Friday, September 28, 2007

More Big Red

Outraged Cornell alums writing to protest the hiring of Group of 88 stalwart Grant Farred have received a form-letter reply from Vice President for University Communications Thomas W. Bruce:

Thank you for your comments regarding the appointment of Grant Farred to the faculty of Cornell University. He joined us in the fall semester as a professor with a joint appointment in our Africana Studies and Research Center and English Department.

Professor Farred comes to Cornell with a distinguished background in contemporary global cultural studies. He earned his Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1997 and his master’s of arts degree from Columbia University in 1990. A native of South Africa, his bachelor’s degree was earned at the University of Western Cape in that country. He has held faculty positions at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Williams College and Duke University, and has been a member of the editorial board for The Journal of Sports and Social Issues. He has published several books, including Long Distance Love: A Passion for Football, which describes his love of soccer and provides many insights into race and class that he developed during his youth in South Africa and England. We feel that his unique perspectives and talents – he is an athlete as well as a scholar – will add to the range of reasoned intellectual discourse at Cornell.

The events surrounding the incident with the men’s lacrosse team at Duke shocked the entire nation and generated passionate commentary and soul-searching on that campus. We are aware that Professor Farred, as well as other Duke faculty members who made comments about the case, has been the subject of postings on the blogosphere. We support the right of free speech for all, while we understand that in many contentious issues people may never come to an understanding of others’ views.

I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns.

In light of his remarks, I twice e-mailed Bruce to ask two questions:

1) To what events were you referring that “shocked the entire nation”?

2) Is it Cornell’s official policy to require all professors to abide by all terms of the faculty handbook?

Bruce did not reply to either e-mail; I even delayed this post by a day to maximize his opportunity to respond. It appears, then, that Cornell no more than Duke will require Farred to abide by the terms of the faculty handbook; and while it’s true that Crystal Mangum’s false allegations should have “shocked the entire nation,” I rather doubt that Bruce had Mangum’s false allegations in mind with his statement.

Bruce’s response, moreover, provides some insight into one of the major points of this blog—how some fields in the academy define concepts like "excellence" or "reasoned intellectual discourse." Doubtless he—and the Cornell English Department—believe that Farred (last heard from academically, it’s worth remembering, proclaiming Rockets center Yao Ming as the greatest threat to the American empire) is a “distinguished” scholar in “contemporary global cultural studies.”

But when people from outside education hear academics speak of “distinguished” work, how many would understand that the academic institution is referring to scholarship such as Farred’s?

Another of Bruce’s lines is almost comical: “We support the right of free speech for all, while we understand that in many contentious issues people may never come to an understanding of others’ views.”

Farred might be many things, but difficult to understand is not one of them.

  • Does Bruce think it was difficult for people to “come to an understanding of [Farred’s] views” when Farred, on the campus of Williams College, charged that unnamed lacrosse players had committed “perjury”?
  • Does Bruce think it was difficult for people to “come to an understanding of [Farred’s] views” when Farred, in that same Williams address, contended, “At the heart of the lacrosse team’s behavior is the racist history of the South”?
  • Does Bruce think it was difficult for people to “come to an understanding of [Farred’s] views” when Farred, in an October 2006 op-ed, accused the Duke students who registered to vote in Durham of harboring a “secret racism”?
  • Does Bruce think it was difficult for people to “come to an understanding of [Farred’s] views” when Farred, in that same op-ed, stated, “What Duke students becoming Durham citizens does is displace the problem of racism from the lacrosse team and the university to Durham’s political system”?
  • Does Bruce think it was difficult for people to “come to an understanding of [Farred’s] views” when Farred, in a September 2006 forum, asserted—without providing any evidence—that the lacrosse players had “a tendency toward misogyny and arrogant sexual prowess?
  • Does Bruce think it was difficult for people to “come to an understanding of [Farred’s] views” when Farred, in that same September 2006 forum charged that any Duke student who dared to vote against Nifong would be casting his or her vote, “whether it is acknowledged as such or not, against women, and, more specifically, against black female bodies”?

I would submit that Farred’s remarks were quite easily understood, both at the time and now. That Cornell celebrates having such a figure on its faculty speaks volumes about the institution’s values.

84 comments:

Anonymous said...

Institutions are driven by the people who fund them. They will change if contributors stop contributing, if high school students stop applying, and if current students transfer to other institutions. In the absence of such actions, there is no reason for Cornell to do anything other than emit the standard PR hack response to such criticism.

Debrah said...

But when people from outside education hear academics speak of “distinguished” work, how many would understand that the academic institution is referring to scholarship such as Farred’s?

And this is the main reason Wonderland has been so valuable.....

.....shining a bright light on this cancer.

Anonymous said...

Please send this post to all members of the Cornell board of trustees, as well as to the Cornell president.
Cornell should be ashamed and embarrassed by this hire. Will some of the lacrosse players sue Farred for his slanderous statements?

Gary Packwood said...

I have often wondered if prestigious universities have an agreement similar to homes for juvenile delinquents whereby they transfer their errant tenured professor from university to university until they learn to behave or retire.

I think the Methodists call their juvenile delinquent system their Circle of Care. You keep getting transferred around the circle of homes until you hush up and behave. Round and round and round you go until they wear you down and...out...with an air kiss on your way out the door.

Pretty good system for tenured professors who suffer from secret stupidity.

Who knew?
::
GP

inman said...

It is quite interesting that Cornell has decided that a defense of Grant Farrad is needed. It is equally interesting that the defense focuses, in part, on his athletic accomlishments.

I for one have evaluated Farrad's scholarship, from a layman's perspective, and find that he is a racist, that he is a bigot and that he is intellectually challenged. But he knows how to spit fire and venom in a public forum. Yes, he is someone who can mount a podium and stun the audience with his vicious view of racial divide.

Thank God that Cornell has him now, instead of Duke.

And, oh by the way, his athletic accomplishments are yet to be determined. Frankly, I'd bet that he's a fraud on that count as well.

