Thursday, August 02, 2007

Channeling Roman Hruska

In 1970, Richard Nixon nominated an undistinguished Florida judge named G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. The appointment was part of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”: Carswell billed himself as a “strict constructionist,” code at the time for opposing civil rights and supporting tough-on-crime rulings.

The nomination quickly encountered trouble, in part because of Carswell’s earlier unabashed defenses of segregationism. But it also became increasingly clear that Carswell just wasn’t that smart.

In a bid to salvage the nomination, Nebraska senator Roman Hruska, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, informed the press, “There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos and stuff like that there.”

The damning praise from the judge’s most prominent supporter effectively killed the nomination.

----------

As with defending a figure like Carswell, defending the Group of 88 is no easy task. In the last few days, a few have given it a try. It appears, however, as if they’ve been channeling the spirit of Roman Hruska.

In a recent DIW comment thread, an anonymous commenter—who was clearly familiar with and sympathetic to Group members’ scholarship and the pedagogical approaches of at least a few Group members—criticized the “Group profile” series.

To date, the series has profiled 11 members of the Group. That total is unrepresentative of the professors’ accomplishments, since Group members with few or no publications can’t be profiled.

The commenter, however, criticized the series for focusing on “marginal academics rather than folks who have had long careers with stellar pedigrees.”

The eleven profiled members, it’s worth noting, include:

  • The chairperson of Duke’s Academic Council;
  • The dean of social sciences for Trinity College;
  • A research professor who was listed as one of the University’s top recruits in 2005;
  • The director of the University Writing Program.

And coming Monday is a profile of a tenured full professor and two-term department chairperson.

If “marginal academics rather than folks who have had long careers with stellar pedigrees” occupy such positions at Duke, the University has some serious problems.

Moreover, of the 11 faculty members thus far profiled, all but one (Jocelyn Olcott) have tenure. In effect, then, this anonymous commenter is defending the Group of 88 by suggesting that Duke has tenured at least ten professors who are “marginal academics” who lack “long careers with stellar pedigrees.”

Roman Hruska might be persuaded, but that doesn’t strike me as the most effective defense of the Group.

----------

While the anonymous commenter relied on the Roman Hruska approach to defend the Group, a longtime Group enabler has employed the irrelevance defense.

Writing at Devil’s Den, Michael Corey reasoned that the Group of 88 “did not have any impact whatsoever on the pseudo-biography that the media disseminated in besmirching the lacrosse team, and specifically the Triumvirate of the indicted.”

This, in and of itself, is a remarkable line of argument: 88 arts and sciences faculty members, at one of the nation’s most prestigious universities, take out a full-page ad (“in the most easily seen venue on campus”) suggesting that their own school’s students have contributed to a “social disaster.” Despite the high media interest in all Duke-related matters at the time, and despite the virtually unprecedented nature of such an act in the history of American higher education, the professors’ effort . . . had no effect.

Defense attorneys, of course, disagreed, and the Group’s statement received a prominent place in the change of venue motion. For what is, to my knowledge, the first time in American history, the statements and actions of students’ own professors were cited as one of the main reasons they could not receive a fair trial in the college town.

Corey’s counter: “As to the defense’s disagreement with me, I believe the defense attorneys are flatly very wrong.”

So, the choice is between accepting the interpretation of Jim Cooney, Joe Cheshire, and Brad Bannon or siding with the author of article #6 on the “March Madness” list of the ten worst articles on the case.

Roman Hruska might struggle to make this selection, but for most it’s not a difficult choice.

Corey also challenged the “Group profile” series on grounds of bias, noting (of me) that “every utterance he makes is rooted in his own opinion, which is GREAT for his purposes, and great for his audience, but must be considered with an opposing interpretation (of which, of course, there is none in the blogosphere).”

These claims, too, are peculiar. I fully concede that all of my posts are rooted in my opinion: that’s the nature of any blog in which the author has identified himself or herself publicly. But the blogosphere, if nothing else, is home to a diversity of opinion on almost every issue. Nothing prevents Group members or their defenders from starting their own blog celebrating the Group’s achievements or pointing out errors of fact or interpretation in portrayals of the Group. (Available URLs include we-don’t-follow-the-faculty-handbook.blogspot.com.)

Corey subsequently clarified himself, noting that pro-Group websites “are hardly on par with Johnson’s in terms of impact and notoriety . . . There is no equivalent to K.C. Johnson’s blog from an opposing point of view regarding the professors, and that’s a fact.”

So: the quality of DIW should be diminished to allow pro-Group blogs to better compete in the marketplace of ideas? Roman Hruska might be persuaded, but that doesn’t strike me as the most effective defense of the Group.

In his previous article, Corey had denounced the “seething” and “shrieking” blog attacks against the Group of 88, who he portrayed as victims of the blogs in the same way that the three indicted players were victims of Mike Nifong. It now appears that he didn’t read too closely the blog posts criticizing the Group, perhaps explaining why his article cited not even one blog post that he considered “seething” or “shrieking.”

A Devil’s Den commenter asked Corey about his opinion of Houston Baker’s March 29, 2006 letter, probably the second-most notorious lacrosse-related document (after the Group’s statement) produced by the Duke faculty. Corey’s response? “I haven’t read Houston Baker’s letter.” What about the Kim Curtis grade retaliation against Kyle Dowd? “I’m unfamiliar with the details of the case.” How about Peter Wood’s apparent slandering of Reade Seligmann? “Again, I’m not familiar with specific remarks Professor Wood might have made against Reade.”

Oh.

Roman Hruska might be persuaded by the willful ignorance approach, but that doesn’t strike me as the most effective defense of the Group. Or, on second thought, perhaps it is the most effective defense of the Group.

As with the anonymous Group defender, Corey’s comments effectively proved the critics’ case. Take, for instance, his assertion that Maurice Wallace “is one of the great young English professors in the country.” Indeed, as the profile of Wallace pointed out, the Group of 88’er received a major award from the MLA.

As the post also noted, Wallace’s writing style features excruciatingly long and virtually incomprehensible sentences that wouldn’t pass muster in most introductory composition classes, much less from a tenured faculty member at an elite institution. How many people outside the academy would be comfortable with such a figure being “one of the great young English professors in the country”? [emphasis added]

Most Group members said they wanted “dialogue” but thereafter refused to speak, despite the protections of tenure and academic freedom. Corey and the anonymous commenter deserve credit for at least trying to provide a public defense of the Group. But, as Roman Hruska discovered during the Carswell fight, defending the indefensible can sometimes lead the defender to make intellectually torturous arguments.

251 comments:

1 – 200 of 251   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Well said.

kcfan said...

Take, for instance, his assertion that Maurice Wallace “is one of the great young English professors in the country.” Indeed, as the profile of Wallace pointed out, the Group of 88’er received a major award from the MLA.

KC, I love you man, but an award from the MLA* is more likely to be proof of academic trendiness and political correctness leavened with a dash of incompetence than of excellence.

*Modern Language Association for those fortunate enough to be unfamiliar with these academic moonbats.

Anonymous said...

I'm more of a jock than a brainiac (and btw, in no way I'm connected to duke and/or the sport of lacrosse) - so in my jock-speak, I'll say this:
you can't stop KC, you can only hope to contain him

Gary Packwood said...

Harrold Carswell was born in Irwinton, Georgia, graduated from Duke University in 1941.
Carswell completed his legal education at the Walter F. George School of Law of Mercer University in 1948.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

The 88er's + Brodhead and his Adminstrivial Gang have no defense whatsoever.

This is why they stonewall and make broad sweeping generalizations with no factual backup.

They're unable to utter the words "We made a mistake" (publicly, at least). Where's the leadership? Where's the dignity and integrity? Where is the moral backbone?

Nowhere.

As typical of these leftist extremists, there is no moral fiber whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Particularly good critique but I guess it's easier to be witty when you are analyzing the witless. The Hruska example was especially interesting and appropriate but the "willful ignorance" defense was more reminiscent of that great thinker Mike Nifong.

Topher said...

God, I'm glad KC is here to excerpt these screeds...if I had to read them myself I'd be throwing up nightly.

Anonymous said...

tonight in venezuela was trying to force a cable tv station to carry president chavez speeches whenever he demands

the very same logic is at place when the defense of the GROUP OF 88 is at issue

the 88 are as much alchemist fnaatics as chavez is...convict without proof because the charges are more important than the evidence

Alan Furman said...

Corey: “... every utterance [KC] makes ... must be considered with an opposing interpretation (of which, of course, there is none in the blogosphere).”

Bring on the Fairness Doctrine.

hman said...

Defenders of the hoax have for a long, long time refused to say anything about the case itself or the text of the gang of 88s statement. No, all they will say is that criticism of the hoaxers and enablers should stop because, well, it just should.
To this cowboy, I cannot imagine any behaviour more antithetical to the "life of the mind."
Whatever happened to the type of folks who argued endlessly, passionately, and openly about ISSUES, not just their own sad situations?
These Duke folks must have somehow missed the 60s altogether.

haskell said...

George Orwell had folks like the intellectual 88 nailed:

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.”

Anonymous said...

Well done!

haskell said...

The whereabouts of the elusive pot-bangers have been discovered at last:

“In Pakistan anti-American protesters set a Kentucky Fried chicken restaurant on fire. The protesters mistakenly thought they were attacking high-ranking U.S. military official Colonel Sanders.”
--- anonymous (Google search)

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

I don't believe those 'seething' and 'shrieking' blog posts exist. This Gang has been notorious for raging about things which didn't happen. So, if those posts HAD happened - the Gang would have shoved it in our faces at once! It just isn't in their nature to not use an opportunity to solidify their 'victim' status. Therefore, to me, the fact that we have never seen these 'seething' and 'shrieking' posts means they don't exist.

Anonymous said...

K.C. Johnson again proves that History is Fun! And, that it is mightier than the sword. Bridge:
_________________________________
Diversity is a smile on a sunny day!
_________________________________

These two paragraphs are art:

"... 88 arts and sciences faculty members, at one of the nation's most prestigious universities, take out a full-page ad in the most easily seen venue on campus suggesting that their own school's students have contributed to a 'social disaster.' Despite the high media interest in all Duke-related matters at the time, and despite the virtually unprecedented nature of such an act in the history of American higher education, the professors' effort ... had no effect.

Defense attorneys, of course, disagreed, and the Group's statement received a prominent place in the change of venue motion. For what is, to my knowledge, the first time in American history, the statements and actions of students' own professors were cited as one of the main reasons they could not receive a fair trial in the college town." Bridge:
_________________________________
Diversity is a big hug from Mom!
_________________________________

Duke Board of Trustees Meeting:

RESOLVED: The next English professor will be hired based upon what she allows into her vagina!

RESOLVED: Let's name two buildings after Houston Baker!

________________

"Shooting stars are actually aliens monitoring K.C. Johnson from a safe distance." Overheard at Star Trek Convention (Cleveland, 1994). MOO! Greogry

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is easy to argue that the G88 are wrong, logically, factually, morally. Many have done it so many times they've become tedious, sorry to say. It would be more productive to understand arguments these opponents have, even if they do not honestly put them forward. So I'll do it for the G88, in the four points below. I think these are very hard to counter, and are a good start if one wants to do some serious thinking, rather than just vent. The general question is: how to oppose a group of people with a lot of power and few scruples?

1. Our metanarratives are criticized for their tenuous connection with facts. However, the current governing elite can be accused of the same. Both instances have demonstrated that fantasies can be more important than facts.

2. Our theories of race and sex may be inconsistent, poorly formulated and at odds with common sense. The same can be said about major religions and, as they, we can (and do, successfully) use confusing and schizophrenic moral theories to rouse the troops.

3. We hold the power in the academia and there our opposition is negligible. Administrators are either in our camp or scared of us. The faculty also know that they have to tow our line if they know what's good for them. We control key committees, student indoctrination ("orientation") and judicial system. We have instituted hiring preferences ("diversity") with which we are able to influence new hires even outside social sciences. Thus we don't need to justify our actions to anybody, certainly not to a bunch of sore losers in the blogosphere. (Here is an anecdote about Stalin, maybe apochriphal. When one of his advisors noted that Soviet occupation of Poland was going to draw the ire of the Pope, he replied: "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Yes, Stalin was a major sociopath, but resist the knee-jerk condemnation because this was a good reply!)

4. American crime and punishment policies include draconian prison sentences in nightmarish facilities and go all the way down to "sensitivity training". They are a powerful intimidation tool, much used by all sorts of influential elites. We are an elite too, and we have a piece of this action. We have been instrumental in divising rape laws, hate crime laws, child protection laws, etc., down to mandatory sexual harassment courses. But the icing on the cake is that we have demonstrated that we can use the worst type of intimidation on obviously innocent people. If something goes wrong, as it did with the Duke hoax, we can just buy their silence. Nice work, no?

Anonymous said...

Oh, I think that by all proper accounts, you would have to be included in that definition of marginal academic. No one had heard of you before the Duke rape accusation. You have managed to insert yourself and your own agenda about a certain type of scholarship that you disagree with into what is properly an argument about the structural problems for abuse of prosecutorial power. Instead of taking your analysis towards its logical and proper conclusion and conducting an analysis of the US justice system and its failings--for all people, not just white male college students who you seem to be fixated on--you ride a hobby horse about sex/race/class. You're not marginal because you haven't had particular accomplishments within your narrow academic margins--just like those academics you attack aren't marginal given their contributions to myriad academic conversations--but rather because you were someone who no one would have heard of EVER except for two events. The first, a tenure fight that seems to have been significantly about your collegiality, which you have again and again shown here is nothing short of vicious, condescending, and dismissive; and, secondly, a case that, really, has nothing to do with your area of expertise. Even so, you've managed to devote a significant portion of your research energies towards slinging mud instead of doing scholarship. Each profile is an attempt to yoke through distortion and hyperbole your hatred of rsearch agendas that fall well outside of your area of competency (given the ham-handed manner in which you treat each of the scholars you critique). As far as I can see you have effectively managed to drag yourself from the margins to the center of conservative attacks on academia by the sheer act of keeping your name in a spot-light of your own making. The history that you purport to study will remember you--and I can't imagine that it will be kind when it does.

no justice, no peace said...

There is indeed a disaster on the Duke campus. The Duke Chronicle has shut down the voices...predicatable, but unbelievable. The "progressives" have control of your televison...you have just entered the Twilight Zone.

August 1st, 2007
Why We Pulled the Plug on the Message Board
By David Graham on August 1st, 2007
You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who values the right to free speech more than a journalist.

That’s why it was with great disappointment that I asked my online team to pull the message board function of The Chronicle’s website down this afternoon. Several members of the University community contacted me about comments posted on the board that were racist, repulsive and unbecoming of both The Chronicle and Duke University, and I was more than happy to remove those comments. After some reflection, I realized that in the short term, the more drastic step of disabling the boards was necessary.

Since the lacrosse case began, The Chronicle Online has been, for better or for worse, a major discussion site for those interested in the case. Although the vast majority of our readers have been willing to conform both to basic standards of decency and to our request that posted avoid profanity and vulgarity, there are others who have seen fit to post obscene, offensive and objectionable content, including racist and sexist speech.

That will not be tolerated on our website.

Because we maintain a short staff during the summer, we will not be able to institute a monitoring regime that will address the problem until at least the beginning of the school year. As a result, the message board has been removed, and further decisions will be made once the school year begins.

I’m unhappy to find myself in this position; I think the message boards—as well as the ability to comment on articles, which will remain available and continue to be monitored—can provide a valuable public service by creating a forum for discussion. When the level of discourse reaches this nadir and we find ourselves unable to monitor it, however, there is no good choice, and no real choice at all but to eliminate it.

