Friday, August 24, 2007

Week in Review

Apologies from those who rushed to judgment in either the media or the academy have been few and far between. But another reporter who has done the right thing is Brian Ettkin of the Albany Times-Union. He recently penned an annual “I-was-wrong-and-you-were-right column.” He led off:

This one bothers me the most, because it mattered the most. It wasn’t whiffing on a game prediction or misjudging a trade or even calling for the firing of a coach who deserved to be defended.

It was my rush to judgment in the Duke lacrosse case.

I called 47 Duke lacrosse players cowards “standing behind team sports’ code of silence—what happens in the locker room stays in the locker room, and what happens after hours stays in the locker room, too ...” for following their lawyers’ counsel and declining to tell police what happened the night an exotic dancer alleged she was gang-raped at a team party.

I wrote they were “shielding teammates when they should be seeking justice” and that “invoking a code of silence ... strongly suggests they want the truth not to be known.”

From the team’s lack of cooperation with police I speciously inferred guilt.

I was naïve. I never imagined the county district attorney would behave unlawfully and be found guilty of fraud, dishonesty, deceit; of stating falsehoods before a judge; of lying about and withholding exculpatory DNA evidence.

I was wrong.
---------

Compare Ettkin’s approach to that of Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Stephen A. Smith. On May 28, 2006, in the Inquirer, Smith penned a column entitled, “It’s a Case of Dumb and Dumber at Duke.” The targets of his criticism? The women’s lacrosse players, who wore armbands sympathizing with the three targets of Mike Nifong’s unethical behavior—an action that was courageous at the time and that subsequent developments would wholly vindicate.

“I never believed,” fumed Smith, “the day would come when we’d see an educational institution so flagrantly stupid, so selfish, so conspicuously aloof . . . These 18-, 19- and 20-year-old women evidently were either ignorant or insensitive to the fact that there were 94,635 rapes in the country in 2004, according to the FBI. Or they weren’t aware that rape is one of the most underreported crimes, which one would think should heighten any female’s sensitivity radar."

In other words: women are raped and the crime is probably an underreported one; so when men are falsely accused, all should remain silent.


“To think,” continued Smith, “once upon a time, academic institutions were held in high regard, a transitional haven for those moving from their teenage years to adulthood. What are we to think now when it’s clear that even at places such as Duke there’s an absence of common sense? . . . Perhaps, at some point, it would be wise to inform these ladies about the FBI’s rape statistics.”

The column oozed condescension. Imagine the hyper-sensitive Smith’s reaction if a white male columnist had penned a similar diatribe calling into question—without any foundation—the intelligence and character of African-American women.

After the case ended, Smith penned a column criticizing black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for rushing to judgment. He never mentioned his column on the women’s lacrosse team.

Smith won’t be in a position to pen any more columns denouncing the women’s lacrosse players, or anyone else for that matter. Phawker reports that he has been stripped of his column and reassigned to a regular reporting beat. Since he spends little time in Philadelphia, presumably this move will end his career at the Inquirer. Perhaps he should ask to go out with one final column, an unqualified apology to the 2006 Duke women’s lacrosse team.

---------

An important letter recently ran in the Herald-Sun, from former Durham Police Department sergeant Jerry Grugin. He noted,

City Manager Patrick Baker realized the need for change within the Durham Police Department. Hiring Jose Lopez to lead the Police Department was the right move. He is in a strong position to make overdue command staff changes and Baker should remind him of this opportunity often. The circumstances of the Duke lacrosse fallout and other ill-advised departmental decisions reinforce the need for change.

The Whichard committee is currently investigating the Police Department. Some leaders of the department may be held accountable. The trail leading to ineptness will most certainly reach the highest levels of the department. When the end of the trail is reached, it will be interesting to see if the new chief and the City Council really believe change is needed.

It’s encouraging to see people speaking up from within the community, demanding change.

---------

According to the Herald-Sun, Governor Easley has a list of at least seven candidates for the vacant (permanent) DA’s slot. The list is not exactly distinguished. It leads with Tracey Cline, the ADA who came up with the idea of the wildly improper non-testimonial order for all 46 white lacrosse players—and the person that Mike Nifong said was prepared to assist him in prosecuting if a trial ever occurred. Before meriting any consideration, Cline should be asked to issue a public statement as to why she recommended the March 2006 NTO; and what, if anything, she learned from Nifong’s mishandling of the case.

The list also includes the two people Nifong defeated in the May 2006 primary—Freda Black and Keith Bishop. If the new DA should have any single quality, it should be that he or she is ethically pristine. Such a description certainly doesn’t apply to either Black or Bishop.

Another name on the list is Julian Mack, who has never prosecuted a case in North Carolina.

NCSpin, meanwhile, has floated another name: Judge (and former DA) Ron Stephens. That’s right—the same Judge Stephens who signed the NTO, did nothing as Nifong initiated the cases, and then (highly improperly) gave Nifong a de facto endorsement in a November article for (of course) the New York Times.

---------

Monday will feature the final post in the 15-part Group Profile series. Former dean of faculty William Chafe will be profiled. The series has attracted its share of (always anonymous) comments from Group members, sympathizers, or defenders. But their critique has varied: as one specious argument is rebuffed, they simply produce another. The basic order of their critique:

  1. (Unspecified) posts took (unspecified) quotes out of (unspecified) context.
  2. The posts are anti-intellectual, since I am responsible for anything and everything said by (anonymous) commenters. In this clip from the Colbert report, Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos dismissed the absurdity of this argument.
  3. The posts focused only on the marginal members of the Group. In response, I did a post looking at the 20 marginal members of the Group, none of whom had been profiled.
  4. The posts violated the principle of peer-review, because a historian cannot even describe work from outside his field. As it turns out, Duke has a tenure review committee where professors from outside a candidate’s field have weight on the candidate’s future employment.
  5. The posts ignored the handful of Group members who were prestigious.
  6. After I had said that Chafe (who by any definition is prestigious) would be the final post in the series, a Group defender suggested (for the first time) that Ariel Dorfman is the “elephant” in the room, someone whose intellectual talents cover whatever shortcomings the other 87 Group members possess.

Stay tuned Monday for the latest in pro-Group critiques.

Speaking of the Group, the Duke News site had an interesting post on two-career couples on the Duke faculty, noting that the couples interviewed “agreed that Duke was unusually open-minded and progressive in its recruitment policies.” Indeed, the article notes, “Duke was one of five universities to win the [Sloan] award in 2006 in recognition of its efforts in dual-career recruitment and retention. The award will also enable refinement of recruitment and retention policies developed at Duke in recent years.”

The article steered clear, however, of the two-couple faculty members among the anti-lacrosse extremists. No mention of Group members Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and Mary Hovsepian. Group member Anne Allison and “clarifying” professor Charlie Piot didn’t get a shout-out. And the Rom Coles-Kim Curtis partnership likewise was avoided.

Since the article’s purpose was to bring Duke good publicity, perhaps such discretion was wise in this case.

Hat tip: T.D.; apologies for the slight delay in posting tonight--connectivity problems

122 comments:

Anonymous said...

your usual comprehensive approach...i love the idea that duke is progressive...for those groups they favor...the same ones that would support chavez

Anonymous said...

I would wager that the Dorfman fan would be Polanski, with a motive differing from a run-of-the-mill G88 fan.

AF said...

“To think,” continued Smith, “once upon a time, academic institutions were held in high regard, a transitional haven for those moving from their teenage years to adulthood. What are we to think now when it’s clear that even at places such as Duke there’s an absence of common sense? . . .

Now that is a powerful statement. Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, it is not exactly in the vein that he references. The extremists in academia have brought about the eventual collapse of these institutions. Anger studies will "blow the house down" in the near future if these universities don't take these bull"ies" by the horns.

This was a great "everybody was wrong but me" column. It isn't easy to admit an error but few people were neutral on this case, even at the beginning. That means a large group were going to be wrong. Own up to it and move on.

--------------------------------
Easley's list of "prospects" ia a real laugher. Tracy C-lyin is at the head of the list? Is he serious? If so, when is the last time he had a psychiatric evaluation? If that's the best of the bunch for Durham, that town is in serious trouble. Disband it now to prevent more damage to NC's reputation.

---------------------------------
Knowing that we are down to the last of the group profiles is like knowing that summer is about to end and school is about to start for an 8 year old boy. You know that it's invariably going to happen but you keep hoping for a reprieve. KC, you have provided us with a sane, rational examination of the Hoax. Your thorough research and excellent writing style (and you aren't an English major like some of those at Duke who profess to be) made the posts outstanding on a regular basis. Thanks for a wonderful job!