Heck...I played Pop Warner football.

Debrah said...

“whether it is acknowledged as such or not, against women, and, more specifically, against black female bodies”?"

This is the quote by Farred that really grossed me out...especially when you are subjected to it audibly.....as on the tape KC posted on an earlier thread.

That guy is seriously wasted.

mac said...

The advantage for Cornell is that Ithaca is nothing like the City of Duhh. It rains a lot. It snows a lot. There aren't a lot of strip joints - (last I remember being there, but I wasn't looking) - and the place is basically built on a giant swamp (as someone opined to me years ago.)

It is lovely, though, and is more than Farred deserves. The walk up the steps next to the falls (at Cornell) is really remarkable! And the Lucifer Falls nearby at the Robert S. Tremen State Park is really spectacular, too. Sailboats on the lake, a resevoir to swim in (illegally, and sans suits...) Ithaca seems like a really nice place.

Farred deserved the City of Duhh;
Duhh deserved him. Duke didn't.

Regarding Thomas Bruce's comments: with all the water flowing 'round there in Ithaca, it appears that he was waterboarded by someone from the far left.

Anonymous said...

KC as usual, very inciteful post.
Cornell and Williams should be ashamed of themselves for hiring such a despicable person. Whether he is a talented as an academic, I leave that to others. I just can't believe that Williams would allow such drivel and slander on campus without at least a contrasting view at the presentaion. Cornell is another mystery but more serious as they actually hired him. It won't hurt them at all, but I am no longer impressed by a Cornell diploma based on this hire. He deserves to loose his job, not get promoted.

mac said...

Note to Bruce:
Be sure to keep Grant away from the vernacular intellectuals in Ithaca. I hear they reproduce like mosquitos! And in that wet climate...

My grandma was a vernacular intellectual. Like Farred, no one knows her name - (except she didn't write a book about it.) What IS your name, Grant? Oh. The BOOK is called "What's My Name!" You weren't really asking...

Hail Bop! Hail Bop! Hail to the mighty comet that Heaven's Gate chased! They were vernacular intellectuals, too, so I hear! (oh, pardon me: it's spelled Hale-Bopp, not "hail Bopp!") But Farred looks so much like Marshall Applewhite! Never mind...anyway...
Hail Bop in the Cyndi Lauper sense?

Anonymous said...

KC,

Before you head off to Israel, I wanted to thank you for your amazing contribution to busting the Duke Hoax. Your blog is informative and inspiring.

I especially wanted to express my thanks for your efforts to expose the bias among college faculty. I was a student at Smith College in the late 70's and had to change my major due to the level of pressure on both my political views and sexual preferences. As a heterosexual, liberal Republican I was constantly hounded by the Government Dept. faculty. Only liberal, lesbians were wanted.

I found the bias very disturbing and though I gladly switched majors to history, I have often thought about how disturbing the influence was and the long-term negative impacts that could have resulted had I not been a strong young woman with a supportive group of friends and family. College age kids are impressionable. Many of the professors in the gov dept. were one-dimensional and very close minded. Any attempt to broaden the discussion was met with contempt and then punished with low grades.

You have begun an important effort toward unmasking the bigots and racists lurking in our finest academic institutions. Please don't abandon this important task and do consider the beneficial implications that your revelations have had to date...please keep it up when you return. Have a great time...Good Luck!

Anonymous said...

Farred's previous actions at Duke led to an unknown but presumably huge settlement. He's still basically the same guy, and, at Cornell, will presumably conduct himself in basically the same way. I believe it's just a matter of time before Cornell finds itself on the receiving end of a lawsuit due to Farred's racism. It will be interesting to see how Cornell's PR machine handles it.

Anonymous said...

Cornell's internal business is really not yours. You have gone from reporting/blogging on the LAX incident to going after people at Duke and elsewhere who have an opinion about it that is different than yours.

One person may make a difference. In your case, it's no longer a good difference. What kind of enabler are you?

Anonymous said...

How many academic frauds are there from that gang of 88? Amazing.

Anonymous said...

He will be sorely missed. I can't imagine a Duke University without animal husbandry expert Houston Baker, his tolerant of sexual harrassment wife, or the intellectual titan that calls himself Grant Farred. It just isn't the same place without their maturity and insight.

How many more of the 88 are left?

Anonymous said...

Is Bruce a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Opinion: A set of closely-held beliefs, not necessarily rooted in fact.

Yep. When you throw out the facts, we're all equal.

That's why the Gang of 88 were / are so dangerous, as a mob and as consenting individuals.

The FACTS DO matter. It IS about the truth... which is objective and not prejudicial.

That's why they hate truth. It doesn't fit their world view.

Yep... truth-loving people have a right to comment on Cornell, or Duke, or anyplace else if they want to.

I find it both amusing and alarming how easily these people dismiss truth and hold to blind agenda. Frankly, it mostly scares me. I think there are more of them than we know.

Anonymous said...

Cornell's internal business is really not yours.

Why not?

One Spook said...

Anon @ 1:03 writes:

"Cornell's internal business is really not yours. You have gone from reporting/blogging on the LAX incident to going after people at Duke and elsewhere who have an opinion about it that is different than yours."

I respectfully and vehemently disagree.

By bringing to light the actions of members of the academy in this fiasco at Duke, Professor Johnson, as a member of the academy, is well within his rights.

Johnson's exposure of Farred has nothing to do with "Cornell's internal business" nor is it about "an opinion that is different." This is concerning actions that Farred took and words he spoke that were patently untrue and by any measure, slanderous toward students at a University where Farred taught.

The letter from Cornell was sent to a Cornell alum who was rightfully concerned and no doubt forwarded it to Professor Johnson. The actions and words of Farred demonstrate a major theme of this most disturbing affair, that of a group of extremist professors who at once place their very troubling ideology ahead of truth, education, and their professional obligation to treat students fairly.

People who are concerned with the quality of education at Cornell and anywhere else appropriately need to know what type of professors are educating students.

