Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Top 32 Countdown, II

As the blog winds down, I thought it might be worthwhile to recall the most outrageous quotes of the case. The countdown will culminate on Friday.

Yesterday’s post featured #32 through #25; today’s takes the countdown from #24 through #17 on the list of most outrageous:

24) “The season is over, but the paradox lives on in Duke’s lacrosse team, a group of privileged players of fine pedigree entangled in a night that threatens to belie their social standing as human beings. Something happened March 13, when a woman, hired to dance at a private party, alleged that three lacrosse players sexually assaulted her in a bathroom for 30 minutes . . . Players have been forced to give up their DNA, but to the dismay of investigators, none have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account.”

--Selena Roberts’ guilt-presuming New York Times column, March 31, 2006. She has never apologized for, or even acknowledged, her rush to judgment.

---------

23) “The ad said that we faculty were listening to the anguish of students who felt demeaned by racist and sexist remarks swirling around in the media and on the campus quad in the aftermath of what happened on March 13 in the lacrosse house. The insults, at that time, were rampant. It was as if defending David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann necessitated reverting to pernicious stereotypes about African-Americans, especially poor black women.”

--Group of 88 member Cathy Davidson, January 5, 2007, imagining a world that never existed as she rationalized her decision to sign the rush-to-judgment statement.

---------

22) “Somebody had an arm around her like this [demonstrating a chokehold], which she then had to struggle with in order to be able to breathe, and it was in the course of that struggle that the fingernails—the artificial fingernails broke off. Now as you can see from my arm, if I were wearing a shirt, a long-sleeved shirt or a Jacket of some sort, even if there were enough force used to press down, to break my skin through the clothing, there might not be any way that anything from my arm could get on to those fingernails.”

--Mike Nifong, on MSNBC, March 31, 2006, with the accompanying visual demonstration.



--------

21) “I have a board in my office, it’s a, dry-erase board. And, for example, Investigator Himan would say, ‘I need to have someone look at different things, how we can get a hair analysis done.’ And I would put my name next to that. And then he’d say, ‘I need a background done for this person.’ I would assign someone to do that if he wasn’t going to do it. He’d say, ‘I need a court order to get e-mail records,’ put his name next to that, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I had asked him and was under the impression that he was taking photographs of the board, and when we finished that we would clear it. That wasn’t done. And I apologize for that."

--Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, April 19, 2007, explaining how he could have produced a 32-page typewritten report with contemporaneous notes for only one afternoon in late April 2006.

---------

20) “To suggest [the indicted players] were well-behaved: Hitler never beat his wife either. So what?

--Adjunct law professor Wendy Murphy, MSNBC, June 5, 2006, dismissing the findings of the Coleman Committee report.

--------

19) “When police officers arrived at the house with a search warrant on March 16, none of the players would cooperate with the investigation [sic] . . . The allegations of rape bring the students’ arrogant frat-boy culture to a whole new, sickening level.Get a conscience, not a lawyer,’ read [potbangers’] signs waved in front of the house on Sunday. We agree that the alleged crime isn’t the only outrage. It’s also outrageous that not a single person who was in the house felt compelled to step forward and tell the truth about what happened [sic].

--Herald-Sun, editorial, March 28, 2006. Much like Selena Roberts, the Bob Ashley-led paper managed to get major facts wrong and to celebrate the potbangers’ protests. And much like Roberts, Ashley has not only never acknowledged his rush to judgment but preposterously asserted that the paper's editorials always upheld the presumption of innocence.

---------

18) One would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong.

--Mike Nifong, explaining his conception of due process to ESPN, March 31, 2006. It’s worth noting, for the record, that Nifong hired attorneys for both his ethics hearing and his criminal contempt trial.

---------

17) “You know, I don’t want to hear any ifs, and, or buts. These kids have acted disgracefully, just by the fact that not one of them—I don’t want to hear about the code, among buddies and among teams. A crime was committed. There were witnesses to the crime. They need to come forward and say what they saw . . . They won’t, and that’s why I’m saying the hell with them—strip their scholarships.”

--“Journalist” John Feinstein, imagining himself in the role of the Duke president, lecturing the players, March 30, 2006.


--------

Tomorrow: the countdown continues, with quotes #16 through #9.

158 comments:

Gary Packwood said...

We're absolutely certain that “Journalist” John Feinstein is a Duke graduate?

Hooboy!
::
GP

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

1. I certainly hope that Ruth Sheehan is not left off this list because eventually she tepidly gave a half apology and her paper eventually got the story right. The N&O rushed to PC judgement as much as anyone at the start and had these been poor white males they would have helped railroad them.

2. I hope that Professor Johnson will notice that his quote of Gottlieb shows what I remember and have asked him about several times when this issue came up. Gottlieb did NOT claim to have taken note on his white board. He claimed that his assignments of various people to do various tasks on the case were on that board that he thought Himan was photographing. This was not his notes and what was on that board would be pretty easy to reconstruct by finding out who in the DPD did on the case.

Debrah said...

My favorite is #22 with Mikey's show and tell.

I remember that so well when he was on Dan Abrams that afternoon.

It was so bizarre. Even people who are not close to the legal profession thought right away that Nifong was crazy for coming out and talking so much.

Other prosecutors always make some general and evasive comment and then move on. Nifong was crazy right from the start.

Matt Zash's attorney at the time, Kerry Sutton, is another bizarre player.

How stupid does one have to be to forfeit a relationship with someone like Joe Cheshire?.....as she went on to support Nifong in the election last year.

