a teaching-oriented school if he or she was an outstanding classroom teacher, as indicated both by classroom materials and student evaluations.
My own view is that it's easier to behave in the ways you describe when research is the overriding concern at tenure time. At more teaching-oriented schools, it's very hard to say "no" to a productive scholar who is also an excellent teacher, however their substantive scholarly views compare to the rest of their department.
If, of course, he or she can get hired in the first place.
Did anybody hear today if Nifong's atty indicate if Nifong definitely be taking the stand tomorrow?
Just watched the full tape of Brad Bannon's testimony; his facial expressions on cross are priceless.
One the commentators on court tv referred to him as Clark Kent b/c Brad is the super hero of this case.
Very appropriate comparison.
Oops, I accidentaly put an "n" in Marvin's name.
cp
The one low point from Court TV today was when a lame prosecutor they had on the panel still referred to Crystal Mangum as the "victim"....and brought up the fact that she is a "black female".
No one questioned his idiocy.
I'm glad that I was able to get most of my coverage from digital channel 256.
Thanks, Florida Gator for the tip!
Debrah at 9:07 said "The one low point from Court TV today was when a lame prosecutor they had on the panel still referred to Crystal Mangum as the "victim"....and brought up the fact that she is a "black female".
I guess old habits die hard. I was listening closely to court tv today - for the brief time I wasn't working and able to watch - and the commentators did not refer to Crystal Mangum by name, but referred to her as the "accuser" which I think is appropriate (though "false accuser" is more accurate).
JLS says....,
steven horwitz, If presidents are charged with hiring and tenuring a faculty more of more diversity of thinking and more like America, then some would do a good job of this and some would do a mediocre job. But the average faculty would move away from trendy radicalism.
I too am an economist and I am certainly pretty mainstream in economics. I think the hiring issue in economics is more social climbing. After my experience in economics where you just must hold degrees from the right places, I was frankly shocked by some of the place individuals among the 88 went to grad school.
As to who a nonresearch institution would hire and tenure, I think that an institution that thinks as highly of itself as Duke is willing to hire such mediocre people who have the correct or shall I say politically correct view makes me think this could be even worse in places that emphasize research less. And some of the most outrageous examples of political correctness one reads about are at mid level or lower institutions.
TO 9:13PM--
I mostly watched channel 256, but flipped briefly to Court TV when they went to recess. A prosecutor on the panel with the tip of his black beard dyed bright red.....most certainly uttered those words.
Sorry.....did it disappoint you?
Damn, KC, that was even a boring post.
BTW, does anyone know whether communists MOO?
I also watched Brad Bannon's testimony...
He had to answer yes / no for a long time as the cross examine tried to frame a theory (a few more men, non-sperm, less than a cell, nonprobative) -
he let the wild pitches go, waited for a strike pitch and..it was out of the courtroom. Absolutely False
panda
JLS writes:
And some of the most outrageous examples of political correctness one reads about are at mid level or lower institutions.
I agree to an extent. I think it's worst at mid-level state schools where teaching isn't necessarily emphasized but they also can't attract really top scholars. That's the really bad combo.
It can also be bad at pretty good places that want to climb and see certain sorts of faculty as the way to do it. Duke might be an example there.
It varies at liberal arts colleges. Some are really bad, many are not. Much depends on institutional culture and leadership. I generally think teaching institutions are not as bad, at least in terms of how it directly affects students, as frequent student contact tends to produce more empathy and reduces at least the likelihood of treating students poorly.
If Nifong was as consistently lame as an attorney as Glover makes him out to be (Glover concluded, “What he did in this case was what he did in other cases.”), and now the possibility is being considered that he exhibits some form of mental illness that has existed for an extended period of time, shouldn't the judgment of Hardin (ex DA, promoted to judge, and reappointed interim DA, who recommended Nifong for the intermim DA slot) and Easley (governor, who made the appointment) be questioned?
If I were a resident of Durham, I'd be plenty upset with those 2 guys for foisting Nifong on me with the result being I might have to pay higher taxes forever to cover his foul misdeeds.
