Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Denigrating Procedure

In the past 18 months, the administration of President Richard Brodhead has pursued what could most charitably be described as an erratic policy regarding the enforcement of community standards and Duke policies.

For instance, the administration has consistently refused to enforce the provisions of the Faculty Handbook, which includes the following mandate:

Members of the faculty expect Duke students to meet high standards of performance and behavior. It is only appropriate, therefore, that the faculty adheres to comparably high standards in dealing with students . . . Students are fellow members of the university community, deserving of respect and consideration in their dealings with the faculty.

As Peter Wood, or Grant Farred, or Karla Holloway engaged in their serial, unfounded denunciations of Duke students, the administration responded with silence.

As allegations of in-class harassment by faculty members reached Duke administrators last spring, the administration appears to have conducted no investigation.

The message: on issues of race, class, and gender, those professors on the appropriate side of the divide need not conform to the Handbook’s provisions.

The administration, meanwhile, has been at best inconsistent regarding the student code of conduct. “Harassment of any individual for any reason is not acceptable at Duke University,” the code declares.

In spring 2006, senior Dinushika Mohottige was the only person to admit publicly that she publicly distributed the vigilante posters with the lacrosse players’ photos.

Surely such action would constitute harassment, and therefore be deemed “not acceptable” at Duke.

Yet not only was Mohottige not held to the standard, she was asked three weeks after her vigilante action to join Brodhead at a panel combating the “culture of crassness“ on campus.

The message: on issues of race, class, and gender, those students on the appropriate side of the divide need not conform to the community standard’s provisions.

Yet while noticeably lax in enforcing some provisions of the community standard, the administration has been almost draconian in enforcing others. Two sensational recent columns by Elliot Wolf make the point.

Wolf took aim at the inherently arbitrary nature of the standard. He noted,

Currently, “students may be held accountable for any violation of university policy that may or may not be included in [the bulletin],” whether the violation occurred “on or off-campus,” or for “any conduct adjudged unsatisfactory or detrimental to the university community,” or for “attempting or intending to commit any violation of laws and/or university policies” or for “failure to comply with directions, requests or orders of any university representative or body.”

Adapting Judicial Affairs’ new standard of “probable cause,” all that is required to initiate disciplinary action is information indicating something that someone may have done, tried to do or meant to do may have been against some university policy, written or unwritten, may be in contravention of someone’s request, order or directive or may be otherwise “detrimental to the University community.”

Even more remarkable, Wolf documents numerous statements in which key Duke administrators downplay or dismiss the importance of procedural fairness.

Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta: “However the evidence is obtained is immaterial. However we learn of a behavior, we respond to the behavior.”

Moneta: “We will not ignore information because some other agency obtained it illegally. Our interest as an educational institution is education.”

Judicial affairs director Stephen Bryan, on the allegations of DPD mistreatment of Duke students, as most clearly enumerated in the Chronicle: “Given that a lot of these students are under the influence of alcohol, there’s a propensity to question whether they have an accurate perception of what happened.”

It should be noted, for the record, that neither Bryan nor any other Duke administrator challenged the Chronicle assertions when they occurred. That--after all the DPD abuses that have come to light in the past year--a senior Duke administrator would publicly side with the DPD against his own students is remarkable.

Bill Thomas had a powerful retort to the peculiar claims of Moneta and Bryan. “For the administration to take the position that students are not being mistreated,” he noted, “I think they have their head in the sand . . . Given the events of the last year and a half, one would certainly think that Duke University would have a great appreciation for due process.”

Instead, key administrators appear to believe that due process is a positively harmful development, best to be ignored. The Moneta statements in particular are nothing short of mindboggling.

Wolf also pointed out that the unholy alliance between the Durham Police and the judicial affairs office has reached such a point where students can be convicted solely on the written report of a police officer who does not testify before the (Duke) judicial board. That’s one way of ensuring that Sgt. Mark Gottlieb is never cross examined. Apparently, the Bryan/Moneta policy is to simply assume that DPD officers always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

(All of Wolf’s relevant documents are here.)

The basic message:

Duke has written procedures that it follows—except when it doesn’t.

Students are expected to conform to the community standard—except when they aren’t.

And professors are supposed to adhere to the terms of the Faculty Handbook—except when they don’t feel like doing so.

What message does the Duke administration send when it declares (a) that faculty won’t be held to the same standards as students; and (b) how evidence is collected is irrelevant to the findings of internal disciplinary proceedings?

116 comments:

Debrah said...

KC never loses his magnificent touch.

Such a precise dissection!

These archives will be tremendously useful, since whoever is left over will be reduced to defending him/herself by use of things like machicolations...and bows and arrows.

LOL!!!

When KC is finished, they'll aii sleep alone!

Gary Packwood said...

KC said...
...What message does the Duke administration send when it declares (a) that faculty won't be held to the same standards as students; and (b) how evidence is collected is irrelevant to the finding in internal disciplinary proceedings?
::
The message for students who are high profile white male athletes is ...never EVER relax until you go home with your parents or parents of your friends.

Become hyper vigilant, trust no faculty person and know that you are not really wanted here.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Isn't there a class-action lawsuit available for Duke students because of the documented unfair and discriminatory treatment of students by Durham police, especially by Gottlieb?

hman said...

Tyrants instinctively realize that "due process" and the "rule of law" just get in the way. Duke seems to imagine that their students will be unable to notice that they always put a clause in their rule book that translates as "but there are no rules for us. We can do what we want to you to punish violations we define any way we want."
A long time ago, when I was in school, I was mainly worried about keeping up academically. (It was an easy-out sort of place). Nowadays, kids are encouraged to fear for their careers based on issues other than class participation and the quality of writing. That situation sounds more like an "educational institution" than one so willing to put uncertainty and the fear of the unknown into its students.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

1. Duke does not have the authority to deprive someone of their liberty so naturally the legal standard of evidence is lower than that in a real court. Of course Duke could hold itself to a standard higher than the legal minimum.

2. Mangum was of course combining drugs and alcohol. I wonder if Stephen Bryan similarly "question[ed] whether [s]he have an accurate perception of what happened."

Anonymous said...

The Duke / Durham community is poisonous. A Duke degree is tainted (esp non science).

There are many reasons why the Republicans will likely take a beating in the next election -->their "response" to this case will be one more reason.

AG Cooper looks better and better.

The Monetas of the world would have done quite well in East Germany.

The Duke 3 must sue everybody. Its the only way they can avoid the NY Times writing a revisionist story in 10 yrs.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Wolf did a great deal of work and an outstanding job warning Duke students that they have no rights. There are unfortunately a total of 3 comments on his two articles. I'm afraid Duke students have no idea what could happen to them. I doubt that it's apathy but rather the belief that it could never happen to them. I bet the three falsely accused believed that too, once upon a time.

Anonymous said...

2:18am

Oh, puleeze. The election will be not impacted at all by this FIASCO.

However, media's coverage of race relations will most definitely be impacted. It's happening already.

Anonymous said...

2:18

A Duke degree is in no way tainted.

The LAX case has been resolved.

KC Johnson and the rest of you should be clear about your present goals. KC, who has been trained in a particular kind of American history, not been considered collegial and has not had a stellar research career (this blog is not "research," folks!). He is jealous of those fields that get more "attention" than his. (If he'd been around 20 years ago, he'd be ranting about social history.)

This blog enables people--mostly conservative; some libertarian--who have axes to grind with modern culture and society to do so. Their vehicle is the LAX case. I can't imagine that the LAXers at Duke really appreciate KC & his pack of hellhounds always being on the attack. It's gotten like a leaky faucet. Drip, drip, drip. Very annoying.