Just goes to show how sleazy the legal system is in Durham. Sutton was only interested in keeping lines open to Nifong for her future cases.

No one seemed to care about what he had done.

Anonymous said...

On #18....the point has been made that Nifong hired lawyers. But of course he had commited crimes and ethical violations, he was/is guilty.

Another point is, the young men didn't do anything wrong and the captains didn't get lawyers before making statements to the police. It was the liars and the corruption that caused innocent men to need lawyers.

So much for raising our children to believe honesty is the best policy.

mac said...

Wendy "the bad witch" Murphy.
Ah, yes. Actually, if you put her on a pony, she looks like Ghengis Khan - (who probably didn't beat his wives, either.)

One would be hesitant to suggest that Wendy Murphy has the same rationality quotient as, say, Jeffrey Dahmer, except...well, Dahmer likely didn't eat his parakeets, either. On the other hand, Murphy probably could be favorably compared to Idi Amin, who probably DID actually eat his wives, and whatever else happened to appear on his fork.

Ami I suggesting that Murphy is a cannibal? No, I'm absolutely not: but there's no evidence that she isn't.

mac said...

What Bob Ashley SHOULD have written, if he had a shred of integrity:

"It's outrageous that not a single editorial writer in the Herald Sun felt compelled to step forward and tell the truth about what happened."

Let's see:
Arrogant
Sickening
Outrage
Outrageous

Those are the words he uses when he presumes innocence?

AF said...

KC, how could you limit it to 32? It had to be terribly difficult to do that.
It just reminds us that we all need to remember what happened from March 13. Mikey kept asking for some of the players to come forward and tell the truth. Ironically, the ones who needed to come forward and tell the truth were making all those public statements. What a great dodge.
Maybe the trolls need to come up with their own top 32. No doubt it would be chocked full of Mikey, Brian, Got-lies, Bake em, Add-a-sin, the good chief, Broad headless, ... Lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my...

mac said...

"One would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had done nothing wrong."

"One" would wonder? Why "one" needs? "One" was not charged? (How about "two?" Or "three?") Nifong's attempt to appear erudite with the use of "one" is in sharp contrast to his Torquemada-like statement, which "one" would imagine is like this:

"One burns the bodies but one is saving the souls!"

What Nifey should have said is:

"Me an' the boys in the lynchmob 're wonderin' why the kids just don't fess-up when we got 'em by thair short hairs. Dang it all! We rigged this job fair 'n square. Don' know how they got 400 grand to get sprung from our little hoosegow, but it's lahk ah tol' ol judge stephens: even that maght naught be 'nuff. One wonders what it'd take."

One wonders. So do the rest of us.

mac said...

Gottlieb:

"I have a duckie in my bathtub, it's a waterproof duckie. I call it "wimsy." Ben, on the other hand, calls his duckie "quackers." We bring our duckies to work sometimes, but Sgt. Shelton makes fun of us. We agreed: we needed to start an internal investigation on this guy a long time ago. That wasn't done. I apologize for that."

mac said...

Anyone remember Kukla, Fran and Ollie? With apologies to Ollie, doesn't the picture of Nifong look a little similar?

"One" wonders: can a demon possess a puppet?

mac said...

Kathy Davidson doesn't genuinely "worry about the anguish of students who felt demeaned by racist and sexist remarks swirling around in the media and in the campus quad," does she?

Hey Kathy: Duke settled.

mac said...

Selena:
You are right; the season is over. Go back and clean out your Deringer. Have to say: it was interesting watching you attempt to shoot targets 300 miles away with your little single-shot, but now that the season's over, it's time to pack it in.

You might consider another profession, one other than professional hit-woman. You're Joan Wilkes Boothe with two eye-patches.

mac said...

Hey John F.,

"A crime was committed. There were witnesses to the crime."

Yup. And Nifong was convicted.

Anonymous said...

Mac: In order to axccuse Wendy Murphy of cannibalism, there must be proof of her consuming a skunk.

Anonymous said...

Hitler didn't have much time to beat his wife, Wendy. He only married her shortly before his death.

Anonymous said...

The chokehold will definitely go down as one of the classic Nifong poses of the Hoax!!

duke2009mom

Anonymous said...

I don't find anything wrong with either Cathy Davidson's or Wendy Murphy's comments. I am not a troll. I am not a member of the Group of 88.

From what I've seen of their statement, KC is reading it in a very particular way to permit the hounds of hell to howl. (That would be many of you who post here.)

SEK, the young man who many many of you attacked elsewhere, didn't call for KC Johnson to quit Cliopatria (I don't think he did), but I agree that KC's presence there lowers the tone. I don't take it seriously because of his present and that of his friend, Ralph Luker.

I wish KC would keep this blog going. It would keep all of you nutters off the streets & in the blogosphere where you belong.

scott said...

Group of 88 member Cathy Davidson, January 5, 2007, imagining a world that never existed as she rationalized her decision to sign the rush-to-judgment statement, said...

“The ad said that we faculty were listening to the anguish of students who felt demeaned by racist and sexist remarks swirling around in the media and on the campus quad in the aftermath of what happened on March 13 in the lacrosse house."

Based on remarks from its defenders, I was told to believe the ad was not referring to the events (er, make that non-events)involving the Duke lacrosse players and the two skanks. It was, according to them, a general statement about the racist and sexist environment existing at Duke in general.

Thank you, Cathy Davidson, for putting the lie to that attempt at a cover-up once and for all.

Really unnecessary, though, since anyone who can read (even something as poorly written as the Listening Ad) noted numerous direct references to the events they so dearly wanted to have taken place at 610 Buchanan St.