Let me put it another way. If a medical doctor exposed another doctor for gross incompetance and revealed it to you just before the incompetant doctor operated on your daughter, you would no doubt appreciate that information, and certainly not consider it some hospital's "internal business."

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Not hard to detect Brodheadism in Bruce's attempt to attribute Farred's venomous reactions to the lacrosse lies to "shock" and "passion".

This is basically the "they were understandably emotional" defense. It's very patronizing. They have suffered so much, you must not blame them for anything they say, and keep on saying, and they cannot ever be expected to look at the case rationally, even now.

In such matters we must infantilize Farred, but otherwise he's a great scholar: we're lucky to have him.

Yeah. Good luck with that, Cornell.

Anonymous said...

1:03 - concerned someone is playing in your sandbox.....or exposing what is going on in your sandbox? Worried a bit? You should be. If mainstream America understood the cesspool that liberal arts departments have become at major universities, the amount of support for such would dwindle significantly. The only reason it hasn't been exposed is b/c MSM is so biased that it refuses to acknowledge how biased, morally bankrupt, and academically challenged these people really are.

I also find it interesting that academics and MSM attempt to dismiss criticism as coming from the blogsphere - as if the blogsphere isn't to be taken seriously. Hmmm, maybe since the criticism has also come from a number of books, they might actually acknowledge the problem - nah, that would require self-reflection.

Trey

AMac said...

Is Farrad a Communist?

Is anon 1:03am a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Shhhhh....

They've got Red Chief....

Cornell and Vanderbilt deserve only our deep and sincere gratitude.

Richard Aubrey said...

Farred is going to act out.
Somebody is going to quote Bruce back to Bruce.
Either Bruce is too dumb to foresee this, or he doesn't care.
If he doesn't care, it's because he knows that nothing Farred does cuuld make a difference among those who count.

Anonymous said...

Dear 2:30,

While Cornell is not solely a private university, I don't think that its administration/faculty/students really need KC Johnson to tell to tell them what to do. It's increasingly clear that this man has no life and is on a crusade to destroy those who disagree with him on the LAX case. You may think this is just great, but I don't.

Because of the filth I read on this list--and I mean it in the sense of hateful comments--I have lost my sympathy for the original case. KC Johnson hides behind his liberal claim to fame ("I support Barack Obama" [big deal]) while attacking people whose opinions he rejects.

While he's all good about his move from Williams to Brooklyn, I believe the problems he had getting tenure have made him a really self-rightous human being. I don't think his nastiness should be encouraged.

Anonymous said...

Yao - empire threat. Gotta laugh at this guy. I believe in free speech and Cornell is welcome to him. Time will tell on the value of his hire to Cornell. Just as Houston's to Vandy. What dopes.

Anonymous said...

Trey at 6:05, I find it interesting that some of the posters on this blog dismissed the blogosphere when it suited their purposes. On another thread they were screaming bloody murder that someone's letter was published ONLY electronically rather than on paper. Can't have it both ways, Babycakes!

Anonymous said...

I have already bought ten copies of UPI for Xmas presents. Now that the false start is over and copies are available, we should all buy another copy and donate it to our local library. I am.

Anonymous said...

KC,

How many of these Cornell form letters are you aware of at this time?

haskell said...

anonymous 7:52 (1)

That light you see in the east is the dawn of a bright new day, when folks will be held responsible for their words and actions. KC simply highlights their behavior for all to see. Are you able to rebut those facts or statements that he alludes to? The internet is as powerful, or more powerful, than the printing press. You have seen what pitiful efforts the NYT and H-S have made to attempt to revise their earlier statements. Won't wash. The information is at everyone's hand, and people are able to make up their own minds about what was said. Again, please feel free to rebut any of Farred's statements or actions. These ad hominem attacks are getting old. Is there only one arrow in your quiver?

Anonymous said...

Farred will find a welcoming atmosphere at Cornell where the student body and the faculty is so far left of center, they make Duke look like BYU. Don't look for Farred to wear out his welcome there.

Anonymous said...

Anderson is calling for a letter barrage to Himan's Criminal Justice school (University of Pitt-Bedford) to crucify him. The persecuation has got to stop. This is only making bloggers look bad. Find out the "rookie detective" has a degree from a University. Because he was a new detective does not mean he was new to LE. The "rookie" deal is way overblown,

Anonymous said...

I wish the person who consistently uses the expression "destroy" or "persecute" regarding Levicy, Lubiano, Farred or whomever would simply start their own blog.

miramar said...

Since Cornell is so impressed with Farred's work, I am sure that they would also love Lubiano's, not to mention several others'. Please, Dr. Bruce, take them off our hands. We will be forever grateful.

Anonymous said...

"Cornell's internal business" is stuff like what sort of toilet paper they use in Bruce's restroom. Farred has made himself a public figure, and is fair game for any sort of scrutiny KC or anyone else cares to apply.

AMac said...

Anonymous Johnson/DiW critic(s) at 1:03am, 7:52am, & 7:54am --

Thanks for contributing your well-reasoned and insightful remarks. They add to the intellectual variety of the comments (and we agree that that's the important kind of diversity).

If you decide to back up your talking points with evidence, you can find useful instructions on how to embed hyperlinks by Googling "html anchor tutorial".

You'd also strengthen your case(s) by using [a] pseudonym(s). That makes it easier for readers to follow arguments from comment to comment.

Again, thanks for contributing.

Anonymous said...

Is there any chance that the departures of Houston Baker and Grant Farred were part of the settlement? I don't think that the university could have agreed, as part of the settlement, to circumvent whatever processes it has to fire tenured faculty, but perhaps they paid these guys to go away.

Kgun5 said...

"Trey at 6:05, I find it interesting that some of the posters on this blog dismissed the blogosphere when it suited their purposes. On another thread they were screaming bloody murder that someone's letter was published ONLY electronically rather than on paper. Can't have it both ways, Babycakes!"