Don't you have something else to do? No? I thought not.

Yes, I'm a troll because I don't agree with your pack mentality or your metanarrative. And, shucks, guys, I'm not a signee of the petition you so attack. I'm not even from Duke. I'm not sure I've ever been south of the Mason -Dixon line except for Disney World.

Anonymous said...

1:41

When will you wake up & realize that cops in most university towns treat the students badly? I think that university cops probably do, too. You're only noticing because it's white kids? Get a screaming clue.

Bob H. said...

Given all the choices that an accomplished student has, why on Earth would anyone want to attend Duke? With all that has happened, with the continuing underlying sentiment in the Durham community, with an administration that encourages a coercive attitude toward its students, a faculty that has disdain for the values of most of its "paying customers", it is difficult to see why any student would choose to go there, or a parent would part with one nickel.

Anonymous said...

dukes administration has ADOPTED the same methodology, philosophy and actions or inactions of the NAACP...

there is no difference between the two entities in the way they act anf react...

bill anderson said...

When one is trying to create a leftist paradise, due process and even law itself must go out the window. I guess people there are trying to channel the Bolsheviks, who justified their atrocities with the following statement: "To make an omelet, one must break some eggs."

Good work, K.C. It is sad to see an administration and at least part of the faculty that apparently despise the people who are responsible for their employment.

KC Johnson said...

Note:

To those who made comments between 3.39 and 6.36:

These comments were accidentally deleted. All wree good ones; I hope that you'll re-offer them.

Anonymous said...

Isn't there some Federal committee that could pull Federal tax money from Duke for its civil rights violations of students? Is this investigation ongoing?

Kilgore said...

to 2:18 - It's really tough when the hellhounds are right, eh? The LAX case has been effective in exposing those who use ideology as a weapon. Sounds like you have yet to be wounded by their hate. They will get to you, don't worry. At that point you will sing a different song.

Anonymous said...

Duke University and its administration have become their own provocateurs . . . the administration of these new or proposed policies remind of the courts of star chamber supposedly outlawed by the Constitution. Will these people "try" their own faculty under these rules given their behavior in the lacrosse case. Their behavior was uncalled for and rascist in its own right. It was disruptive and an endangerment to the well-being of the community . . . their bhavior was an incitement to riot. The behavior of the faculty put lives in danger.

Anonymous said...

Kilgore,

I don't think the hellhounds are correct at all. I appreciate the blog because one can point people to it and say: See what has crawled out from under rocks. See what some people think is ok to assert?

Given my background and expertise, I am especially stunned that these folks who so attack "liberals" as "left" haven't a clue how much they sound like some of the lumpenproletariat of the 1920s and 30s.

I pose the question already posed on this blog by trolls: do you really think the LAXers appreciate your attempts to destroy their university? No? I thought not.

You and other posters here must have doctorates in what you so dismissively call "Anger Studies." You are so angry. About what?

Anonymous said...

And, Kilgore, not a chance you hellhounds will get to me. I think you're vastly amusing in a sick sort of way, but not very smart.

Anonymous said...

Each day we creep closer to "Animal Farm." The equal animals appear to be the Duke professariate.

Kilgore said...

You are missing the point. Those that will "get to you" are the same ideological vampires who have fanned the flames of the lax case. The brodheads, 88's, etc. Your ox apparently has yet to be gored. Good for you. Give it time. Give it time. Brainwashing goes away pretty quickly when it's your ox.

mac said...

2:18
New York Times? Revisionist?
That would assume that they got the story right the first time, I think.

Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

To Kilgore and the other Duke apologists, I find myself quoting Martin Niemoeller, because, although he was far from a good human being in several respects, his most famous quote was absolutely right. It isn't about having axes to grind, or at least, it's not just about having axes to grind. It's about the truth and doing what's right.

"First they went after the Communists, and I did not stand up, because I was not a Communist. Then they went after the homosexuals and infirm, and I did not stand up, because I was neither. Then they went after the Jews, and I did not stand up, because I was not a Jew. Then they went after the Catholics, and I did not stand up, because I was Protestant. Finally, they went after me, and there was no one left to stand up for me."

Anonymous said...

Dr. Johnson:

I enjoyed your book. I believe you may have found a niche. You could start now and have fodder to write on academia for a life time.

Speaking of academia, based on your writings and other, I have have a thesis that the humanities are increasingly immune to any sort of crtical review. Lack of checks and balance lead to outlandish behavior.

I particularly enjoy your passages regarding the professors quoting somehting similar to "Democrats are just smarter".

Kilgore said...

Well said mandelbrot. I agree completely. I think you got me mixed up with 2:18. You and I are humming the same tune.

Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

To Kilgore, I apologize. I misread your post, and regret including you among the Duke apologists. The remainder of my post, aimed at the actual Duke apologists, stands unaltered.

Shouting Thomas said...

Angry at what?

How about 50 years of race and sex quotas. That's what caused this rot. And those quotas have denied qualified, decent people jobs and careers.

How would it destroy Duke to return to judging job candidates on merit?

This is all about a corrupt patronage system... the race and sex quotas.

Michael said...

Here's a recent headline on a Google News search:

"New Center at Duke Law School to Focus on Criminal Justice, Professional Responsibility"

Perhaps the folks at the new center could take a look at due process at Duke University.

Anonymous said...

7:20,

I believe there's plenty of brainwashing going on in the good old US of A. The people who reject global warming, who claim the war in Iraq wasn't about oil, and so on.

I believe that KC Johnson and the rest of you who won't give up on this case--the LAX 3 have settled--have plenty of axes to grind. You're using this issue to attack Duke, various kinds of academic disciplines, about which you know little but blather about a lot, cultural differences, etc.

As far as Mandelbrot's Chaos goes, I believe in data far more than in "truth," which often depends on where you stand in the narrative. When "they" was the Nazis, they also went after Social Democrats, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, the learning disabled [as opposed to the physically infirm], the Slavs, especially Poles and Russians, the Roma, and anyone else who didn't figure into the Nazi racial scheme of things. Unfortunately, some people who post here sound a great deal like that Nazis; indeed, given the comments about Bolsheviks/Communists that appear here, one might think some posters wish the Nazis had gotten them... And, they are often those who support the LAXer and attack Duke, etc., rather than the other way around.

Anonymous said...

7:20 Silly me! I keep thinking the 'equal animals' are folks like you.

Steven Horwitz said...

To 7:00 -

Duke can't be investigated for civil rights violations based on their own internal judicial policies because they are not a state school, and as JLS at 155 says, they do not have the ability to deprive folks of liberty. Private schools can make whatever rules they wish, due process be damned.

But, as JLS also says, one would think and hope that an institution of higher learning would aspire to do better than Duke seems to be doing here and to respect due process in its own internal policies. Duke can be admonished, but it's not gonna get sued over stuff like this.

haskell said...

anonymous 8:23

Thanks for your comments, seriously. It is nice to see opposing viewpoints. I would like to know, though, from your perspective, should people be held accountable for their inappropriate behavior? In the Duke case, a financial settlement was made by Duke. Is this sufficient to absolve the wrongful actions of the faculty and administrators? Or should they take personal responsibility?

Shouting Thomas said...

anonymous 7:20

Women's, black and gay "studies" departments aren't academic disciplines. They're Stalinist indoctrination centers. So, we know what you're up to.

These indoctrination center must be shut down.