Anonymous said...

“Journalist” John Feinstein has become a cartoon figure - much like a professional wrestler who calls his opponents, "egg sucking dogs." He is desperate to be included in the fight but we still ignore him.

Is this what happens when a person whose livelihood depends on expressing opinions becomes more and more irrelevant?

Anonymous said...

KC> thanks for all you have contributed to truth in this event. Your book is blood pressure raising and brilliant. I'd like to see justice done in Durham, nothing at Duke will change.
I've enojed your insight, I hope you keep an eye on Durham after the blog ends.
I wish the families well, I hope the guys are getting on with their lives and being left alone. Brown and Loyolla have moved up in my book for the decency they have shown. Duke will be forever shamed. I hope your book dissuades potential high school students from looking at Duke. It should be posted on the college ranking websites as mandatory reading.

I've noticed the medical school name has popped up recently for various things. I was wondering if there is a PR program going on to restore the good name. You've kept alot of people on their toes, Thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

12:37 --

Even if the Saga of the Dry-Erase Board is totally inadequate and almost irrelevant as an explanation for Gottlieb's Magically Expanding Notes, it's not KC who proposed the former as the explanation for the latter, but Gottlieb himself.

inman said...

It is almost impossible for me to read these quotes without boiling with a sense of outrage. For it is quite clear that truth was irrelevant. What mattered was the narrative that would sell whatever the speaker was hawking at the time -- newspapers or TV ads or a fictitious crime, etc.

Sadly, this is not limited to the Lacrosse Burning. That is a horrid fact of modern American culture. Baser elements of our diverse society seem to have become the norm and the agenda vigilantes are quite willing, even eager, to consume rotten goods.

Honor seems to have died.

miramar said...

I can't imagine how there could be 16 quotes worse than the ones we have already read, but with the lacrosse hoax anything is possible. It is hard to believe that the planets could have lined up so wrong in academia, the press, and in the political establishment over one woman's false accusation. Or maybe the case just allowed these people's true character to come out.

As Lane Williamson said, the case was a test of character, and a lot of people flunked. Worse yet, most did not follow AD Cooper's recommendation that they apologize for what they did. On the contrary, most of the people quoted so far still insist that what they did was right.

Michael said...

We have a local case in the newspaper of a company owner suing the city and police department for damages to his building.

It looks like police and prosecutors harassed the business owner forcing him to shut down and damaging his reputation. The prosector that dropped his case was fired, apparently pressured by police.

Small-city police and prosecutorial harassment in Nashua NH. It's not only in Durham.

Anonymous said...

Don't know why, but the John Feinstein one is particularly distressing. What a jerk.

Anonymous said...

Debrah - Have you read the HS today? My blood is boiling!! On the front page "E-mails mostly nays on lacrosse settlement" former city councilwoman and former director of community for Duke and recent House candidate SANDY OGBURN wrote Bell and other officials she was unwilling to give those boys a single penny......"the last thing" the families of the three players want "is for the evidence to be heard". Can someone link the article! I'm a Durham taxpayer and hope they get $100 million each!!
Sharyn

jim2 said...

KC -

I finally got a chance to view/listen to your talk at Duke.

A wonderful session, and you are quite an effective speaker. I was glad to see that the camera eased out enough at the end of your prepared remarks to show that you had indeed been give a standing ovation.

Thank you for all your work here, and on this case.

Nicole said...

Wendy Murphy continues to be called on various chanels. I recently saw her on O'Reilly's Fox.
She should be ignored all together, she is a disgrace to her profession.

bill anderson said...

I sent that editorial to Boob Ashley to remind him of his own words. After all, Boob always has been adamant that he and the Hurled-Scum stood squarely for due process. I think that editorial gives us a different picture.

Debrah said...

This falls into the category of "so what"?


E-mails mostly nays on lacrosse settlement

BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun
gronberg@heraldsun.com
Sep 19, 2007 : 12:03 am ET

DURHAM -- A scan of city e-mail shows that Mayor Bill Bell and other elected officials are indeed hearing from a lot of constituents who want them to reject a $30 million settlement demand from the men falsely accused in the Duke lacrosse case.

Opposition to a settlement is coming from a variety of sources, including Durham political heavyweights and people with ties to Duke University.

The most prominent person to weigh in publicly against the idea of settling with lacrosse-case figures David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann is former City Councilwoman Sandy Ogburn.

She wrote Bell and other officials on Sept. 9, soon after The Herald-Sun reported the $30 million figure, to say she was "unwilling to give those boys a single penny."

"While a court case would be costly, it would be worth the money to me as a taxpayer," Ogburn wrote. "At least then we will be able to hear the entire case -- and have the evidence in the public view. All we know right now is what the defense attorneys have parsed out -- oh, as well as their million-dollar PR campaign."

Ogburn -- a former director of community affairs for Duke and recent N.C. House candidate-- added that she believes "the last thing" the families of the three players want "is for the evidence to be heard."

Interviewed on Tuesday, Ogburn hadn't changed her mind.

"I don't want my tax dollars to pay off what I consider to be harassment and absolute extreme political maneuvering by the families," she said. "That's it. It's an exorbitant amount of money."

Most of the e-mail on the subject posted to the mayor's inbox voiced similar sentiments.

While the players were hurt by the actions of former District Attorney Mike Nifong and perhaps those of city employees, the harm "does not compare" with that inflicted on falsely convicted North Carolinians like Alan Gell who spent years in jail for crimes they didn't commit, said Bob Healy, a former professor in Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment.