GPrestonian said...

re: Brian Ettkin

Now THAT's an apology! Good on you, Mr. Ettkin.

mac said...

Brian Ettkin's apology was recent - and very, very welcome. Maybe the 88 should sign a similar statement - as a group - and take out another ad in the Hurled Scum? (that way, very few will ever see it...)

Steven A. Smith's bizarre attempt to pass judgement on some of the few who got the story right (the Women's Lacrosse team) was written late in May of 2006. I wonder what Smith would opine now, if he had a chance to do a re-write? Guess Smith won't get the chance. Maybe he'll write a letter to the editor.

Who is it that is suggesting Ronald ("MacDonald") Stephens be the replacement for Nifong? NCSpin? Who? What? Must be satire, KC! Only in North Korealina could such a suggestion arise!

Anonymous said...

Definitely, every profile post took every quotation out of some context, somewhere. You can't possibly argue with that.

The posts must be anti-intellectual, because the people profiled are all intellectuals, and a lot of the comments are anti. Again, inarguable.

Finally, not only should a historian not describe anything outside of his field, a historian should only describe his own type of history; for the Group of 8x -intellectuals, every one of them - the listening statement is ancient history. This, I believe, is not your field.

OT: hands-down the best name in this whole affair? Thavolia Glymph.

no justice, no peace said...

“...once upon a time, academic institutions were held in high regard..."


“I never believed,” fumed Smith, “the day would come when we’d see an educational institution so flagrantly stupid, so selfish, so conspicuously aloof . . ."

"...Perhaps, at some point, it would be wise to inform these ladies about the FBI’s rape statistics.”

He's spot-on with each of these three comments, only in the wrong context.

One wonders what the actual FBI number is for three white men raping one black woman. How many times does that crime occur each year? Maybe the girls team should look those numbers up and send them to Mr. Smith.

Debrah said...

In reading the article on two career couples, I was struck by the silliness of it all.

Wright: “I drop our daughter off.”

Bernhardt: “I pick her up. He cooks breakfast, I cook supper.”

Wright: “Or I cook supper, and she cooks breakfast – so we can’t even get into arguments over which meal is easier to cook.”


Is this bit of "chore-sharing" news supposed to humanize Duke's faculty or is it to suggest that Martha Stewart's magazine articles they grew up reading were put to good use?

This just struck me as such a very silly exercise in covering the university faculty.

Debrah said...

...hands-down the best name in this whole affair? Thavolia Glymph.

The name is most definitely a conversation-starter.

Anonymous said...

It's true Stephen Smith's column about the women's lacrosse team was one of several that very unfairly criticized them--and, as K.C. notes, his tone was particularly condescending. On the other hand, unlike many other reporters Stephen Smith eventually did acknowledge that there had been a rush to judgment on the case as a whole.

While it would have been appropriate for Smith to say he was wrong to criticize the women's team as he did, his failure to do so seems, in the end, a lesser sin than those of the many writers who have never even acknowledged that the three accused players and their teammates were innocent--or in some cases still write articles and columns condemning them

mb said...

NJNP: In typical fashion for G88+ers and feminists in general, the portrayal of the FBI stats mendacious. Those stats are for reported rapes, not actual ones.

Rape may be underreported (especially rape of men, e.g., in prison) but it is also at the top of the list for the most common falsely-reported crime as well. The range is huge (from 0-100%, depending on the study) but valid research puts false allegations at about 50% (+/- 10-20%) (see Eugene Kannin at Purdue for an example).

Crystal is just the tip of the iceberg.

Anonymous said...

Is Smith a Communist?

Anonymous said...

"Some people might say" that you are unable to understand a particular point: critiquing your so-called "exposes" of various Duke personnel is not being "pro-Group." "Some people might wonder" if you are able to have a nuanced--which is to say thoughtful, intellectual--position on any topic.

You're funny, KC. You wonder why people don't take you seriously. Sure, they come here to laugh at you or (like so many of your cheerleaders) adulate you, but excessive fawning isn't intellection, and your detractors rarely expected you to rise to the occasion of being a serious interlocutor. What does that leave you with? Why, yet another exercise in screed and subsequent defensive posturing.

You certainly have built a legacy for yourself. This hasn't been about Duke for a long time now. It's about you. It's so weird to watch. Amusing--sad--disturbing. But contributing to a conversation about conservatism and modern academia? Not so much.

no justice, no peace said...

Ellen Goodman, produced her Year is Sexism awards today.

ellengoodman@globe.com

She has the balls to mention Bill Clinton as "striving to become the first laddie" in a gushing fashion in the same sentence acknowledging the first female President of Harvard.

"...we continue or time-honored tradition, celebrating this day by announcing the cherished Equal Rites Awards to those who have labored over the last 12 months to set BACK (my emphasis) the cause of women..."

The Klan or 88...

The Gender Studies frauds...

Brodhead...

Nifong...

Levicy...

Nancy Grace...

NOW...


Nah, no mention of the Duke hoax or any pithy consideration of the destruction it brought to women who are really raped or victims of other abuse.

Though Goodman does place Wendy Vitter on the list for sticking with her husband whose name was found in a whores black book, she makes no mentioned of a whore who tried to send three innocent men to prison for thirty years.

Simply amazing...the denial, the lack of accountability, the fraud, the wilful distortions...amazing.

Anonymous said...

A truly first-rate research university (obviously, *unlike* Duke) doesn't compromise academic standards in the face of hiring challenges posed by dual-career academic couples. Rather, it is the couple that must compromise or simply look elsewhere. It's a buyer's market, at least for the top universities.

Clearly, Duke is bottom-feeding when it involves Arts & Humanities faculty hiring. Duke is now the university poster-child of what can go wrong in this regard. And to note that things have "gone wrong" at Duke is to merely note the palpably obvious.

Anonymous said...

Those statistics are available. Gang rape of white males on black females is practically non-existent. The tables show an asterisk for that entry.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that a blog dedicated to pointing out the rush to judgment of the lacrosse players largely facilitates a rush to judge members of the group of 88. Food for thought folks.

Ralph Phelan said...

Institutions that failed:

Law
Journalism
Academia

Corrective actions taken:

Law
Acknowledgement of problem: Situation universally described as miscarriage of justice, mixed statements as to whether it was unique or systematic. Many apologies, no defenses.

Personnel:
Main wrongdoer fired, may go to jail. No action against low level participans such as ADAs.

Structural changes:
Legal changes regarding discovery, case management system in progress.

C+

Journalism
Acknowledgement of problem:
Major industry journal article summarizing failures. Many apologies for error. Many attempts to ignore error and hope people forget. A few defenses of performance.

Personnel:
Some low-level wrongdoers fired or demoted.

Structural changes:
None.
C-

Academia
Acknowledgement of problem:
2 personal apologies, many statements both personal and institutional claiming situation was handled as well as possible.

Personnel:
No wrongdoers fired or demoted. Some wrongdoers promoted.

Structural changes:
Continuing increase in size & influence of contributing factors such as affirmative action programs, AAAS & women's studies.
F-

Ralph Phelan said...

"Another name on the list is Julian Mack, who has never prosecuted a case in North Carolina."

I consider that a point in his favor.

That office doesn't need a caretaker, it needs a revolution. Who better to rein in (or if necessary fire) the likes of Cline than a defense attorney?

Putting Seligman's lawyer in this office would be an unequivocal acknowledgement of who was wrong and who was right in this case, and might start a process of cleaning up an apparently systematic pattern of prosecutorial abuse.

inman said...

I'm particularly intrigued by former Durham Police Department sergeant Jerry Grugin's comments.


"... The circumstances of the Duke lacrosse fallout and other ill-advised departmental decisions reinforce the need for change.

The Whichard committee is currently investigating the Police Department. Some leaders of the department may be held accountable. The trail leading to ineptness will most certainly reach the highest levels of the department. ..."


This sounds like someone who knows something specific about the events or the process by which decisions were made. The use of the word "ineptness," however, seems to indicate that purposeful and malicious acts were not responsble for the HOAX, at least among the leadership.

This seems to say...the fumbled the ball, but they didn't throw it on the ground.

sceptical said...

RE criticisms of your critiques of the Group of 88:

When you cannot refute the message, attack the messenger!