Dragging in global warming doesn't help your cause either. Are you aware that in the 70s many of today's prominent supporters of global warming were warning us of global cooling?

You, and those folks, are up to the same thing. The constant invocation of crisis is a cover for your agenda... which is government regulation of every part of our lives.

You might as well stop yammering about how this board won't give up on this case. You are here, aren't you? You're not giving up. This is because you know that the Duke case revealed the rot that the race and sex quotas caused. I'd guess that you have a job because of the quota system. You have that sneering tone of the academic commissar.

If it's not important, why do you keep posting?

rrhamilton said...

Anonymous at 8:23 said...
7:20,

I believe there's plenty of brainwashing going on in the good old US of A.


As long as there is a free flow of ideas, no one can be "brainwashed" except by choice -- and then it's not really brainwashing, it's deliberate obtuseness.

In the U.S. in general, there is free exchange of information and ideas. People on all sides of, say, global warming or the Iraq war, have freedom to make their points. It's when someone attempts to officially prevent or officially punish the free expression of ideas that brainwashing can occur. In today's America, that happens far more often on campus than off.

Steven Horwitz said...

shouting thomas shouted:

Women's, black and gay "studies" departments aren't academic disciplines. They're Stalinist indoctrination centers. So, we know what you're up to.

The second sentence does not help anyone take seriously the very real concerns about what some folks do in some of those departments.

And as my "Economics of Gender and the Family" course has been cross-listed by our Gender Studies department the two times I've offered it, I guess that makes me a Stalinist indoctrinator and not a serious academic too.

Gee, if only I realized I could have indoctrinated my students...

Anonymous said...

To anonymous troll at 2:44.

If you can't dispute the facts... attack the messenger. Typical behavior from the left…an assumption based on your childish insults towards

Given your choice of verbiage, you have to be some sort of "academic".

It’s easy to sit cloaked in the veil of anonymity and hurl stones at Dr Johnson's lack of "Collegial" conduct. Shining the light of day on the cess pit that is the Ivory tower is by definition not "Collegial". It is however necessary if American education is to remain competitive. I know you hate that word…Competition. There is a reason most the folks in AAS are in AAS, and it isn’t due to personal effectiveness as a human being. That field should be populated by the smartest, most hardworking individual scholars, reality as Dr. Johnson has carefully documented is quite the opposite.

And yes I am a conservative. And yes, I do have an axe to grind, because to be quite frank, Academia is a grand failure. American higher education today, particularly in the areas that are meaningless outside of education, (I.E Humanities) is dominated by 60’s radicals, ensconced in cushy lifetime employment, hiding behind tenure, acting like boorish imbeciles, spouting anti-Americanism at every turn, and all the while sipping Earl Grey tea with their pinkies up in the air. Since you have stooped to stereotypes, I will respond in kind, … Dude, get rid of the plaid and Birkenstocks…Also learn to use this great invention called soap.…and seriously you should have stopped wetting the bed when it thunders outside by age 4.

To be quite frank, I wouldn’t let the lot of you run a 7-11 let alone guide America’s educational institutions. You have shown yourself to be borderline criminally incompetent.

Further, you should travel South of the Mason Dixon and actually see the engine that is driving America before you so casually dismiss the south. By gaining these valuable insights you might not look like such an uneducated lout.

And speaking of jealousy...how's your publishing numbers looking...I would say Dr. Johnson and his colleague's are fine. Or is your prospective book, perpetually “forthcoming”.

You seek recognition from an adoring public you have not earned and do not rate, and then lash out in confusion when you realize you rank just above trial lawyers in the eyes of America.

But I digress…



Feel free to intellectually choke me at your leisure.

Sincerely

LtCol S.M.
USMC

20 years spent defending your right to be a nincompoop.

Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

8:23am, I'm sorry. How silly of me. I believe this case, based on the facts and the data, not to mention reams of information available in the public record, was about Duke University's uppermost leadership and a large swath of their humanities department either standing silent or actively encouraging the gross and, in cases, criminal, misconduct and, to be charitable, incompetence of a rogue prosecutor and a wide variety of other people in various governmental agencies within Durham, up to and including their City Manager and Chief of Police. Also, this was about the use of race in a cynical attempt at political gain, not unlike that seen when George Wallace made his bids for the White House.

These people were able to defend themselves, but what of those who cannot? Prosecutorial misconduct disproportionately affects African-Americans for the simple reason that a disproportionate number of African-Americans find themselves in the criminal justice system. So yes, I view this case as a call to arms and a glaring example of exactly where this country is broken and what needs to be done to ensure the rights of the accused, and I'm sure many people here would agree. In this instance, Duke needs to be reminded of their many and egregious errors, so they can fix it and so that innocent students, such as their lacrosse team, need not fear the baseless condemnation of those who are charged with teaching and defending them. This is based on the data, and this is objective fact. You are every bit as guilty of relying on a metanarrative as those you condemn. And if people are calling the Gang of 88 communists, Bolsheviks, and the lumpenproletariat, then perhaps it is because that is an accurate description based on their own words and actions. However, I would call them more Maoist than Marxist or Leninist.

Anonymous said...

7:12 -

I'm sure that (like the 88er's et. al. of today) Bull Conner did not appreciate that "hellhound" MLK and his ilk tried to "destroy" their unjust, recalcitrant, and un-apologetic organization. Given your "background and expetise," I'm "stunned" that you don't recognize the simililarities to the 50's in the South.

Ed

rrhamilton said...

steven,

Looking at your syllabus, we are reminded that one of the real horrors for most of us stems from the realization that people like you and KC form the "Rightwing" of academia. It's rather like looking at the pantheon of socialist parties who made up the original Soviet governments in 1917-18 and picking out the "Right Socialists" as the most conservative.

shouting thomas has a point.

Kilgore said...

thanks mandelbrot.

to steven horwitz said: "Gee, if only I realized I could have indoctrinated my students..."

Maybe so. Your course complains about women not getting the vote. Fair enough. Did your course also mention the date that white men got the right to vote in the United States? Did you know that white men were not allowed the vote until around the civil war period and in some cases a little after. I think Rhode Island was last to give white men the vote in 1888. That's just 30 years before the women. Did you know that white men staged rebellions in order to fight for the right to vote? Most people have no idea of this due to the filtering of information to conform with the quota's shouting thomas is describing. Our country was based on land ownership as a right to vote. NOT GENDER. The feminists claim a one-sided victimhood that isn't based on history. We see the same one-sideness in the LAX mess. If you are going to complain about the women not having the vote you also need to add white men and others into that discussion. To not do so is, well, fostering indoctrination.

Anonymous said...

Feel free to intellectually choke me at your leisure.

Sincerely

LtCol S.M.
USMC

20 years spent defending your right to be a nincompoop.

9/26/07 9:31 AM


LOL Colonel, but tell us what you really think. I'm going to assume that your initials stand for "Smash Mouth". :)

I, too, was in the military and said here yesterday that if we had idiots like these in charge of the U.S. military, today Saddam Hussein would be meeting with Osama bin Laden in the White House.

It's hard to know which we'd have to do first: shoot them for cowardice or courtmartial them for incompetence.

Shouting Thomas said...

Mr. Horowitz,

OK, so I read your course description. It begins with the standard insistence that women gained the right to vote only 100 years ago, as if this is an indictment of our society.

My great-grandparents entered the U.S. in the 1880s, which was in fact the great period of European immigration to the U.S. My great-grandparents were serfs in Wales and Germany, without any property rights and without any voting rights. They left Wales and Germany because they were starving to death. The ships that carried them across the Atlantic were called "coffin ships" because so many of the passengers died.