"I think that this extravagant financial claim is consistent with the general Duke student belief that 'we're special' and 'don't mess with us,'" Healy wrote. "I don't think this should be encouraged, and certainly not at the expense of the population of Durham."

There are countering opinions, however.

"Pay the $30 million to the lacrosse players. We need to end this matter and clean Durham's image," said Bill Roycroft, a resident who works for a testing company based downtown. "The city is responsible for this travesty. Voters re-elected Nifong when it was obvious to the world that he was corrupt and had no case. City leaders stood by and let this happen."

City Council members interviewed Tuesday said the don't-pay argument is the one they hear most often as they make the rounds with constituents and civic groups.

But "we have to consider all the factors," Councilman Mike Woodard said. "We are just waiting for our attorneys to report back to us, following their ongoing conversations with the players' attorneys."

The players' legal team -- headed by well-known litigators Brendan Sullivan and Barry Scheck -- has threatened the city with a federal civil rights lawsuit unless the council pays and institutes legal reforms to uphold the independence of police investigations.

Contrary to some of the anti-settlement arguments that have reached the council, a good bit of what's known has come from the state Attorney General's Office and the N.C. State Bar.

After an investigation much more extensive than the Durham Police Department probe that preceded the indictment of the three men, the attorney general and his staff concluded that the 28-year-old accuser's charges were baseless.

They said she never told authorities the same story twice and there was no DNA or other evidence to corroborate her claim of rape.

Attorney General Roy Cooper said in April that the players were innocent, the victims of "a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations."

The city's legal vulnerabilities in a civil rights case likely include detectives' use of an against-policy photo lineup to identify suspects and the continuing defense of that lineup by officials like City Manager Patrick Baker and former Police Chief Steve Chalmers.

There could also be questions about what detectives told the grand juries that indicted the players.

One of them, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, told the State Bar investigators who secured Nifong's disbarment that his testimony before the grand jury that indicted Seligmann and Finnerty included a claim that the accuser had offered a consistent story.

Chalmers has also made that claim publicly, despite known discrepancies between what the accuser told the patrol officers who first questioned her, her initial statements to detectives, and the account she gave in a written statement after the disputed ID session.

The prospective lawsuit isn't the city's only legal problem. Cooper is weighing a request from Superior Court Judge Jim Hardin that he launch a criminal investigation of Nifong, police and anyone else who acted "under the color of law enforcement" in the case.

Cooper spokeswoman Noelle Talley said late last week that Hardin's request "is still under review." She has not responded to queries this week.

Anonymous said...

I can't help thinking that the "outrageousness" of these quotes is being judged a little too much by what we know now. There's a clear qualitative difference between the various quotes lambasting the players for not 'coming forward with the truth', which only become outrageous with the knowledge that the players were already telling the truth, and Nifong's quote insinuating that to avail yourself of competent legal representation is itself a sign of guilt, which would be a monstrous thing to say even if it was said in the abstract and not about any particular concrete case.

Debrah said...

This should be a good comedy show....similar to Mikey's revved up race-baiting appearance back in the Spring of 2006.


Council candidates' forum tonight

The Herald-Sun
Sep 18, 2007 : 11:32 pm ET

DURHAM -- Durham City Council candidates are scheduled to participate in their first joint campaign forum tonight.

The event, sponsored by Young Dem-ocrats of Durham County and the N.C. Central University student government, will begin at 7 p.m. in the Hayti Heritage Center, 804 Old Fayetteville St.

Debrah said...

H-S letters:

Apologize to Trinity Park

Now that the dust is settling over the Duke-Durham bad news, let me offer my 2 cents.

Sincerely, Duke University, the City of Durham, and all of the television networks owe Trinity Park an apology.

Prior to the lacrosse case, Oprah Winfrey had a show on about girls who are addicted to sex.

One girl who was being interviewed was introduced as a Duke student. She said that she had over 25 encounters. A picture of the Duke Chapel was shown brightly in the background.

Oprah made fun of Duke and the students in my opinion.

The networks had a field day with the lacrosse team's party.

They were charged with rape of an exotic dancer. The charges fell through the cracks. Durham's Trinity Park received another black eye.

What's new? That part of Buchanan Boulevard has always had parties.

Bill Tunstall
Durham
September 19, 2007

Stop blaming whites

I'm not going to use the same old saying -- "only in Durham" -- because it's a nationwide epidemic. Most blacks only defend someone if that someone is of the same race. Why are the failures of blacks always blamed on whites? It happens all the time. However, I think it's about time someone asks why.

I'd think you'd have to look far and wide to find someone who truly believes that O. J. Simpson was innocent. But Simpson, who wouldn't give a black man the time of day, was defended by blacks throughout the nation. If his wife were black, there wouldn't have been all that disgusting whooping and hollering when his verdicts were read. Had the prostituting dancer who lied about being raped been white, all would have been silent.

Why are whites to blame that there is a high percentage of incarcerated blacks? Why are whites to blame that there's such an education gap between us? Will blacks start blaming Hispanics now that Hispanic children, who should not be as familiar with American education as black children, are out-performing theirs?

Kathy Rudy wrote in her column of Sept. 11 that Michael Vick is being attacked because he's black. This theory has grown old and stale. To repeat it only shows continuing ignorance. The sad reality is that if Vick were white, she would have written nothing. When will black America accept blame for its disregard to things such as the law, education, family values and more?

Mike Laneer
Cary
September 19, 2007

Debrah said...

TO 10:27AM--

Just read it.

:>)

becket03 said...

Re: Bob Ashley. I know a prominent sports columnist here in south Florida who once worked for him. Has nothing but "expletives deleted" to say about him. Worst boss he ever had.

beckett

Debrah said...