KC, I would argue that making history is even better than writing about it, and you and other bloggers such as the LieStoppers collective have made a big difference in the lacrosse case as well as in public attitudes about prosecutorial and acadmic misconduct.

Anonymous said...

Don't you think perhaps--just maybe--the reason two of the couples you mentioned weren't discussed in the Duke News article on academic couples is that both partners weren't hired as tenure/tenure-track professors at Duke? Duh.

I mean, KC Johnson, while the right-wing nutters went after you yesterday for your Gonzales comment, I guess I'm not surprised that they didn't attack your gratuitous snark about the LAX extremist "no mention" and "avoided" couples. These people didn't have the same kind of hiring package that the couples highlighted did, now did they? Ergo, no mention.

Not everyone thinks the world revolves around the last bits of the LAX case. Even after KC ceases to pontificate about this case, the sun will still rise in the east just like it long has...

In the end, the LAXers have gone on with their lives, because they have lives. What about ya'll?

Anonymous said...

Frightening to think where the 88 and their defenders will head off to once K.C. shuts down this blog. Will they roam campus looking for the "great white defendant" or the Flying Mayan Phallus? I'm hoping the latter since that sort of stuff is harmless and actually funny.

KC Johnson said...

To the 8.26:

It appears that your comment is heavy on denunciatory tone, but rather short on specifics. It's my sense that comments are more persuasive when backed by specific pieces of evidence.

Anonymous said...

Yo 9:59- better hurry to your 10 o'clock Indoctrination 101 lecture. We wouldn't want you to disappoint that half full classroom.

Anonymous said...

To the 7:30, what possible relevance could the statistics of 3 white men raping a black woman have? Perhaps you should reconsider and ask about the number of times a black woman has falsely accused 3 white men.

The point is- rape statistics have no relevance here whatsoever. Does anyone need to hear it again? THERE WAS NO RAPE!!

Smith should be ashamed. His article clearly presumes the rape to be a fact (why else would the number of rapes per year play any role?) and he should apologize.

Although, I'm not sorry he won't have the chance.

**Kim Curtis is a disgrace. She belongs bagging groceries at Wal Mart. It's truly pathetic that she continues to be employed by Duke.**

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "...find it interesting that a blog dedicated to pointing out the rush to judgment of the lacrosse players largely facilitates a rush to judge members of the group of 88. Food for thought folks..."

Judging those guilty of sins of commission and omission is wholly different than judging those for something that NEVER happened.

Thanks for reminding me.

It is especially interesting to me to see those that are NOT held to any discernable standard, lock-up and not be able to defend their actions when their ongoing actions are questioned.

We like they? Only in the ivory towers of academia.

Mike Lee said...

To the 8:26, you asked (about KC Johnson) what does that leave you with? It remains to be seen, but I am guessing a bestseller. I know I for one will be feverishly reading come September 4th.

In due time we'll see who's right and who is wrong. But with the track records of the 88 and their sympathizers, I'm sure not betting on you or them.

Anonymous said...

[double-checking to make sure my prior comment posted] Another couple: Mary McClintock Fulkerson, of the Div School and Women's Studies programs, and signer of the original 88 statement, is married to Bill Fulkerson, Duke Hospital CEO. Mary did not sign the 'clarifying' statement, but she remains unapologetic about signing the first.

Anonymous said...

To the 9:59, since you seem to have great knowledge about the Duke faculty, can explain the decision to continue the employment of Kim Curtis?

Do you think her actions were disgraceful? Or is it OK because she's a visiting Professor and not "tenure track?" It seems to me that anyone who is not tenure track is irrelevant as far as you're concerned. I sure hope Duke is not filled with irrelevant Professors.

I look forward to your response, seriously. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

9:59

Not everyone thinks the world revolves around the last bits of the LAX case. Even after KC ceases to pontificate about this case, the sun will still rise in the east just like it long has...

======

True, of course.

But your subtext is: Let's sweep all the faculty's lies, attacks, hypocrisies, misjudgments and dumbass mistakes under the rug -- let's all pretend they never happened! -- because after all, tomorrow is another day.

Sorry, pinhead -- that ain't gonna happen. You were wrong, and everybody else was right. Admit it. Then, we can move on.

Debrah said...

"What does that leave you with? Why, yet another exercise in screed and subsequent defensive posturing.

You certainly have built a legacy for yourself. This hasn't been about Duke for a long time now. It's about you. It's so weird to watch."


Oh yes!

I was on my way out, but saw this and couldn't resist responding to the raw and open wound exposed in this little screed.

This is the most classic case of projection I have seen in some time.

What does all this attention to KC leave you with?

Let me whisper the answer softly........envy. Tired, yet lustful envy.

All detractors might spend the remaining days of Wonderland hissing and attempting to minimize the work put forth here by one exceptional person, but it's too late to silence anyone or turn the page.

It's too late to stifle the enormously positive and everlasting effects of the clean and cold truth.

And it is so much about KC.

Your assessment there is quite correct!

Carolyn said...

KC's reply to anonymous at 8.26:

"It appears that your comment is heavy on denunciatory tone, but rather short on specifics. It's my sense that comments are more persuasive when backed by specific pieces of evidence."

Don't waste your time, KC. The intent of the Gang and its defenders is NOT to be 'persuasive' - it's certainly not to listen! It's about strutting in front of the world with a PC club and daring anyone to stand up to them.

Anonymous said...

KC,

It seems you are getting under the thin skins of the 88-ers.

It can't be easy for them to walk into the faculty dining room, not knowing which of their colleagues has read their profile. No one will mention it, of course. Few will sit with them. Even the psychology department faculty, usually very liberal, have distanced themselves. Good! They have been exposed for what they are.

Stephen said...

Regarding citizens within the community speaking out demanding change; in my little community of Rio Rancho, New Mexico, it was recently discovered that the mayor had a few thousand dollars of questionable charges on his city issued credit card, primarily entertainment expenses. It was reported in the city paper, he was immediately subpoenaed to appear before the city council for an explanation, a recall petition was circulated and he subsequently resigned. This all within 4 weeks. Change can happen if the community WANTS it to happen; badly enough to get out of the lazy-boy, turn off the TV and DO something. P.S. Best wishes Mr. Inman, you are a brilliant thinker.

AMac said...

Anon 7:24am --

You've given the best defense of the Group of 88 yet! (er... you weren't putting parody on offer, were you?)

A speculation as to the diverse motives behind the creators and endorsers of the Listening Statement:

-- It was concocted by a core who loathe their society as it is presently constituted, and see their role as doing what they can to weaken it from within. Winsdschuttle on Chomsky. Luzarraga on Gramsci. This Core sees the U.S. as irredeemably racist, sexist, and classist (favoring the upper castes rather than the proletariat).

-- Many of the 88--call them "trinity True Believers" enthusiastically signed to honor the Core's race/gender/class beliefs, even if they aren't so sure about the Burn Baby Burn part (swelling 403(b)s, 3 weeks' vacation, great insurance...).

-- Some signers are accustomed to the respect due their position, and the discipline of Critical Thinking has slipped away over the years, unused. Nifong sez, good-hearted activists are potbanging (viva Allende!)--what's not to like? The Followers.

-- The Schadenfreudes loathe Division I athletics, and athletes. Of Tom Wolfe's books, "Charlotte Simmons" packs more of a punch than "Bonfire of the Vanities." Ex-Duke prof Stuart Rojstaczer (2/28/07 9:01am comment) expresses their thoughts.

-- Finally, some Cynics may have joined in as a career-enhancing move. Might as well go with the flow.


None of these stances, or combinations thereof, have aged very well on exposure to Sunlight. What, really, is there for these 88 to defend? One playbook suggests fibbing. Another runs:

1. We did nothing wrong!
2. Well, you're guilty too!
3. Move on already, that's old news!

Slim pickings.

I guess it's not so surprising that the Group's members, friends, and enablers emphasize snark and ad hominem in their contributions to DiW's comments.

inman said...

Re: 7:24 and Thavolia Glymph.

I've oftened wondered about that name -- that and Wahneema Lubiano.

I wonder, what is the cultural derivation of those names? Are they given names at birth? Or like Muhammad Ali, were they adopted at a later time?

And please, this is intended to be a serious question and not to belittle in any way. After all, their names do not portray their scholarship or its worth.