Suffrage was granted to women in my family less than 30 years after men in my family attained it.

Well into the 1960s, both men and women in my family worked in hard labor jobs for menial wages. I am the first member of my extended family to graduate from a four year college. Men and women in my family died from poverty related diseases well into the 1960s.

The fact that you begin your course with this classic bit of historical nonsense doesn't say much for your gender studies. Either you are another one of the indoctrinators, or you have been force fed the phony Marxist history so often that your head is clouded.

The history of my family is the history of the vast majority of whites in this country. Your repetition of the myth of white supremacy and privilege makes me very suspicious of you.

My family is being punished by the race and sex quota system for a heritage of privilege that never existed.

Anonymous said...

PS Mandel, I'd feel a whole lot better if you'd chosen a case with poor African-Americans to view as a call to arms.

And most of the people who post here wouldn't know a Bolshevik if one bit 'em on the leg. And the difference between a Marxist or a Leninist? Give it up. Even a Stalinist.

I'm not sure what anyone has done to be called a Maoist. Did people go on a 1,000 mile march? Did they participate in a cultural revolution? Did they cut down trees to make steel in their backyards? You seem to be accusing them of doing nothing...

Gary Packwood said...

Steven Horwitz 8:30 said...
...To 7:00 -
...Duke can't be investigated for civil rights violations based on their own internal judicial policies because they are not a state school, and as JLS at 155 says, they do not have the ability to deprive folks of liberty. Private schools can make whatever rules they wish, due process be damned.
...But, as JLS also says, one would think and hope that an institution of higher learning would aspire to do better than Duke seems to be doing here and to respect due process in its own internal policies. Duke can be admonished, but it's not gonna get sued over stuff like this.
::
Are you suggesting the Duke, like the Cherokee Indian Nation, has received permission from the Congress of the United States to function as a separate legal entity within the provisions established by Constitution of the USA?

I don't think so.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

What metanarrative are you referring to, 9:42?

Ralph Phelan said...

"KC... has not been considered collegial"

Yeah, like Larry Summers he lets truth get in the way of ideology. Not like those ideals of collegiality, Lubiano and Brodhead.

"Collegiality" is the professor's version of the policeman's "blue wall of silence."

AMac said...

A few thoughts on the backdrop of comments along the lines of Anon 8:23am -- you know little but blather about a lot and some people who post here sound a great deal like that (sic) Nazis.

First, glad you're commenting, and I hope you pick a pseudonym. By sharing your unkind thoughts about D-i-W in the aftermath of the Hoax/Frame, you add genuine diversity.

Second, it's worth asking whether Antonio Gramsci should be nominated as the Patron Saint of the Group of 88 et al. He had useful ideas about the concept of "hegemony"--for example, that the terms in which a debate is framed is more important than the debate itself.

As an example, Hoax enablers still cite the McFadyen email as an exemplar of the misogynistic, rape-friendly, even murderous mindset of the lacrosse team. Somebody new to the case who is directed to the text of that email will indeed read it that way--I did!

The context switches dramatically when one learns that McFadyen was dashing off a tasteless riff on a modern American novel that is taught at Duke and is thus familiar material to most students; that the email was offered by Duke to police in violation of McFadyen's privacy; that the Durham police released it to incite public outrage; that McFadyen repeatedly and eloquently expressed contrition for his poor judgement; and that (since there was no assault) the joke-gone-bad was wholly divorced from any actual wrongdoing.

Gramsci would have understood completely. He would have applauded the email's release, and supported the Hoax Enablers' efforts to harness outrage about the email to Hard Left's broader goals of aligning campus culture with their doctrines. "It's not about the truth."

So, from a Gramscian point of view, the popularity of a blog such as D-i-W is a very unwelcome development. It can be read by anybody, even proletarians. Worse, open-minded proles can click links and conduct their own web searches, and come to conclusions that are independent of properly-guided thought.

Like Creation Scientists, some on the Hard Left are diligently constructing their own set of meta-narratives and truths on the Hoax/Frame, but it's hard to swim against the deluge of facts that are already known. (And if a civil case ever leads to Discovery against Duke or Durham, there's a lot more to come, I suspect.)

An essay on Gramsci by Alberto Luzárraga is reproduced here. "Cultural weaving" analogy archived here.

Ralph Phelan said...

LtCol S.M. USMC writes:

"You seek recognition from an adoring public you have not earned and do not rate, and then lash out in confusion when you realize you rank just above trial lawyers in the eyes of America."

I will have to dispute the accuracy of that last statement.

"It is a remarkable fact of the Duke case that the legal profession has acquitted itself with greater honor than the professoriate. "

Anonymous said...

KC - I wonder of the 88 privately say to each other - If We had known that guy from Brooklyn was going to enter the debate, we would have passed on the Listening statement.

Anonymous said...

I read Elliot Wolf’s articles and was alternately astounded/dismayed/incensed by the extent to which the good standing of Duke students depends upon the virtually unqualified whim of the Office of Judicial Affairs.

Of particular concern to me was the complicity of the DPD, a public entity, in this process. Mr. Wolf explained that the DPD has a policy of requiring its officers to forward copies of citations issued to Duke students to Judicial Affairs. Do not Durham and the DPD already have sufficient potential civil liability?

Is this policy limited to Duke students? Can any person or entity request similar notifications? For example other schools, employers, political parties, religious organizations, charitable organizations, civic organizations, etc. If not, how can the DPD justify its limitation of the policy to Duke University students?

While there is certain minimal identification information that police can lawfully require of an individual, that information does not include an individual’s status as a student and, if applicable, the name of the institution at which the individual studies. If this is a “service” that the DPD provides to any who request it, will the police officers have a list of “participants” in its service about which cited or arrested individuals are questioned. It could make for a very interesting, if illegal, interrogation. For example, are you: a Duke University student; an employee of X corporation; a member of the Durham United Methodist Church, etc?

It is one thing for a public entity to provide access to public information upon request. It is quite another for the public entity to become an arm of the Duke University student disciplinary process.

Ralph Phelan said...

Anonymous 9/26/07 10:09 AM
said...
"PS Mandel, I'd feel a whole lot better if you'd chosen a case with poor African-Americans to view as a call to arms."

I'm sure you would. And that's why you're part of the problem.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, I'm a troll because I don't agree with your pack mentality or your metanarrative."

Nah, you're a troll because you come here bearing a pre-determined axe to grind (the reference to someone somewhere thinking KC wasn't "collegial" is a dead giveaway) and instead of presenting a challenge to our current thinking and evidence to back it up, you present just provocative assertions and insults with nothing to back them up except your own credibility. Which, uh, is the same as 'nothing to back them up'.

Anonymous said...

Shouting Thomas, Your forefathers were not serfs in Wales in the 1880s, peasants, perhaps, but not serfs. Depending on where they were in Germany, ditto.

Who suffered in the US if you're the first person in your family to go to university? It's not like you're being very clear...

Ralph Phelan said...

Anonymous 9/26/07 10:40 AM
said...
"KC - I wonder of the 88 privately say to each other - If We had known that guy from Brooklyn was going to enter the debate, we would have passed on the Listening statement."

Not necessarily. Duke's AAAS program still got promoted to full department status. G88 leaders are still getting promoted to ever-higher positions in Duke's academic hierarchy. Those who leave Duke are still getting sweet gigs and Vanderbilt and Cornell.

Within the world of academia, signing the listening statement still appears to have been a career-positive move.

Anonymous said...