Please feel free to contact me at editor@lists.chronicle.duke.edu if you have any questions about this or other matters relating to The Chronicle.
David Graham

Editor, The Chronicle

Anonymous said...

2:13 AM

They can not only buy their silence. They can continue to intimidate, and they do. Their methods continue through an entire society with their own code words. The Duke president, the Duke administration, and the Board of Trustees are an example of this intimidation while the police are an example of participation in it.

Michael said...

This has to be like chinese water torture for the Group of 88. Or Whack A Mole. Everytime they pop their head out to see if the coast is clear, they get whacked.

All they have to do is issue an apology to get some relief. I'm sure that there are bloggers out there that will request a good amount of sympathy for them if that happens.

It isn't that hard. Normal people do it all the time.

Reading KC is sometimes like watching Leno's monologue.

Anonymous said...

One of your very best, KC...and yes, I've read them all. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Hruska was not all wrong. Of course, Carswell had deficiencies way beyond mediocrit

Sometimes bright, intelligent elite are in reality dumbasses.

Rhodes Scholar Senator Fulbright early in his career was impressed with the English's parlimentary system. When Harry Truman was first down in the polls and when it appeared he could not be elected in 1948, Fulbright suggested that Truman then without a vice president should merely appoint Tom Dewey as Secretary of State and then resign. At the time that office was next in line.

Truman's response was to call Fulbright an over-educated Oxford son-of-a-bitch.

History has treated mediocre President Truman pretty well.

Some of the brightest among us can tell you how to make a watch, but do not know how to tell time.

Anonymous said...

Is Corey a Communist?

Anonymous said...

The irritation these hooded acacemics feel is the itchiness associated with the surrying of cochroaches fleeing the light being brought to bear on their accustomed darkness.

scott said...

When Corey isn't defending the Klan of 88, he is likely to found engaging in a like-minded pursuit known as pissing into the wind.

What a maroon.

Anonymous said...

KC, this is the first blog I ever followed and probably the last. Your daily comments are something I look forward to. Thank you again for articulating the truth and keeping the facts straight. Dishonesty in academics is not new and not specific to Duke. I don't believe your actions will have any impact on Duke, but it is still a relief to have someone standing up for these three guys who were so harmed by the actions of these 88. My hope is that some of the present students will be wary when approaching and otherwise ignore their agenda driven dialog until graduation. Once you sign on to Duke like degree, you do whatever it takes to get the final degree. I'm sure there are parents who have been watching this whole event and just can't not pay the tuition at this point, but would like to just walk away. If enough people ignored the g88, not sign up for classes etc, that might do some good.

mac said...

Maybe the "shrieking" is the sound in their own ears,
as they are lampooned, satirized,
reduced to caractures - (which are,
in truth, not far from the reality?)

Wonder who's shrieking now?

Is it:

:::Dr. "Luv" Hardt?
:::Wanheema ("I got your signs and pots in my garage") Lubianno?
:::"Prowess Envy" Farred?
:::Kathy "Bloodhound Gang" Rudy ("Ain't Nothing But Mammals")
:::Mark Neal Pseudointellectual Anthony?
:::Paula "Dr. No" McClain?
:::Kim "Grade-Gremlin" Curtis
:::William "X-Files" Chafe?
:::Eduardo Bonilla Silva: the floating phallus of the 88?
:::Joseph "Bored With Education" Harris?

Only a few listed, only a smattering of the satire, but remember: satire is forever!
Anyone remember National Lampoon's take on Carswell?
I do!

Anonymous said...

Once again, a member of the "88" has brought a knife to a gun fight...

Anonymous said...

There is obviously no statute of limitations on ignorant utterances from this ship of 88 fools.



A Duke Mom

jim2 said...

2:13 -

Interesting.

BTW, yes it's a nit, but "tow the line" in incorrect. It's origin is boxing, not nautical

http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2004/05/toe-the-line.html

Oh, and I took "dividing" as literary license, playing off "divisive" rather than "devise". Certainly current rape laws are "divisive".

Anonymous said...

KC

You say, as though we are to disbelieve it:

"In effect, then, this anonymous commenter is defending the Group of 88 by suggesting that Duke has tenured at least ten professors who are 'marginal academics' who lack 'long careers with stellar pedigrees.'”

I admit it is an innovative defense, perhaps even odd, but it has the great merit of being true.

JefFM

Judge Rufus Peckham said...

There is an arrogance about the "88" and their defenders that is breathtaking for those of us fortunate enough to be far removed from academia. They make whatever caustic comments they want, sometimes without any supporting evidence aside from their own serene ipse dixit, assuming their enlightened credentials give them such license. They are disgraceful.

Anonymous said...

Hey KC,

Have you considered being absolutely clear? Isn't at least one of the people you've "profiled" recently tenured? Just wondering...

What I find so amusing about you is your absolute willingness to write nastily (meow!!!) about people's research on subjects on which you are no expert. You slant things to fit your vision of a world "academics gone wild." (Women! Non-Whites! Gays! Lesbins!) It's the same vision--and hubris--that allowed you to be taken in by a hoax...

Anonymous said...

12:50
KC cannot be contained! Really good post!

mac said...

So Corey admits that the team was "besmirched,"
but thinks the 88 were fair?

I thought Farred must have been smokin' the gonja, mon,
as paranoid and ramble-on
as his writings were on the topic,
but Corey must be partaking, too.

Evidence?
Paranoia and forgetfullness.
(Hey, Corey: whadja do for the munchies? Cheetos?)

Anonymous said...

Not quite sure why Corey is intent on defending this group of faculty members. I know Corey and find him to be a really nice, smart, young man. Unless he is hoping for a faculty slot and, out of character, trying to butter them up, there is no excuse. And that is not a good one.

mac said...

KC,
Do you think maybe you're hitting your mark?
From the trollsters' bizarre attacks
- (once even claiming my posts were yours, in disguise,
one of my proudest accomplishments!) -
to the silly, squealing retorts,
I'd say some sensitive spots
have been hit.

More the reason to keep the heat on "high."

Anonymous said...

Cuttlefish spewing ink...what an appropriate metaphor.

Anonymous said...

One of the greatest ironies about the Group is that the picture that too many were trying to portray about the lacrosse team might more acurately portray the Group instead.

In the immediate aftermath, the P.C. crowd fell all over themselves to portray the jock, elite, privilege athletes as these coddled kids who had always gotten away with things their whole lives because of privlege, paternity and prowess in lacrosse. The story went that, through incrementalism, they never were held to any accountability, and it just got worse and worse until the dam broke. Publicly at least, Pressler was canned for not cracking down harder on the small things which, lore has it, led to alleged gang rape. 88 judges, jurors and executioners later, a "social disaster" is proclaimed on top of this house of cards.

Add to the mix a cursory look at the actual evidence to support this conclusion and a smidge of scrutiny, and by now even the man who wagered his career, livelihood and personal reputation on the fact that "something happened in that house", admits nothing happened in that house.

But before we totally dispose of the story about folks who have been coddled and enabled along the way, and who have never been held to account for their action getting caught in something, let's see if that rubric is portable. Can you think of any group at Dook who met certain "background" qualifications, or fit one particular desirable profile, that had (much like superstar athletes, been sought out by the school to enhance its reputation), who over years of not being held to the same standards as their peers got just a wee bit lazy and careless with their words and deeds, until it just got worse and worse and then the dam broke?

inman said...

KC...thank you for the link to the change of venue motion.

I would recommend that everyone read that document. The various quotes are absolutely stunning. I am flabbergasted at the statement made by Karla Hollaway (paragraph 43). How that woman can be still be a member of Duke's faculty given the outlandish and inflammatory assertions with no buttress of fact is beyond me.

And now to think that Duke's administration indemnified her against a civil suit(s).

There may not be law to cover this, but nonetheless, it is criminal.

Anonymous said...

The 4:18am said:

"their contributions to myriad academic conversations"

I'm going to use a similar line next time my boss inquires about my productivity and see where it gets me.

mac said...

8:58
Ya know...
It doesn't take a fire hydrant to put out the 88's flames.
A trickle of pee will do.

It doesn't take an expert in the field to see that
the 88 are almost - to a person -
unrepentant, unwilling to actually
engage in dialogue;
it doesn't take a specialist to see
that some of the "English Professors" involved
cannot construct a clear, cohesive
sentence without using abstract,
illogical word-choices and poor sentence structure...
(in other words, their writing skills are very, very poor.)

Is the English language such a fine specialty that KC would have
to be an English Major to criticize
this shit?

OK: take it from me; I was an English Major, and even as a
dropout, I can seel clearly that these folks are sucking up some kind
of mind-altering smoking material.

Meow et tu?

Anonymous said...

4:18 said:
"As far as I can see you have effectively managed to drag yourself from the margins to the center of conservative attacks on academia by the sheer act of keeping your name in a spot-light of your own making. The history that you purport to study will remember you--and I can't imagine that it will be kind when it does. "

Hummm... In my humble opinion, KC has shown a light on the insanity and total uselessness of many in this academic field. History will most probably show that common sense rules the day, and the G88 have a total lack of it. Actually, when you read the crap they write, you gotta laugh your ass off!
cmf

mac said...

4:18
So where were you and the rest of academia when the
students were being railroaded?

If not for KC and LS and Bill Anderson and Wendy McElroy,
people would still believe that
the 88ers were right!

That would obviously be your preference.

Ralph Phelan said...

Who the heck is Michael Corey?

mac said...

BTW, 4:18:
Don't you ever wonder why Pressler's book,
other books on the Hoax - (and soon, KC's) -
are making it into the big-time?

Bet you've never published anything
that'll be as read by as many people.

You sound like those people at the Bernsteins who were
aghast at seeing their silliness
exposed in Radical Chic!
("And who is Tom Wolfe to criticize us?")

Anonymous said...

4:18

I think it's time for you to take a nap, sweetie. You're so grumpy when you're tired. You will feel all better when you wake up.

Dukie Mommie

Mike Lee said...

So, now we have at least 2 anonymous posters who are dissenting with KC's writings. Well, it's a start. That's as close as the 88 have come to the "conversation" they claimed to want to begin about racism/sexism/privelege etc.

It's funny though, you don't see anyone saying that KC is wrong in his assessments of the Group members he has profiled thus far. They only attack him personally.

Of course that's only fair as KC has certainly opened himself up to such criticism with his posts, but I find it amazing that not a sinlge poster has written any type of rebuttal to KC's profiles. I would love to see someone actually point out how KC has it wrong and these Duke Professors aren't really what KC makes them appear to be; incompetent agenda driven boobs. The only conclusion to draw (at least at this point, with little or no dissent) is that KC is on the money.

Please also remeber that legitimate members of the Duke community (alumni, students, FODU etc) have attempted to continue the dialogue the 88 (claimed they) wanted to start and they have been met with silence or "Shut up and teach" or similar garbage. The 88 have still not answered questions about the ad, engaged in a discussion about it, or apologized for it. Hell, we all know they cannot even defend it at this point.

So, if KC attacking their meager scholarship is what it takes to get them to answer for their actions....I can only say KC, ready, aim.....

By the way....I love the fact that KC continues to refrain from deleting the "Is _______ a Communist?" posts and the "Is Duke a state school?" posts. I look forward to them with each new thread. I love the fact that the author continues to join us each day! Welcome and please continue reading and posting.

Lastly I say, thanks to the 88 for starting the discussion on campus. We'll finish it with or without you.

Anonymous said...

To the 4:18:

The big difference between your criticism of KC vs. KC's criticism of the 88, et. al., is that KC takes the time and mental energy to back up his statements/editorials with evidence. Where is your evidence of KC being a marginal academic (who gets to define marginal, and on what basis - obviously, the incestuous academic college "progressive faculty" who give awards to the like-minded is not valid); what is evidence of KC's "own agenda;" evidence of your speculation that "no-one" would have ever heard of KC (not even his mother?); your evidence that KC is soley interested in justice for white males (were their other victims of the Lacrosse hoax?); your evidence of KC's mudslinging; your evidence of KC's "yoking through distortion" (WTF?); your evidence of "your (KC) hatred of rsearch (sic) agendas " etc.???

The proper charcterization of baseless statments such as yours is "spewing venom" rather than an academic debate. If you wish, and are able, to do the research and make SUBSTANTIATED statements, then bring them on for debate. Otherwise, you appear intellectually lazy/incompetent (no substantiation).

I belive this blog would have ended long ago but that the 88, their defenders, Nifong defenders, and the duplictous MSM KEEP making asinine comments for KC to document!

Ed

BTW, "KC can't be stopped, only contained." GREAT metaphor.

Anonymous said...

9:31 is on the money.

A group of people who through their priveleged positions feel as though they are above the law and don't have to answer for their actions-

The Duke Men's lacrosse team, NO, 88 Duke Professors.

Ralph Phelan said...

I just answered my own question of 10:04.

"DURHAM, N.C. - In August 2006, Duke graduate Michael Corey began providing regular columns to the school's official athletic website, GoDuke.com. Corey is the first staff columnist for GoDuke.com. [Which means he is ultimately working for Duke University.]

Corey - a member of the United States Basketball Writers Association - is the former sports editor of Duke University's student newspaper, The Chronicle, and the former editor of Duke's news and features magazine, Towerview. He graduated in 2005 with a major in history and minors in political science and English.[He's full time denizen of the PCest parts of academia.] In the fall of 2005, he won the Rolling Stone magazine College Journalism Award for Essays and Criticism. His sportswriting has been published in The Columbus Dispatch, Sports Illustrated On Campus, and Duke Basketball Report.com.

Since graduating, Corey has continued following Duke athletics as a moderator at the TheDevilsDen.com, which reports on Duke sports.

Corey is currently pursuing a master's degree from Ohio State's School of Education Policy. [After which he will inflict his ideology people outside the academy. I hope he makes it big in sports journalism instead.]"

mac said...

Mike Lee,

The posts by those anons you speak of
reminds me of the scene in a movie (?)
where the fat gladiator is chasing the man
he's supposed to dispatch for the crowd;
eventually the gladiator falls down and dies,
unable to keep up with...KC?

KC is obviously a marathoner.
(Done any Ultras, KC?)

It would be quite a happy day if a Duke Professor
(or two,) sympathetic to the students,
would offer an assignment on the 88 and the whole affair.
Lots of departments could participate, lots of classes
could offer their own cup of hot, steaming yellow liquid
in a golden chalice to offer sacrificially to the sun people,
with their floating Incan phalluses and interspecies sex
rituals.

Who's gonna stop 'em? Remember:
tenure and academic freedom...

Anonymous said...

"Despite the high media interest in all Duke-related matters at the time, and despite the virtually unprecedented nature of such an act in the history of American higher education, the professors’ effort . . . had no effect."

Mr. Corey's line of reasoning is especially apt for a university endowed with tobacco money.* For many years, the tobacco industry claimed that all of the millions of dollars that they were investing in cigarette advertising. . . was not aimed at getting people to smoke.

***************

Regarding apologies from the G88: It might take a few years, but I bet that at some point, at least some of the ad's signers are going to start distancing themselves from the ads and the Group. Especially for the younger ones, it might take moving on to other schools, where they are no longer under the powerful influence of the main G88 leaders, before they can develop the kind of perspective that will allow them to decide whether their support for the G88 was a positive thing or a negative thing.

Ken Duke
Durham Attorney

___________
* My college (Wake Forest) was, too.

Ralph Phelan said...

re: 4:18 & 8:48

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Ralph Phelan said...

"Especially for the younger ones, it might take moving on to other schools, where they are no longer under the powerful influence of the main G88 leaders, before they can develop the kind of perspective that will allow them to decide whether their support for the G88 was a positive thing or a negative thing."


It's also going to take "moving on to other schools, where they are no longer under the powerful influence of the main G88 leaders" before it's safe for them to apologize without fear of reprisal.