That's awful thin. I wouldn't necessarily describe the electronically published letters by Duke Magazine as "the blogosphere. Even if we look past that flaw in the argument, the thread you cite was questioning the choice made by the "blog" to publish one letter in both print and electronic media, while another had been printed electronically only. The criticism leveled against "the blogosphere" by Bruce in his letter deals reads as a general condemnation of blogs such as this one. Bruce also suggests that in some way, blogs such as this deal in irrelevant or untrue information. Of course, he doesn't go on to support his flippant reference with any specifics, so we can't be exactly sure of what he is trying to say. The criticism of Duke Magazine was very specific.

Anonymous said...

"While Cornell is not solely a private university, I don't think that its administration/faculty/students really need KC Johnson to tell to tell them what to do. It's increasingly clear that this man has no life and is on a crusade to destroy those who disagree with him on the LAX case. You may think this is just great, but I don't."

1) If the administration of Cornell chooses to hire a professor who tries to discourage his own students from registering to vote by slandering them with accusations of "secret racism", then I would suggest that yes, they do need someone to tell them what to do, or at least warn them about the stupidity of what they're currently doing.

2) It's increasingly clear that you come to Durham-in-Wonderland numerous times during the day for no better purpose than to leave messages (in a very recognizable writing style) insulting KC or the other commenters, never with any substantiating evidence. If you really think KC "has no life" then you'll just have to find some designation lower than that to describe your own obsession with him.

Anonymous said...

"distinguished background in contemporary global studies"

"unique perspective and talents"

"intellectual discourse"

They couldn't find someone else who also had these qualities?

Anonymous said...

KC

Place a "sic" after "master's" in the bozo's letter--a mistake of an illiterate.

1 low IQ defending another low IQ.

The essence of democracy--and decline.

Anonymous said...

another "sic"

he writes "a native of South Africa," but modifies it with "degree" instead of Farred's name--unbelievable!

Anonymous said...

Gary wondered at the similarity between the juvies being moved from home to home and the PC schools trading faculty drek. I think the better analogy is that of the Roman Church transfering child molesting priests from parish to parish to keep them ahead of the parents and the law.Parents who wouldn't think of leaving their son alone with a priest ought to think hard before they send him to Duke- or Cornell.

Anonymous said...

12:28

Your comments about Smith are no surprise but they led to another thought about abuses by liberal arts faculty never mentioned here.

We have talked about coercion of students in terms of ideology but have never mentioned other types of coercion between students and faculty. Do you really think only ideological coercion occurs?

For those of you sending young ones off to college ask the admissions officer what their policy is on student-faculty 'dating' and then ask the academic dean. See if their answers are identical.

Schools vary but a surprising number have no policy and a very surprising number make sure messy little incidents never get in the newspaper and get settled before going to court.

I will tell you it is widespread and a bigger secret in the academy than the intellectual frauds that are occasionally uncovered.

Anonymous said...

Others from elsewhere are using positions on race to gain power and having gained power this letter is nothing but patronizing to people who have none . . . even in a declaration of innocensce there is no putting this behind anyone because the "truth" of this was always the "politically correct" answer of the race/class/gender crowd. In the facts of this case, it is not about others' opinions except those that refuse the obvious 1800 pages of evidence is obviously not enough evidence . . . that's the rub and these individuals do not have the character to accept it.

Kgun5 said...

'he writes "a native of South Africa," but modifies it with "degree" instead of Farred's name--unbelievable!'

The "Master's" reference could be as much a typo as anything else, but the quote above shows an example of very poor writing.

Personally, I think someone at Cornell should have caught this. Bruce, after all, probably wrote the letter in the same manner in which many of us post here. I know that my last post alone contained at least three mistakes. In this sense, I don't think Bruce can be judged too harshly through this letter. However, the fact that this was a form letter that was going to be sent to many people, and that it meant to explain a controversial decision to dissenters, I would have thought it would have been edited with a fine-toothed comb.

Bruce needs a new assistant.

ginger said...

Yesterday's post reminded me, once again, that the name of this blog "Durham in Wonderland" is perfect. The crap from the 88ers, on their own websites or in various public forums makes my teeth itch...so many non words, so few sentences, upside down reasoning. What universe is this? I conclude they truly have fallen through the looking glass. Now Big Red will have fun.

BTW part of Cornell is public. It is a land-grant university and gets appropriations from Congress in the Agriculture Bill (largely for extension and ag research and some teaching).

Unfortunately, there is only minimal oversight of universities' use of federal funds. However, free advice to Cornell: increase accounting clarity so the feds can easily determing that ONLY private funds are used for racist faculty activities. I also recommend that any Cornell Principal Investigators with USAID funds for development or research work in South Africa steer away from including Farred on the team. Just a friendly suggestion.

Anonymous said...

8:36 I think there is more than one person. I defend Levicy but never wrote any thing about Grant or Lubiano. Funny, KC has never expressed that wish and it is his blog,.

Anonymous said...

As a Cornell Alum with a daughter at Duke, I'd like to make a simple comment. I certainly agree with the criticism of Farrad, and Cornell's decision to hire him. They are well deserved. However there is NO resemblance between Cornell and it's Ithaca surroundings, and Duke and it's Durham surroundings. None.

I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining it, but suffice it to say that the events that occurred last Spring could not and would not be replicated at Cornell. There may be some academics at Cornell that share Farrad's radical views, but the administration,the surrounding community, and most of the students do not. K.C.'s suggestion of the opposite is false. Cornell has a long history of radicalism and protest as an undercurrent on campus, but it has never been the mainstream, and it has never affected those that don't agree with it. I can attest to that personally. I arrived there shortly after Black student protestors took over the administration building in '69, and was there during the Vietnam war. K.C., I don't know what your exposure to Cornell has been, but maybe you should spend a little time there before you write them off as another institution lost to liberal radicalism. It's just not the case.

Anonymous said...

8:36. After awhile, one can identify the "writing style" of contributors to this blog. And I believe you also use a blogger pseudonym, so you participate under two faces.

Why don't you quit inviting people who dissent from your opinion off this blog, as if they are flies around your face?