I suspect most of the 88 ignore KC. It's not like he's well known as a brilliant scholar.

inman said...

shouting thomas @ 10:05

Very well stated.

The logical inconsistency of the notion of "white male privilege" becomes much clearer in the context you describe.

But, pursuant to the teachings of the diversity agenda, I regret to inform you that...

...and this so disheartens me, but...

...if you are white and you are male, then you must be punished.

Steven Horwitz said...

It's amazing that you guys took the following as evidence that I'm somehow distorting history or not giving my due to the propertyless white man:

It is sometimes hard to imagine that it has been less than 100 years since women in the United States acquired the right to vote and have had anything close to the protection of their rights to contract and acquire property that men have historically had. The 20th century will be remembered as a time when the political, cultural, and economic roles of women expanded and changed in remarkable ways.

My point was simply that my student audience takes so much for granted, not just about women's status in society, but everyone's. They know little to no history and to just get them to realize that the world they inhabit is one far different from that of 100 or 200 years ago across a number of dimensions that include the repression of some groups of white men is a task in and of itself.

If pointing out the very real historical political repression of women in a course on the economics of gender (where such a claim is core to the course) somehow implies that I'm blind to the ways in which (some/many) white men have also suffered, then reasoned conversation is lost because all discussions of the REAL victimization of one group must then always include the discussion of ALL groups.

Don't you guys see that's just the exact mirror image of what the G88 says whenever people point out the FACTS of the improved well being of Americans in general? "Oh but look at all these problems over here with women, people of color, etc., so surely things can't be better." You get, rightfully, all pissed off when G88 types want to reframe the context of real progress to focus mainly on the remaining injustices, and often injustices against groups of which they are member. But when I talk about a real injustice to a group you're not a member of, you have to reframe the context to make it about YOU. Again, how is that so dissimilar from the G88?

That my two sentences trying to entice college students into a course by asking them to think critically about how the world they inhabit came to be has caused folks here to come after me as the wimpy younger brother of the G88 is really amazing.

Only at DIW could a libertarian who has spent a career defending free market capitalism of a very radical sort be tarred as having swallowed Marxist history and being a right-wing socialist.

Sigh. Okay guys, I give up trying to reason with you.

Debrah said...

"I suspect most of the 88 ignore KC. It's not like he's well known as a brilliant scholar."

I suspect......from my observations of these people, what they say, what they write, and how cowardly they live their lives.....(To wit: You just have to check out a few of them when the Factor camera crew showed up on their doorsteps. They looked like staggly homeless people in physical appearance and were too afraid to talk.)

......that they are afraid of KC.

He not only knows their world intimately, but unlike them, he takes his profession seriously.

The Gang of 88 can't ignore KC. They have been outed all over the world!

Keep dreaming.

LIS!!!

Anonymous said...

No, Inman. You're wrong. ST was unclear and you are wrong. He comes from a family of poor immigrants who came to the US in the 1880s. As he notes, he was the first to attend university. He was NOT kept out due to any race or gender quotas. Nor is he claiming that any of his family has been...where's the issue?

And, if he were applying today to many small liberal arts schools, as any kind of male, he'd be at an advantage. Take out the key, unlock your closed mind, and learn something...

Anonymous said...

AMac --

Not to mention that what was leaked to the press was an edited version of McFadyen's e-mail, and not the whole thing which might have made the American Psycho references clear.

Anonymous said...

ralph ; 11:02 - That can not possibly be true. Those folk are keeping their heads down. Bob Steele has probably warned them to Keep Quiet. Houston and Grant did get a good deal, but those are two among many. I doubt the 88 are "flying high".
The language of group think is troll, moron and idiot.

Anonymous said...

11:18, S.H., I'm glad you've finally given up trying to reason with the unreasonable. I'm not convinced some of the posters are interested in thinking critically in any case.

Another Professor

Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

Well, 10:09am, anything peaceful that awakens people to the horrors of prosecutorial misconduct and causes the civil liberties of all, regardless of color, to be enhanced, is at least an excellent way to take some good from a travesty. While I had been a libertarian, or at least libertarian-aligned as I am again but from a different angle, for years before this incident and had some lower level concern about this, I had not developed that thought much further. My stance on the Jena Six incident is there for the reading on my blog, profanity and all. If you're easily (or even not so easily) offended, I'll warn you off now. If anything, however, this case has served as an example of the utter hypocrisy of many of the top leaders of the modern "civil rights" movement, making it clear that it is anything but anymore. When their top leaders are often brazenly anti-Semitic and, in some instances, homophobic... I bet Medgar Evers and many of his fellow martyrs are turning over in their graves.

The Maoist distinction is a bit unfair, but only because the Gang of 88 "professors" seem far more in love with themselves and their own agendas than they are interested in actually advancing their goals in a practical manner. Perhaps this is a distinction based more on tactical and strategic idiocy than ideology, but if so, so be it. As for the difference between Marxism and Leninism, it's slight, but the difference is that Marxism is based on the words of an academic, and Leninism is based on the actions of someone who had the stones and the intelligence to pull it off and was forced to adapt accordingly. The kindest thing I can say about the Gang of 88 is that they envision being the leaders of a revolution, but they lack the wit to realize they're just the human waste they so despise.

haskell said...

anonymous 11:02

"I suspect most of the 88 ignore KC. It's not like he's well known as a brilliant scholar."


The AA culture's error of consistently mistaking style for substance is a fatal flaw. KC's work stands on its own merits. And I don't believe the majority of the G88 could recognize brilliant scholarship at all. Fancy token degrees, token chaired professorships, and verbose grandiloquence don't cut much ice with me.

Shouting Thomas said...

"If pointing out the very real historical political repression of women in a course on the economics of gender (where such a claim is core to the course) somehow implies that I'm blind to the ways in which (some/many) white men have also suffered, then reasoned conversation is lost because all discussions of the REAL victimization of one group must then always include the discussion of ALL groups."

I didn't argue anything of the kind. You need to toss out all this Marxist garbage about "oppression" and "repression." Your thinking is corrupted by this crap.

The problem is a completely manufactured, imaginery past. For the vast majority of ALL people, the pre 20th century world was a dark world of poverty, disease, violence and despair. The rich and powerful were damned few... irrespective of race or sex.

You know, most of those southern whites of the Jim Crow era who have been so demonized were just about as poor and beaten down as blacks. To an outsider, living in a shotgun shack as a tenant farmer wouldn't have looked so great.

The class struggle narrative is a hopeless, stupid lie. Note how some moron wants to nitpick with me about whether my ancestors were serfs or peasants. When you are starving to death in a system that would be called tenant farming if it occured in the U.S., that discussion doesn't have much meaning.

Yes, you have swallowed the Marxist bilge. Rid your thinking of this corrupt, vicious ideology. We are all emerging from this dark past together. The attempt to find the class that is to blame is murderous and crazy.

Anonymous said...

It seems simple enough to me. If your cause is PC then you can adopt whatever methods you wish and you will be rewarded. If your cause is non-PC then to hell with due process and rights you deserve whatever you get.

Kilgore said...

steven horwitz - You don't seem to see that you have framed a series of historical events by using only one part of the story. The women part. You are correct to say that they had to fight for suffrage and had been discriminated against prior. What you seem to fail to do is add the detail to the story that shows history as being a complex series of events that is far from being the one-size -fits-all feminist fantasy of women are victims and men are the problem. I have given you enough data for you to be able to see that you may have left out important parts of the story. If you can't see it that God bless you.

Telling only parts of history can be a dangerous exercise.