Not that I feel any empathy or sympathy for the citizens of Durham, mind you.
Is University of Michigan a mid level or lower school?
To Steven Horwitz:
Do you know of this professor at DePaul?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295230,00.html
Is Duke a state school?
After my experience in economics where you just must hold degrees from the right places, I was frankly shocked by some of the place individuals among the 88 went to grad school.
Aren't you a faculty member? You're really surprised by this?
First of all, what schools are we talking about here? Secondly, are these tenure-track faculty at Duke?
Boy Debra was pwned by SEK in that other thread! ROFLMAO!!!
Is Meehan a Communist?
DNA my ass. You guys are right out of Tobacco Road. Boring, put to sleep, not paying attention . . . yeah, people banging pots, demonstrating, death threats, carrying guns . . . trying to send kids to jail for thirty years . . . and the DA is asleep . . . what a bunch of yahoos the whole damned lot of you that passes for Durham. This is Duke and Durham . . . you would have to scrounge the piney woods and back sections of the mill villages of the thirties and forties to find these people . . . the tin roofed shackes and outhouses would be filled with the Duke Group88 and this group of . . . dare I say it . . . crackers . . . not to worry I'm a college educated white cracker, red neck, mill . . . whatever but I anin't as bigoted as this bunch . . . or put another way . . . them was good younguns you tried to mess with . . . just damn. Sorry.
TO 10:08PM--
Obviously, English is your second language.
Evidenced even more by the fact that you give dear "SEK" an elevated status beyond screamer from the peanut gallery.
College doesn't have a damned thing to do with this . . . Michael Vick went to college, but someone did not go to Sunday school. It is more about character and being a man. Some things you just don't do for money or position. It applies to the people at Duke. How can you behave the way they have behaved and just not know the facts or when the facts become available lie about them. The whole thing just makes one angry and angrier. These people have money and priviledge and position, and they are just trash.
Anon at 10:28 "but someone did not go to Sunday school . . . It is more about character"
At least Michael Vick admitted his wrongdoing, apologized, and accepted the consequences thereof, including punishment - sounds to me like someone with some Sunday school lessons that took hold.
As for the G88 . . . their confessors are still waiting.
Anonymous AKA windbag @8:14 PM said...
did anyone go to the back-to-school dog fight hosted by wahneema lubiano and karla holloway? i heard it contributed greatly to the diversity of duke's culture, and was quite entertaining.
What!!?? Wahneema and Karla duking it out? I'd love to see that.
Anonymous @10:08 PM said...
Boy Debra was pwned by SEK in that other thread! ROFLMAO!!!
Who is "Debra"? And is "Boy Debra" related to Boy George?
To debrah:
Is that you in the photos on your blog or are you just trying to scare people?
PC worse at low and midlevel?Absolutely not--the most blatant examples of "political correctness" (this euphemism as it plays out in academia in reality describes the DEGREE to which "nonminorities" have to keep their mouths shut when observing the huge incompetencies of minority faculty/students [the "Nartey/Lubiano Dilemma"])are at "elite institutions"
The higher the average IQ of the meritorious, the more PC will obtain.
Boy Debra is aka Hairy Ankles
10:28
You are a moron.
And your comments are an affront to sensibility.
You categorize people on numerous dimensions which makes you a perfect example of a racist or a genderist or an elitist or more likely a piece of garbage.
Idiocy is all too evident.
My advice to you: Don't post unless you're at the looney tunes forum.
OK, I'm ignorant--what is SEK?
SEK is Scott Eric Kaufmann, who runs the Acephalous blog that has questioned a lot of KC's arguments.
pwned is slang for destroyed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn
JLS says....,
Re: anon 9:55
That is quite the story of the battle at DePaul. Would they have similarly banned from campus a young Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams for not staying in the correct place for black scholar?
Re: steven horwitz
I agree social climbing schools and I do think Duke is among that group and midlevel schools are probably where this problem is the worst.
sheer extreme & kinky
This sure is a weird, wild place when comments aren't moderated.
Kind of like an episode of "COPS".