Just so everyone will know, Sandy Ogburn is a former Durham City Council member....and is one of the most out there, stale ultra-liberals you will find.

She's a creep.

Debrah said...

More meaningless kibitzing by the major toad Ashley in this editorial.....or one of the mental midgets on his staff:


Focus on Duke's campus culture

The Herald-Sun
Sep 19, 2007

In the aftermath of the lacrosse case, a report on Duke campus culture released in February suggested upsetting the preferential housing system that gives fraternities and other groups first dibs on coveted living space in the Gothic quads of West Campus.

The preference speaks volumes about who Duke considers to be privileged, the report noted, and is not equitable or fair. Unsurprisingly, the challenge to years of tradition at Duke sparked headlines and controversy.

Last week, however, a review by Provost Peter Lange rejected the proposal.

Making the change, Lange's report stated, "would be inconsistent" with a "vibrant, pluralistic community."

We can understand the university's desire to avoid a major controversy at this time, especially after the denouement of the lacrosse case, in which Duke reportedly paid a multi-million dollar settlement to the players to avoid lawsuits.

To Lange's credit, his committee sought input on the issue from many sources, consulting with about 37 student, faculty and alumni groups. The officials found that most students didn't want the administration dictating such a sweeping policy change.

Still, we hope the university will keep focusing on some of the worthy goals contained in the initial report. It said that the stereotype of Duke students as hard-working and hard-partying should be challenged. The campus should become "a more inclusive academic community ... in which openness and engagement with difference of all types ... are expected and supported." It also suggested reevaluating the university's policies on alcohol use and athletics. All of those analyses should continue.

Lange's report found that students think one of the main problems with Duke's social scene is that, other than fraternities, there are few avenues for freshmen and sophomores to interact with upperclassmen and faculty.

Encouraging more options would provide meaningful social alternatives and could diminish the drinking culture, Lange suggested. The university is also exploring whether dormitories on the new Central Campus will be limited to seniors or open to other classes as well. Those ideas are certainly worth exploring.

There are those who will say that because the lacrosse charges were found to be bogus, any concerns or issues raised by the case are also bogus. We don't buy that, and we don't think the university does either.

wine country dude said...

@Anon 7:21

Very very funny.

Debrah said...

Think back everyone.

Reade, Collin, and David had to post a $400,000 bond.

Each.

They were young men with no record at all.

Today, OJ Simpson will be released on a $125,000 bond.

This is a great illustration as to what kind of bigoted sewer Durham is.

Anonymous said...

Anaon 12:07
"I can't help thinking that the 'outrageousness' of these quotes is being judged a little too much by what we know now. There's a clear qualitative difference between the various quotes lambasting the players for not 'coming forward with the truth', which only become outrageous with the knowledge that the players were already telling the truth, and Nifong's quote insinuating that to avail yourself of competent legal representation is itself a sign of guilt, which would be a monstrous thing to say even if it was said in the abstract and not about any particular concrete case."

-----

I agree that Nifong's statement was monstrous.

As to others' statements, and the defense that they may only seem "outrageous" in hindsight, I say: How many of these people retracted or aplologized for their outrageous statements, after the lacrosse players' innocence became manifestly obvious?

How many are too chicken-hearted to withdraw their earlier, ignorant, despicable rants? And how many are too stupid or too arrogant to admit, even now, that they were wrong at all?

Sorry, it is a totally inadequate explanation to say that "Well, it was resasonable to believe Liefuck at the time, and now I either know better but refuse to apologize, or I continue to swallow and spew giant whoppers on Liefuck's behalf."

Anonymous said...

With seventy plus Nifong interviews in living color, it would be very difficult to him to blame Levicy, He has not done so, yet - including at his Bar hearing. Neither has Gottlieb. However, Duff Wilson of the NYT said "the nurse made him write those articles." Let us see this event go to court.

Anonymous said...

Silence should be one of the top quotes. As in silence of the Duke Law School, and MSM when Nifong was committing all these prejudicial statements.

Anonymous said...

Over time, words and images become unmoored from their original defining contexts to acquire new and independent meanings of their own.

The "hard sayings" of Jesus are good examples. People now think that "turn the other cheek" means pacifism, and "judge not" means don't discriminate between good and evil behavior.

The prudish should not enquire into the original meanings of "snafu" or "beat around the bush."

And I'd bet that not one kid in 100 who wears the iconographic "Che" as a fashion accessory today has the remotest idea who and what he really was.

All of this is just to suggest that #22 on the list, long after people have forgotten what Nifong was attempting to describe, may become the indelible image of The Man Who Tied Himself In Knots, or The Man Who Choked Himself To Death. Which was the case.

mac said...

7:40 am

You must be from Durrhhh?

Anonymous said...

"... I am not a troll.

...

...keep all of you nutters off the streets & in the blogosphere where you belong."

Not a troll, hmmm? I guess you just play one on TV.

Anonymous said...

Silence should be one of the top quotes. As in silence of the Duke Law School, and MSM when Nifong was committing all these prejudicial statements.

9/19/07 12:50 PM


Very nice!

re:Wendy Murphy's quote, has she amnesia for what Adolph did do? Otherwise, libel, anyone?

J.P.

Anonymous said...