Google "Dorr rebellion" for more info.

Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

Steven Horowitz is right. The point of teaching is, well, to teach, and for anyone involved in teaching history, law, or a number of other fields, teaching what came before is an important part of helping students understand what's happening now. He's a follower of the Austrian School of economics and has written two very well-received books on the subject, and he is undeserving of this condescension and scorn. I have read and appreciated his comments, and he deserves respect. If any pit bulls on this board are going to attack, at least attack those who deserve it.

inman said...

Anonymous @ 11:36

You evidently did not read what I wrote. I was not agreeing nor was I disagreeing with the factual basis of his argument. I made absolutely no reference to whether or not he was "kept out."

What he said of import was:

"The history of my family is the history of the vast majority of whites in this country. Your repetition of the myth of white supremacy and privilege makes me very suspicious of you.

Those two statements are absolute fact... the first based on history and the second based on context and his right to make an assertion about your bona fides.

And these white males, his anscestors, were not slaveholders nor were they the ones who fought for either side in the War of the Rebellion (yes, that's the official government name for the 'Civil War') nor were they responsible for all those attrocities that all too many in the diversity-agenda establishment point to when asserting that diversity is a necessary good (whether it is or isn't is irrelevant). Finally, although this may be a bit presumptuous, it is unlikely that 'shouting thomas' has one of those white, male US presidents in his background -- those elected white males who are the poster 'boys' of white male privilege.

Accordingly, I stated that there was a "... logical inconsistency [in] the notion of "white male privilege"...".

The idea that "white male privilege" can be painted across the applications for admission, or jobs, or on the rights afforded white males is an affront to sensibility. (I've noted before that if someone named 'Chavez' or 'Mohamad' or 'Krishnamurthy' or 'Gorzynski' had my resume, modern corporate diversity agendas would fast track it to the hiring manager. (I may very well test that hypothesis using control resumes and different names.))

I shan't suggest that you take out a key and unlock your mind, for you have yet to display one.

And believe me when I say this... having to even acknowledge with courtesy the existence and diversity agenda of the '88 is a punishment equal to aggravated intellectual assault.

Anonymous said...

Mandel,

The difference between Marxism and Leninism is huge. What planet are you from? Leninism explains how Russian rather than industrially developed Germany became communist. And that's just for starters...

Ralph Phelan said...

"ralph ; 11:02 - That can not possibly be true... I doubt the 88 are "flying high"."

If you know of even a single instance of any of the 88 (-1+27) suffering even the slightest career-bump, please, please tell me about it. It would do wonders for my blood pressure.

Anonymous said...

PS Marx was not an academic. Where'd he teach? Nowhere. He sat in the British Library and wrote. That doesn't make him an academic.

Anonymous said...

"You're using this issue to attack Duke, various kinds of academic disciplines, about which you know little but blather about a lot, cultural differences, etc."



The only people who are being questioned are those who made statement who cannot support them.

Scholars do have the right to free speech but the speech should also be supportable and fair. Many scholars recognize this and the in essence self-edit their opinions. Most fields have a mechanism in which disproved hypothesis are disregarded. However when no such mechanism exits then criticism should follow and be welcomed.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "...I'm not convinced some of the posters are interested in thinking critically in any case..."

Is that a reasonable position?

The posters on this site and elsewhere aren't paid to think critically though you have completely discounted some brilliant insight by a wide swath of posters. That is a quite shallow position to take.

The issue is that those who are paid to think critically, the faculty, have not and do not. Nor do they tolerate other's views.

Attempts to flip the thinging and language is easily spotted why watching the actions of the participants.

What Brodhead said was bad enough, what he did was worse.

The academy is infected and reform is overdue.

Drip, drip, drip...

That is the sound of consumers of education, you better get use to it because they fund your playground.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said

"I pose the question already posed on this blog by trolls: do you really think the LAXers appreciate your attempts to destroy their university? No? I thought not."

This is like blaming one who exposes crimes for ruining the reputation of the city where the crimes took place.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

I thank 12:39 for the amazing insight about who is meant to think critically. Not anyone but faculty?!! Amazing!

And one of the biggest problems with American academia is the idea that students are "consumers." You're not hurting me with this idea. You're hurting your children.

So keep on dripping.

Anonymous said...

Dear USMC, My publishing numbers are fine, thanks for asking. And I actually do things that require some thinking. And knowledge of other languages and cultres. 'Course I don't wear a bowtie, so you're welcome to dismiss me.

But, you know what, you don't matter much to me. My students do. And they aren't you.

Anonymous said...

Ralph Phelan:

WRT to your less comments regarding relative worth of trial lawyers and academics...

I yield to your point...

trial lawyers are at least good at what they do.


I have to ask you a question though...

Why is it that politics in academia is so viscious?

The Col

Steven Horwitz said...

st writes:

The problem is a completely manufactured, imaginery past. For the vast majority of ALL people, the pre 20th century world was a dark world of poverty, disease, violence and despair. The rich and powerful were damned few... irrespective of race or sex.

No shit? Really? What in anything I've said here or in that syllabus suggests that I believe otherwise? I'm happy to share my class and lecture notes where I make precisely these arguments.

If you're gonna attack me, get a clue about what I really think then do it.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Why is it that politics in academia is so viscious?"

The traditional answer is "Because the stakes are so low." But I really don't know.

All do I know is that what I observed of the lives of professors while in grad school led to my decision to work in industry.

inman said...

Steven Horwitz..

I just read your syllabus referenced above. I was intrigued by a statement:

"There is an unfortunate tendency to take "women" to mean "middle-class white women."

Whether unfortunate or not, I'm intrigued that the concept or word "women" is understood by anyone to mean "middle-class white women."

Could you elaborate, in the context of the evident parallel to "white male privilege" being identified as a characteristic or right of "all white males"?

Thanks!
________________________

(I should point out that an alternative understanding of your statement would have the word "take" be interpreted in a manner similar to "transport someone to another place" and that "mean" could either be interpreted as "average" or "hostile."

The sentence then has this meaning: "There is an unfortunate tendency to transport all women to visit average or hostile "middle-class white women."

That's not how I interpreted it, but ...what-the-heck.)

AMac said...

(1) Less in the way of anger/condescension/off-topic personal attacks? Good thread so far, it would be a shame if KC had to delete it...

(2) Anonymous commenters, please consider using a pseudonym so that us readers can follow your train of thought from comment to comment. Otherwise, when you write, "As I said earlier...," we don't know what you are referring to. Blogger makes it easy; pick "Other" under "Choose an identity."

Anonymous said...

Is that not what Duke University paid the defendents for - to not prosocute them? Although, I think most of it was the keycard business. I am surprised that Duke lawyers waited for the team to contact them instead of making an offer. Maybe they did make an offer - I do not know - I do not think anyone else does either, (outside the team, their family and lawyers.)
We will know in five years or so the real efffect on the 88. Houston and Grant could be in East Texas or Wheelock U.

Anonymous said...

1:42 I can answer that question. The assumption that women's experience is that of white women ignores the different--and often more difficult--experiences of non-white women. This is particularly the case with white feminism.

That's v. much a short hand for a complicated issue.

Debrah said...

TO "AMac"--

Regarding your number (1) point...perhaps we should just let the thing play out.

Then people can see who really instigates the heavy-duty animosity on this forum...when the narrative isn't to their liking.

Steven Horwitz said...

Here's one example Inman.