Which of KC's arguments has SEK criticized? Is it a political thing, or are the criticisms meritorious?
KC said...
...April 10 meeting. Glover goal now seems to be to expose Meehan’s obfuscationist tendencies, to show that there’s no way Nifong could ever have understood what the lab director was saying.
...[Glover’s apparent strategy: suggesting that because Meehan is so boring, there’s no way Nifong could have remained awake during their meetings, explaining why Nifong couldn't recall the conversations.]
::
Judging from the response of those who comment on this board and the LS board...the Judge is going to give Nifong a pass because those who elected judges see 'boring' as a crime similar to dog fighting.
Let me see if I have this correct.
An Attorney-at-Law with Phi Beta Kappa credentials is going to get a pass because he could not understand what Doctor Brian (call me boring) Meeham was telling him?
Should we expected tomorrow morning to see a group of untalented interpretative dancers flail about in the court room as we wait for the clue bus to pull in sometime before noon?
Is Broadhead going to talk?
Sheesh!
::
GP
Inre: "...Bold prediction: K.C.'s book will be most intriguing in how it details the "timing" of certain events..."
Does it strike any as odd the timing of the press releases regarding:
1. Hilary Clinton's fund raising scandal and,
2. The Idaho Senator's airport bathroom stall arrest?
Which was released to take the air out of the room and take everyone's eyes off the ball?
Much like the conversations regarding the Gang of 88, there is always something brought up to take everyone's eyes off their egregious and deplorable acts.
By the way, five will get you ten the Clinton machine has numerous other cards to play similar to the one played this week.
http://acephalous.typepad.com/
You can judge SEK for yourself
NJNP
What's your point?
Hillary will be the Democrat nominee, and then lose the general election. She will definitely not ask the overrated Obama to be her #2.
Here's a funny one:
Obama was asked whether he was the recipient of affirmative action at Harvard Law. He answered that he did not know. Are we to believe that he did not know the LSAT scores of the meritorious? What a natural BS artist. He should have been a minister comme Jesse or Al.
As a side question, can someone answer this for me: Earlier we were discussing the statement on the BunchOfPants (a Durham townie) blog where she said in March (April?) of '06 that a police officer had emailed the neighborhood asking if anybody heard or saw anything that night. Did anyone find out who the police officer was, and were any responses made to him/her? Is it standard procedure for a police official to email locals instead of going face to face? Could it really have been an officer, or an imposter? Has anyone found out?
Steven Horwitz, thank you for your reasonable and consistent response(s).
By not making them accountable you and others are giving the Klan of 88 a pass. They have voluntarily committed sins of commission and omission.
Since "we" don't understand academia, who among you are going to weed the frauds out?
If not me, who? If not now, when?
To 11:23Pm--
When?
Indeed.
Nifong must be squeezin' his last few shekels mighty tight if Glover is the best he can hire.
Was Glover the only one in town this week? Was he picked up at the day-laborer pickup zone in front of the 7-11?
TombZ
10.55
Are you kidding? This guy is more like Ward Churchill. Nuts!
I did not think there was anything on earth I would ever agree with N Dershowitz with, but I say KUDDOS to him. Only someone like Dersowitz could have stopped his tenure.
One can only imagine what KC would have to say--considering KC is going to Israel.
Prof. Horwitz,
Strictly from an academic perspective, isn't the Duke whore dilemma the result of affirmative action run amuck?
Would there have been a rush to judgment without stupid people writing listening statements?
A campus culture initiative?
Brodhead's reaction at a meritoriosly configured institution?
Bottom line, Professor--isn't the Duke whore syndrome the result of black power, and white fecklessness when confronted with that power?
It would seem that black women at Duke are its alpha males.
To Anon. @ 11:18 - The folks at Liestoppers had a long thread quite a while ago discussing the Trinity Park Server Network. There were links to cached pages and everything. It was fascinating to see these racialists scuttle around hatching their schemes and refining their narrative. I was especially fascinated to read some of the "suggestions" these people wanted to give to the police. "Why don't they arrest all of them now!" Creepy, and based on absolutely no evidence at all.