Anonymous said...

KC,
Hruska claimed he was being cynical,and not meant to be taken seriously.His comment spu4rred Nat Lampoon to write a "Mediocrty Issue" which included a list of mediocre things to do.I remember writing "wash me" on a dirty car and cutting the crusts off a sandwich.
Carswell was busted for improper behavior in a men's room some years later.

Anonymous said...

Another riveting post today. KC is always able to conjure up great analogies through history.

But frankly, I'm just not feeling the luv this morning. Mr. Corey and a few anonymous 88 apologists don't seem to value the fine work KC Johnson has been doing.

The truth sometimes hurts....just like the luv about which 88-er Michael Hardt talks so much about. You guys just need to expand your horizons...heed the call of Hardt.

Like many things in life, we cannot fully appreciate their magnitude until some time has past. Trust my instincts on this one: KC and others who have been outraged by the gross conditions allowed to exist and fester within academia will be seen at a subsequent time as saviors of future minds on this planet.

Now, I'm posting on the run....but just wanted to share this message with the Gang of 88 and their anemic, yet enthusiastic, apologists.

Perhaps this message from Rakim....(listen carefully to the words)....might help you understand why we all adore KC and appreciate his relentless fight for Truth.

())))))))He's so contagious...he turns my pages.(((((((()

And hey, if a few of you guys can't get down with the message here, just bring in Mark Anthony Neal, that fine interpreter of not only rap culture, but his own rather unique outlook on masculinity.

Go on, brothas. Get jiggy wid it!

Truth_Hurts

Debrah

inman said...

Hello anonymous @ 4:18:

I've only read one of your works, but have a few comments. To wit:

(1) re: “definition of marginal academic” -- The term “marginal academic” was used by the anonymous poster, not KC and I don’t believe it is a defined term.

(2) re: “a certain type of scholarship” -– I was unaware that there were types of scholarship. I was aware that there were various subject matter fields, but my understanding was and is that “scholarship” transcends the field being investigated, with an “adherence to truth” being one of the transcendent qualities. Too many of the ’88 seem to ignore this. (See for example, paragraph 43 of the change of venue motion for an astounding disregard for truth, penned by Karla Holloway.)

(3) re: “what is properly an argument about the structural problems for abuse of prosecutorial power.” – I agree,… that is one proper argument. The abusive, ill-considered and inflammatory actions and words of various tenured professors at Duke University and the fact that these actions and words had such a deleterious effect on three students is, in my judgment, also a most proper subject for argument.

(4) re: “you ride a hobby horse about sex/race/class.” – It seems that you take liberties with facts once more. Justice for all has been a common theme in this blog. That numerous faculty members are not being held accountable for their words and actions (see 3 above) and for what appears to the learned eye as frivolous subject matter for scholarship is the bit in the mouth of that hobby horse.

(5) re: “just like those academics you attack aren't marginal given their contributions to myriad academic conversations” – OK. Color me stupid, but I cannot for the life of me understand how Queer Theory or pre-Columbian Latin American sex practices or other equally arcane subjects are anything but “marginal.” I can assure you that these subjects are not on the Super Highway of academic inquiry and scholarship. I’m not even sure if one could properly assign them to the metaphor of a “foot path.” Further, it is good that libraries like Perkins have shelving for books that gather enough dust to be buried forever, for that is my view of where some of this “stuff” ends up.

(6)re: “vicious, condescending, and dismissive” – All one needs to do is “listen” to the leading voices of the Group of 88 to understand the nuanced mal-intent of a vicious, condescending and dismissive group. (And, by the way in your writing phrases such as this, it may be better not to precede “and” with a comma.) Also, I was on the receiving end of e-mail vitriol spouted by Houston “you are the problem” Baker circa April 2006, in response to a calm and courteous inquiry.

(7) Since I am now fully bored with your calumny, I shall stop being “ham” on rye sandwich “handed” with mustard and a side of chips and a Coke. Your pompous attitude speaks volumes and reinforces the notion that ridiculous research agendas really should not be supported by institutions such as Duke University, for the imprimatur of respectability is in no way deserving.

And, who are you?

Why do you hide behind anonymity?


Thomas S. Inman ‘74

Anonymous said...

4:18 - I can't imagine any set of comments being more off base than yours. KC does what all good trial lawyers relish, but know deep in their hearts very few can do - that is - relentlessly, and without redoubt, marshal and present facts in support of a position. The reason why this blog has become so popular is that KC does just that. And contrary to your assertions that he is engaging in hyperbole and distortions, indeed all KC is doing is engaging in a relentless assault on the vacuous and conclusory ideas and statements of so many in academia today that irrespective of their political views (yes, mostly liberal if not Marxian), reflect a lack of regard for the inductive and critical reasoning process. Response like yours 4: 18 - that is - hysteria about hyperbole and other such emotionally laden attacks, dispositive of nothing - where is the data - the facts, and more facts, and more facts, that demonstrate that KC is incorrect and that a whole bunch of people connected to Duke somehow acted in a principled, rather than unprincipled, way? I recall my twin brother - for a while an academic at a so-called top 20 school, and now indisputedly known as a leader in his field, laughing as the PC wave hit academia. He remembers observing sociologists (he is a econometrics expert) running and re-running regression analyses so that could fit their pre-ordained views. And yes, these "scholars" were admitted into the academy with less than desireable credentials, and were indeed by any measure affirmative action hires. Was that the end of the world? No. But no one should expect shock, surprise, or accuse others of engaging in hyperbole when that dirty secret gets let out of the bag.

Mike Lee said...

Mere speculation on my part Ken, but I believe you're absolutely right.

Sometime a few years down the road a student journalist will ask a member of the 88 who is preparing to begin teaching at a new University, "Now, about that advertisement you signed in the school paper at Duke....

They will brush it off as an adolescent indescretion and say they were trying to promote diversity or give some other PC answer and that will be the end of it.

For now, they are left to mutter and curse the name Wahneema Lubiano under their breath.

They can say what they want (or hide in silence) in public, but I wonder just how many of the 88 regret (at least the wording of) their infamous advertisement. If they don't they are far more foolish than KC, you, or I make them out to be.

Anonymous said...

4:18

secondly, a case that, really, has nothing to do with your area of expertise.

So you have just made the argument that the Klan 88 had no business placing their rant article in the Chronicle. Thanks for helping us with that point.

Talk about slinging mud. You are covered. I have read and reread your post looking for the substance to back up your "charges". Please post again and let us know where the substance is. At the present, I must assume you take great pride in Chauncey (Coach Presslar, your daughter is in danger) Nartey and his gift of the Griffith award and the MLA bestowing on "Professor" (why say it in 25 words or less when you can use over 100 which make NO sense) Wallace.

Are you and 2:13 in fact one and the same? It seems that the two of you have the same tendencies.

Thanks for your pathetic attack on KC. The Green Eyed Monster lives.

AF

Anonymous said...

The main difference between KC's critique of the 88 and KC's detractors critique of KC, is that KC is seeking a discussion on the merits of this case with the 88, who are hiding from him like the scared, overmatched cowards they know they are. They are unwilling to engage in a "dialogue" with anyone they can't control (see grade retaliation), so they hide from him. In the wake of their silence, he is forced to examine their individual works to see if he can extrapolate a point of view they are unwilling to advance into a dialogue, for fear (or perhaps, knowledge) that they would be exposed as recipients of quotas, and academic welfare handouts. Anyone who challenges them (which must be a strange new experience, given that it appears they were just hand-picked b/c of a suitable race/agenda perspective) is of course immediately deemed a racist, and any email they can't address is a "racist attack."

On the other hand, YOUR logic that provides, at best, "they're not marginal, ...YOU [kc] are" would be comical if it weren't so pitiful. First, it's not even original and wouldn't pass muster on the playground at the nearest elementary school to your house. Second, you don't have to attack the silent speaker, you just have to step up and take on KC on the merits of this case. Is there evidence of any rape? Kidnapping? Sexual assault? Cf., is there evidence of a rush to judgment? Grade retaliation? Slander and/or libel?

You be the judge. For me, I think Dook's request (denied, faster than weak tot action at the Sonic Drive Thru) that Collin and Reade re-enroll, and their subsequent settlement with the families, the complete destruction of the phrase "District Attorney Michael Nifong, Esq." is evidence to me of who prevailed in this one.

Get some.

Anonymous said...

NC attorney here: Dook settled with the families on behalf of itself and its faculty.

Query: When did Baker leave "Dook's faculty"? Before or after he wrote the letter calling the students farm animals?

Unless he is indemnified by name, or the class of people indemnified includes former faculty under some such language, has he pulled a Nifong-2 and stepped out from under his indemnity clause? Wouldn't that be a great moment for blacks in higher education?

Jamie said...

4:18:00 AM
"You have managed to insert yourself and your own agenda about a certain type of scholarship that you disagree with into what is properly an argument about the structural problems for abuse of prosecutorial power."

Yes, please - let's limit the discussion to structural problems of abuse of prosecutorial power. Nifong did it all; no administrator, no group of academics at Duke or anywhere else aided and abetted him, no academic fomented race/class/gender hatred by pointing to this case as their proof. When it was clear to even an oaf that injustice had occurred, the academics rose as one to say they supported the unjustly accused. It was stirring. History will surely record that.

"Instead of taking your analysis towards its logical and proper conclusion and conducting an analysis of the US justice system and its failings--for all people, not just white male college students who you seem to be fixated on--you ride a hobby horse about sex/race/class..."

Oh, absolutely. The hobby horse of sex/race/class belongs to KC. Sex/race/class fixation is not the raison d'etre, the meal ticket, of any academic at Duke. Again, history must record that: in fact, we should see to it.

Each profile is an attempt to yoke through distortion and hyperbole your hatred of research agendas that fall well outside of your area of competency (given the ham-handed manner in which you treat each of the scholars you critique)...

Distortion and hyperbole? Ham-handed? That's KC, to a 't'. He cunningly quotes the academics themselves to make it seem like he is being fair, but he leaves out the important context of their superficially bizarre ideas, which is...ahem!Sex/race/class.

"The history that you purport to study will remember you--and I can't imagine that it will be kind when it does."

Indeed. That history should begin to be written today. I suggest that the whites who lynched Emmett Till provide an appropriate historical context for interpreting the blog of KC Johnson.

Anonymous said...

mac and thomas

Great responses to the 4:18 poster child


I keep wondering why the Klan of 88 remains at Duke clad in their robes (black not white) while dispensing their own brand of "justice" (lynching those who come from families who have worked hard to make something of themselves and who enjoy their own athletic prowess). I guess the Duke administration enables this Klan in much the same way that J. Edgar enabled the Klan of a couple of generations ago. They appear to have many of the same ideals: narrow-mindedness, vitriolic hate, pomposity, a need to indoctrinate, an over-evaluation of their importance, and the desire to play judge and jury. I could go on.
Until Duke is purged of the infection it suffers now, it will not be considered a great or even a good university. Academia has been overrun by PC agendas. Intellect has been overrun by these agendas as well. Common sense has left the building.
Hopefully, next July 4th will be an Independence Day for Duke. The alumni and supporters will take back the BOT and cleanse the university of the plague that has overrun it. Otherwise, it will be forever mired in the quagmire of phallic mediocrity!

AF

Anonymous said...

4:18 AM

Please read &:28 AM and scurry away if not slither or wriggle.

Anonymous said...

the termination of the dule lacrosse message board is similar to the venezuelan government refusing the free speech that criticizes it

the use of the RACE TEST and the IMMORAL SEX TEST are simple methaphors for the rise of liberal fanaticism and incredibly the rise in LIBERAL JUDGEMENTALISM...

all this from the clan with the tan, the race pimps from laraza, the freeloaders from durham...who hold their rights to bury freedom that they object to

american universities arent reflections of american society but the worst aspects of slime foreign countries envious of american...

duke deserves the award for the "defenders of fanatics"

One Spook said...

Anon@4:18 writes:

Instead of taking your analysis towards its logical and proper conclusion and conducting an analysis of the US justice system and its failings--for all people, not just white male college students who you seem to be fixated on--you ride a hobby horse about sex/race/class.

Out of respect for the fact that you have had the courage to reply and present your thoughts, I'd like to address your comments.

As in your earlier posting, you do not seem to grasp the fact that KC's "analysis" cannot and should not be limited to the "US Justice system and its failings."

The very assertive actions of the Klan of 88 in conjunction with this event are as much a part of the wrongs in this sordid event as is the failure of the justice system in Durham.

I am sure that those who support the Klan of 88 would very much prefer that the dialogue in this case be limited to blaming the justice system (specifically Nifong) but very clearly that is not the complete story.

If you wrote an analysis of the attempted lynching by Ku Klux Klan members of three Black men accused of a crime against a white person during the Jim Crow days of the South, I am quite sure your analysis would not be limited to the "US justice system and its failings."

The main purpose of KC's analysis of the scholarship (or lack thereof), activities, writings, and teachings of the Klan of 88 is to provide background and an explanation of precisely why their worldview through the prisim of race, class and gender led them to behave as they did.

If KC is riding a "hobby horse about sex/race/class," it is because that "hobby horse" has been placed in the Duke mall by the Klan of 88 and the parents of Duke students are invited to pay $45,000.00 per year for their children to ride it.

As in the hypothetical attempted lynching case above, the racist behavior of the Ku Klux Klan toward three Black men accused of a crime is precisely the same behavior as exhibited by the Klan of 88 toward three young white men whom the Klan of 88 believed were "perfect offenders."

The incredibly ironic element in all of this is that the Klan of 88, purportedly people who have dedicated their lives and scholarship to the examination of racial/gender/class injustice, cannot see that their behavior in this case exemplfies that very injustice.

One Spook

Duke1965 said...

There's no doubt that the G88 will rigidly stick to their agenda, with no meaningful apology for abetting a "lynch mob" mentality against their own students. However, I do think there is some evidence that the Duke administration is at least doing some reflecting. Take a look at the latest retrospective in the Duke alumni magazine:

http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/

While not perfect, I think this is relatively well-balanced report on the lacrosse case. And while a cynic would argue that the Duke administration (which puts out the magazine) is merely pandering to the alumni, at least the report is far more balanced than some of the administration's previous efforts.

KC, it would be interesting to hear what you think of this report.

Anonymous said...

The bombastic, groaning, “Oh,” at the top of Anonymous 4:18’s post hints at the pomposity to come, and the rest of the post does not disappoint.

Anonymous 4:18 throws the “marginal academic,” term back in Professor Johnson’s direction, but Professor Johnson didn’t originate it. This riposte cannot sting too much since for the 2007-2008 academic year Johnson will be teaching at the History Department at Tel Aviv University, as the Fulbright Distinguished Chair in the Humanities.

The laughable construct, “no one had heard of you before the Duke rape accusation,” must come as news to the readers of the “New York Post,” “Wall Street Journal,” “New York Sun,” “National Review,” “New Republic,” “Inside Higher Ed,” and the “Weekly Standard,” to name a few; not to mention his students at Arizona State, Harvard, Williams College, Columbia University, and CUNY.

Clearly, Anonymous 4:18 means by “no one,” “people who get all their information from TV,” and who was lead, thereby, to DIW.

Johnson handily refutes Anonymous 4:18’s “insert yourself and your own agenda,” comment in his main board analysis: “I fully concede that all of my posts are rooted in my opinion: that’s the nature of any blog in which the author has identified himself or herself publicly.” Seems to me Professor Johnson might “disagree,” with “a certain type of scholarship,” but little of his commentary overtly demonstrates it. Johnson’s disagreements are more with the disingenuousness, insincerity, and hypocrisy in the way these “scholars,” of the Group of 88 have chosen to show their learning: in the blatant exercise of power politics. It is said that the internecine warfare in academia is so vicious because the stakes are so low, and the Group of 88 demonstrates the acuity of this nostrum perfectly.