It's not uncommon for people to assert either of the following:

1. Women earn only 79% of what men do.

2. Women with children really began to enter the labor only about 30 or so years ago.

In the first case, the gender wage gap between black women and black men is actually narrower - mainly because black men earn less than white men in general. It's more like the upper 80s. So when we say "women" face a gender wage gap, the degree of that gap may, and does, differ across race.

Same for the second. The labor force participation rates of African-American women have always been higher than for white women, for perhaps obvious reasons. A-A women with children were much more likely to be in the labor market for decades prior to the 1960s.

Of course it's true that because black women make up a relative small percentage of the total number of women, their differential experience doesn't affect the total all that much. But when we start speaking of "women" in general, we may be covering over interesting and important differences in the experiences of white and black women (and the same is true of men of course!) that matter both for understanding the world and developing policies to address any problems we deem worth of trying to solve.

For all the bashing of scholarship that tries to take race into account (and I agree that there is a lot of garbage out there), the reality is that the experiences of black and whites in the US are really different (yeah, no s--t, I know) and in trying to teach students some history and to think carefully about policy, it seems to me that it's important to note those differences and how they often get elided.

That's just critical thinking my friends. Don't you all want students to graduate actually knowing facts about US history and the current economic scene? It carries no necessary political implications, as my own policy preferences should indicate.

Anonymous said...

Is 2:51 about Global Warming?

Anonymous said...

2:47-

The idea in sociology of the 70's and 80's was to move away from stereotypes; i.e., the "white women's" vs. the non-white women's" vs the "male's" vs the "females" (etc.) experience. As we continue to move to a more plurilistic society where overt (and in the past, legal) discrimination is less a factor, EVERYONE has a different experience per their their race, gender, socio-economic status, religion, height, sexual orientation, age, academic prowess, celebrity status, ad infinitum. College classes based on those stereotypical experiences are, my opinion, less and less useful. What we all should learn is that society should judge individual behavior, choices, and values. Unfortunately, whether the 88'ers, Micheal Vick supporters, etc., many cannot get away from the stereotypes of their own ideology. Bigotry still lives and seems to be migrating to many groups who had been the victims of bigotry in the past. How sad.

Ed

Anonymous said...

To Professor Horwitz:

I agree that women earn 79% of the wage/salary of men - that's a fact.

The REASONS GIVEN for that disparity are often bogus, sterotypical judgements. There are as many different explanations for that fact as there are workers. Another example, women own 74% of all the pairs of shoes in our country. That doesn't mean that men are being discriminated against by the shoe industry. :)

Often, a person's life, career, family, and other choices account for their consequences. In fact, the protections for women (and minorities) under the law are far greater than for men. To use Donovan McNabb's logic, men have to work harder.

And don't give me historical, institutional, or unconscious reasons without empirical data to back it up.

As always, I appreciate your viewpoints.

Ed

Steven Horwitz said...

Actually, Ed, it's not quite the "fact" many think it is. It's true as an aggregate statement about women's and men's wages, but what it does NOT say is that women who do the same work as men with the same qualifications earn 79% or whatever. If people read that statistic as referring to male-female comparisons in specific jobs where both have the same qualifications, it's not a fact. There, the wage gap, based on the best studies I know of that try to control for all the relevant variables is more like 2-5%.

The 79% number contains an element of truth, but it doesn't mean what it is often taken to mean.

Does saying all of this and saying it in my classroom disqualify me for my honorary membership in the G88? ;)

Anonymous said...

3:33 Ed, your opinion is just fine, but what I was talking about was something else. I don't know if you don't get it or won't get it. It's not that important for you to understand.

Anonymous said...

And, Professor Horwitz, as you know, over a life time, that 2-5 percent wage disparity is important.

You might also want to talk about the low numbers of women in the board room, etc.

Kilgore said...

Actually the wage gap is a perfect example of the pc "tell one side of the story" mentality that has been swallowed by most folks. The .79 or .73 idea is based totally on the median income of men versus the median income of women. Anyone with even a lower level stats course under their belt knows that the median is a very risky number from which to draw too many conclusions. We know that the median income numbers are accurate and this is the side of the story that is told. Women's median income is in fact .79 or whatever the current number might be to a man's 1.00. People hear this mantra that women earn .73 or .79 for every dollar that a man earns and they immediately assume that this means there is discrimination. It also gets people upset and angry that women could be treated so badly by those bad people. Notice that no claims of discrimination are made just the flimsy stat. The side of the story that is not told is that the situation is far more complicated than a median income can explain. If you read Warren Farrell's book "Why Men Earn More" you will get some good ideas about the reasons that womens median income is less than a man's. It boils down to choices that are made where women are more likely to choose to work part-time, want flexible hours, work close to home in a comfortable surrounding etc. Jobs with these sorts of benefits tend to pay less than jobs that are more dangerous, taxing, farther away etc.

A recent article in the NYTimes states that now young women age 21-30 in NYC, Chicago, Boston and Minneapolis have a median income that is 17% higher than men in that range. How about that? Are the men being discriminated against? Don't trust the median.

Here's a link to an article by Farrell in Forbes Magazine on his take about the wage gap.

The bottom line is that all too often the media and others portray the median income stat as proof that there is discrimination against women and never tell the other side of the story.

Repeat this over and over again on various issues and what do you get?
A brainwashed public.

Ralph Phelan said...

"For all the bashing of scholarship that tries to take race into account (and I agree that there is a lot of garbage out there), "

The problem is that the fraction of crap is high, and I've so far found no easy way to distinuish the real schlarship from the politicized bs based on institution of origin, journal of publication, or any other easy to use identifier. Therefore non-experts like me find it prudent to treat all work in the field as having a realistic possibility of being complete garbage.

Because I do not trust the quality-control of the scholars studying race/class/gender issues, I am much more likely to rely on hunches, intuition and personal experience, as I would in a field that had never received any systematic scholarly study at all.

In other words, the impact and value of your scholarship is negatively affected by the PC idiots that have overrun certain fields.

mb said...

Prof. Horowitz,

You've lost your membership in the G88 - please turn-in your card at the nearest office of logic and reason.

That said, while controlling for profession, education, years worked, etc., is important, another factor is age: Younger women with equal education actually earn slightly *more* than men of similar age, education, etc., so the current cohort of female grads are doing better than their male counterparts. And you can add location into your regression models as well: Researchers recently found that women in large metropolitan areas are paid *more* than their male counterparts. The models are getting evermore complicated.

The lesson is that simplistic methods like aggregate and normalized (e.g., percents) descriptive statistics are unreliable vis-a-vis determining causal relationships, and are especially unreliable when used by G88 types with an agenda.

Steven Horwitz said...

Yup, not denying any of that, nor denying it's important. The answers to *why* those disparities exist, however, include several possibilities.

I wasn't planning to re-teach my whole course here in the comments section though.

Anonymous said...

4:05 -

What I don't get is who you are (annonymous) so I don't have a reference to what it is that I didin't/won't get. But, if it's not important, then okay.

Okay, eveybody, one more time...
Please get a screen name, even if it's Lumpy, Kermit, Troll, or Knot Spotty - just something! No-one will know that's not your real name (well, if you are Kermit, they may guess), but it helps for reference.

Ed (not my real name)

Anonymous said...

Yes, of course, I'm sure all of you can find all sorts of statistics that show how women are doing better than men economically. My hunch--I assume like one of the recent posters I'm allowed hunches--is that over the course of a career, women do not get to the boardrooms in the same numbers and or percentages that men do. Even controlling for time off. Just a hunch...

Anonymous said...