_________________________________

Re: 8:24

You make some statements that, in effect, contradict themselves and your own action. To wit:

(1) You take the time to read and post on this blog, which arguably requires some serious thought (unless of course you have the IQ of an ice cube) and then you state

"You wonder why people don't take you seriously."

(2)You then state:

"Sure, they come here to laugh at you..."

yet when detractors arrive there are usually no smiley-faced emoticons.

(3) You insult many when you state:

"...or (like so many of your cheerleaders) adulate you, but excessive fawning isn't intellection,...

...for adulation and excessive fawning are not evident in most of this blog and related comments. Some, in fact, show quite sophisticated thought. Further, your posting is evidence of a certain balance to the opinions (good versus bad).

(4) Next you observe:

"...and your detractors rarely expected you to rise to the occasion of being a serious interlocutor.

Yet, we still don't know who these mysterious detractors are nor are we provided the criteria by which one can judge the essence of serious inquiry.

Well, in my most humble opinion, the various postings that I have read (I have not read all) provided an historian's view of the events and personalities with supporting documentation and references. Yes, as with all of history, there is the possibility of alternative interpretations. Isn't that part of the wonder in the study of history?

When detractors have offered negative opinions unsupported by fact or reference or documentation, KC Johnson has requested and encouraged substantive response. To date, I have seen no substantive response.

So, in sum, your posting provides further evidence to suggest that the trinity of race, gender and class -- and the injustice that prevailed as a consequence of that trinity -- are all too extant in this country and this world.

And just in case you, an anonymous poster, are thugniggaintellectual ... I say: "Cuz...maybe a cap in yo cracker-ass schola'ship be wantin', huh?"

AMac said...

Anons 8:26am --

Thanks for sharing your first-draft critique of Prof. Johnson. Here is some helpful advice for your rewrite. That's a link to a "The Furies" comment (8/14/07 12:35am) that concludes, "Group apologists, I hope this perky critique helps you leave a few of those excess sneers on the cutting-room floor, and get that first-rate essay out the door. Your readership's waiting!"

Anonymous said...

This is not to be critical of Brian Ettkin's heartfelt apology, but rather, to point out how difficult it is to agree on language or to understand what actually happened once the pot-bangers and the likes of the Group88 have made their "attitudes, " if not the facts, known. It was my understanding that the lacrosse players including the three who were falsely indicted were co-operative in the start of all of this. From this co-operation came a set of manipulated "facts" which attempted to patch holes in the case against the players. Here, both Mr. Ettkin and I are of a different opinion as to the team's "following their lawyers' council." It was my understanding that the players didn't have a lawyer in the beginning of this. If anything, the team was always co-operative and, in my opinion, too trusting of the Duke administration and the so-called "adults" that they came in contact with. If I am wrong about this, please correct me as I read this blog, and I attempt to be fair in forming my opinion. I think Mr Ettkin is a reasonable person too, and at the very least, he appears to have been convinced of the wrongs that transpired against the Duke lacrosse team. Hopefully, we all have learned from a spectacularly sorry affair. God bless Mr. Ettkin. Thanks.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 8:26 said...
"Some people might say" that you are unable to understand a particular point:
...Some people might wonder if you are able to have a nuanced--which is to say thoughtful, intellectual--position on any topic.
...You're funny, KC. You wonder why people don't take you seriously.
...You certainly have built a legacy for yourself. This hasn't been about Duke for a long time now. It's about you. It's so weird to watch. Amusing--sad--disturbing.
::
Your classroom teaching techniques are coming through as I read your comments.

You are attempting to create a social norm for your readers and then silence those who might ask for specific content for the 'norm' you are trying to invent.

Your students will eventually turn on you and reject you and your presuppositions which will cause you to wonder ...why people don't take you seriously.

Students after all, are prone to 'smoke out' presuppositions as part of the educational process.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

As someone from the Albany area, I'd like to point out that Ettkin also apologized in an April column.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=580436

Locomotive Breath said...

I find it interesting that a blog dedicated to pointing out the rush to judgment of the lacrosse players largely facilitates a rush to judge members of the group of 88. Food for thought folks.

An evaluation of a faculty member's lifetime of publication (or lack of it in one particularly notorious case) is judgment but no rush.

Anonymous said...

8:26 AM

No, Johnson has done what you should have done from the beginning. Read your intellectualize writing . . . a posturing screed protecting the kind of vindictive ignorance that, in this case, failed to accomplish what amounted to a lynching. Are you not ashamed of your behavior? Privileged to the point of having a vocabulary that means nothing . . . that represents an intellect incapable of understanding the facts of a case or how they are related or connected to prove innocence in the face of what amounts to a howling intellectualized mob. Many of their social "betters" participated in the Frank lynching in Atlanta in 1915, not unlike the Duke would be lynching of today, but a lynching is a lynching, and those who would begin one and participate in one deserve to be villified. It's not about Johnson to paraphrase a Duke administrator. Go read Pogo . . . you're educated well enough to remember Pogo . . . ain't ya?"

Anonymous said...

The Philadelphia Inquirer is my home paper; I have skipped Smith's column for over a year. No loss that he's gone.

As this blog winds down, the attacks, see 8:26, are becoming more personally insulting. I suspect it will worsen after the final post in the series with Prof. Chafe - to which I am not looking forward. I am NOT a defender of the group of 88, but, at times, it is difficult to read the critiques. I am in no position to judge the value of the work of these professors though, I believe, Prof. Johnson is.

The G88 behaved terribly as has been set forth in this blog in detail and they deserve the criticism they have received. But I am having a difficult time in balancing their recent bad behavior with their overall contributions. I don't know the value of studying Mayan gender/queer theory to the overall study of the Mayan civilization but I also don't know if the professors - both prestigious and not - contribute daily to their students in the class room. Some Duke parents have posted here about their children's positive class room experience at Duke.

Overall, I am sad - yes, sad - that Prof. Chafe and others of his caliber joined in the lynch mob because he and his equals, I believe have contributed real scholarship. I don't know what weight to attribute their rush to judgment in comparison with their scholarship (admittedly, some better than others), their contributions in the class room and their contributions to Duke at large. I am also sad because the members of the academy, as Prof. Johnson has rightly stated (I'm sorry I can't find the exact post), are NOT supposed to be swayed by the mob. They should have been the voice of reason reminding the pot bangers of the fundamental principle of due process, the presumption of innocence and the danger of a mob mentality. They failed terribly and continue to fail. But over an academic career and lifetime, how should their actions be judged? I don't know; but it is sometimes difficult to read the critiques because it feels as though I'm committing the same sin of prejudgment without knowing all of the facts.

That said, Prof. Johnson's critiques are needed - like a bitter bill to eradicate a spreading disease. I don't understand those who post insulting and vicious attacks against Prof. Johnson (I'm sure he receives worse that are not fit for posting). He has provided a needed service even if some of us, myself included, wished we did not need it.

Anonymous said...

9:50 AM

Yeah, . . . just shut-up and teach. You know it . . . yeah, you know it . . . yeah, you know it. We can always lynch someone tomorrow, or maybe Duke can have an affirmative action for someone from the mountains or a mill village or maybe a privileged worker from some tobacco farm somewhere in the east where the sun comes up . . . and maybe, just maybe, hell will freeze over and over again . . . just kidding, you know it, just kidding, and maybe the sun will shine on Duke and Durham again, a light shining where the sun doesn't shine, you know it, and we can have a real lynching next time, with pot-bangers and intellectuals, and Panthers, but then I hope not in our lifetime. Let's all go forward now together . . . it takes all of us to have a lynching . . . it takes an entire village . . . and a rope.

Anonymous said...

Don't expect Easley to do the right thing on appointing the new DA. He has demonstrated time and time again that he cares nothing about this travesty, that he will protect the guilty and ignore the innocent, and that he will do whatever is politically expedient, no matter how tone-deaf and damaging. I expect him to select the worst of the lot. I think Julian Mack's name is just a floater to make it sound above-board. No way Easley would risk putting one of the LAX's attorneys in the position. That would force him to answer too many questions that he wants to just go away.

Matt said...

What I like most about this blog is that its analysis of Group of 88 academics will be online for years and years to come.

While I'm sure many G88'ers hope/think the harsh spot light will dim when KC ends his posts, I hope the blog will continue to anchor the historical narrative to what really happened.

In that light, I googled "Tim Tyson Duke" and was a bit dissapointed to find DIW on page 3. Did notice that Tim Tyson is in Wikipedia. My guess is that it is a self-posted bio. There are no references, and not surprising there is no mention of the Duke lacrosse case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Tyson

Would be very nice to see individual role's in G88 and public comments (WITH REFERENCES) start showing up on Wiki bios.