As far as Anonymous 4:18’s blather about “the US justice system and its failings,” Professor Johnson also could have authored a blog about the disappearance of the Great Northern Spotted Wood Nymph, but he did not, for the very good reason that the subject of his blog was this transgression of justice in Durham, which became about the Group of 88 because of the absurdity and injustice of their behavior. Given Professor Johnson’s m├ętier, “20th century U.S. constitutional, political, and diplomatic history,” I find his choice of subjects to be well within his purview.

The goofy assertion that Professor Johnson’s “hobbyhorse,” is “about sex/race/class,” is too ridiculous to refute, except to say the subjects have been so abused and prostituted by these Group of 88 pseudo-intellectual politicians-- masquerading as ethical members of the professorial class-- as to be virtually unidentifiable as anything remotely related to a “discipline.” This would be hard for Johnson to ignore. These subjects became a stalking horse, not a hobby horse, for these academic lightweights of the Group of 88 to capture mainstream publicity and try to legitimize what privately, within the academy, through raw political power, they had already pushed through: their post-modernist theories, increasingly irrelevant in an age when terrorism is demonstrating the worth of the values of the Enlightenment (the rule of law, belief in God as a personal not a public choice, the emancipation of women, the inherent worth of every human life).

The notion that any of Johnson’s posts are “vicious, condescending, and dismissive,” or that his “research energies,” are involved in “slinging mud instead of doing scholarship,” any casual reading of the blog’s archive is easily rejected. A blog is not, prima facie, scholarship; but nor is it casually written or poorly thought-out. Professor Johnson has always offered ample room for anyone he quotes or references to respond. If they do not, it is probably because, like Anonymous 4:18, they have no rejoinder.

Finally, history, accurately recorded history, will be kind to Professor Johnson. Like Churchill, he was the one to write it.

Anonymous said...

to 4:18 You are just a bomb thrower. You are probably use to intimidating students. Unfortunately for you, that has puffed you up. Are you one of the 88?

Thomas 11:25 great reasoned response.

LarryD said...

Dr. Sanity has an excellent set of posts on denial and how to deal with it.

No few of the trolls here show symptoms of denial:

• Problem solving and decision making will deteriorate as the entire focus of energy becomes the maintenance of the denial. In place of rational alternatives, excessive emotionality in general; and specifically anger and rage escalate toward those who are "blamed" for the reality that does not conform to the denier's worldview.

• In the end, interactions with those in denial are characterized by the denier's frequent smugness; sense of superiority; arrogance; belittlement of alternative views; and undiluted hatred toward anyone or any idea that questions their worldview.


Part 2 starts off with a nice table of techniques used to perpetuate denial. I suggest we bookmark this for easy reference, so we can spot the techniques when trolls use them.

Anonymous said...

For those who argue that Duke has any standards whatsoever in its faculty hiring decisions I have two words for you......Kim Curtis.

mac said...

12:05
Assume you mean 7:28 am.
It's a post worth re-reading.

"Scuttle" might be a better word when describing the alacritous flight of fleeing cockroaches:
I once worked in a fish restaurant,
washing dishes (I was about 16 at the time)
and I had to come back to do some
follow-up with the manager,
and the sight of thousands of cockroaches scuttling away
when the light came on was awe-inspiring.
(And enough to make me not want to eat there anymore.)

If people see the same thing at Duke,
the 88 cockroach-types fleeing when the lights're turn on...
who knows what'll happen?

Anonymous said...

For an 88er like the 4:28 to criticize KC for "riding a hobby horse about sex/race/class" is hypocrisy personified. Brings to mind a phrase about pots and kettles. Rather as if Phil Spector criticized the police for "riding a hobby horse" about reckless gun use, or Tour de France riders complained that the authorities were "riding a hobby horse" about performance-enhancing drugs.

Christy said...

Anyone else think the 88 are all variations of Prof. Gilderoy Lockhart from Hogwarts?

I've heard that any institution can funtion satisfactorily with up to a certain percentage of dead wood. Sounds like Duke has exceeded that point.

Anonymous said...

I think 4:18 made some great points.

If KC did indeed use the phrase "marginal academic", he should look into the mirror. That was dead-on. He is famous for having to fight through litigation in order to get tenure, and for the case of three SUPERBLY-DEFENDED, clearly falsely accused men whose representation would probably rival that of any uber-wealthy actor or athlete in the United States.

I went to what is considered a rather liberal small college, and I had tenured professors who were quite clearly "conservative" in their views. Sure, I had plenty of whacky liberal profs, and they may have substantially outweighed the number of conservatives, but the fact remains that there were a number of tenured profs who represented a clearly of a different idealogical perspective. This is true everywhere, and the numbers are often exaggerated to make a point (just look at KC's blog).

4:18 further hit it on the head when he referenced the purtported reason for KC's tenure having been denied (specifically, the lack of respect for the opinions of others and a lack of collegiality and an ability to constructively work with others), and used KC's own blog as evidence to substantiate this claim.

Clearly, it is unfair and inappropriate to deny tenure to an otherwise qualified professor who just happens to be conservative. But if KC acted with anywhere near the resentment for his fellow professors as he has demonstrated here, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have been an extremely unpleasant and counterproductive, divisive, and distracting influence on the faculty as a whole.

One final point: it is highly disingenous to accuse 4:18 of making things up, or of making distortions or "ad hominem" attacks... he is treating KC with far more respect in his analysis than KC is treating those professors with.

Plus, 4:18 is clearly quite adept at expressing his opinions. Just because you admire KC, doesn't mean you have to ignore him without a genuine and honest analysis of what he had to say.

Anonymous said...

KC, you certinaly have gotten under the skin of 4:18; you've questioned his "scholarship"! You dont have the credentials to look at what they do, you're a nobody! Theyre doing important scholarship, why can't you do important scholarship and leave them alone! Mygod, they cant even get a minute's rest anymore!!

Actually, nothing bothers these frauds more than to be "outed" for their faux academics. Its not just that they are being disagreed with, its that on close inspection one can see that they are RIDICULOUS! The Emperor wears no clothes, in fact the Emperor doesen't even write very well.

Anonymous said...

I have absolutly no connection to Duke. They are reporting that their endowements are up eleven percent. That says it all. Just as the lack of civil suits against any participants is telling. Duke settled for itself and its faculity - the key card must have got them on the run.

Anonymous said...

LS debate on Ward Churchill shows "insider information" is not what it use to be.

Anonymous said...

Some of KC's work has been valuable, especially his spirited defense of the LAXers when few were doing that.

His attacks on the 88, and others, are, however, over the top. For those of you who are non-academics, let me clue you in: sitting on university committees may not mean a faculty member is an important/active member of a department. It sometimes can and does mean that a faculty member isn't contributing as much to research and teaching as others, so gets put on committees. This is not specific to Duke--this happens elsewhere, and happens outside academe. Those who can, do (teach/research). Those who can't, often administer/serve on committees.

There are several VERY SENIOR 88ers--as opposed to tenured, which can mean seven years out of school--who KC has not taken on. I'm thinkin it's because they're really good/have written influential books or articles (KC needs to remember that not all fields are like his, ie, "book" fields)& they still signed the letter.

Finally, is KC willing to give up the tenure he fought so hard to get? Unlikely!!!

Anonymous said...

1:53, You're not bitter, are you now? Is your name one of those that have been "reviewed"? Its not very collegial of KC to do that, is it?

All you grown up children have to fight with is innuendo and ad homenims and misdirection. You're phonies and you will be revealed. If you had anything besides hurt feelings to bring to the table, I suspect you would have done that by now. But you haven't.

Ralph Phelan said...

4:18AM 7:48AM 1:53PM (Could you please pick a nickname already? It would make this conversation easier. You don't need a create a Blogger account, just click the "other" button, make up some arbitrary identifier, and type i in the top box each time you post) writes:
" a tenure fight that seems to have been significantly about your collegiality, which you have again and again shown here is nothing short of vicious, condescending, and dismissive; ... your hatred of rsearch agendas that fall well outside of your area of competency"

Apparently, professors should treat all their collegaues work with respect no matter how tendentious and suffer fools gladly so long as they have an academic title.

My model of an ideal professor is rather different - following the truth wherever it goes rather than some predetermined "agenda" and calling BS whenever they see it, no matter how much power or prestige the BSer has.

I suppose it's a matter of taste which you prefer. From the students' point of view it comes down to whether they're looking to learn or get some easy As. That's a tough balancing act to maintain, since in your first job hunt your grades will count a lot, but in ten years they'll be forgotten and you'll be judged on what you've done lately, and the knowledge you gained will hopefully have contributed to that.

Ralph Phelan said...

"They are reporting that their endowements are up eleven percent."
How much of that is a single contribution from Melinda Gates?

inman said...

anon @ 1:53

Is 4:18 a he? I thought 4:18 was a she or an it. Thank you for clearing that up!

Also, in response to your post, I just made another "genuine and honest analysis of what [4:18] had to say." Although, I'm not sure how to define a "genuine and honest analysis," I can, nonetheless, assert that I made one.

Unfortunately, 4:18's conclusions require a suspension of disbelief. I couldn't find a single articulated fact, with an associated reference to source material or documents. There was no reference to third party information. There were just numerous conclusions, underlying assumptions and, as you so properly pointed out "his opinions." In all, it was an editorial and to a certain extent represented 'fiction'. I find it astounding that otherwise intelligent people believe that the litmus test for truth is the extent to which their lips were responsible for an utterance. 4:18 seems to adhere to that standard.

And here's the punch line for you: You seem to have an eagle's eye for spotting and cataloging the bark on the tree, but unfortunately, you've missed seeing the forest.

Such is a bug's life, too!

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.53:

"If KC did indeed use the phrase "marginal academic", he should look into the mirror. That was dead-on."

I'd ask you to re-read the post. The phrase was used by a sympathizer with the Group of 88, to describe members of the Group of 88. I have not used the phrase at any point in the blog.

Topher said...

To 1:53 -

Your post makes no valid point. First, show me where it says KC is conservative (no conservatives I know are supporting Obama.) Maybe he's conservative by the Marxist standards of the G88.

KC Johnson has been quite respectful in letting the G88'ers' evidence - publications, public statements and post-hoax-exposure behavior - speak for itself.

As for 4:18 using "KC's own blog as evidence to substantiate this claim," he provides no such evidence, only big-picture generalization. Where does the blog show KC is not working constructively with others? If anything, he's calmly and honestly given the 88'ers every opportunity to either back up or retract their

KC's case, obviously, is that their weak scholarship distances them both from the shores of reality and intellectual honesty, and from an accountability that might exist if they had not been isolated on intellectual islands and insulated from mainstream academic propriety.

where does it say that collegiality has to include an egg-sucking 'tolerance' for bogus scholarship and extra-academic political demagoguery?

KC, with a legit PhD putting out strong academic material, has no right to take issue with professors whose scholarly output is of null quality?

People have a human responsibility to bear witness to wrong...letting wrong slide because you don't want to upset the apple cart (if that's your definition of "collegiality") is to personify the aphorism that evil thrives when good men do nothing.

Anonymous said...

AF, 11:32

Are you and 2:13 in fact one and the same? It seems that the two of you have the same tendencies.

I wrote the 2:13, but not, of course 4:18, which should be clear to anybody who reads these two with the brain switched on. My main point, which the AF post seems to reinforce, is that it is too easy to reflexively condemn the G88 and their supporters . One should instead try to think about what works in their favor, despite the fact that it is harder and more unpleasant.

For the record, I have nothing but respect for Prof. KC Johnson's scholarship and writing, which is why I read his blog.

Topher said...

I think by tagging KC a 'marginal academic,' 4:18 might mean "a person who goes about academic scholarship in a reasoned and intelligent way
rather than one that bangs political pots and agitates as an activist."

Anonymous said...

I, too, consider it telling that KC Johnson, who was apparently initially denied tenure for being uncollegial (he must be on the far side of difficult for this to happen given all kinds of uncongenial people who do get tenured...), has recently used his blog to go after academics whose work he dislikes (fears?) and allows all kinds of people to post all manner of anti-intellectual, anti-tenure comments, even rants.

To a degree I can understand his behavior: he was embarassed before his peers in a hard-fought tenure battle, and, his area of expertise is not necessarily highly sought after.

I'm not sure if KC is marginal to his subdiscipline in his professional.

Anonymous said...

No, KC does not "go about scholarship in a reasoned and intelligent way" if you are talking about his blog attacks on other academics. This is not scholarship in any case, but muck-raking.

I wonder when KC is going to get out his second double-blind peer-reviewed monograph?

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.24:

I'd urge you to take a look at my CV: I have published three monographs (in addition to a survey text). I currently have a book on the Cold War under contract (Cambridge); a second book (on the 1964 election) under review (Cambridge) and am editor-in-chief of the new edition of the Encyclopedia of the U.S. Congress.

Gary Packwood said...

Duke1965 12:53 said...

...There's no doubt that the G88 will rigidly stick to their agenda, with no meaningful apology for abetting a "lynch mob" mentality against their own students. However, I do think there is some evidence that the Duke administration is at least doing some reflecting. Take a look at the latest retrospective in the Duke alumni magazine:
...http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/
...While not perfect, I think this is relatively well-balanced report on the lacrosse case. And while a cynic would argue that the Duke administration (which puts out the magazine) is merely pandering to the alumni, at least the report is far more balanced than some of the administration's previous efforts.
...KC, it would be interesting to hear what you think of this report.
::
It is no easy task defending officials of Duke when the article you reference makes the following observation about those Duke officials.

"The faculty investigation led by the law school's James Coleman painted a different picture. As Coleman says, many—including some university officials—were surprised at his committee's findings that rumors of bad behavior didn't accord with the facts. "We talked with people in the neighborhood about the lacrosse students and all the havoc they supposedly wreaked. And it became clear that it really wasn't the lacrosse kids they were talking about".

How can anyone defend or expect Duke to be reflective about their own 'officials' when in fact they did not know the truth about their own students?

It seems to me that these 'officials' created the atmosphere on campus that resulted in the hoax.

And...they all still work at Duke and receive a paycheck!
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Re Anon 2:30, I don't think anyone (to my knowledge) has asked or even suggested that a tenured professor give up his or her tenure. I would imagine that the 88 (for the most part) are excellent professors who have greatly contributed to Duke and the academia. I also believe they meant well with their ad, but were very misguided and made a grave error in (at the very least) the wording of their statement.

The problem I have (and the reason I am happy to see them fileted regularly by KC) is in my opinon, their inexcusable and inexplicable actions in this case.

It's simple, these professors took out a guilt assumimg ad in the school paper that violated all the major tenets they are supposed to (and claim to) uphold. Yet they claim they were in the right and they fail to apologize.

Their actions in this case were (and continue to be) cowardly. They have run away from the conversation they claimed they wanted to start. Therefore they deserve all the ridicule that is heaped upon them.....until and unless they rejoin the conversation and offer some explanations.

LarryD said...

3:10

KC replied to that argument in the comments to an earlier post in the profile series.

We're here to try and figure out why the G88 has gone so wrong on the lacrosse case, what you recommend does nothing to advance that purpose. The G88 are acting like a bunch of narcissists, unwilling to apologize or even discuss the part they played in the rush to judgment.

Those who won't admit to making a mistake, will certainly repeat the mistake under the right circumstances. Which is why I, for one, am not willing let the issues lie.

Are you having difficulty seeing that the G88 has gone wrong?

Anonymous said...

KC-

The 88 supporters go thought stages, just like stages of grief - shock, dibelief, anger, realization, and acceptance.