To repeat (if my other blog never makes it), the number of females in the boardroom is rising faster than the number of excuses from OJ Simpson. Why not celebrate success and progress? Or, go the the local foundations' Women's Fund to apply for the disparity. Oh, wait, there is no Men's Fund!!! Oh, the disparity of it all!! Gott go back to work now and earn my extra 2-5%.

BTW, professor H, you may be disqualified from "the group," but I appreciate, as always, your engagement.

Ed (not my real name)

John said...

"Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta: “However the evidence is obtained is immaterial. However we learn of a behavior, we respond to the behavior.”"
So if the "evidence" was a signed, videotaped confession, having beat it out of the student with a lead shot filled rubber hose does not make that evidence inadmissable?

If I ever encountered Moneta, I suspect that my Second Amendment rights would be paramount, and desperately needed.

inman said...

Dear Professor Horwitz,

Is there any possibility of an economics blog? Where some of these issues could be more fully evaluated / disected?

Steven Horwitz said...

Inman -

As tempting as it would be to set up a blog just for that purpose (the teacher in me never wants to pass up an opportunity to teach), I fear it would be a huge time sink for me when I do have a day job. There are lots of good econ blogs out there run by folks who generally share my view of economics, and I'd be happy to recommend a few.

But let me think about it some. I might be persuaded.

One Spook said...

Steven Horwitz @ 4:27 PM writes:

"I wasn't planning to re-teach my whole course here in the comments section though."

Hahahahahahaha! I'm glad you didn't bail and hung in here, Steven. There are a lot of good people here, albeit some with quick trigger fingers.

I read your outline and concluded you had kind of a "G-88 gender tickler," but you also had an answer to some of those preconcieved notions of wage and gender disparity that students would learn in the course.

I decided I'd like to audit the course, but you didn't list any prerequisites ... what are they?

I have a bachelor's degree, loads of experience, my great-grandfather came over on a boat dirt poor from Germany, and both of my older sisters were highly-paid executives for Fortune 100 corporations, and I'm a veteran.

(This comment thread has been one of the best I've seen on this blog, btw)

Please get back to me on the prerequisites.

One Spook

Steven Horwitz said...

Spook:

It's Econ 100 or permission of the instructor. You're in. ;)

Steven Horwitz said...

GP asks:

Are you suggesting the Duke, like the Cherokee Indian Nation, has received permission from the Congress of the United States to function as a separate legal entity within the provisions established by Constitution of the USA?

I don't think so.


Do you have to abide by the Constitution in your own house? Nope. Neither does Duke. Constitutional protections for due process are about what the STATE can or cannot do, not private entities like Duke.

So yes, Duke can make whatever in-house rules about its internal judicial system it wants (obviously it can't execute its students). It need not provide trial by jury etc.. Perhaps it *should* but it need not, constitutionally.

KC Johnson said...

What, however, Duke cannot do is to have a stated set of procedures that it enforces for some students or some faculty but not for others. That would be a key issue in any lawsuit agst Duke by the unindicted players.

I'll give Moneta and Bryan credit: at least they're candid that Duke students who tangle with the judicial apparatus at the school should expect to have few procedural protections--and, in effect, to be presumed guilty.

Steven Horwitz said...

Yup, the rules need to be stated publicly and applied and enforced equally. Capricious enforcement or hidden rules are the path to trouble.

One Spook said...

Steven horwitz @ 7:26 PM writes:

Spook:

It's Econ 100 or permission of the instructor. You're in. ;)


Foxtrot Sierra Hotel! Sign me up!

One Spook, but my friends call me "Spook"

One Spook said...

steven horwitz @ 7:29 PM writes:

"Constitutional protections for due process are about what the STATE can or cannot do, not private entities like Duke."

Absolutely, and thanks for pointing that out. But Duke can certainly have tort liability and that is why they settled with the LAX 3. Duke is also subject to Civil Rights law, and ay, there's the rub.

I might have mentioned this, but I believe Duke has been exercising serious damage control on advice of counsel since at least January '07. This is the main reason for their "silence" and lack of any apology and the like. Again, Duke, like the City of Durham, is not obligated to incriminate itself. You can bet the Plantation that Duke has lots of good defense lawyers advising them as we write, oh and, sending them bills every month, I might add. :-)

It ain't over till its over, and in this case, the fat lady hasn't even called the cab to go to the theatre. [mixed metaphor, so sue me]

One Spook

inman said...

Horowitz @ 7:08

To mitigate the time sink ... why not offer your students the opportunity to put forth arguments in a blog forum. The rigor of thought required to put forth an argument would be most beneficial for them. You could either edit content prior to publication or not, as you deem appropriate. A blog rule could be that, if a student posted an essay, kindness and mentoring would govern response. Responsible commenters would adhere to that rule. You'd still have to surpress irresponsible commentary ... that would be your time commitment.

Whaddaya say? Huh?

Steven, this would be an entirely new teaching method. Wouldn't it? The opportunity for a student to affirmatively frame an argument for the world to view, digest and critique. Would toughen the ego, for sure. And it would offer old dogs like me an opportunity to hear and obtain insight into younger minds and concerns.

Whaddaya say? Huh? Huh?

no justice, no peace said...

NJNP,

Of all the things you have written that don't make sense your 12:39 tops them all.

Your pal,

NJNP

I think I was trying to say educators should be held to the highest standard and at the University level they are failing us. They are paid to educate and the posters are not.


As for consumers of education...somehow I don't think I am the only one who makes critical decisions on how I part with my money. Funding frauds isn't on the radar.

drip, drip, drip...

Anonymous said...

Soooo... help, I'm lost! Are you guys saying that Duke has the right to set aside protections of the US Constitution that the rest of us live under?

One Spook said...

Anon @ 11:59 writes:

"Are you guys saying that Duke has the right to set aside protections of the US Constitution that the rest of us live under?"

Ummm, yes. Think of a private school like a private Country Club. It can establish rules and regulations, pretty much as it sees fit, that you must agree to in order to be a member and if you do not follow them, it can terminate your membership, however it chooses. You can also quit if you don't like to follow their rules. The club is under no obligation to give you "due process" or many other "rights" you enjoy as a citizen.

If the club "wrongs you," say you slip and fall due to negligence (a tort) of the club, you can sue the Club. In general, Civil Rights are a pretty gray area for private clubs and many discriminate based on gender (See: Augusta National Golf Club.).

Private Universities and colleges that receive Federal funds are subject to Federal Civil Rights laws and other Federal laws (See: The Solomon amendment (1996) 10 U.S.C. § 983).

That's the quick and dirty version, but I think it's fairly accurate.

One Spook

Steven Horwitz said...

One Spook at 1257 has it right. The other analogy is a homeowners' association, which can make up its own rules and processes for those who live there.

And for Inman...

That proposal for blogging a whole class using students' work is not a new idea. I know colleagues who are doing it (mostly on the left, I might note). And it is certainly something to consider IF I actually had any students I was teaching this year. ;) I'm on sabbatical, writing a book and several other things, so there are no students to draw from. We'd be talking Fall 08 were I to do something like this.

Anonymous said...

To LtCol S.M., USMC yesterday at 9:31 a.m.

Thank you, sir, for your service to our country. While watching the Ken Burn's series on WWII the last couple of nights, I am reminded that most of the dead were young males of "privilege." The Idiot88+ had best remember who actually protects their right to spout their hateful drivel or who will pull their sorry butts out of a burning building or get them to the hospital during that heart attack or stroke.

Ralph Phelan said...

[mixed metaphor, so sue me]
OK, I'm calling these guys!