Matt

Anonymous said...

To KC Johnson at 10:15--

I think the evidence for 8:26's comment ("heavy on denuciatory tone"--I hope you don't usually write like that. It's very awkward!) is in the blog. You've long since gone off the LAX case and started going after other enemies real and perceived (evidence: topics in your blog not directly related to the LAX case).

What kind of academic pursuit does Brooklyn College consider your blog? Community service? Teaching? Public service? I hope not research...

ME said...

8:26 am has now reduced himself/herself to the processes of redundant copy and paste of prior comment critiques. 8:26, have you lost the zest for your quest. Where’s the originality, where’s the flair; you’ve clearly lost your savoir-faire.

In short, in the span of a just a few weeks you have become a parody of yourself.

Have you no self-respect. Please, do us all a favor, rest up over the weekend so you can put forth your best G88 aspirant rant effort in response to KC’s Chafe profile (and is it too much to ask that you try an original thought or two).

Anonymous said...

When does this blog come to an official end? Is it around Labor Day?

Will we be given the opportunity to express our thanks to KC in something like a guest book?

I hope we have the chance.

bill anderson said...

Well, well, well. It looks as though 8:26 is a Duke faculty member who is trying to continue to obfuscate by now saying the whole damn thing is K.C.'s fault. It seems to me that all K.C. has done has been to expose the idiocy that exists at Duke.

He has not made up any quotes or claimed that someone in the G88 or elsewhere has articulated an anti-LAX point of view that the person never gave. What he has pretty much done is to present these people in their own words -- and actions.

However, if there is one thing cockroaches don't like, it is light. To quote Karla Holloway, I guess these people want to be able to make their comments in the "subaltern spaces of the university" and not be held accountable for them.

I do not forget that these people openly encouraged a corrupt and dishonest prosecutor to attempt to throw three young men into prison for more than 30 years. And don't let 8:26 or any of the others tell you differently. They have left a paper trail.

Anonymous said...

12:47 p.m. writes:

"Will we be given the opportunity to express our thanks to KC in something like a guest book?"

Really good idea!

Duke Alum '91 - aka Keith Kornman said...

I am also a little bit bothered by the reference to/attack on the Group of 88 supporters. I have posted here anonymously twice. Once to ask why a source was not named and another time to defend one of the Group of 88 who I have known personally and to denounce name-calling and uneducated attacks on both sides.

The first time, my question was responded to and explained without a denunciation of my choice at the time to remain anonymous. The second time, it was implied that I am hiding in the shadows.

I suggest that we all try to be consistent and avoid hyperbole and attacks whenever possible. I look forward to Prof. Johnson's book and I will continue to support my friends even if I disagree with some of their prior actions, just as I would hope they would do for me.

There has been so much in this case that is "black and white", let's not be afraid of the gray.

Steven Horwitz said...

Anon at 1142 wrote:

I am also sad because the members of the academy, as Prof. Johnson has rightly stated (I'm sorry I can't find the exact post), are NOT supposed to be swayed by the mob. They should have been the voice of reason reminding the pot bangers of the fundamental principle of due process, the presumption of innocence and the danger of a mob mentality. They failed terribly and continue to fail. But over an academic career and lifetime, how should their actions be judged? I don't know; but it is sometimes difficult to read the critiques because it feels as though I'm committing the same sin of prejudgment without knowing all of the facts.

Very well put. I don't know whether folks consider me a "defender" of the G88 or not. And I don't much care. But for whatever it's worth, the quoted material above pretty much sums up my own feelings, especially the line about "over a lifetime."

There's no doubt the G88 behaved abhorrently with respect to their students and the faculty handbook, and some more generalized notion of fairness and respect for due process. But to turn them into the demons they have been made into here ignores (and is often literally ignorant of) the other ways in which they (might) have contributed to Duke and the broader intellectual community. Your distaste for the subject matter of their scholarship is not, by itself, a reason to dismiss them.

In any case, I find myself with the same conflicted feelings as the commenter above. I'm horrified by the particular actions during the hoax, but unwilling to condemn all of them unilaterally or equally because of evidence I CAN see of other contributions and because there might be evidence I CAN'T see of the same.

The one thing that would go A LONG way toward resolving those conflicted feelings was any public admission of being wrong and/or a public apology. The lack thereof (assuming that it doesn't expose them legally) remains, to me, the one aspect of this case that I cannot sufficiently explain. The lack of an apology is also rapidly becoming almost worse than what they did in the first place.

One of the first virtues a good scholar should have is humility in the face of the truth.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Re 7:24 and 11:00,

Please cease and desist. If we're so shy of topics for discussion that it's time to gawk and squawk at personal names, maybe society would benefit from turning your formidable mental abilities to more productive efforts.

Anonymous said...

If I recall correctly, KC has stated that his original interest in this case was the conduct of the professors and faculty at Duke and why they behaved as they did, not the corrupt DPD / DA or the legal aspect of the "case". It seems to me he is on topic now more than ever.

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.12/Duke Alum '91:

My apologies if you thought in any way the item in today's post referred to you: it did not.

By anonymous comment, I meant wholly anonymous, without any ID at all. Many people at DIW comment under their first names or a blog nickname (as you did). I, for one, don't consider that an anonymous comment--it's possible to respond to your arguments directly, and to follow comments you made from thread to thread.

As you'll note, today's post also made no reference to your earlier comments, which struck me as on-target.

bill anderson said...

There's no doubt the G88 behaved abhorrently with respect to their students and the faculty handbook, and some more generalized notion of fairness and respect for due process. But to turn them into the demons they have been made into here ignores (and is often literally ignorant of) the other ways in which they (might) have contributed to Duke and the broader intellectual community. Your distaste for the subject matter of their scholarship is not, by itself, a reason to dismiss them.

In any case, I find myself with the same conflicted feelings as the commenter above. I'm horrified by the particular actions during the hoax, but unwilling to condemn all of them unilaterally or equally because of evidence I CAN see of other contributions and because there might be evidence I CAN'T see of the same.


I would be willing to do that, but these people circled the wagons and insisted they had done nothing wrong -- and in their minds, they had not. (Now, if one of us were to falsely accuse one of them of rape and assault, I suspect they might approach THAT accusation with a different mindset.)

The problem is that they were making their accusations in the context of their larger "narrative," and I contend that their "narrative" is anti-intellectual and anti-civilization. Political Correctness is destructive, and there is no way to get around that point.

Thus, I cannot cut them slack because the damage they have done is not limited to false accusations of rape against innocent people. These people will not be satisfied until they have destroyed the entire edifice of higher education.

Anonymous said...

P. G. Wodehouse would have jumped at the chance to use the name Thavolia Glymph in one of his many good humored short stories. Jeeves would no doubt have had to extract Bertie Wooster from some wedding bells commintment Bertie had unwittingly made to Thavolia.
Cheers, JLJr

Flann O'Brien said...

And STUPIDEST COMMENT OF THE DAY goes to ... 12:35

One of the joys of reading this blog--at its best--is uncovering the myriad ways other concepts are related to events that transpired in the rush to judgment. Whether it's a discussion of the merit of Hardt's scholarship, or an analysis of the transparent biases of certain academic "disciplines," this blog has addressed them.

Mr. Precision, have you ever heard of inductive analysis?

Anonymous said...

As an Albany Times -Union subscriber I'm happy to see Mr. Ettkin's apology. It takes courage to admit mistakes. I'll keep my subscription.

Anonymous said...

10:32--

I have good knowledge about the Duke faculty? Why that? No, but I have reasonably good reading comprehension and thus remember what was said about the women/couples in questions elsewhere on this blog.

Because your first assertion was incorrect, I am not going to answer your question, because I assume your question was based on a faulty assumption!

Anonymous said...

Dear 10:15,

My classes are alsmot always full to overflowing, indeed, some of my classes are the first in my department to close. Especially when I teach (Oh! Scary!) gender related topics.

My students apparently haven't been indoctrinated yet by the ignorant posters here who talk about Hate Studies!

So much for your unsubstantiated accusations. I thought KC's blog was all about the problems of rushing to judgement? No?

Anonymous said...

Re 11:42, you wrote, "Overall, I am sad - yes, sad - that Prof. Chafe and others of his caliber joined in the lynch mob"...this fact isn't wat really bothers me about the 88. This was a unique situation in Durham and at Duke. It was a very troubling, confusing, and strange time.