Their pattern, thus far, appears to be 1) defend the 88, 2) ignore your blog, 3)state a need for debate but refuse to do so, 4) make unreferenced/unresearched broad comments about your motives and "agenda," and now they are at stage 5, attack the messenger (you). Maybe they, like the segregationists of the 50's in the South, will eventually get to "recognition of reality."

Or, (as the jock stated) maybe they will move from defeating you to trying to contain you. Love that analogy!

Seriously, debate-worthy remarks from the 88 should be welcomed. Everyone can learn. Thusfar, however, that is not what we have seen.

Ed

Anonymous said...

3:24,

Besides opinion backed up by invective, can you be specific? If you don't think that you are being treated fairly by KC, can you state where exactly he has erred?
Just because you are credentialed does not mean you are immune to review. After all, you are public figures now, thanks to your venture into judicial commentary.

So what makes a PHD in Queer Studies And Mayan Phallic Symbology so important? Inquiring minds want to know !

Anonymous said...

3:24 says: "No, KC does not "go about scholarship in a reasoned and intelligent way" if you are talking about his blog attacks on other academics. This is not scholarship in any case, but muck-raking."

Primarily, "attacks" by KC are to quote the works (or lack of them) and words of the 88. The "muckrake" themselves...

In fact, I doubt KC, or anyone else, could make up this stuff.

Anonymous said...

KC

don't respond to the trolls--double blinded?

je ne sais quoi

MIke Lee said...

I love it....I really hope these Anon 88 supporters keep tossing up the softballs so KC can keep knocking them out of the park.

Each anon post attacking him is as good as a member of the 88 (or one of their supporters) sitting at their keyboard muttering KC's name under their breath.

We may have that conversation after all.....if some of these posters are willing to crawl out from behind their anonymous tags, identify themselves, and take off the gloves with KC.

Now that's a pay per view event I'd pay to see!!!

LarryD said...

Ref 3:20 and 3:24

-Ad hominem is responding to an argument by attacking your opponent rather than addressing the argument itself.

3:20 and 3:24 are in no way a rebuttal of KC's profiles of the G88, they are merely an attack on KC himself. And they present no evidence, they merely make assertions, which is the Direct Attack ploy.

I interpret Ad hominem attacks as a concession that the argument (in this case the G88 profiles) are correct and unanswerable. Thank you for surrendering.

Anonymous said...

Even all of the "MARGINAL ACADEMICS" in the "MARGINALLY ACADEMIC" Gang of 88 are admitting they are "MARGINAL ACADEMICS." K.C. Johnson, you are such a good instructor! They are being TAUGHT! And all you had to do was put out the source materials.

__________________


Gang of 88 HATE GROUP Checklist

Organizational Item.......Status


1. Band Together..........[check]

2. Prejudicial Views......[check]

3. Create Plan of Attack..[check]

4. Communication System...[check]

5. Implement Plan.........[check]

6. Never Apologize........[check]

7. S.P.L.C.* Listing......[pending]

*Southern Poverty Law Center
_________________

"The sensation or perspective we think of as 'movement' is really K.C. Johnson quickly rearranging things." E=KC2 AND OTHER THINGS THE PHYSICISTS WON'T TELL US, by Inman (2002). MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

To the 3:20

Teachers who applaud calls for the castration of their students, who thank out-of-control mobs that loudly accuse their students of crimes, who denounce and defame their students in the media, who call their students' parents "parents of farm animals," who give students failing grades just because they are on a sports team, and who are unashamedly contemptuous of white male middle class students with mainstream political views etc. etc......


..... tend not to be taken seriously when they have the gall to accuse others of being "uncollegial."

Anonymous said...

All of the Duke "Ward Churchills" are really feeling the heat right now as their lack of scholarship is exposed. Who knows, perhaps this will lead to additional findings of fraud and plagarism? Just saying it's not out of the realm of possibility....
________________
An anagram for "K.C. Johnson" is "Don't f*#k with me." (I'm not gonna tell him, you tell him). MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

3:20,

I recommend you do your due diligence on KC's tenure fight. Outside of few administrators and colleagues at CUNY (albeit, a few powerful folks) - there was overwhelming support for KC's tenureship including people who worked with him closely.

Anonymous said...

Instead of criticizing kc why do you guys not rebut him? Tell us how his posts are wrong without resorting to personal attacks.

Scott66

inman said...

Gregory @ 4:13

You flatter me by attributing that work to me, ... and yes,... I know I'm listed as the author, but in reality I went into a trance and was inadvertantly channeling KC. I thought I had footnoted that in the introduction.

After I awoke from the trance, the empty pages that had been before me were mysteriously filled; and the book was complete, edited and ready for publication.

My brain also really hurt from the massive information overload that I must have suffered. Channeling KC is amazingly hard work.

BAA

Ralph Phelan said...

"There are several VERY SENIOR 88ers--as opposed to tenured, which can mean seven years out of school--who KC has not taken on. I'm thinkin it's because they're really good/have written influential books or articles..."

I find the existence of such people unsurprising and uninteresting. Academia is reknowned for its brilliant cranks: Noam Chomsky, William Schockley, Linus Pauling.... These are the people for whom tenure was invented.

The new (to me) phenomenon that the Duke Lacrosse Burning has revealed, and that I believe fully deserves the intense scrutiny KC is giving it, is the presence of large concentrations of dull-witted cranks with tenure. Why and how are such people getting hired and tenured?

And for all those attacking KC as "marginal": even if what you said were true, and KC is precisely as marginal as those he has been spotlighting ... didn't Duke at one time have pretensions to being on a par with the Ivy League rather than Brooklyn College or CUNY?

Anonymous said...

No, I wouldn't want KC commenting on my work. I don't think he has the academic background to do so. He's in a monolingual Americanocentric field. I suspect he thinks he can reasonably critique just about everything. I find that frightening.

You may not think he's conservative (because he supports B. Obama? Big deal.), but I do. In some ways, I think he's reactionary. I am allowed to think this. And, guess what, I think it not as a result of the things said about him in his tenure case, when it was made clear he doesn't play well in the sandbox, but from reading this blog.

I'm not part of Duke University, but I consider the research that many of the 88 do far more interesting than what KC Johnson does (Yawn...) and far, far more important. You don't have to agree with me. It's your right. I also think he's out of his depth, nasty, and petty when he goes after these people, taking quotes out of context and using you, the blog reader, to further his attacks on them.

Anonymous said...

Mike Lee, I'm not sure which "softballs" you think KC is hitting out of the park. I don't think he shows particularl good argumentation or analysis.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many academics (or students for that matter) would consider the actions of the group of 88 to be "vicious, condescending, or dismissive?"

They deserve everything KC gives them and them some.

Anonymous said...

Scott 66,

When KC Johnson picks and chooses the "facts" from someone else's work and presents them in a way that is outside their original meaning to further his own arguments, I think this is a problem. I think he is happy enough to criticize work he doesn't appear to understand or respect. That's his right.

haskell said...

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html


Check out this link, just for fun.
Talks about fallacious arguments.

Anonymous said...

4:23

Who else besides administrators and colleagues (that's a small department) would have been involved in his tenure case?!!!!

KC Johnson said...

Since a number of people have brought it up, my tenure battle was profiled in the Chronicle of Higher Education--not, I should note, a journal normally considered "right-wing."

Anonymous said...

To 3:24PM

The question of "double blind peer reviewed monograph" shows your unfamiliarity with academic fields like history. As a book editor at a university press, I'm telling you that NO manuscripts are sent to readers "blind". Readers know the author's name, and indeed often have the the author's cv attached to the manuscripts they receive. The book business refereeing is not like scientific paper refereeing. But even there only a small fraction of scientific journals use double blind processes, as those processes have been documented to be unreliable. And who wants to throw information away, anyway?
The basic question in any potential publication decision is "Do you trust the author?" and who the author is really matters. That's one reason why young authors have a harder time breaking into print or getting NIH or NSF or DOE grants.

Anonymous said...

re 4:35 - "I also think he's out of his depth, nasty, and petty when he goes after these people, taking quotes out of context and using you, the blog reader, to further his attacks on them. "

4:35 is still at the shoot the messenger stage, offering attacks without substance. I believe that my teenage child could be more convincing as to why he should be able to stay out late.

Yawn...

Steven Horwitz said...

I must confess to finding myself in partial agreement with some of the KC critics who have popped by on this thread. I honestly don't think that KC's profiles of the G88 further any issue related to the Lacrosse case. We all know what the G88 did and we all know it was wrong. There's plenty of objective record of that at this point in the game. The critical assessments of their work have too often felt like overkill and merely an attempt to throw raw meat to an audience that is too often anti-academic (and anti-intellectual). If KC wants to blog about the sorry state of academia, that's fine, but then rename the blog and broaden the focus outside of Duke.

And, to be honest, the critics have a point about whether KC is able to judge the work of the G88 and whether he has done so fairly. Having read a few of the underlying links, I do think there are times he has taken things out of context in ways that are unfair to the authors. (I think he did this way back when with respect to some of Lubiano's original comments on the case.)

Ask yourselves whether you would take seriously an attempt by the best of the G88 to assess KC's scholarly work. Do you think even a very good scholar who does, say, Chinese linguistics, is capable of judging his work? If not, then why think he's necessarily capable of judging the work of some, though not all, of the G88?

I think the most valuable service that KC could do if he wants to keep this up is to simply provide DiW readers with links to the CVs, syllabi, and actual writings of the G88 members and skip the analyses. Any good scholar would not be afraid to have such material available publically on the web and just providing the links will let people make their own judgments (informed or not) about the nature and quality of the teaching and scholarship.

I would find links to course material especially helpful as anyone should be able to read and draw conclusions about that material.

You all can accuse me of rallying around my own, since I'm a faculty member too. I hope I've made clear that I think the way the G88 behaved in this incident is reprehensible, but I also think these "exposes" serve no useful purpose in terms of preventing a repeat of this incident, and in fact only serve to fire up the most anti-academia (who are often very ignorant of how it actually works) among the readership.

KC Johnson said...

To Steven, 4.57:

I'd link to the syllabi of the 88--if even one of them put their syllabi on-line. To date, the only one who did (Lee Baker) took his down almost immediately after I linked. The other 87 appear not to have any coursework online.

(Full disclosure: I put all of my syllabi, including my lecture notes, on-line.)

All of the Group profiles have links to the person's CV--and, when possible, their writing.

wayne fontes said...

In the last three weeks I've noticed G88 types dropping in to snark about KC's tenure battle. At first I thought it was a reaction to the profiles of the G88. But now I think the fact KC has been continuously reminding us that the G88 are making hiring and tenure decisions has attracted their ire. After all, people who write about floating phalluses are fundamentally beyond embarrassment.
But scrutiny of who they hire and tenure would be be a very real problem for them.

Mike Lee said...

Anon 4:37, perhaps you can do better. That's the beauty of the blog. If you feel KC's writings are not valid or compelling, or you think you have an argument that trumps his then by all means let's have it.

But for now I have to agree with Scott. Rather than attack KC, please tell us how he is wrong or why his arguments and statements don't hold water.

Simply saying, "I don't think he shows good argumentation or analysis" is a lot like saying you support the Group of 88. Please tell us why and what reasons and facts you have to base your opinion on. You're welcome to your opinon and I respect it. KC obviously has his share of detractors and it's easy to see why with his posts. I am sure KC could profile me and make me look ridiculous. The difference is that I would do my best to respond reasonably and point out why he was wrong and defend my self, not attack him as a result of his tenure battle.

Of course the 88 and their defenders have decided this is not the best method. Instead they have said KC is dumb and they don't like him and besides he had to fight to get tenure and he isn't very nice. I'm paraphrasing, but other than silence and ignoring him, that appears to be their argument. About sa convincing as the defense of the "We're Listening" ad I'd say.

Go ahead 4:37, I'm all ears.

Anonymous said...

4:35, Ohmygod! KC is in a "monolingual Americanocentric field" ! If that doesent disqualify from catologuing and collating the various "works" of these humanities "scholars", I dont know what would!

Anonymous said...

Kc - You are great. Bothering to answer the "critics" is above and beyond the call of duty. Who cares about those dopes or their opinion?
KC's tenure battle is just part of his mystic. Trying to call anyone from Harvard and Chicago marginal is a laugh. I don't care about the 88, Duke or Durham, but still get good laughs.

Anonymous said...

I am delighted that someone is exposing the psuedo-scholarship that is polluting humanities at universities. Thank you, KC.

Mike Lee said...

Mr. Horowitz, great post and I think most other readers on this blog will thank you and respectfully reply to your comments, much as KC has. While we might not necessarily agree, your point is well taken.

Now, a couple of questions. If you (and most responsible people, not just academics) agree that the actions of the 88 were "reprehensible" (to use your term) why do you think they won't just acknowledge that and apologize? I can't speak for anyone else but I know I'd be much more likely to stop saying anything negative about them if they simply acknowledged that point. Furthermore, I'd love to see your response to KC's answer that the Duke faculty seems to refuse to post syllabi on the web. Why do you think that is?

Look forward to your response.

haskell said...

Steven Horwitz

You make several good points, but one bad one:

"The critical assessments of their work have too often felt like overkill and merely an attempt to throw raw meat to an audience that is too often anti-academic (and anti-intellectual)."

The point in fact is many of us are academics, and while not "intellectual" are smart as hell. We are trying to maintain a standard and keep the bar from being lowered by bogus "research" and off-the-wall unproven theories. I am concerned that the attitude of "academics" is somehow holier-than-thou. The G88 for years has enjoyed a position of privilege, having only to say "you are a racist/sexist" to their detractors. Enough is enough.

mac said...

4:37

Let's look at Corey:
he admitted he hadn't read Houston Baker's article;
he was unfamiliar with the details of the grade
retaliation case against "Grade Gremlin" Curtis;
he says he has no knowledge of Peter Wood's comments
against Reade Seligmann.

And he knows enough about DIW to say that DIW posters were "shrieking?"
When he hasn't even bothered to read the blog, he somehow knows about the individual posts?

Same with the rest of the critics today, who've attacked KC:
not a fact, not a single fact -
and much misinformed, hysterical name-calling.

Of course, I do admit to name-calling:
Kim "Grade-Gremlin" Curtis.
I thought that was kind of cute. (Don't you, Kim?)

Anonymous said...

anon sez "stop being mean to us K.C., we lack the ability to respond in any meaningful fashion"

WTF is anti-academia? I smell some one that doesn't like these turds uncovered for the great un-washed to see and smell. I would be willing to bet that a very high percentage of the readers and commenters here have a minimum of a BS/BA degree. Most of us have real jobs in competitive fields where bullcrap like K.C. has shown us, just won't get it.

Floyd sez "Get a summer job losers"

Anonymous said...

I also think these "exposes" serve no useful purpose in terms of preventing a repeat of this incident, and in fact only serve to fire up the most anti-academia (who are often very ignorant of how it actually works) among the readership.
****************************

Oh, my.

Be very glad that I'm in a good mood today after reading this oleaginous condescension.

You, dear anonymous urchin, are Exhibit A--(in bold relief)--illustrating the problem. A problem that will not exist forever.....simply because people in this country who actually make the wheels turn have begun to sit up and take notice...due, in large part, to people like KC Johnson, who by all accounts is not capsulized inside a campus shell, unable to get inside from the rain unassisted.

You might be in possession of a fine mind--which you hide well; however, it is obvious to even the most casual observer that you must have missed entire episodes of life...having been absorbed in eremitical pursuits.

No other reason to explain such an ignorant and insular statement from one allegedly educated.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

On the subject of posting syllabi. Most Duke profs have a webpage created by their depts. This links to a cv that profs are also required to maintain. But these pages have no location for posting syllabi. The profs would have to create a separate webpage, apart from the university, in order to post them. So there is no great conspiracy here, just a lack of technical creativity.