Thank God Dave, Reade and Collin escaped this trap!
Debrah, don't let them get you down. You are a star, and they are jealous of the attention you get for your opinions and personality.
CLEAN UP ON AISLE COMMON SENSE!
POLANSKI ALERT! CODE ORANGE. THIS IS NOT A DRILL!
11:40 : Thank you. The Trinity Park Server Network. I didn't know about that. I'll look that up on Liestoppers. -11:18
Mr. Ignorant, again. What or who is Polanski, and what is a code orange Polanski alert?
This blog is weird to the extent that it has a code.
How can anyone understand what's going on?
TO 11:40PM--
Thank you. :>)
The Trinity Park information you bring is stunning.
Had no idea their gross behavior was so organized.
11.51
Polanski is first and foremost a gentleman. His witticisms went over the head of certain abmaphids, and then--puff!--he was banned from the blog.
Debrah craves his essence, but Polanski, being a gentleman, will not deliver her his precious bodily fluids.
Gregory writes @ 8:25:
Debrah: Thanks! P.S. "Shaving legs" -- you fogged up my glasses!
________________
[INSERT WITTY JOHNSONISM - I'M RIGHT OUT] MOO! Gregory
Captain Gregory handed over the periscope to Lt. Johnson ... "Take her out of the bay, Lieutenant, all I see out there is fog!"
From 20,000 Leagues Under Scarborough Bay
Duke University Press (1942)
Guys, the "Polanski" imitator is not Polanski. Dead give-away is mentioning Debrah. Real Polanski was always nice to Debrah.
Not that it matters, I guess.
11:18 -- Gottlieb's own notes indicate that he sent an email to the PAC2 listserv (covering the trinity park area) that email, sent before the media hit the fan, was fairly benign announcing the accusation and asking for witnesses. I also recommend the LieStoppers post recommended above.
Prof. Horowitz
First of all, I appreciate your presence here. You use your own name and most often make good sense.
I have not commented on the matter of Academics because that is not the profession to which I belong.
The thing is, however, this whole Lax affair has been more like a rescue mission than anything to do with Academics. A career criminal, who happened to be the local DA, made a deadly serious attempt to take away the lives of three innocent students enrolled at Duke. And by and large, the Professorate at Duke either played along ( the gang of 88) or kept quiet.
If a small child had fallen into a well and the same tenured folk stood around commenting on the sociological meaning of fire and rescue work while the kid drowned - what should we say about that? And why should we give them a break when they should have been trying to save the kid?
Why should their Academic validity matter if they fail the test as decent human beings?
hman
you're right.
Steven Horwitz @ 7:21 writes:
I think One Spook and others over-estimate the damage that faculty can cause - and I doubt any would have been called as witnesses (if you think Meehan was boring on the stand, try listening your average faculty member for an hour or two ;) ).
But there is no doubt that there are problems in academia today, and that they are structural. I've thrown out some ideas about how to fix them here but what worries me the most is turning the universities over to the political process. (I'm against nationalizing any industry. :) )
OOOOOOOOOOO .........K!
I'll retract "pass" in the sense that you do condemn the acts of the Group of 88, but I think I really would enjoy reading your defense of some of their "scholarship."
And perhaps I have over estimated the damage they can/could cause. I tend to do that; I "took back the night" around my neighborhood years ago, long before it was "vogue."
But, when your ideological bent causes you to direct students under your egis to dress alike and heckle an invited speaker (regardless of that speaker's point of view) like little automotons, to me that is dangerous.
Imagine if the Duke Naval ROTC detachment had sat in a row in uniform and heckled one of the "Palestinian" speakers who visited Duke? All hell would have broken loose, and I would have called that activity "dangerous" too.
When you have entire departments in a university so woefully out of any reasonable ideological balance and that school purports to be a "top tier" university with lofty "diversity" goals, that is false advertising and a danger to the principles of education.
I could go on with dangers, but others here have spoken to that as well, and better than I.
And lastly, I responded once to your concern above about "turning universities over to the political process."