If it were not for the dissenters, we would not have the opportunity to continuously subject our own perspectives to the light of truth and avoid falling into the same pit we accuse the 88 of... that is, such habitual naval-gazing that they have lost contact with the rest of the world.

We cannot afford to drive away those who disagree with us. It is in getting, and staying, in the intellectual ring together that we can make some progress. An opponent is not necessarily an enemy. THEY need to remember that, and we do too.


Maybe you don't like my writing style. I'm not as erudite as many of you. But I have a deep and intense passion about this subject because Duke is MY university and Durham WAS my home, and I had hoped to encourage a daughter to attend Duke for graduate school.

I do not intend to be intimidated away from engaging in this dialogue by the grammer police, or by the arrogant thought police that show up on this website from time to time.

You need some of us who are NOT in academia, just like we need you to inform us and broaden our knowledge and perspectives on these issues. If we are going to make any lasting changes in our society because of this terrible drama we will need people at all levels to do it.

So please, drop the arrogance and snide remarks and eletism. They don't look any better on OUR side than they do on theirs.

The most appealing thing about this blog has been KC's consistently wise and truthful exposure of sham, hypocrisy, and outright lies. He has NEVER attacked anyone personally, or made them feel stupid, as far as I know, unless he has spoken anonymously. He has created an atmosphere which has invited people from all walks of life to participate. I know that most are academicians, with an occasional alum, or LAX mom, or such.

And then there are the dissenters, and some outright liars and distorters of truth who also come to this blog. They are pretty obvious, actually. But scorn and ridicule do not win with them or anybody else. Weight of Evidence is the only way to combat those people.

You may not like their use of words, or mine, but somehow I believe that if they can be tolerated, even accepted on this blog, some of them may just come to see things a bit differently.

I suspect that many of the 88 read this blog. But I also suspect they would never "come out" because of the immediate scorn and ridicule they would be subjected to. I also suspect that if we could create a climate where they could be encouraged to re-evaluate their actions and attitudes SOME ( by no means all, or even a majority) might want to embrace a different way of seeing.

Maybe I am just hopelessly naieve. But that is what I believe.

I believe that some of the Duke Faculty members who did not speak up, who were cowardly then and still reticent now, would welcome a place where they could make the painful transition from the old camp of lies and cowardice, to the present camp of truth.


If a new day is to dawn, we are going to have to find a place of amnesty for those who regret their past silence or even worse, their complicity.

Perhaps they will not find it on this blog, but sometimes I find there are such people here and I am encouraged.

DO NOT attack me as being "one of them" because I am NOT. I read UPI through tears. My husband is reading it now, and into the 3rd chapter is shaking his head in disbelief and amazement that this could all have happened. I am SO VERY grateful for KC and Stuart. It is not often that writers are presented with the opportunity to change a society. High honor; high responsibility.

I just grow weary of the snide, snippy remarks and think they do no good in this idea marketplace. They make US look as bad as THEM

dsl

Anonymous said...

Is anyone surprised that there are so many people like Grant Farred around, when for years, Jane Elliott and her ilk have been indoctrinating blacks to hate whites and whites to be crippled with guilt under the guise of "diversity" training?

Thought Reform 101

Steven Horwitz said...

This probably belongs in the other thread's discussion of academic freedom and the like, but I'd be curious to read the reaction of the DiW commentariat, both the defenders and critics of the academy, to the Association of American Colleges & Universities (NOT the AAUP) statement on Academic Freedom and Educational Responsibility.

I'm interested in what you think of this as a statement about what higher ed should aspire to and NOT whether anyone involved with the Duke case lived up to it.

To what degree is this a vision of higher ed and a way of framing the faculty's rights and responsibilities that you find congenial?

Anonymous said...

Anon. "Cornell's internal business is really not yours. You have gone from reporting/blogging on the LAX incident to going after people at Duke and elsewhere who have an opinion about it that is different than yours.

One person may make a difference. In your case, it's no longer a good difference. What kind of enabler are you?"

I see the academic midgets are out in full force. Actually, academic corruption should be a concern of anyone who is a student, the parent of a student, or a plain old citizen. I think you missed the importance of your second point - one person CAN make a difference, and that difference is in shining long overdue sunlight on the corruption and festering malfeasance in much of what passes for 'higher education' these days. Keep up the good work, and don't let the G-88 scamper off to other places without holding them accountable. Any institution which would hire Farred is suspect, and should be held accountable for its actions. Let me ask the anonymous academic why he thinks I should send my federal tax dollars to Cornell? I see no reason to send my dollars to any place that hires people like Grant Farred.

Debrah said...

"Because of the filth I read on this list--and I mean it in the sense of hateful comments--I have lost my sympathy for the original case. KC Johnson hides behind his liberal claim to fame ("I support Barack Obama" [big deal]) while attacking people whose opinions he rejects.

While he's all good about his move from Williams to Brooklyn, I believe the problems he had getting tenure have made him a really self-rightous human being. I don't think his nastiness should be encouraged."


*******************************************
I have read this brand of silly emotional rhetotic for so long that it has now become laughable. This little disgruntle (anonymous) attack dog has a bone to pick, but the ad hominem and sleazy attempt tell us the thoughts of another person---all ok if this urchin does it, I guess--- are really quite annoying.

Get some new talking points!

And stop bringing up Obama. It's none of your business who someone else supports politically.

However, please note that even Barack Obama spoke out against what was happening in Durham and at Duke. Is that why you try to pull him into your sleaze?

You are, no doubt, a person of interest--or who is interested--from the Duke community, but his train has already left the station and KC has been one of its main conductors.

The reason we discuss the Gang of 88 is because they were some of the main instigators of this Hoax. If they were not hiding out like wayward parasites on a university campus, they would be in jail somewhere.

Duke spent untold millions to save them from their self-serving and pathological criminality.

People from the academy who come here to constantly try to explain away these actions by discussing the magnitude of freedom that is supposed to be afforded professors are only contributing to this disease.