Anonymous said...

Oh, excuse me.

That ridiculous statement was from one Steven Horwitz.

At least he posted that under his name....unlike those from the Gritty Gang of 88 who show up here.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

To LarryD, 3:56

3:10:
We're here to try and figure out why the G88 has gone so wrong on the lacrosse case, what you recommend does nothing to advance that purpose. The G88 are acting like a bunch of narcissists, unwilling to apologize or even discuss the part they played in the rush to judgment.

Those who won't admit to making a mistake, will certainly repeat the mistake under the right circumstances. Which is why I, for one, am not willing let the issues lie.

Are you having difficulty seeing that the G88 has gone wrong?


Please read my 2:13 am post again, but let me emphasize: It is too easy to keep pointing out that the G88 "have gone wrong," which is indeed obvious. I know this as well as anybody, as I work in the academia. My point is that one should think about why they are successful, despite being so hopelessly wrong on facts and logic, and confused on morality.

I hope this clarifies what I want to say.

Steven Horwitz said...

To Mike Lee at 519:

Why won't they apologize? I will gladly confess that I don't have an easy answer to this. About the best I can do is that, as so many have argued, this case appeared to be confirmation of everything they believed about Duke, America, and race/gender/class that they swallowed it whole from the start. To admit now that they were wrong would be to have to admit that their whole framework of analysis is wrong, and that would in turn threaten their whole identity and reason for being. That's why they so doggedly hang to the "something happened" stories, including the ones with patently false information. Admitting the truth would be devastating, especially because it means admitting that the right might be right.

Why no syllabi online? Another good question. I think at this point, some are afraid of dealing with emails from people they don't know but who know them as G88ers. Whatever you think about the value of what they produce, they are busy people and just don't want to deal with the hassle. More generally, university teaching is in general a very private activity. We don't team teach a lot and we're used to having the classroom to ourselves. For many academics, opening up to public scrutiny is just uncomfortable. And I do think that some might not wish to have that scrutiny for other reasons.

Whatever the reasons, I think faculty should feel an obligation to be as public as possible with their work, especially at taxpayer-funded schools. We should have nothing to hide. My syllabi, CV, and a number of publications are all on my webpage.

For Haskell at 525:

I probably overstated things. There are a good number of academics on here and we all should be concerned about standards of scholarship. My own view is that the work of the G88 is not as good as they think it is but not as bad as many people here think it is (with some allowance for variance among the G88ers). That said, this blog has been a revelation to me in terms of the depth and intensity of the hatred of academia I see here everyday. I'm not talking about the G88 as targets, but the fact that many commenters frequently extrapolate from them to higher education in general and faculty in general. I find that not only personally offensive but ignorant of the real range of things that happen in higher education. There is a great deal of ignorance here about how academia works, both colleges as institutions and the scholarly process.

It's very frustrating to watch the hateful and ignorant here foam at the mouth when KC tosses them more G88 red meat. Yes, some of the criticisms of their work is deserved, but not all of it. And the way KC frames it plays to the worst anti-academia types out there.

Put differently, this format of dealing with the work of the G88 is hardly conducive to the real substantive sorts of conversations that so many on here accuse the G88 of ducking. If we really want to talk about these issues in a meaningful way, we're gonna have to get beyond both Pot Banging and potted summaries of the G88.

JeffM said...

Dr. Horowitz

In the end, it is largely taxpayers and parents who foot the bill for universities. I understand that for those privileged to receive this largesse, it is frightening to have its utility questioned. Fustel de Coulanges said that the last stage in ending an outdated privilege is for the privileged to recognize that it is outdated.

It is far easier to accuse the critics of being uninformed or anti-intellectual, as being mere mental peasants who have no right to to do anything but bend the knee to the academic aristocracy. How dare this ignorant smelly herd protest what is poured into the trough of higher education.

I have no objection to anyone studying, say, pre-Columbian sex practices (even though I am too old to get much benefit from any rediscoveries.) In fact, I think that knowing more about the range of human behavior is a really good thing. But in that case, to repeat my side of an argument that you and I have had before, it is important that such knowledge be disseminated in language that people of normal intelligence and some degree of education can comprehend. It is also important to explicate clearly the basis for an assertion purporting to be knowledge rather than myth or propaganda or delusion.

Now I concede that some things, the behavior of quarks for example, can be comprehended only through the language of mathematics. But I deny that the behavior of humans can be comprehended only by a tiny elite trained in an esoteric language. All of us study human beings every day of our lives. In the social sciences and the humanities, the inability to say clearly what is being asserted and why that assertion is true or at least probable is good grounds for suspecting that the assertion is backed with little or no evidence and is probably false.

I have tremendous respect for true scholarship (even when I find it ideologically alien.) I have no respect for poseurs and frauds. And I think it is a great social service for KC to expose these pseudo-scholars.

JeffM

Anonymous said...

Prof. Horowitz says..." if we really want to talk about these issues in a meaningful way, we're gonna have to get beyond ...potted summaries of the G88."

Oh, really? No "potted " summaries? These people are unapproachable, will not debate, will not introspect, are imperious, self serving and condescending. Short of breaking into their house I wouldnt know how one would get their attention. And if you think this whole thing should be dropped just because you think anyone who won't let tenured proffessors have their space is anti-academic, well Im afraid I and others disagree.

Anonymous said...

KC, please be collegial and leave these here poor 88ers alone. A lot of the posters on this blog are anti-intellectual shriekers and foamers at the mouth and stuff, rightwing 'n just plain awful. I know: I am one of them.

Anyway, some of the 88 find your blog so boring and inconsequential they have had to come on here and complain - and, well, it just shames us all, is all.

Anonymous said...

No one who proclaims, as Steven Horowitz does, that Rush is (or was) "the greatest rock and roll band ever" (see his webpage linked above) deserves to have his opinions taken seriously about any subject whatever.

no justice, no peace said...

3:53 inre; "...has asked or even suggested that a tenured professor give up his or her tenure..."

That is absolutely incorrect. Let me be clear, I believe we should do away with tenure. These loons would have a tough time attracting a crowd while barking from a soap box in a park. Urana the Ape Lady at the State Fair would draw more interest.

They do NOT improve the human experience and I should not be forced to subsidized their work. At least Urana makes people laugh.

I am through bull shit grants and subsidized student loans.

They are sucking the oxygen out of the room.

And before someone lambasts me for throwing a blanket over free speech, rest assured I could care less what they say. As a professor they should not have a license to waste someones time/money.

Also, those that lambast me for free speech should take-up the fight with those that are driving the Fairness Doctrine and more recently the Duke Chronicle which has cut off blog responses. How's them apples for free speech.

Go out an earn a living.

Let's use the Interenet and delvier the absolute best of the best to everyone. Why not?

Let the market decide...

Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson,
Congratulations sir! Your excellent and unbiased reporting has led to the first bleats for a blog "fairness doctrine" from the weak minded ethically challenged
supporters of the gang of 88. The circle is vicious and never ending.
The instigators are simple minded, easily led prats.

AMac said...

To: G88 Defenders

As a regular reader of DiW, I would like to thank each of you for taking the time to organize your thoughts and present them here (those numerous Anons who have writtne coherent essays, that is--not the drive-bys).

Please return and write more. Some of "us" are not only appalled by the conduct of the Group of 88 during the Frame/Hoax, we are also puzzled. So it's helpful when you shed what light you can on the subject.

A reprise of a point that's been made by others: it helps get your message across if you try and write for your readers.

Half a dozen carefully-written comments in this thread begin along the lines of,

"As I said earlier..."

But you are posting as "anonymous"--your readers can't pick out that earlier contribution from a score of equally anonymous remarks.

It could help you communicate with your audience if you'd consider the 2:51pm advice of Ralph Phelan--see?--and pick a pseudonym for use here.

(I'm assuming that you're writing in order to be understood. If not--well, carry on.)

Blogissimus said...

6:37

Professor Horwitz is correct to the extent that indivuduals make up the G88. What I'd like to discuss in this regard is what constitutes a great university. That simple question is more important than dissecting the G88 as a separate entity. As we all now know (or should know), the G88's agenda-driven politics is extant throughout the land.

Professor, do you think the G88's academic pursuits, on average, are worth funding?

Gary Packwood said...

Why won't they apologize?

Because the discover process is not over.

There is much more to be learned about the actions or lack of actions of many groups that enabled this and other travesties to occur.

When the truth finally comes to the front, the need for apologies will seem rather humorous.
::
GP

Mike Lee said...

Mr. Horowitz:

Thanks for your post, I'll read it when I have time and respond. For now I have to get back to class.

Mike Lee

Steven Horwitz said...

I'm sorry that so many of you find me arrogant or condescending. I don't go around pretending to tell car mechanics how to do their jobs, so perhaps I get a little defensive when others tell me how I, or my colleagues, should be doing mine. Perhaps I can't hear my own arrogance, but if so, I'd equally argue that many here don't recognize their own irrational fervor.

I can tell when my arguments are falling on deaf ears, so I'll retreat to lurker status. I'll leave with just two comments:

First, I think the work that KC has done on this blog is nothing short of outstanding and if a blog could get a Pulitzer, DiW should be a runaway winner. Whatever criticisms I might have raised, let me be clear about that.

Second, if folks around these parts really want to change academia, and I agree that there are changes that need to be made, the tone and lack of knowledge about how it actually works are not the way to go about making those changes. If you want to sit around and throw verbal bombs and find a congenial audience to listen to you complain, then keep on keepin' on.

Gary Packwood said...

My vote for best line of the day..so far

Debrah 5:54

You, dear anonymous urchin, are Exhibit A--(in bold relief)--illustrating the problem.
::
GP [eating popcorn]

Anonymous said...

To 5:59PM

Almost all Duke faculty teaching undergrads have online syllabi. BUT, they are mostly available though Duke's Blackboard website, or through the ACES system also only available to Duke students.

The lack of public access is regarded as irrelevant to the Academic Computing folks who maintain the Blackboard system,

Anonymous said...

What Dr Johnson has very astutely and cleverly done is hoist the Group of 88 with their own petard. He simply uses their own words and writings to illustrate the quality-or lack thereof-of their reasoning and communication skills, two assets, it would seem, which are essential to modern scholarship in any field. How can anyone possibly object to that analysis, unless, of course, it was shown to be erroneous-which it most decidedly has not.

Lest anyone attempt to correct me, the proper usage is "hoist with," not "hoist on (or upon) his own petard," since a petard is a 16th century explosive device hoisted upon a pole to breach castle walls.

ERDOC 1

Anonymous said...

I hope that Steven Horowitz hangs around. He presents a better defense of modern academia than most.

But Mr. Horowitz shouldn't be shocked at the disdain with which many intelligent people regard some academic loons. They simply don't deserve a high degree of respect. They fail to back up their arguments, they retreat into jargon, they regard opposing voices with scorn, and they live in an insulated echo chamber.

As in many instances, the market place eventually intercedes, and parents will no longer willingly fork up $45,000 or more per year to perpetuate such a phony environment.

D White '73

Anonymous said...

Interesting view from a British student:

Political_Correctness_Gone_Mad

Debrah

Anonymous said...

TO GP--

LOL!!!

Thanks, but I had to step back with that one because the guy used his name.

I'll shelve it for later.

:>)

Debrah

Michael said...

re: Steven H:

[The critical assessments of their work have too often felt like overkill and merely an attempt to throw raw meat to an audience that is too often anti-academic (and anti-intellectual).]

Seems to me that there are many from acadamia that post here. This blog seems to attract a fair number of bright folks that could hardly be characterized as anti-intellectual.

[If KC wants to blog about the sorry state of academia, that's fine, but then rename the blog and broaden the focus outside of Duke.]

The focus isn't on Duke. The name of the blog indicates the focus. I think that academic stuff is of particular interest to KC it is his environment but we've been through live-blogging hearings, DPD analysis, analysis of the media, evidence, prosecutors, etc. Duke is obviously an area of interest but it isn't the only area of interest.

[Ask yourselves whether you would take seriously an attempt by the best of the G88 to assess KC's scholarly work. Do you think even a very good scholar who does, say, Chinese linguistics, is capable of judging his work? If not, then why think he's necessarily capable of judging the work of some, though not all, of the G88?]

Let's say that one of us builds bridges or software for airplanes or runs other critically important operations. If someone told us that there were problems with our work, don't you think that we'd take that seriously? Especially when problems can turn out to be deadly?

I don't understand why you think that we wouldn't read and evaluate the G88 comments towards KC. On the other hand: would it matter WRT to what they did?

One can make an argument that KC is too tall, short, that his bowtie should be more colorful or that he'd look better with glasses and a 17 inch MacBook Pro. Do those arguments really color what he posts here? Should they?

AMac said...

I can sympathize with Steven Horwitz' concerns about the negative responses that the G88 profiles clearly evoke in many commenters.

But, toting up the plusses and negatives, I don't agree with his conclusions.

Consider the version of "The Emperor's New Clothes" that we are seeing play out on our computer screens in near-real-time.

Eighty-eight men and women banded together in the service of ideals that are in contradiction to the traditional standards of their profession. (I refer to the Rush To Judgment, neglect of Due Process, indifference to factual inquiry, and hurried condemnation of their institutions' students in the absence of evidence.)

A plurality of the Group of 88 appears to have engaged in additional poor conduct. (I refer to actively designing a Listening Statement to unjustly inflame opinion, issuing ugly and unjustified verbal condemnations, urging swift and draconian punishments, verbally condemning students in the classroom, engaging in grade retaliation, writing misleading Op-Eds, and the like.)

As the facts (which have not changed) became more widely known, this group fell silent.

None have explained their conduct in terms that thoughtful, honorable people can credit.

None have apologized for the damage they have done.

None.

Back to "The Emperor's New Clothes": are these people who have otherwise distinguished themselves in their professonal conduct? Or is their behavior during the Hoax/Frame of a piece with the rest of their careers?

It's a serious problem, either way. But they are different serious problems. The published scholarly work of academics isn't secret... what will it show?

In my opinion, Prof. Johnson's profiles to this point have been unsympathetic, but fair. The Group of 88 are not a monolith--some show evidence of scholarly productivity that outsiders can grasp. The work of others... well, there doesn't seem to be much there there.

If you are going to use The Postmodern Generator as your tailor, the risk is that your clothes will attract some looks.

Prof. Horwitz is right--throwing red meat to angry anti-intellectuals isn't the best of all possible worlds.

But some of these profiles have shown that there are causes for grave concern about some of what passes for Excellence in today's "knowledge industries."

The extent of the problem was illustrated late last month, when the Colorado University committee of inquiry on the conduct of Prof. Ward Churchill released its report.

Although all five committee members agreed on a large number of episodes of severe misconduct (they did not agree on all), they could not arrive at a decision on the proper sanctions.

"Two members of the Committee conclude and recommend that Professor Churchill should not be dismissed. They reach this conclusion because they do not think his conduct so serious as to satisfy the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal..., because they are troubled by the circumstances under which these allegations have been made, and because they believe that his dismissal would have an adverse effect on other scholars’ ability to conduct their research with due freedom. These two members agree and recommend that the most appropriate sanction... is a suspension from University employment without pay for a term of two years.

"Three members of the Committee believe that Professor Churchill’s research misconduct is so serious that it satisfies the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal... One of these members believes and recommends that dismissal is the most appropriate sanction; the other two believe and recommend that the most appropriate sanction is suspension from University employment without pay for a term of five years."

So Ward Churchill has produced nothing of academic merit. His work is riddled with error, misrepresentation, and fraud. Even these abuses were not severe enough to justify his dismissal, in the eyes of two or more of his five peers.

Yep, as seen from outside the ivied walls, there's something wrong. We don't know the extent of the problem. But we can say that very few of the system's beneficiaries seem at all inclined to embark on a failure analysis, or propose corrective steps.