' There's a clear qualitative difference between the various quotes lambasting the players for not 'coming forward with the truth', which only become outrageous with the knowledge that the players were already telling the truth,and Nifong ..'
Ah, Nifong did it alone, what you on the faculty do or did as accessory is OK. No self interest there. Must be great to shoot your mouth and hurt people and carry 'castrate' signs that put young people in danger, and pay no price - get your bills paid by Duke afterward. Other citizens should be so lucky!
The faculty members who signed that statement are scholars who supposedly have spent their lives studying the text. They were quite aware of what they were doing in the context of events there, despite their effort to avoid accountability. They have squandered any authority they might have had, ever, to critique the power relations of others. This could have been a 'teaching moment' to engage in self criticism and self reflection. This episode will hang over them no matter what they say to try to cover up the stain.
A few questions:
1. Did any member of Duke faculty conspire with the DA's office to issue the statement in an attempt to contaminate the jury pool? is that a crime? if not, should it be?
2. is slandering your own students (who are private citizens) in a public forum outside of your job duties in the classroom protected by 'academic freedom'? Should it be?
3. We know that, since the Gonzaga case in 2002, students do not have an individual cause of action against universities for violation of FERPA - invasion of their privacy. Should they? Current remedy is withholding of Fed money, a drastic remedy unlikely to be used. Should Congress or state legislatures enact a private cause of action for violation of privacy?
4. Do students have a cause of action against professors who defame them in a public forum? if not, why not?
5. One poster mentioned Yale a few weeks ago. That is where Brodhead spent his life from high school until his arrival at Duke. BOT members have close ties to Yale. David Price, Congressman from Durham, is a Yalie. Yale ties are everywhere and doubtless will protect Brodhead. KC, will you be speaking near Yale or at Yale before you leave?

Anonymous said...

7:40 AM--
I'm not on Cliopatra, so I can't comment on the quality of discussion there or how K.C. Johnson and Ralph Luker may affect it. And I'd even agree that sometimes (probably less often than you would say) K.C.'s characterizations of others' comments or actions are made out of context or colored too strongly by his views on this case.

But if you see nothing wrong with Cathy Davidson's remarks, then you were not at Duke in March and April of 2006. In the abstract, sure, the remarks sound fine; the problem is, they are completely untrue. Insults of poor black women or other African Americans were not rampant on the campus, and certainly not in the media (unless referring to a stripper as a stripper is considered an "insult," which it obviously was by some). Indeed, most of the negative and insulting remarks being openly made on campus in those days were about the lacrosse team. Some African American and female students were prompted by the case to discuss their own concerns about their experiences at Duke more generally, and perhaps some of them felt anguished. But that is quite a different thing than the rabidly pro-lacrosse player, openly racist and/or sexist atmosphere on campus that is suggested by Davidson's absurdly off-the-mark description.

As for Wendy Murphy, well, gee--you like a higher level of discussion than you see here, but you think there's no reason to criticize a media pundit's invocation of Hitler as an analogy to a sports team that had a stripper party? I don't know about you, but as a general rule, when I see analogies made to Hitler in discussions of subjects that have no obvious connection to him, I tend to double my skepticism level--either the speaker is grossly exaggerating, or they are a profoundly lazy or unoriginal thinker (or both).

Professor Coleman's report, which Murphy rejects with her absurdly overblown analogy, was prepared to investigate whether there were chronic concerns about the behavior or attitudes of the lacrosse team as an organization that might justify changing or discontinuing the program; as such, his conclusion that the players were generally well behaved was not only relevant, but the key point. The report did not address, and did not claim to address, the players' guilt or innocence of the alleged sexual assault, nor did it claim to be relevant to that decision. So it was, in fact, Murphy's remarks that were irrelevant (as they so often were, when they weren't actually untrue).

Anonymous said...

You only post ten percent of the bond - not the entire amount.

duke09parent said...

To Anon at 7:40 a.m.

Murphy's statement alone, in reaction to the Coleman Committe report, is innocuous:
“To suggest [the indicted players] were well-behaved: Hitler never beat his wife either. So what?”

What you are forgetting, however, is that the early accusers and detractors of the players (no doubt including Murphy) were trumpeting how they had a history of loutish and illegal behavior, to support the idea that they were capable of rape. What the Coleman Committee did was look at the evidence and tell us that the players' behavior was similar to other male groups on campus, in some ways a little worse and in some ways better.

The "so what" is so stop saying the players had a history of especially loutish and illegal behavior.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's the ones being hit the hardest that are now sqealing the loudest?

A lot of people in Durham are truly clueless about how the justice system--both civil and criminal--is supposed to work. I can't think of any other reason that ANYONE would think the lacrosse players would be afraid to have this case heard.

It's not about the money, stupids! The money is just a benchmark to see how much they're willing to pay to NOT clean the place up.

The citizens of Durham are going to pay, one way or another. They'll either pay to clean the sewer up or they'll pay when it's one of their kids being prosecuted by this lawless system.

Anonymous said...

The 7:40s of the world simply cannot stand how this case has turned on them. I'm not sure why 7:40 continues to read/post here if it makes him/her so unhappy.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

1. My guess is the one comentator does not understand the evidence that will come out in a civil suit. Very little will come out concerning the events of the party. The trial will focus on the evidence of what the DPD did. I wonder if such a suit can even cover Nifong. He is a state official, isn't he.

2. It sounds like the Durhmites don't want to settle. This will make for a very very interesting trial. It will be interesting to see how much a jury will award in such a case.

3.re: Debrah

Kerry Sutton knew that if Nifong was not disbarred and removed he would seek retribution against anyone who did not support him. She knew Chesshire would be too classy to seek retribution. So of course it was in her self interest not to cross Nifong.

Anonymous said...