I am sure good, caring, responsible Professors wanted to do something. I am sure the majority of them had good intentions and thought they were doing something positive.

The real disappointment has come in the months following the listening statement, with the clarifying statement, the refusal to admit error, the refusal to apologize. This is what is so disgusting about the actions of the 88. They have now had time to reflect and look back at the things they did, said, and wrote.

The fact that they refuse to admit error or apologize for the harm they caused renders them morally bankrupt in my opinion.

inman said...

There was an interesting article at The Duke Chronicle today. A committee has been formed to evaluate Brodhead's leadership. The vice chairman of the BOT stated that they were interested in hearing about:

"...the effectiveness of the president in leading the University, articulating a vision for its future and advancing its interests..."

It is noted that this type of review is and has been done regularly, but this one could be very interesting.

I wonder who the 3 faculty appointees are? Does anyone know? Could any of the '88 be on the committee?

Ohmygod,whatifitsRudyorGlymphorevenworsecooke...ohmygod,anyofthe'88

Mike Lee said...

Professor Horowitz, the lack of an apology and failure to admit error are far worse in my opinion than the original statement. Mistakes are common and to be expected, especially during trying times and when the intent isn't malicious.

But refusing to admit error or apologize when you cause harm....makes a person dishonest and mean. I too am hesitant to judge or condemn the 88 based on their actions in this case alone, but if someone is willing to be mean and dishonest in any case, I think that says a lot about them in general.

Your posts have been right on the money as far as I am concerned. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Insufficently Sensitive: "Gawk and squawk at personal names"? I acknowledged the comment was Off Topic, but I said it was a good name - it's an interesting, old-timey, ornate-sounding one. Made me look it up and learn a little about Lemuel Glymph and Glymphville, S.C. Really - not using my negligible mental abilities to put her name down, friend: I sorta like the sound of it.

Negligible as they are, however, those abilities allow me to recall that it was Ms.Glymph who lamented that things were “moving backwards” when DNA tests revealed no matches to lacrosse players...

...and that wouldn't be a good quotation to tie to your name, no matter what it was.

Anonymous said...

To Steven Horiwitz: The 88 chose to do what they did. They don't apologize. Sure they might have been nice children (over their lifetime) and even done some reasonable research, but at this juncture of their lives they did something truly despicable and will not apologize for it. This says what/who they are, in the here and now. These 88 people have earned the privledge of being despised. Today is the accumulated sum of their lives and they did it to themselves. The fact they refuse to appologize, something so simple and humble says volumes about who they 'today".

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

12:35

Where has this blog gone off course? Is it too difficult for you to provide examples?

Do you instruct Abstract 101?

Are you nameless in the perfectness of the perfectly ambiguous ambiguity?

Eric

inman said...

I was just looking at Duke's Fall Semester Schedule of Classes.

One in particular was intriguing:

Freetime 450C -- Students with no classes scheduled for a particular section must sign up for free time.

Now Duke only has one course in that program area. Heck ... when I was there, that was my major.

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

Anon at 11:42am --

Thanks for your measured, reflective thoughts. A lot gets expressed by people who know enough of the words and deeds of the Listening Statement's adherents to form a judgment--and to become angered by what they see.

Anger may be justified, it may be necessary, it may be a "stage". The Group of 88 are grownups in positions of responsibility who got caught behaving badly. Their psychologist colleagues could explain about "transference" and "cognitive dissonance." Their problems. Sowing is fun. Reaping, not so much.

Still, anger is not the same as insight and, of itself, will not lead to good policy.

In addition to the posts themselves, Steven Horwitz has provided valuable insider analysis over the last dozen or so posts. Ralph Phelan's systems-failures perspective is very insightful. Your doubts (Who is to judge? Who judges the judges?) are well founded; they have a centuries-old pedigree.

I'm glad you wrote in.


Duke Alum '91 at 1:12pm --

My thanks to you for writing, in a similar vein. Your personal recollections are valuable, especially to those of us who know Duke and its faculty only as ciphers.

Much of the creative process that led to the Listening Statement is now fairly well understood. Same for the groupthink that its signers indulged in.

What's still unclear are the factors that have lead the Group to double-down around their immoral collective action, rather than apologize. Some, I'm sure, are Gramscians or cynics, looking only to preserve their own hegemonistic positions. As one anonymous commenter suggested yesterday, other Group members may have gotten caught in professional and personal binds, once the extent of the Listening Statement's error and harmfulness became clear.

Signers still have their individual scholarship to be proud of or ashamed of (as the case may be), and the other circumstances of their professional lives. Tenured signers still have near-absolute job security. Most of the untenured have the support and sympathy of their peers, their superiors, and the university Administration, it seems.

While none have my sympathy, I'm interested in seeing them as individuals. Prof. Johnson has treated them that way, in discussing their conduct during the Hoax/Frame, and in reviewing their scholarly work.

Anonymous said...

To the 8.26 Anonymous:
KC doesn't need anyone to back him up, but just for the record, let me put it clearly: people like you apparently make a practice of sniping from the sidelines because you don't have the argument to back up your accusations. As we used to say on the street: you let your two-bit mouth make a $10 bet that you couldn't cover. KC and other blogs have done an outstanding job of making the case that the MSM, Duke University, the City and County of Durham all failed their duties to the people of this nation. If you can tolerate that level of corruption and think KC and the rest of us are in the wrong, then I can only say you are a pitiful excuse for a human being.
Hawkeye in the Old North State

Anonymous said...

To Steve re 1:25: We exchanged notes a couple of days ago re whether it is fair to "call out" the 88 for what may be a single transgresion. While it is fair to ask that any person be judged based on the totality of their contributions/transgressions in life, it is also fair to acknowlede that there are certain mistakes that supercede tolerance. If I was a model husband for 20 years, yet cheated on my wife in the 21st, it would be good grounds for divorce. If I was a hall of fame basketball coach, but slapped a kid at practice, I would be placed on "zero tolerance" notice, and then fired after the next mistake. If I was a doctor who had an exemplary record over several decades, yet was caught issuing improper prescritions for narcotics, I would have my license revoked. If I was Mike Nifong, and in a "first offense" case, railroaded three obviously innocent boys, and lied about it, I would be disbarred. Does the conduct of the 88 rise to the level of the my hypothetical? YES! Regardless of the lifetime achievements of the 88, they have, in the context of their duties to their students and the academy, behaved so badly that their privilege to teach at an institution such as Duke should be in jeopardy. Imagine if there was a code of conduct/ethics for academicians that was similar to that governing attorneys or doctors. The 88 would be searching the want ads.

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.47:

I allow anonymous commenters because I want to ensure the widest possible range of opinion.

That said, I fear that a boast from an anonymous (alleged) professor about unnamed (alleged) courses (allegedly) filling up rapidly has very little credibility.

bill anderson said...

My classes are alsmot always full to overflowing, indeed, some of my classes are the first in my department to close. Especially when I teach (Oh! Scary!) gender related topics.

My students apparently haven't been indoctrinated yet by the ignorant posters here who talk about Hate Studies!

So much for your unsubstantiated accusations. I thought KC's blog was all about the problems of rushing to judgement? No?

8/24/07 1:47 PM


Tell me, anonymous 1:47, did you sign the "We're Listening" advertisement? Do you think it is right to make false accusations of rape? What would be the "narrative" if someone made false accusations against you?

I would respect you much more if you were to say who you were instead of hiding behind the "anonymous" tag. Furthermore, let me as you the following: Do you think it is right for professors to abuse their students and falsely accuse them of rape IN CLASS as some of your Duke colleagues did?

You see, I really don't care if your classes are full (mine are full, too, but that does not mean anything). I want to know if you do more than hector students with propaganda and falsely accuse them of things they did not do. Do you stereotype your students? Do you lie about them?

Jack said...

Brodhead Evaluation Committee

per poster on John in Carolina, a Board of Trustee member, the Honorable Daniel Terry Blue, has been named chairman.

Jack said...

The Hon. Daniel Blue, a member of Duke's BOT executuve committee, is a product of the segregated schools of Robeson County, NC, and earned a mathematics degree from the predecessor ro NCCU. After earning a law degree from Duke University, he joined former NC governor Terry Sanford's politically well-connected firm in Raleigh.