There will never be an excuse for what the Gang of 88 have brought to the world of academia.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 9:21 said...

...Gary wondered at the similarity between the juvies being moved from home to home and the PC schools trading faculty drek. I think the better analogy is that of the Roman Church transfering child molesting priests from parish to parish to keep them ahead of the parents and the law. Parents who wouldn't think of leaving their son alone with a priest ought to think hard before they send him to Duke- or Cornell.
::
Yes. That is a much better example that the one I conjured up in my minds eye.

And it clears the way for study into many groups of adults who move their errant's around and ahead of the law, parents or peers.

Thanks
::
GP

Anonymous said...

1:03,

Thank you for making the case to not send my daughter to Big Red. I would appreciate a federal law that requires the G88 to register themselves wherever they may travel. Perhaps they could be called registered diversity racists offenders

Gary Packwood said...

Steven Horwitz 10:06 said...
....This probably belongs in the other thread's discussion of academic freedom and the like, but I'd be curious to read the reaction of the DiW commentariat, both the defenders and critics of the academy, to the Association of American Colleges & Universities (NOT the AAUP) statement on Academic Freedom and Educational Responsibility.
...I'm interested in what you think of this as a statement about what higher ed should aspire to and NOT whether anyone involved with the Duke case lived up to it.
...To what degree is this a vision of higher ed and a way of framing the faculty's rights and responsibilities that you find congenial?
::
I'm not going to have any problem with interpretations of academic freedom just as I don't have any problem with the zillion publications that offer new interpretations of the Bible.

Everyone and every group in America has the right to their own opinion.

I do suggest however that faculty be given a copy of the Constitution of the United States and a summary of Due Process expectations before they receive a copy of an interpretation of academic freedom, right and responsibilities.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

I have a comment as a Cornell alum with a daughter who is a junior at Duke. I agree with K.C.'s criticism of Farred and Cornell's decision to hire him. But to suggest Cornell should be added to the list of Universities lost to liberal radicalism is way off base.

First of all without spending too much time elaborating, I will say unequivocally that there is no comparison between the Duke/Durham situation and Cornell/Ithaca.
The events that occurred last year in Durham could NEVER happen in Ithaca.

As far as radicalism at Cornell, there are probably other faculty members that may support Farred's opinions, but the majority of faculty, students, the administration, and the surrounding community do not. That is the difference. His local audience there will be a small one. Cornell has a long history of an undercurrent of radicalism and liberalism amongst a small group, but it has never affected the other students that disagree with those opinions. In my opinion the administration there would never allow it. Students have always been treated fairly, and their rights protected. You wouldn't see Ithaca police on that campus unless they were invited by the admin.

I arrived on campus in 1970, shortly after Black protestors took over the administration building. I was there through the Vietnam War. There was huge discordance of opinion and thought during those years. Yet I never heard any of my friends say... I'm uncomfortable here because I don't agree with this group or that group. If anything the campus is much less radical today.

As I said, I think Farred is out in left field, and deserves the criticism, but when you start criticizing every University that hires a professor with radical ideas, it's starting to sound like the thought police to me.

Cornell's greatness will endure the hiring of Grant Farred, don't worry about that.

Anonymous said...

As a threshold question before Cornell convinces me Farred has the chops to pass the "excellence" standard it speaks so self-importantly of, shouldn't Cornell at least be satisfied he meets the "basic competence" standard, first?

Farred said “At the heart of the lacrosse team’s behavior is the racist history of the South”?

At least it is clear why Farred's token hire is in the AAAS field, and not in the geography department. It is hard to say that the at-one-time-alleged behavior of three Yankess (two from Long Island and a third from North-of-DC Maryland) stems from a racist history "in the South?"
Not even Crystal Mangum L.S. fingered a southernor in this incident.

Academia is a joke. Between what is happening at Columbia (President of Iran but not ROTC or the Minutemen), Yale (admitting a member of the Taliban during a shooting war with that regime, but not ROTC on campus either), Harvard (Larry Sumners), Dook (the 88) and the entire Ward Churchill affair, can someone explain to me why we aren't seeing the rise of new, credible and relevant, actual excellence-oriented Universities? If my one year old son could go anywhere in America to school for free, I would easily send him to West Point, Annapolis or the Springs over any Ivy League/Faux Ivy (e.g.s. Dook and Stanford).

Anonymous said...

9:54 Good piece - loved the grammer police - agree completely.

Anonymous said...

"It's increasingly clear that this man has no life and is on a crusade to destroy those who disagree with him..."

Riddle: the above quote is from:

1) Bull Conner re: MLK
2) Klaus Barbie re: Simon Wiesenthal
3) Troll re: KC Johnson

Well, maybe the analogy is not perfect, but you get the idea. :)

Ed (still not my real name)

xutag77 said...

Cornell's internal business is ALL of our business due to their tax breaks.

I wnat to make sure that they remain an excellent educational instituation ant not a front for a organization dedicated to political and societal change.

Stu Daddy said...

To the 11:14...

"...can someone explain to me why we aren't seeing the rise of new, credible and relevant, actual excellence-oriented Universities?"

::

Although they are not "free" like the service academies, there are quite a few. Where to start? How about institutions that have forsaken the allure of the federal teet in order to protect their academic and institutional freedom?

Grove City College in Pennsylvania, and Hillsdale College in Michigan

They pursue fair hiring practices of their own design rather than have the pressure of federal EEO/AA mandates force diversity driven hires rather than those based on merit.

The colleges are not new. And there are more. Don't lose hope.

AMac said...

dsl 9:54am --

Thanks for saying your piece. I don't agree with all of it, but--as you point out--I shouldn't have to. I'm glad that you wrote in.

Ralph Phelan said...

"While he's all good about his move from Williams to Brooklyn, I believe the problems he had getting tenure have..."

I believe they have illustrated the depths to which academia has sunk, when Johnson is not welcome, but Rarred and Lubiano are.

Ralph Phelan said...