I would submit that has already happened and continues to happen, Steven. That is exactly what the genesis of this overt "political correctness" fiasco was --- government intervention in education; all in the name of affirmative action and its first cousin, "diversity."
Equal Opportunity was never meant to mean "Always Equal Outcomes," but that is how the PC pimps have morphed the concept, and no where more insidiously than in education.
And interestingly, college and pro athletics adopted equal opportunity coincident with education. Today, sports teams are not "diverse" at all, yet government essentially left the sports business alone and let market forces prevail.
Imagine if government suddenly mandated that the NBA had to immediately change to represent a "proper level" of diversity consistent with the population of the US.
Apart from a scarce few fringe kooks on the very extreme right, akin in philosophy to the Group of 88, no one complains about athletics. Rather, ticket sales for major sporting events are at an all-time high and fans pay ridiculous sums to go watch the athletes, regardless of the teams' gross lack of "diversity." Quite diverse crowds attend their favorite venue and yell, "GO TEAM!" irrespective of that team's "diversity."
If you folks in education want to keep us angry peasants, the dreaded evil "Horowitzian" concepts, and government out of your academy, then you had better get off of your dead asses and clean up your own house.
Get rid of these faux academics, their faux scholarship, and put the educational system back on the path to an emphasis on excellence and achievement. Get rid of this overt emphasis on diversity as the trump card above all other considerations. Get rid of this utterly dangerous and insane view that all matters in education (and for that matter, life in general) revolve around race, class, and gender. That triumvirate is a barnacle on the desk of education.
I became involved in this blog because I appreciated the fact that one professor, KC Johnson, cared to speak up for injustice. I was not and am not concerned with who Johnson backs for president, any more than I am concerned about who Steven Horwitz, Dorothy Rabinowitz, or David Horowitz back.
I would like to see an education system that welcomes, and indeed facilitates the views of all four of those persons, and I think you'll have to agree ... that's a fairly "diverse" group.
One Spook
One Spook 31 Aug 007 0248,
Yep.
The Duke case highlights the problems in the Academy.
Just as the OJ case highlighted problems with the LAPD.
Time to clean house before your "Rampart" case comes up for trial.
10:41 IMAN
No, I am not. Duke and Durham are having this problem for over a year now. It still is not finished. Are you not "reading" any of this fiasco with understanding? Look at the vocabulary you use. What crap . . . you are as intellectually dishonest as the people who began and perpetuated this whole affair. Apology certainly won't fix the dogs . . . the dogs are . . . er, well dead but perhaps for you . . . but the Duke Group88 find themselves incapable of apology even in this. Have a nice day and look up the word idiot and work on your vocabulary. Stop using those stupid divisive buzz words as if you have found some long lost Gospel . . . that's the point stupid. (Oh, I'm so sorry your posting has me so upset . . . you see what education does.)
Ire: "...Why should their Academic validity matter if they fail the test as decent human beings?"
This speaks broadly to the academy that Horwitz describes, I think.
The point is that many, most, or maybe all, of the Klan of 88, and others, fail both tests.
mIKE s.
"Nifong's defense that he is too stupid to even tie his own shoes let alone do anything even remotely like doing his job is really, really doing damage to our criminal justice system."
The damage was done over the last 30 years when he was a part of it. Now it's just being revealed.
"what worries me the most is turning the universities over to the political process. (I'm against nationalizing any industry. :)"
Universities already are part of the political process. The political process created Pell grants and guaranteed student loans, which artificially increase the size of your market. The political process created affirmative action requirements that indirectly supported the creation of women's studies and african american studies and queer studies departments. The political process has chosen to subcontract the much of the scientific R&D portion of our national industrial policy to universities, and has allowed them to self-govern much of how they do it as well. The political process has, through the NEA, etc., effectively decided to create a sort of "national cultural developement policy" and subcontract it to universities under a similar model, with no evidence that humanists are as good at internal quality control as scientists are. The political process has decided your employer doesn't have to pay property tax. The political process decides which universities are state-accredited and which are not.