"As to others' statements, and the defense that they may only seem "outrageous" in hindsight, I say: How many of these people retracted or aplologized for their outrageous statements, after the lacrosse players' innocence became manifestly obvious?

How many are too chicken-hearted to withdraw their earlier, ignorant, despicable rants? And how many are too stupid or too arrogant to admit, even now, that they were wrong at all?"

Yes, in a perfect world, everyone would have, from the very beginning, approached this case with complete neutrality and dispassion, spoken very carefully and said no word they could not themselves verify; if any person were to have made a statement and later realized it to be incorrect, they would rush a retraction with a sincere apology into the same venue where their original incorrect remarks had been aired.

However, this is not that perfect world, where things are nice comforting absolutes, and there is no moral distinction between someone who deliberately tried to deprive innocent men of their Constitutional rights, and someone who is too embarassed to take back a statement that would have been correct, had someone else not been feeding them a very big set of lies.

I mean, honestly, do you even have a goal in mind? And if you do, exactly how is rabid demonization of anyone who was on the wrong side serving that goal? If your goal is to actually get apologies from the people that made hasty statements, for instance, then telling those people that they're chicken-hearted, stupid, arrogant, as evil as Nifong -- oh, yeah. That sort of treatment will really get 'em prepared to apologize. It definitely won't push them into the arms of the crowd that's still trying to trash the players' reputations, on the theory that no one owes an apology to vile degraded louts just because there was one crime they happened to be innocent of.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

The smartest thing Durham could do now is decide which of the city council action demands they can live with and do them plus more RIGHT NOW. This would help them in two ways:

1. It might reduce their damages if this goes to trial.

2. They are crazy to allow any negotiations of city council actions. It is a really bad idea to establish the idea that they negotiate city council actions. They need to take that off the table by preemptive action and particularly adding extra things to it. For example they could pass a resolution for the legislature to pass an NC speedy trial law along with the resolution the Duke 3 want concerning grand jury transcripts.

Much more than the money, Durham negotiating away city council votes would be a no go for me if I were a citizen of Durham.

Debrah said...

Your book is blood pressure raising and brilliant.

Yes!

Just like KC.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:13 - If you only put up 10%, you LOSE it. That is the fee the bondsman charges for putting up the whole amount, in this case the fee amounting to a whopping $40,000.00-----Gone Forever.

Anonymous said...

"Ah, Nifong did it alone, what you on the faculty do or did as accessory is OK. No self interest there. Must be great to shoot your mouth and hurt people and carry 'castrate' signs that put young people in danger, and pay no price - get your bills paid by Duke afterward. Other citizens should be so lucky!"

Whooooeeeee! Goldang, Clem, that was a good'un! Boy, when it comes t' tellin' off those fancy high-falutin perfesser types, you sure are a humdingleydoggy! Too bad that all you're doing is knocking down your own straw man, since I'm not on the faculty and I said exactly none of the statements you attribute to me. What I said was that there is a clear qualitative difference between statements that are outrageous even in the abstract, and statements that are outrageous given what we know now but are far less outrageous if one considers the context of widespread pernicious misinformation in which they were made.

Oh, and by the way, "accessory" has a pretty definite legal meaning. It's pretty unlikely that any member of the Duke faculty was even in a position to be an accessory to Nifong's crimes. There!!! I just proved you were WRONG, you IDIOT!!! You were OUTRAGEOUSLY WRONG!!! You're too CHICKEN-HEARTED and CORRUPT to admit that you were WRONG!!! If you had any GUTS, you'd come out and admit that you were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG but craven COWARDS like you won't do a thing like THAT!!! (I'm trying a new technique. I'm trying to convince you to reconsider your previous opinions, using abusive language to jeer at you and carefully avoiding any acknowledgement that you might actually be less than Satan himself. Is it working? Do you feel inclined to apologize for your errors and correct them? I learned the technique from the commenters here.)

no justice, no peace said...

KC, thanks for providing a comendium of quotes which are amazingly malicious and evil. We understand the Klan of 88, the administration, the media and their abettors, but what do some old white guys have to say...

“A man slandered is doubly injured—first by him who utters the calumny, and then by him who believes it.” —Herodotus

“You should punish in the same manner those who commit crimes with those who accuse falsely.” —Thucydides

“[S]ilence supports the accuser’s charge?” —Sophocles

“You should not honor men more than truth.” —Plato

Steven Horwitz said...

248 writes:

I mean, honestly, do you even have a goal in mind? And if you do, exactly how is rabid demonization of anyone who was on the wrong side serving that goal? If your goal is to actually get apologies from the people that made hasty statements, for instance, then telling those people that they're chicken-hearted, stupid, arrogant, as evil as Nifong -- oh, yeah. That sort of treatment will really get 'em prepared to apologize. It definitely won't push them into the arms of the crowd that's still trying to trash the players' reputations, on the theory that no one owes an apology to vile degraded louts just because there was one crime they happened to be innocent of.

Exactly. It has always seemed to me that the demonization of the G88 specifically was deeply at odds at the claimed desire to see them apologize, at least as a matter of effective strategy.

People are more likely to do the right thing in an atmosphere that makes it easier for them to do so.

(And yes, university faculty and administrators could take a lesson from that too.)

Ralph Phelan said...

JLS says...,
"Much more than the money, Durham negotiating away city council votes would be a no go for me if I were a citizen of Durham."
Given the quality of their current city council, I think having outside forces dictate their actions will on the whole be an improvement.

If Durham is concerned about preserving its sovereignty it should consider that things could get far worse than just negotiating away few city council votes should they decide to take this to court, and then take McFayden to court, and then take the rest of the LaCrosse team to court, and then take Elmostafa to court ....