Lousy plumbers, the toilet leaks.
Arrogant waiters, the restaurant closes.
Clueless dentists, cavities get worse.
Ignorant lawyers, malpractice suits.

Foolish professors ... then what?

Obie98 said...

Hello KC,

Good blog and analysis. It has been quite informative and I am also appalled by the way this whole case was bungled by Duke and the legal system.

Need to comment on one issue, however. I have noticed another aspect of the "anti-academia" trend among some commenters. This aspect is the worry among many commenters on this blog that their children would be "brainwashed" by the professors such as the G88. Do these commenters as parents give their children so little credit as to be unable to sift the wheat from the chaff? If so, it speaks volumes as to their confidence in their own parenting skills in turning out independent critical thinking adults.

Personally, I've never cared for overly controlling parents who wanted to dictate to their adult children exactly what college to go to, what to major in, and what courses to take/avoid. I'm thankful I was able to earn a near full academic college scholarship along with the opportunities to work off the difference. If my own parents had the same controlling tendencies, they would have had no leverage as they didn't pay a dime of my college tab.

As someone who went to a private liberal arts college far more radical than Duke, I can attest that the vast majority of my classmates, including myself were able to sift the wheat from the chaff in choosing our courses and yes, even openly debating Profs in class and in writing our papers. Though I've had a Prof or two who were asses, most actually respected my criticisms of the uncritical application of Marxist theory in the study of different societies.

Several years out, I've been gainfully employed in the private sector making a decent living for myself.

In short, please give your children a little more credit in their academic choices. Withhold the college tab if you disagree, but please understand that your adult children will have to start learning how to make their own decisions without always having to ask for parental approval.

Carolyn says said...

Post at 6:07 states about the Gang: "My point is that one should think about why they are successful..."

Excuse me? The Gang is successful? At what?

mac said...

Dr. Horowitz,

I'm probably one of those who you think despises academia,
based upon my satirical posts -
(assuming you've read them.)
You'd be wrong.

Perhaps it is because we love academia,
and respect it so much that we
take it upon ourselves
to heap scorn upon these frauds, these charlatans and these
narcissistic bullies.

What else would you call a group who would use their postition, their power, their TENURE
(in most cases) to punish three innocent, vulnerable young men?

Yup: I can hear the chorus of the 88 right now:
"They're not so innocent."
"They're not so vulnerable."
"They're too rich, too smart and too white
to be innocent or vulnerable."

And that is why the 88 need to have a dose of their
own medicine: they need to learn the value of sympathy and of
empathy. The accused students learned something of those qualities
from all of this: the 88 - (87)- have not.

Adn finally, what was Jonathan Swift doing
when he wrote "A Modest Proposal?"
Advocating the eating of the flesh of infants?
Or was he, in his dark satire, hoping to prick a conscience or two?

Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't, but either way, his work
on behalf of the starving Irish through satire was immortalized:
the 88 have immortalized themselves,
representing some the worst characteristics of humanity.

JeffM said...

Dr Horwitz

It may seem unfair to respond when you are in lurker mode, but you can of course end your self-imposed silence at will.

No doubt some who criticize education in modern America are anti-intellectuals. I doubt, however, that most critics are. They are respectful of true scholarship and are willing to contribute financially to its support. They are totally unwilling, however, to subsidize the likes of Houston Baker. (And please do not tell me that Vanderbilt is a private university that receives no benefit from the public purse. Virtually every university in the land is exempt from taxation and enjoys for free the benefit of public services paid for by others.)

You advise taking a respectful tone and hiding our disdain for the disgraceful state of American education. A respectful tone will not be heard by those like the self-satisfied snob who came here today to say, with a disdainful sniff, that criticism is permitted only to the multi-lingual. You can't use honeyed words to get a hog out of its wallow. So I say "merde" to this multi-lingual poseur and all his, or her, type.

mac said...

8:27
If you are paying a huge bill for your kids' education,
you have a right to question what they're being taught;
if you are a student who will have to pay back a huge student loan,
you ought to be questioning what
you're gaining from the class you're taking.

These courses aren't free - they're not even cheap:
they should have some intrinsic value.
Make your dollars count for something.

Otherwise, send your kid to a less-prestigious school, where
intolerance and incompetence aren't hidden quite so thoroughly,
and under such a deep pile.

Mike Lee said...

Thanks for your contribution today Dr. Horowitz. I appreciatd reading it and I think I may have even learned something. I wish we had some time to talk about how an intitution like Duke has besmirched its own reputation in many ways.....and maybe(please if you would) you can try to answer one more question. I know there must be some type of legal reason, but how in the world can Duke University possibly explain the continued employment of Professor Kim Curtis?

A complete disgrace in my book, and I know many others. Thanks.

All Blog Spots said...

nice blog

inman said...

OK.

The gauntlet requires a devil’s advocate. And since I have scotch in hand, I will try. And I will be polite.

KC and the various learned responders to his numerous blog postings [in 88 speak – “diatribes” -- hereinafter, “88 speak” will be in brackets] have certainly stated a position. This is a wonderful blog [not]. We were singularly wrong in prejudging the lacrosse team [who we still find to be disreputable hooligans and who deserved even more calumny that original stated]. Moreover, and although we emphasized our “listening,” we now want voice our rage at the injustice of a DA gone wrong [with an emphasis on how that SOB folded when he should have lied even more. He was a Pussy. Or a Penis. No matter.] We now appreciate the error of our ways [for if we had any gonads at all, we’d have put our ad in the Washington Post and New York Time]. We want to extend our apologies to the families affected by our transgression [and those families,…the Mangums and their extended family were certainly – well – inconvenienced. We are sorry that our efforts did not fully protect them from the privileged crowd]. The Evans’ and the Finnerty’s and the Seligmann’s deserve our humble apologies [for failing to put them out of their collective miseries. These examples of modern white male privilege deserved extinction.] We are deeply sorry [that we failed to accomplish that].

Inman impudently impersonating H. Baker


(By the way ... hi D White.)

JSinAZ said...

obie98,

I think your analysis:

Need to comment on one issue, however. I have noticed another aspect of the "anti-academia" trend among some commenters. This aspect is the worry among many commenters on this blog that their children would be "brainwashed" by the professors such as the G88.

is off the mark. I for one am not concerned that the academic output of the G88s will be used to brainwash - no, the outrage is that the material is considered to be of any deep value at all, academic or otherwise.

In the real world, outside the nuturing environs of academe and the prostitution of politics, this social science stuff has zero impact - in particular when the prose is so dense that the meaning (if there is any) is buried.

To large parts of the professional world, most the scholarship produced by the feilds of study within the Humanities seems to be most like masturbation - unsatisfying, only vaguely related to a productive activity, and an activity for which the world cannot require many paid practitioners.

JSinAZ

Anonymous said...

To 6:07PM:

Some of this is getting tiresome. Some of the individual members of the "88" are idiots, some are quite special scholars or creative folk. Anyone who thinks Alice Kaplan is a jerk, or Cathy Davidson is a fool, or Claudia Koontz is loony, or Ariel Dorfman is unworthy of respect, is guilty of the reverse of "Well, Hitler loved his dogs (i.e. But Jesus had dirty feet.)" These folks made a mistake with the ad. Some of them understand this, others do not. But I suspect that KC and Horwitz and many others here would be delighted to have to rely on these particular folks' judgment on many many things. Maybe not politics, but that's not what 6:07PM is questioning.

Anonymous said...

These Duke Group88 people see the world in such a crabbed and small way, and they are rascist and sexist in their overly developed view of the world. Theirs is not a path to enlightenment, but rather, their studies have become a secular religion of a sort that attempts to move all reality through their own small distorted prism, which when they are lying seems often enough, or even when they are telling the truth, which seems less often enough even to a point of my not noticing any difference between the two, but that is the purpose of their speech, and now, I find myself not caring what they think about anything. They are wrong, and looking under their gowns (in metaphor) has not been pretty and the smell has not been nice either. These bad, howlers are more akin to bickering, despotic, ingrown nabbobs than anything else that might be imagined . . . even a lynch mob.

AF said...

4:35 & 4:37

What did you say????? Was there a point there?
"He's in a monolingual Americanocentric field." Yes, it's called history. He is an American and he does speak the OFFICIAL language (and does it well)

"Plus, 4:18 is clearly quite adept at expressing his opinions. Just because you admire KC, doesn't mean you have to ignore him without a genuine and honest analysis of what he had to say." That eliminates Wallace as the 4:18 poster. He isn't adept at expressing anything except hogwash or bulls***.

Carolyn: They are successful at finding penises, checking out the sexual tendencies of plants, determining the class agenda of Mayans dead for centuries, making phallic sounds with metal utensils and cooking devices, abusing young people with a mind, writing sentences that are useful only to determine if a person can count beyond 100, declaring others to be racial, sexual, and class abusers. Other than that, they really aren't worth much. Of course, we can wait on those books that are supposed to be forthcoming to find out what they really are good for.

inman said...

As a consequence of reading others' comments regarding Steven Horwitz, I re-read his posts.

He makes cogent remarks regarding criticism of academic pursuits and the general state of scholarship.

I must however disagree with one of his conclusions:

"... but I also think these "exposes" serve no useful purpose in terms of preventing a repeat of this incident,..."

I have said before and I repeat, as Justice Brandeis said: "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

Exposing bad behavior with the related certainty that bad behavior will be exposed in the future is one way to prevent that behavior. If the soapbox on which that bad behavior stands is an academic appoinment(s) that depends upon the largesse of a willing political agenda and of a university administration abbeting that agenda, then the soapbox and its occupants are fair game. Appropriate criticism may, in fact, prevent future occurances of the type of systemic abuse promulgated by the '88.

Accordingly, these criticisms serve to prevent a repeat of the "incident."

FDNY Engine said...

Obie, great comments. I agree 100%, as I also attended a rather liberal college where most of the professors in some way resemble the image of the G88 types in my mind. However, I was always 100% free to disagree in class or in papers, and was NEVER penalized for doing so. What mattered was the analysis and the proper usage of facts to make arguments that were supposed to be based upon facts.

There seems to be quite a bit of paranoia about "brainwashing" and so forth, but in my experience, almost every one of my contemporaries recognized the ridiculous professors as the caricatures that they were. For the record, I was (and remain) left-of-center, but if anything, my experience with college professors probably moved me to a more moderate position in my beliefs. They just seemed idealistic and unrealistic (this exists throughout society, as those who weren't educated about the Middle East bought into the whole "candy and flowers" bit).

But the word "brainwashing" is completely inappropriate. I can think of one much more real example of brainwashing. Both the setting and the techniques were oppressive and coercive. It took place in the years around Kennedy's presidency during the Cold War (perhaps KC can give his opinion as to whether I'm off on this statement). Anyway, around the time of Kennedy's inauguration, accusations and incorrect perceptions were running rampant -- led largley by an infamous member of the legislature, McCarthy -- that those who held "liberal" political beliefs were actually, in fact, Communists. This belief ran rampant throughout the military leadership, and it was coercively taught to the military. Essentially, it went like this:

Social programs, such as Medicare/Medicaid and federal funding for public education, and desegregation/equality were Socialistic. Socialist-seeming programs are like Communism; therefore, even an elected President such as Kennedy cannot be trusted and may be the target of a non-treasonous military coup.

People often reference that the armed forces tend to strongly support Republican candidates, and that it is ingrained in the military culture when discussing military policy (e.g., "Military deaths in Iraq are justifiable because the miltiary tends to vote Republican"). Well, it wasn't much more than 40 years ago that high-ranking military officials, instructors and those serving in other authoritative positions in the armed forces, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were summarily axed as a result of attending meetings of far-right-wing organizations (and being keynote speakers) who generally agreed with McCarthy and would even consider the President a traitor/Communist. This was taught throughout the military.

THAT is brainwashing. It is highly inappropriate to consider whacky liberals professors who are generally regarded as jokes by their students to be "brainwashing" them.

haskell said...

obie98
Thanks for your comment. A couple of days ago, a Duke Mom commented that in fact many students don't have much latitude in class selection. To her personal knowledge, of 5 bright kids in a G88 section, the highest grade was a B-. Two of those students aren't returning. In general, I agree that when given a choice, bright kids will do just fine. But for my $40K, I expect first-rate teachers, not trendy "intellectuals" who have a political agenda that differs from my standards of morality and integrity.

Anonymous said...

TO "mac" (8:37PM)--

Wonderful.


Debrah

KC Johnson said...

To the 9.12:

Davidson's performance went beyond signing the ad, to an extraordinary misrepresentation of the ad's origins in a January 2007 N&O op-ed.

I am not at all troubled by the idea of "brainwashing" students--this seems to me a non-existent peril. My concern is a different one--namely, that the academy seems to consider an increasing number of questions and pedagogical approaches off-limits, thereby limiting the number of topics about which students can learn.

Anonymous said...

The Duke Group88 is as anti-intellectual as it gets. Whose opinion counts with these ingrown nabobs . . . none but their own.

Do these howlers wait for the facts . . . do they caution loudly against a rush to justice . . . do these howlers speak to slow the on rushing mob or do they encourage them . . . encourage the pot-bangers with their crys of castrate?

Has this group of learned intellectuals spoken out against the New Black Panther Party's threats and guns as if Durham needs more people carrying guns?

Are they concerned about the corrupt city they inhabit or their own tarnished classrooms? Damn this if this is any reasoned intellect . . . it doen't appear to be . . . . and what does it appear to be . . . ?

Anonymous said...

FYI

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/08/giving.html

Duke donors gave $380 M in recent annual fund year - up 11% from last year and 2nd largest amount ever

JeffM said...

KC

I agree. Davidson's assertion of being a "person of conscience" for having participated in a figurative lynch mob, for presuming guilt, for despising her own students, and , MOST OF ALL, for failing to acknowledge palpable and gross error, makes her one of the most despicable of the Klan of 87. (I except Dr. Petters from the rest of the 88.)

Anonymous said...

These anti-KC posters today have offered all of us, especially KC, nothing but smear and defamation. Not a single useful thing all day. For those who may not realize it, this sort of thing has gone on, sometimes waxing and sometimes waning, since the tenure fight. These people also have demonstrated here today that their first and favorite tactic is to make false statements about KC.

Why keep at the 88? Because the 88 and their fellow-travelers want so badly for it to stop. That's one of the things they have told us so loudly and clearly here today and it other places.

The Churchill case showed us not only his research misconduct, but also that there seems to have been no good reason to hire, tenure or promote him. I'll bet some of the 88 are hearing footsteps.

It seems as though, if jawboning was going to inhibit KC it would have worked by now. Maybe these maroons are slow learners.

Anonymous said...

It has always been my belief that a University Academy would serve a research function, a pursuit of knowledge function and a transmittal of knowledge function. In those respects, the Gang of 88 has utterly failed.

RESEARCH FUNCTION: This function involves the discovery of new truths. It necessarily requires a "scientific approach," for without that level of care, that which is discovered may or may not be "truth."

In their "Listening Ad" and in their "Clarifying Statement" the Gang of 88 eschewed any form of academic research. In fact, in their Clarifying Statement, they admit that the only basis for their evil words was HEARSAY. "We heard that a woman hired to perform ...." "Neighbors, we were told, heard racial epithets ...." Of course, that last bit was DOUBLE HEARSAY!

Also, in the academic research model, an outcome is not predetermined. In the case of the Gang of 88, it was. A researcher, when proved wrong, will not cling to the false conclusion. The Gang of 88, refuses to "retract the ad or apologize for it .... We reject all of these."