So the question is not "Should the government get involved with how universities are run?" but "Does government's current involvement with how universities are run need to be reexamined?"
"When folks here start extrapolating from the G88 to academia in general, I feel compelled to stick up for my friends and colleagues who I know do not fit the description that is so common here."
When the G88 are kicked out of or at least shunned by all of academia, I'll stop speculating about what their existence tells me about all of academia.
"I guess I'll add one more thing, especially for those who think I've given the G88 "a pass."
I have consistently from the start criticized both their rush to judgment in the form of the Listening Statement and the disingenuous "Clarifying" Statement and their consequent refusal to admit their error and apologize for their role in the attempted railroading of three innocent men."
Yes, but what consequences have you called for?
" Finally, I'm NOT willing to say that the G88 are somehow representative of faculty "as a whole." The differences among types of higher ed institutions are part of that story, and one that many here are simply ignorant of."
You have a good point about the difference between a teaching college, where the students are the primary focus, and a research institute, where for many professors they are in impediment to what they consider their "real work."
You've given no reason to believe that this couldn't have happened at any research university. If you can't give us some specific criticisms of Duke (perhaps the structure of their BOT?) then prudence demands we consider the possibility that the faculty at any research-oriented liberal arts school could do something similar next week.
What a treasure Ralph Phelan is for this blog. Shows what can be done with an Irishman caught young. (channeling Dr. Johnson on Edmund Burke) :)
Yes, but what consequences have you called for?
NONE!
Steven Horwitz:
When folks here start extrapolating from the G88 to academia in general ...
It's what is known as "bringing disrepute upon your colleagues".
1. The Gang of 88 are currently the most visible academics.
2. They have displayed neither regrets nor remorse.
3. How many in academia have condemned them? How many have defended them?
Silence in this kind of situation implies assent, it doesn't matter practically if it's because the rest of academia is intimidated, doesn't care, or agrees with the Gang of 88. If you don'y want their behavior to impugn your own reputation, you have to publicly demonstrate that you do not approve, do not accept, do not tolerate it. This is almost totally absent from academia.
Hey, I'm coming late to the party (my DSL modem has Alzheimer's), but nice to catch up on the discussion on academic culture as it relates to (or, "is revealed by") the Hoax/Frame.
As a backgrounder rather than a must-read, Swarthmore Prof. Timothy Burke posted his essay Angry at Academe, trying to make sense of same from inside that profession. He discusses the Group of 88's conduct as one flash-point, though he emphasizes other root causes.
Thanks amac, this from your site is great:
I remember reading a statement by the journalist Ray Suarez about the culture wars of the 1980s. Paraphrasing, what Suarez said was that he remembered watching academics get repeatedly attacked in those debates and either maintaining a dangerously Olympian distance from the public fray or getting their asses kicked because of rhetorical and political ineptitude when they did try to engage their critics. Suarez argued that the next time he’d advise academics to get involved early and to be smarter about their involvement.
Doesn't that sound like a lot of our egghead (said lovingly) commentators here? As I've said before, watching professors argue is like watching little girls fight: all scratching and screeching, hair-pulling and chair-pulling, "Is so!", "Is not!", "I'm the prettiest!" , and "He likes me not you!!" You just wanna turn a hose on them. :)
rrhamilton 2:06
That's real professors.
Womens Studies professors are even more pathetic. If you depart from the script by not caving instantly when they call you "sexist", they just cry.
So, if a student is refused his Ph.D a month before his final defense, is that not harmful? If the academy really valued diversity, it would be diversity of opinions, not "as long as you agree with us" type of diversity.
One thing that young students do not realize. Getting an undergraduate degree is no big thing. You just check off all the courses you need and you have a degree.
Getting a graduate degree is so much harder--BECAUSE YOU HAVE MANY GATE KEEPERS WHO WILL MAKE SURE YOU DON'T JOIN THE CLUB.
Unlike many who make accusations, Olasky gave the name of his professors, the date, and his university. Was his experience just an abboration? I think not.
No more than Nifong is the only crooked ex-DA.
Post a Comment