"I'm interested in what you think of this as a statement about what higher ed should aspire to and NOT whether anyone involved with the Duke case lived up to it."

Do you think the double standards in applying the rules are unique to Duke? I don't. So studying a statement that won't be consistently applied strikes me as a total waste of time.

Show me some enforcement measures with teeth and then I'll bother worrying about the details of the rules.

Anonymous said...

"...can someone explain to me why we aren't seeing the rise of new, credible and relevant, actual excellence-oriented Universities?"

Be happy to, but the universities are only part of the problem.

Mediocrity, and its defenders, pervades American culture. If you want to have a good laugh, check out the work of famous American artists, then do the same for Russian artists. The Russians are kicking our ass--not only in art, but in a lot of creative fields, including theoretical science.

Too much focus is placed on helping the dull in America; even among the talented, there is too much self-congratulatory BS (see reality TV and awards shows) and not enough hard work without instant gratification.

The Russians are laughing at us!

Officer Brodhead said...

Anonymous said...

"I do not intend to be intimidated away from engaging in this dialogue by the grammer police..."

dsl

9/28/07 9:54 AM
-----------------------------------
Anonymous said...

"9:54 Good piece - loved the grammer police - agree completely."

9/28/07 11:17 AM
----------------------------------
Don't know about GRAMMAR police, but some spelling enforcement is clearly required on here. I blame that Frasier chap, you know, Kelsey Whatsisname...

One Spook said...

Anon @ 11:08 writes:

"As I said, I think Farred is out in left field, and deserves the criticism, but when you start criticizing every University that hires a professor with radical ideas, it's starting to sound like the thought police to me."

With all respect, I believe you're totally missing the point here. Where has KC Johnson criticzed Cornell for hiring a professor with radical ideas? Can you cite something in his post that supports your comment?

What I see in KC's post is a compilation of Farred's words and actions that were patently untrue and by any measure slanderous toward students at a University where Farred taught.

It is not that Farred is a "radical" and might have radical ideas. I'm sure that Cornell has other professors many might regard as radical.

There is a huge difference between being known for radical ideas and allowing your radical ideology to so corrupt your thinking and behavior that you criticize and threaten your students' basic rights such as registering to vote.

What KC's examination of the behavior of some of these "radical" professors shows us is that their behavior is an anathema to the traditions of the academy and a danger to students.

It is not what they are, but what they did.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

1:34 That is why we need spell check - It is all KC's fault. Oops, I forgot, he is a history Professor and not an English Professor. THis is a blog - not a term paper.

Anonymous said...

I do not know if the Russians are laughing at us but they lost and we won. Something must be going right - free speech and the American way of life/

Anonymous said...

To 1:03
You are right one person may make a difference and that person is Professor Johnson. Why should an evil, unrepentent race baiter be allowed to get away with that kind of behavior? Grant Farred should not be rewarded for his very public attacks. Why would you support a person that promotes racism? Are you a racist or a sexist or are you trolling for fun?

Anonymous said...

To 7:52,
It must hurt when the shoe is on the other foot. I hope Professor Johnson continues to expose you and the rest of your hateful kind to the light of day. You and others have been comfortably insulated from punishment for your
destructive behaviors for far too long. The academic world needs a good pruning. We will no longer give you a free pass.

Anonymous said...

There has been a lot of back and forth about this and that but I haven't seen anyone come out and say the most basic and obvious point about Grant Farred, so here goes:

He is a bigot.

But hey, that's OK in today's society....as long as you're the right color and exhibit your bigotry in the right way it can even be celebrated.

Mike Lee said...

To the 7:52- I don't think it's fair to say that KC has attacked anyone on this blog. Certainly he has not attacked Mr. Farred. He has simply laid out what Mr. Farred has said and given his opinion.

That's not to say that Farred doesn't deserve to be attacked, he clearly does. Some of Farred's comments are the stupidest things I have ever read.

"At the heart of the lacrosse team's behavior is the racist history of the South." Is he kidding me?

A vote against Nifong is a vote against black women. Farred clearly said some ridiculous things for which he should apologize. And I think we all know just exactly when that startement will be coming.

mac said...

I wouldn't care if Farred or Lubiano and others had whacky ideas, as long as they had merit.

Some seemingly whacky ideas are proven to be not-so-whacky after all. Like Einstein's ideas.

These folks are no Einsteins, though. They're more on the level of Nancy Grace and Lemmiwinks, who were obviously separated at birth.

Anonymous said...

I agree with above poster, American academia wears no clothes.
Liberal arts departments in scores of universities have been highjacked by tenured radicals.
There is an easy-to-watch barometer for the new "American Disease":watch the value of the dollar as it plummets against almost eveything else. Foreigners aren't impressed by the lack of real leadership in this country and no longer are blindly accepting our paper at face value.

Debrah said...

Here's a bio for Cornell's Bruce.

He's kind of cute, which mitigates his idiocy a bit.

Coincidentally, there is another Thomas Bruce in the Cornell Law School.

Anonymous said...

Farrad is indeed correct that the behavior of the lacrosse team and the duke case in general has overtones of the old South:

1.the insults their own attornies admitted they said and that an indepedent witness reported and that were in the captains' statements: "N----B----", "we asked for whites, not N----s", and the worst of all, "thank your granfather for my nice cotton shirt". That is a direct slavery reference as the slaves were forced to pick cotton. Many fools on this blog have tried to say that this was a "joke" uttered by Chris Rock but it was not and no special or appearance was ever found with this utterance upon review, so that was just more revisionist b----s--- from people trying to apologise for the teams racist behavior

2.the team allegedly denigrated the women in a vastly unequal number situation( 40+ males versus 2 females) similar to the many lynching/racial intimidation episodes in the past where cowardly whites attacked a small number of blacks. Also the pictures produced by the team were lurid and showed black women dancing before white males, which was a practice done in slavery. the whole sexual assault scenario smacked of the slavery type situation as rape and coerced sex was common and even though you all are in denial that things like that happened, one look at the different skin colors and hair textures in the black community will belie that denial. I also will not re-discuss famous cases like Thomas Jefferson or Strom Thurmond here.