While it remains to be known who else will be serving on the President Evaluation committee, I am not sure Brodhead needs to do any touch up painting or fix that wobbly front porch railing just yet.

Anonymous said...

KC//
1:47 here. I was responding to the assertion of an anonymous poster that my classes were half full, as in something like don't be late to indocrinate students in your half-full classes or whatever. I don't tend to figure I have to tell you--or your fan club--that my classes fill. (And, as you know, we can track how many students try to get into closed classes, which tells us about demand.)

Lucky for me it doesn't matter if you think what I said is credible or not. Makes us pretty much even, since I think a great deal of what you say is fit only for a straight to DVD film.

Bill Anderson at 3:28, the chances of me using my real name with the nut cases who post here is slim to non-existent.

Sign me,

Troll, since that's what most of you call people who disagree with you.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Anderson: Political Correctness may ultimately mean the death of the republic.

Anonymous said...

3:26:

Hector my students? You bet. To do well, to write well, to complete their reading, to keep their mobile phones off, to be on time, to analyze well, to use spell check, to be polite to each other when they discuss. And probably ten other things.

Why would you ask me any of the questions you did at the end of your post? Where were you raised? In a barn? Didn't your parents teach you not to attack people?

Stephen said...

Dr. Anderson: How about grade retaliation ala Kim Curtis?

Ralph Phelan said...

Steve Horwitz, re: you 1:25 pm.
See my 9:02 am.

Anonymous said...

hey 1:47- you can call me Mr X.

I can't believe you admitted you are a prof at Duke. maybe you are just pretendin' to be one. had no idea it was sooo easy to get you to out yourself. had I known, I'da sent Floyd in a long time ago to smoke ya'll out.

unreal

K.C., thanks for everything. be well.

Anonymous said...

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/nifong/story/681451.html

Nifong has to pay $8000 for ethics case!

Debrah said...

"One of the first virtues a good scholar should have is humility in the face of the truth."

Oh, dear Stephano....is that really you?

Something upon which we both agree.

I wonder....might I break open a bottle of the bubbly for such an occasion?

LOL!

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.51:

To reiterate: anonymous boasts about alleged classes carry very little weight.

As to the blog itself, as you might have noticed, I post all items under my own name, and I try to answer any specific questions or complaints that people have. Of course, generic complaints that provide no specific citations or evidence also carry little weight.

ME said...

Jack at 3:28 pm mentions John in Carolina (JinC). Just a suggestion but when KC closes shop, commenters here may want to occasionally stop by John in Carolina’s blog.

JinC’s blogging style is quite dissimilar to that of KC. Nonetheless, JinC covers some of the topics covered by KC and JinC is apparently located in the Raleigh / Durham area and has local resources.


Disclaimer: I am not JinC (in fact, I am not now nor have I ever been associated with JinC not to mention Gregory’s MOO, Inman’s cat or any other character fictionalized or real depicted in this comment section).

Debrah said...

I say put a halt to this conferring unless the anonymous poster provides the other professors on this blog with his professional info.

It's a wasted flash in the pan from some poseur, otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Off Topic
Nifong's wallet takes a hit. He still got off cheap.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1739034/

One Spook said...

Anon @ 3:00 writes:

Regardless of the lifetime achievements of the 88, they have, in the context of their duties to their students and the academy, behaved so badly that their privilege to teach at an institution such as Duke should be in jeopardy.

BINGO!

"Privilege." Some of you have mentioned or implied that college professors, in their position of trust as educators, are granted extensive privilege AND power; many have discussed the awesome power of tenure.

What seems to be ignored by the Group of 88 and its defenders here is that along with this power and privilege, comes that nettlesome issue of responsibility.

People empowered in high positions of great trust, such as a DA, a college president, or a professor, accept and should be held to a much higher standard of behavior than others not similarly empowered in society.

Consequently, the misdeeds by members of these elite groups require more severe sanctions.

If a submarine commander allows his sub to collide with a Japanese fishing vessel, he will lose his command and never, ever again command a boat or be in a position of such responsibility.

A CEO of an organization that does not meet its financial goals is fired, not the janitor.

Honorable leaders who fail often resign. In the extreme is a recent case of a Chinese manufacturing CEO whose company was illegally using lead-based paint in its products. He committed suicide.

To whom much is given, much is expected.

That the Duke President has not publicly sanctioned this Group of 88, and that they, as a group, have not apologized for their gross misdeeds is nothing short of outrageous, immoral, and despicable. Because of that, they really tell us who and what they are --- people devoid of character and honor. And I don't care how much they've published or not, or whether they think "Queer Theory" is cool.

Spook

Debrah said...

Regarding the alleged professor @ (3:51PM) who spouts:

"Bill Anderson at 3:28, the chances of me using my real name with the nut cases who post here is slim to non-existent."

Then why bother to post at all? Are you a professional? Really?

I don't think I have read a more scorching example of a total lack of irresponsible rhetoric since reading scribblings signed by fellow teenagers in a high school yearbook.

Total lack of character and sophistication.

Shades of Gang88 conquering.....

gwdprice said...

Prof. Johnson...I have learned a lot from you over the last year and a half and I appreciate it very much...נסיעה טובה.

P said...

It's astonishing watching the Anons crumble when asked to produce evidence.

Debrah said...

Does this creepy rhetoric sound familiar to anyone?

"Why would you ask me any of the questions you did at the end of your post? Where were you raised? In a barn? Didn't your parents teach you not to attack people?"

())))))))))))))) Cue Twilight Zone music (((((((((((((()

Steven Horwitz said...

Sorry Spook, but I think your comparisons are overblown. They screwed up but they aren't even in the same league as, say, Nifong, who had actual real power to deny people their freedom for 30 years. No comparison. Nor to a toy manufacturer whose product is life-threatening.

Yes, the G88 helped to create the context in which Nifong acted, but their actions are not in the same ballpark as his.

AF said...

Troll @ 3:51

What classes of yours are full? Are you one of those who teaches a "mandatory" freshman course? Do your classes really have relevance in our world or only in the world of the angry?

Anonymous said...

1:44, I'll assume then that you have no problem with the continued employment of Kim Curtis. I am with you, she is absolutely fantastic....and a real looker too.

Anonymous said...

4:18//KC,

I know you're not a dimwit, but try again. I was responding to an anonymous who told me my classes were half full. He told me this anonymously. I corrected him anonymously.

Why does this bother you? It's your blog, you can tell everyone as much about yourself as you like. Fools' names like fool's faces...

Anonymous said...

8:54

I find it interesting that a blog dedicated to pointing out the rush to judgment of the lacrosse players largely facilitates a rush to judge members of the group of 88. Food for thought folks.

No thanks, I'm not hungry. And I don't buy this attempt at turning the tables. There's no rush here, there's validation and support for the judgements.

Or haven't you been paying attention?

Anonymous said...

Spook @ 4:51

Thank you. Honor cannot be taught, it's earned

mac said...

AF 5:31,
You'll never get "tree-fitty-one" to answer some basic questions, such as these:

Is grade retaliation - the same kind of grade retaliation as Kim Curtis practiced - permissable?

Was it a good idea for the "listening statement" to be published before the DNA evidence was scrutinized?

Is it a good thing that the 88 signatories have - with few exceptions - refused to apologize?

Those are just a few - and they are redundant. How many times have we asked them, how many times do we need to ask them, and how many times do anon posters avoid answering them?
Answer:
Tree-fitty-one is like so many of the trollsters: all they do is stop by to set an IED or two.

Anonymous said...

Sign me,

Troll, since that's what most of you call people who disagree with you.


It's definitely what we call people who have nothing to offer in their comments except uncheckable claims and ad hominem comments.

Anonymous said...

The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones....W. Shakespeare

Do the K-88 live in some fantasy-land where no one is held accountable for their actions? Is that the point of tenure? Please don't tell me they were just expressing an opinion. Their aim was to destroy these young men and they darn near succeeded.

mac said...

Steven Horwitz,

Perhaps you aren't aware of how easy it is to get fired in most businesses? (nowadays, they call it "being laid off," but the effect is just the same.)

Have you ever worked in a job where people were easily fired? Why should people who cite "academic freedom" be so very different from other, ordinary Americans? Before you answer that question - tell me: have you ever been an employer?

I have, and I'll tell you this: if my employee(s) treated their customers the way the 88 treated the accused students, they'd have been out the door, and quickly. Businesses go under when customer service sucks.

Perhaps it would be a good time to note that the students in higer education - (yes, even higher education) - are the consumers and the instructors are the service-providers.