PURSUIT OF KNOWLEDGE FUNCTION: The Academy also delves into the past to understand where we are now. The Gang of 88 faced one past incident that they had to understand and explain. That was their own "Listening Ad." They did such a fraudulent job of it, that their ability to pursue real knowledge has to be questioned.

In their "Clarifying Statement," the Gang of 88 claimed that the Listening Ad was NOT "a comment on the alleged rape, the team party" and should not be "read as rendering judgment in the case."

About 6 sentences later, the Gang of 88 noted that their "ad thanked the students speaking individually and ... the protestors making collective noise." That is fraudulent academics.

TRANSMISSION OF KNOWLEDGE FUNCTION: How do a refusal to apologize or discuss the issues fit into the transmission of knowledge. Well, they don't. Moreover, the Gang of 88 may now be responsible for cutting off free speech at the Duke Chronicle. Certainly, they have tried to stop K.C. Johnson and others by calling them "racists." They are not attempting to transmit knowledge, they are attempting to squelch it.

As you can see, the Gang of 88 violated every fundamental aspect of academia. In their writings and ruminations, I see the same lack of intellect and the same lack of discipline. I thank K.C. Johnson for opening my eyes to that! He has only provided the source materials -- the conclusions were self-evident.

The posters I have read on this board are not "anti-academy" or "anti-academic." There are a ton of very smart people on this board, and we are LEARNING from a Professor. On the contrary, I believe that most of the people here are "anti-charlatan."
_____________

6 x 7 equals 42 so long as K.C. lets it. PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA (Newton). MOO! Gregory

obie98 said...

Mac 8:27,

I agree with your points on parents having a say IF they are footing the college tab. If the adult child wants the parent to pay, the parent has a say...though said child does reserve the right IMHO to reject parental oversight by taking care of all associated academic expenses
him/herself. This can be done through earning scholarships, loans, and through part-time/summer work.

Also, different parents/students may have different ideas as what courses are "important" and "worthy" of their tuition dollars. You may disagree with me, but if other parents/students want to learn about Pre-Columbian Phallus worship, that's their business.

no, the outrage is that the material is considered to be of any deep value at all, academic or otherwise.

Jsinaz,

There are some who do believe there is value in such "scholarship", else such scholarship would not be funded to the point of providing several tenure-level positions for people like those of the G88. Whether those studies have any relevance outside of academia or politics is moot. As you've pointed out, politics is one big reason why such studies are funded. Whether we like to admit it or not, politics permeates our daily lives in many ways. As long as some powerful and wealthy groups find such studies useful and fund it...such scholarship will continue to exist. From the G88 profiles KC has done so far, the flaky ones don't seem to be getting much funding if the low productivity is any indication.

On a separate note, I take issue with your assertion that social science has zero application in the professional world. In my workplace, I've observed knowledge gained from the social sciences used by managers in organizing project teams, maximizing team productivity, examining legal implications of projects, and in facilitating fruitful business negotiations with clients.


FDNY engine,

Thank you for your commentary and analysis. The term "brainwashing" is strong. I used it as many commenters on this blog seemed to imply it from their tone regarding Profs like the G88. Like you, my classmates and I never took the flaky members of the Professoriate too seriously.

Haskell,

I sympathize with those 5 students as I've had a couple of profs who crappily graded me due to our disagreements.

While I agree that mandatory courses in college is off-putting, they do provide an education in dealing with many unforeseen travails of life that must be endured and dealt with. Same with learning how to deal with people with different standards of morality, integrity, and with political agendas (Helps in negotiating one's way around office politics, politicians, con-artists, and other derelicts).

In my own college education, I tried to take lessons not only from the academic courses, but also from dealing with Profs, classmates, and life on and off-campus. I may be crazy, but I view the partial tuition I paid as purchasing the opportunity to better myself intellectually through the Profs, libraries, and other facilities the college avails me. Even if the Profs suck, the onus is on me as the student and an adult to utilize the opportunity to learn any academic/non-academic lessons that could be taken from such an experience.

As an aside, if you want a better likelihood of having first-rate teachers rather than Profs who are more interested in their research agendas, a liberal arts college/small teaching-centered University would be a better bet than a research oriented institution like Duke. It was a factor in my choosing to attended a small private liberal arts college on scholarship rather than a large research university.

Anonymous said...

KC writes,

"My concern is a different one--namely, that the academy seems to consider an increasing number of questions and pedagogical approaches off-limits, thereby limiting the number of topics about which students can learn."

To put not too fine a point on it, this is risible. This is nonsense on stilts and you know it. No one is making off-limits an increasing number of questions and pedagogical approaches, least of all those at Duke you've clumped together under the name "Gang of 88." What burns you is that there are folks who have approaches to history, literature, and culture who do not share your disdain for asking questions about race, class, gender, and sex.

Be that as it may. If this is really your goal, then please unhitch your wagon from the Duke rape debacle and start a new blog that doesn't attempt to conflate the two.

Anonymous said...

Random thoughts..

Forget the apology. It would not work now--it's been too long. It would not be accepted and the 88 would look worse. The recent apologies come to mind: Imus, Paris, Michael Richards, Mel Gibson, Pope Benedict XVI, etc. Now some might indicate that the problem with most of these apologies is that the individuals did not take ownership of whatever they were apologizing for. True.

Right now they are all wearing a scarlet letter. It will be a while before this simmers down, after all the books, movies, tv reports, court cases, civil suits, etc. are behind them, a huge number of people will see them as villans.

I think that Steven Horwitz might be worng when he asserts that all this examination will not prevent this from happening again. Oh, yea? All 88 have hidden under their mattresses. They will not do this again ever! No here or anywhere. They've go a bull's eye on their back, and no one will ever let them even get started on an agenda like this.

The reason I think so is because we have now said goodbye to Ward in Colorado. He had and still has all his freedom of speech intact, but when his scholarship was examined, he was found to be a thief and a liar. Maybe some of the 88 have skeltons in their closets. No, they've gone underground. Al Capone couldn't be charged with homicide and robberies, so the IRS go him.

I remember that for years Laurence Tribe was thought of having a chance of being in the Supreme Court if a Dem was in the White House. Well, he did not lose is job at Harvard for plagerizing, but guess what, he'll NEVER be in the Supreme Court.

Sarah Ferguson stated after cheating on Prince Andrew ' There are somethings which can never be put right.'

The 88 can start doing good works, and sin no more and maybe in time they can apologize--but not now. No one would believe them.

Anonymous said...

An aspect of the hoax perhaps even more troubling than the reaction of the Professors is the outrageous reaction of the black community. Houston Baker's hate filled, racist, guilt assuming letter is celebrated by the black community as some type of grand achievement.

Very sad the pathetic double standard now acceptable. I won't even get into the state of the "leadership" among the AA community.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mike Lee, I have better things to do--my own work--than provide an analysis of KC's errors/misrepresentations to you. Why do you go through and look at the work and make up your own mind? Or, you can let KC do it for you. Your call.

Anonymous said...

5:16pm

Reread before putting foot in mouth...I don't think English is the "official: language of the United States, but that is not the point of the post. The point is that a monolingualist commenting on the work of those who research in other languages in other fields(Arabic,Chinese, French, Russian, whatever) cannot perhaps provide the best critique. If KC wants to attack people who work in his area of expertise, fine. As soon as I understand that he has background for attacking theoretical work in multiple other fields, I might take his comments as something other than agenda-driven nastiness. And, no, I don't think just anyone can reasonably critique the theoretical basis of the work of others. Americanists--historians, lit crit, studies--who don't have to use foreign languages in their research may be unaware of other historiographies/methodologies than those whose work is comparative.

To the poster who named names: Yes! Those people are really good. No surprise KC hasn't taken them on. They don't fit in his paradigm.

To the poster who noted that Brooklyn College was not Duke University or the Ivies. Indeed, it isn't. It is a different kind of school with its own long and highly regarded history. Perhaps, if KC sticks to the Lacrosse story, he may be able to make Brooklyn College proud.

Ralph Phelan said...

I was thinking about all the insults against KC and the references to his battle (particularly references to the "collegiality" issue) and I realized that it's not just playground-level debating skills.

It's something far more sinister.

It's intimidation aimed at any young academics reading this and maybe getting motivated to question PC shibboleths.

"Cross us and the only way you'll ever get a job in this field is by suing your way into a department where everyone will hate you."

Ralph Phelan said...

Steven Horwitz said:

"That said, this blog has been a revelation to me in terms of the depth and intensity of the hatred of academia I see here everyday. I'm not talking about the G88 as targets, but the fact that many commenters frequently extrapolate from them to higher education in general and faculty in general. I find that not only personally offensive but ignorant of the real range of things that happen in higher education."

The "real range of things that happen in higher education" includes political indoctrination, racial bias and favoritism, and tolerance of total nonsense. I understand that this is not the majority or even a very large minority of academia. You need to understand that the fact that it is allowed to exist at all destroys trust in the entire enterprise.

It used to be that I could trust that a Harvard (for example) professor was a serious scholar. Now I know he might be real or he might be a posuer. If he's from chemistry he's probably a real scholar. If he's from African American Studies he's probably a poseur. Sociology has been infected, so if he's from there there's a strong possibility he's a politicized hack. What if he's from French Literature? Is that still a serious departement? I don't know and that's the problem. I now have to do research to determine if a professor from a "reputable" university is really a good-faith scholar or not.

The cost of you real scholars' lowering of standards for certain fields and certain people is that now the public can't reasonably be asked to trust you either.

Ralph Phelan said...

amac sez:

"So Ward Churchill has produced nothing of academic merit. His work is riddled with error, misrepresentation, and fraud. Even these abuses were not severe enough to justify his dismissal, in the eyes of two or more of his five peers."

Mike Nifong showed us just how bad a prosecutor has to be to lose his job for misconduct - and to the very end he had fellow prosecutors supporting him. This makes people distrust prosecutors in general, and rightly so.

Take the above passage, replace Mike Nifong with Ward Churchill, and prosecutor with professor. Works about the same, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Ralph Phelan,

I teach at an American university and I've never heard/read such nonsense there as I read on this blog daily. It's not so much KC Johnson--he has a right to his opinions, however perverse some of them maybe be--as many of the people who respond on this blog. Anti-intellectual, intolerant, racist, and small minded. Above all, very happy to pontificae on subjects about which one has no expertise. No wonder so many people in other countries think Americans are stupid!

PS I hope all of you who call for higher standards in American academe don't scream when your Susie or Kelsey or Jamie get a C rather than an A or a B...

Anonymous said...

At the end of your posting, KC, you talk about dialogue. The G88 may be willing to have dialogue. I'd think not with you, since that's not what you seem to do. Your style is more attack.

KC Johnson said...

To the 9.53:

The Group has indicated no willingness for a dialogue with just about anyone.

And, indeed, some might have interpreted the Group's statement as an "attack."

mac said...

9:51
More ad hominem attacks.
If you're an academic, I'm Spiderman.

mb said...

11:27 said: "To put not too fine a point on it, this is risible. This is nonsense on stilts and you know it. No one is making off-limits an increasing number of questions and pedagogical approaches, least of all those at Duke you've clumped together under the name "Gang of 88." What burns you is that there are folks who have approaches to history, literature, and culture who do not share your disdain for asking questions about race, class, gender, and sex."

Really? This is news to me. On my campus such things as opposition to affirmative action, questioning questionable theories such as "patriarchy," "queer theory," etc., are career-killers. I think Larry Summers, et. al. would be able to flesh out this list nicely.

Indeed, the Angry Studies cabal acts more like a fanatical cult than a legitimate member of the academy. And that's putting it politely.

Anonymous said...

KC,

The group may well have indicated willingness to talk. And may well have done so. Just not to you. Why would any of them? You spend a great deal of your time attacking them singling and as a group. People don't like to talk/"dialogue" to people who don't appear to listen well or to be v. tolerant. That would describe you in my humble opinion.

With all the time you spend trying to force these people to do what you want them to do, you could maybe write a good book.

Anonymous said...

Tough go, Sugar Pie, I guess you're spiderman. Not to worry--you wouldn't like my work. I'm sure you're too closed minded for it.

Ta-ta, Spidey!

Anonymous said...

Oh, Mac, that was you. You're always telling me I'm not a professor or I don't know what I'm talking about. How nice you're so certain about so much when you're so wrong. I just hope you don't design airplanes.

Anonymous said...

If a critic's critique is valid, it's valid. Criticizing a critic's credentials is an attempt to introduce an argument from authority - a fallacy.


"Those people are really good. No surprise KC hasn't taken them on. They don't fit in his paradigm."

I think a reasonable critic would naturally concentrate on a critique of that which is bad. That paradigm seems valid to me.

mac said...

10:14
What do you teach, so that we might give you a gair evaluation?
All you've done is throw crap,
not unlike the primates in the zoo. Tell us.

Ralph Phelan said...

Carolyn sez:
"Excuse me? The Gang is successful? At what?"
Getting money, power, positions and respect in academia.

Ralph Phelan said...

mac sez:
"...
narcissistic bullies....
...
they need to learn the value of sympathy and of empathy."

If you'd ever been around people with NPD you'd know that that's not going to happen very often.(Are you still hoping for a sincere apology from Mike Nifong?)

These people need to be removed from the positions they abuse before they cause more harm.

Ralph Phelan said...

Obie98 sez:

"There are some who do believe there is value in such "scholarship", else such scholarship would not be funded to the point of providing several tenure-level positions for people like those of the G88."

(1) There are also some who believe the world is flat.

(2) Many believe the only value in such "scholarhip" is that it allows one to exhibit a race/gender balanced student body and staff. Whether achieving such balance is more important than academic standards is one of the important issues at hand.

Ralph Phelan said...

'"My concern is a different one--namely, that the academy seems to consider an increasing number of questions and pedagogical approaches off-limits, thereby limiting the number of topics about which students can learn."

To put not too fine a point on it, this is risible.'

Tell that to Larry Summers.

JSinAZ said...

anonymous at 14:00:

Tough go, Sugar Pie, I guess you're spiderman. Not to worry--you wouldn't like my work. I'm sure you're too closed minded for it.

Ta-ta, Spidey!


I'd like to see your work, if for nothing else than to compare your academic mode of expressing yourself, verses the example of witty repartee above.

Links, please.

mb said...

Anonymous 10:13am said: "
The group may well have indicated willingness to talk. And may well have done so. Just not to you."


Well duh - of course they don't want to talk with, "dialogue," etc., with their critics. Those types never do. They insist on controlling the venue in such a way that the 'conversation' is more of a preaching-to-the-choir revival meeting than a 'conversation.' They have to have a "safe space" where they don't feel 'threatened' and all that (as if KC would pull some thughonkeyintellectual moves on them). You know the picture: E.g., Wahneema Lubiano, Karla Holloway, Paula McClain, et.al. 'testifying' while the audience all nod in agreement along with them; throw in a few shouts of "amen sister" for good measure. You get the picture.

Been there, done that.

Being at ground-zero of the affirmative action/diversity wars has taught me more than a thing or two about the modus operandi of the Angry Studies types, and not only is it not pretty, it's not scholarship either.

Ralph Phelan said...

Please folks, stop wasting your time attempting to debate those who are not arguing in good faith (academicese for "please don't feed the trolls.")

Check my 8:48.

The purpose of the ad-hominems (including the accusations of "anti-intellectualism") is not to persuade anyone, it's to intimidate.

I'm surprised that there haven't been more charges of racism thrown around. Maybe they've noticed that that doesn't work around here anymore. If so I am impressed as I don't usually expect that large a degree of mental flexibility from our opponents.


So many unfounded charges of "racist," "anti-intellectual," and "uncollegial" have been thrown around that when I hear them now I presume their use to be in bad faith until shown otherwise. And I'm not talking about just on this board, I'm talking about all of life.

C'mon folks, are there any other words that should be added to that list?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 251   Newer› Newest»