3.The defense then resurrected the Dred Scott verdict and decreed that a black stripper had no rights a white man was bond to respect and trashed her repeatedly in the media and paid off informants all over Durham to give questionable evidence againist her. One of the main people you guys quote as if his mouth is a Bible is Fats Thomas, who is well known in Durham as a drug dealer, pimp and the biggest liar this side of the Mississpi yet you act like his statement about CGM saying she was going to extort the Lax team is credible and unassailable. Here is a fact that wsa not reported in the press: Fats was paid to say that and was given free legal services by Bill Thomas in his latest trial on cocain trafficking to say that. He is also peddling a videotape of CGM.

4.The defense also resurrected the old change of venue okey doke made famous in the civil rights era. This was particularly egregious when Cheshire slandered the black community in Durham and said that jurors lives would be in danger over the verdict. There has NEVER been one instance of something like that happening in Durham and it was an attempt to change to a white venue to get them off.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1:53

Your statements are absurd.

But, you have my attention ...

Who the heck is Fats Thomas? Has he ever been quoted? About extortion? Where did Fats get a videotape of CGM?

Could this is an unintended lead to a potential connection between the HOAX and the DPD? Recall the past connection between the DPD and a prostitution ring in Durham.

Debrah said...

"This was particularly egregious when Cheshire slandered the black community in Durham and said that jurors lives would be in danger over the verdict. There has NEVER been one instance of something like that happening in Durham and it was an attempt to change to a white venue to get them off."


Pathetic.

You are quite simply an illogical race-baiting clown.....capsulized inside the molded angst, hyperbole, and distortions of the mid-20th century.....as you try to throw all of your hysteria onto young men who were not even born during those times of always-victim-status fantasies.

If you have to resort to slamming Joe Cheshire--with his record of support for civil rights (which is now just a game of extortion from the black community)--then you really are desperate.

Why does society continue to allow people like you outside without a leash?

AMac said...

Anon 1:53am --

Thanks for the thoughtful attack. Unfortunately, without citations and hyperlinks, it's not possible for readers to make heads or tails of what you are claiming (except where the assertions are obviously wrong).

Could you share your sources? To learn how to insert links, try Googling "html anchor tutorial". Or use TinyURL.com.

Anonymous said...

1.Cash Micheals made the exact same charges about Cheshire in some of his editorials when Cheshire said those infamous things about the Durham community when they were doing the press conference about the motion for the change of venue. And for the record, Cheshire does not have that great a history of civil rights. He has worked on a few pro bono cases but his main specialty is representing the rich and guilty like the husband poisoner Ann Miller.

2.Fats, as anyone following the case would know, is the person who was a bouncer at the club CGM worked at and was in the papers saying a lot of spurious stuff(most famous quote from Fats: 'CGM said,"I am going to get paid by the white boys"') that Bill Anderson and others on this blog are quoting as if it was holy writ. Atty Thomas, who was one of the attornies on the Lax defense team early on, was quoted in the famous N and O and Herald articles with Fats' allegations. Atty Thomas was vouching for Fats "character" and saying he was defending Fats in his latest drug case. Fats is a well known coke dealer and pimp and had been going around Durham since that time laughing at how much he was paid for his B---s---"testimony" to smear CGM. Have not heard about what he is saying lately as I believe he was convicted(again)and sent to prison despite Atty Thomas' best efforts.

Anonymous said...

This line of reasoning is absurd.

Magnum and Roberts were not slaves and did not have to dance for anybody if they didn't want to.

They were employed, and they were HIRED.

They were there voluntarily, making money the way they wanted to.

In slave days, the women had no choice and they sure weren't paid! There was no vestige of slavery in this whole tale, anywhere.

These women were just plain stupid, and apparently they worked for an "agency" where there were also at least white women and asian women and they might have just as easily taken this "assignment" for the LAX party.

The race thing is just getting too out of hand and pretty tiresome.

Bottom line is this whole thing started out with some young guys who certainly should have had more sense than to amuse themselves with such low life entertainment, and two black women who could have been making a lot better personal choices in their type of employment.

Unfortunately, Magnum's encounter with Levicy took the whole sorry mess to another whole level, and the spiral of events from that time on was impossible to stop.

The fire was fed by agenda-laden biggots and cowards and sensation-hungry media.

Anonymous said...

1:53 --

Please tell us where the epithet "N----B----" was used? Oh, that's right. You can't tell us, because it wasn't.

"the team allegedly denigrated the women in a vastly unequal number situation( 40+ males versus 2 females) similar to the many lynching/racial intimidation episodes in the past where cowardly whites attacked a small number of blacks." Well, gee, who do we have to blame for that? Certainly not the team, who did not have any idea that the dancers who were coming would be black.

"The defense then resurrected the Dred Scott verdict and decreed that a black stripper had no rights a white man was bond to respect and trashed her repeatedly in the media and paid off informants all over Durham to give questionable evidence againist her."

By "trashed her repeatedly in the media", do you mean bringing up her previous arrest for stealing a taxicab from a cabbie she was giving a lap dance to and then trying to run down a policeman with that cab? I don't think that comes under the heading of "questionable evidence", since that's material from the public record which predates the Duke hoax. So what is this "questionable evidence" you refer to and make defamatory allegations that people were "paid off" for?

"Here is a fact that wsa not reported in the press: Fats was paid to say that" Yeah, well, there's a reason it wasn't reported in the press -- if the press reports something for which the only "evidence" is: some idiot said it on a blog with no indication of how they WOULD know a thing like that, they get their asses sued.

"He is also peddling a videotape of CGM." And would this be the videotape of CGM pole-dancing at the Platinum club on the very same days that she was going to the hospitals and whining that she needed pain medication because she was in SUUUUUUCH pain from the supposed assault, the one that left no injuries? See, the difference between CGM and Thomas is that nothing Thomas has said has been shown to be false. Unlike, well, the majority of what CGM has said.