Anonymous said...

Hotness Total: 0

Says it all

Anonymous said...

It wasn't just that the lacrosse players were indicted for a crime that they didn't commit as much as all of those in positions of power didn't think their innocence mattered or that if it did matter all of those standing against the indicted three could have their way regardless of any argument or fact or facts to the contrary. These people more than having sheer gall wanted, and thought they had, unlimited and absolute power. It was and is absolutely shameful.

Anonymous said...

5:27 PM

Dear Debra,

This quoted sophomorone, unlike myself, cannot discuss anything without abusing people and putting them down (hope you liked my unique discription of abilities thank you . . . thank you very much).

Anonymous said...

Steve H: Re your 5:29 post; you have morphed the original point into obscurity. What we were talking about was whether the 88 should get a free pass as first time offenders. The point that I made, and that One Spook followed up on, is that out here in the real world, a screw up of the magnitude of the 88's would warrant severe reprisals, perhaps dismissal. You construct your reality through the lens of the protections afforded tenured professors. Such is not the case for the rest of us. My tenure is my performance TODAY. If I screwed up only half as bad as the 88, I'd have my desk cleared out by sundown. So, your nit-picking at One Spook's analogies is misplaced.

gwallan said...

Anonymous @8:54AM said...
I find it interesting that a blog dedicated to pointing out the rush to judgment of the lacrosse players largely facilitates a rush to judge members of the group of 88. Food for thought folks.

Rush to judgement? More than a year after the G88's ad? Which is worse? A rush to judgement based on collective, class guilt? Or a lengthy examination of provable error, incompetance and intransigence?

The G88 are little different to the inquisitors, witch hunters and lynchers of the past. The methods of torture may be a little more subtle but the damage spreads far wider.

Anonymous @3:53PM said...
Hector my students? You bet. To do well, to write well, to complete their reading, to keep their mobile phones off, to be on time, to analyze well, to use spell check, to be polite to each other when they discuss. And probably ten other things.

Good for you.

Unfortunately some of the G88 took it upon themselves to attack lacrosse team members in their classrooms and in front of their peers. One has been proven to have marked(and failed) students on their affilliations rather than their scholarship.

Do you support their behaviour?

Anonymous @3:53PM, possible attempting satire, said...
Why would you ask me any of the questions you did at the end of your post? Where were you raised? In a barn? Didn't your parents teach you not to attack people?

Oh the irony.

rrhamilton said...


no justice, no peace said...
"...Perhaps, at some point, it would be wise to inform these ladies about the FBI’s rape statistics.”

He's spot-on with each of these three comments, only in the wrong context.

One wonders what the actual FBI number is for three white men raping one black woman. How many times does that crime occur each year? Maybe the girls team should look those numbers up and send them to Mr. Smith.

8/24/07 7:30 AM


That reminds me of the Hamilton Challenge, offered in this and other forums on occasion: Find the last time white men were convicted of a multiple offender rape of a black woman. (I have one answer, but maybe someone has a better one.)

Anyway, NJNP, by raising FBI statistics differently than Stephen A. Smith did, you've proved yourself to be a racist. If you don't believe me, ask any 88ist.

Anonymous said...

Inman

What do you think of Talisher and Oban single malts? I think those 2 are the # 1, 2 in single malts.

Glenmorangie 18 yrs old is wonderful.

Debrah said...

Professor Anderson presents it short and sweet:

I cannot cut them slack because the damage they have done is not limited to false accusations of rape against innocent people. These people will not be satisfied until they have destroyed the entire edifice of higher education.

Anonymous said...

Debrah

inre Anderson's comment: Did you read Friday's Wall Street Journal? Devastating article about dumbing down of elite law schools. Author maintains there is a full 2-SD difference between affirmative-action admits and meritorious ones. The G88 wants that trend to continue.

God bless their pointed little heads!

Debrah said...

TO 12:51AM--

No, I didn't see it. I sometimes check out the WSJ excerpts in the N&O; however, for the last week, I've only skimmed the print edition for lack of time.

I'm lost in Wonderland until the gates are locked. People in my social circle--the few that there are--know that I am not available for socializing very much until this is over.

LOL!

On the point of schools being dumbed down, I think Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School is supposed to be one of the worst.

Anonymous said...

12:28

Talisher & Oban are owned by the same Japanese company, I think. Talisher is generally considered to be rougher & perhaps more valued as a result. You can get both of them--and several others--at a good price when you tour the Oban distillery. Worth a trip.

Cedarford said...

Anonymous 10:20 AM - To the 7:30, what possible relevance could the statistics of 3 white men raping a black woman have? Perhaps you should reconsider and ask about the number of times a black woman has falsely accused 3 white men.

The point is- rape statistics have no relevance here whatsoever. Does anyone need to hear it again? THERE WAS NO RAPE!!


You don't understand either statistics or the fact that many are arguing that outside stats, human psychology is such that no way would 46 people of passing acquaintance, their parents, or their lawyers EVER risk felony convictions haunting their lives for covering up a major crime.

Those with analytical skills knew by the 1st week that the 46 accused were almost certainly innocent on just the cover-up. My cousin, a highly regarded detective in Missouri, said by week two, not only were the Duke players 100% without a doubt innocent because no such conspiracy had ever lasted - not even in tight gangs - and 100% convinced that the cops and DA must be corrupt.

You shut off your brain when you rant about how statistics don't matter. Because they were innocent! innocent! innocent!

No, because important people whose job it is to assess probabilities - like Judge Stevens, SGT GOttlieb, Nifong, Broadhead, the 88 well-paid faculty inc. some with stats, law enforcement, racial history, woman's studies teaching duties should know probabilities:

1. Chances a fat plain, smelly and drugged up black woman would be raped by 3 guys with attractive GFs and miles above her class in life?

2. That they would do so impromptu in front of 25 witnesses?

3. That the 25 witnesses, without meeting, would individually enter into a conspiracy to deny they saw a rape going down?

4. Given rape stats that black women are gang-raped by whites once every 7-10 years or so and always whites of the black woman's socioeconomic strata?

5. That the woman told wildly inconsistent stories and was a junkie prostitute who lies for a living, HAD PREVIOUSLY FALSELY ACCUSED 3 BLACK MEN OF GANG RAPING HER, had an extensive criminal record and was dumped out of the Navy on morals??

Please, be as emotional as you want, but go vent in a corner while more logical, analytical people continue to rake the supposedly smart people at Duke, the media, and law enforcement over the coals for their bigotry and lack of common sense and ability to think clearly.

And the same goes for idiots that insist that they cannot assess the truth - "Only a jury can do that". They are morons, too. A preposterous story is just that.

Back in May 2006, I compared it to the likelihood that a woman caught in other lies showing up late for work showing me a big bruise on her arm and telling me she was hit by a meteor.

I would suspend her. Mainly for lying. In recorded history, one person was hit by a meteor. A woman in Alabama back in the 50s that had a 6-lb meteor punch through her roof, 2nd floor, and hit her thigh hard enough she was hospitalized for many days.

kbp said...

Thanks KC!

Looking forward to your Profile on Chafe.

If only you had access to those secret records of all the unreproted rapes he is aware of.

At the minimum, it would let you know how many crimes he and his associates have withheld from reporting. A record that would allow prospective students to determine which school to not attend, due to concerns for their own safety!

Debrah said...

To 9:05AM--

You're not even remotely amusing.

Who are you, the Santa from New England's lackey?

Anonymous said...

KC//You're losing it. No one thinks you are responsible for what is said in any and all posts. You are, however, responsible for leaving up offensive posts (I don't mean troll, which is stupid, but you left up "bitch" for awhile awa posts that are clearly offensive.) You are also responsible for not having checked sources in late July when you were hoaxed.

Are your entries about faculty--not only the 88--biased to support arguments you want to make? You bet. IMHO, you'd've done better if you hadn't been so out for blood.

mac said...

3:02

KC's been pretty understated, actually.

And the "out for blood" comment is really funny, considering your apparent lack of animus toward those who think that civil rights don't apply to students, especially "privileved white male students," the kind who are endowed with a special gift of "sexual prowess," as noted by Grant "Prowess Envy" Farred.
And, of course, you likely agree with those who think that because the accused are "farm animals," they are somehow less-than-human.

Hmmm. You must have really plowed the pages to come up with those zingers about KC! Hard to find dirt that actually sticks, isn't it?