Are there any other New Yorkers around here old enough to remember the name "Felix Rohatyn"?

no justice, no peace said...

3:17 One might want to consider the time line relative to known facts before one constructs an after-the-fact defense of the indefensible.

Only then will one begin to understand that no apology would ever be forthcoming.

Anonymous said...

2:48 whines: "exactly how is rabid demonization of anyone who was on the wrong side serving that goal?"

Deterrence. Any other spineless, amoral, venal, idiots in the future that think of pulling such a cowardly act of knee-jerk political street theater (ala G--or Klan--88) might well think twice if they realize that they, too, face: "rabid demonization." Despite what you might think, sometimes there really is a "right" and a "wrong." And those who make the wrong choice should be held to account. We all benefit.

Anonymous said...

3:16:
Yes, 'accessory' does have a definite meaning.
I asked if any member of Duke's faculty, in preparing that statement, conspired with the DA's office to taint the jury pool. I asked if that was a crime, and if not, whether it should be a crime.
Your answer was not responsive.

Debrah said...

TO 2:48PM--

Who's kidding who?

These people...(and I use that appellation loosely)...have had numerous chances to do the right thing.

They have had doors open to them so they could just apologize and try to consider their positions as university professors who are supposed to stand for due process, fairness, and concern for their own students.

However, they came back only with outward defiance by signing yet another statement. Essentially, rubbing salt into an open and painful wound.

As Ken Larrey said at KC appearance at Duke last week....these are people taking six-figure salaries who use their positions to say anything they want without editing themselves for decorum's sake...as their students pay "an arm and a leg" to listen to their crap.

No one gives a damn how the Gritty Duke Gang of 88 feel. They are not children who have to be coaxed into eating their peas and carrots.

These are stone-cold parasites of our society.

And very harmful parasites, at that.

No one is interested in playing nice with such people. They deserve to be shunned for the rest of their lives.

To hell with such people.

inman said...

ralph @ 3:33

He was a senior partner at Lazard Freres & Co. and an M&A banker, but I miss the connection.

Anonymous said...

Re: your link to the Dan Abrams program of March 31, 2006.

Nifong has testified that in reviewing Meehan's tests, he did not consider the presence of DNA from 4 or 5 unknown men to be significant. But of course it was, because the test showed that IF a Lacrosse player had raped her, his DNA would have been found. He stressed the significance of detection of foreign DNA on the Abrams program:

NIFONG: Well, you have to understand how DNA is used. Obviously the first step that is involved in DNA testing is determining whether or not there is any DNA evidence that is left with the victim that does not belong to her, and so the initial tests are to determine whether or not DNA foreign to the victim can be detected on the samples that are taken from her body. Now, if there is no DNA left, then there is obviously nothing to compare.

Anonymous said...

"I mean, honestly, do you even have a goal in mind? And if you do, exactly how is rabid demonization of anyone who was on the wrong side serving that goal?"

Yes; the posters here do have a goal in examining and re-examining those who pre-judged this case. My goal for Duke is as follows:

First, a thorough examination of the faculty and administration culture that led an otherwise intelligent group to be led by a mob mentality to discard bedrock principles, i.e., due process and the presumption of innocence. Part of that first step is to have those otherwise intelligent members of the group actually acknowledge that they did, in fact, discard bedrock principles.

Secondly, examine, identify and catalogue the structural underpinnings of the culture that led to discarding bedrock principles.

Thirdly, dispassionately evaluate the value of the underpinnings of the culture in relation to the value of the bedrock principles. (Clearly, the bedrock principles are linked to the culture and therefore must be valued more that the culture alone).

Fourth, determine if the culture and the bedrock principles are generally in harmony with one another thereby leading to the conclusion that the Lax case was an anomaly, or if the two are in constant disharmony and the Lax case simply showcased the disharmony.

Finally, if the Duke culture is in disharmony with the bedrock principles, determine a means by which to bring the culture and the principles into harmony.

Unfortunately, because the Duke faculty and administration can not acknowledge that they did, in fact, carelessly and without cause discard the bedrock principles of due process and the presumption of innocence, it is unlikely that Duke can "move forward" - though moving forward is Duke's stated goal.

I agree with your post though - all exercises in examining facts should have a goal as how to "move forward".

And Steve: Really? Honestly? The G88 are comprised of adults with job security - do they really need an atmosphere of hearts and flowers to acknowledge their error? They themselves created an inhospitable environment; they can not now be allowed to complain that they are not now being given a peaceful, accepting and loving environment to apologize. Would they not garner more respect if they did the right thing regardless of the environment? No one said confession had to be comfortable.

rrhamilton said...

steven horwitz says...

It has always seemed to me that the demonization of the G88 specifically was deeply at odds at the claimed desire to see them apologize, at least as a matter of effective strategy.

People are more likely to do the right thing in an atmosphere that makes it easier for them to do so.

(And yes, university faculty and administrators could take a lesson from that too.)

9/19/07 3:27 PM


Stephen, it's wayyyyyyyy too late to hear any apology from the 88.

I mean, think of it this way: Let's say my kid comes home and I hear that s/he's been accused of shoplifting. So, I backhand him or her in the mouth, and then almost immediately learn that s/he did no such thing. When's the right time to apologize?

Should I wait a few months and then claim that by my slap I was trying to make a statement about "shoplifting by kids in general"? Would that make it better ... or worse?

No, Steven, mere words of contrition by the 88 are now way too late -- more than a year too late. Actions that show their genuine contrition are necessary now.

Anonymous said...

"One might want to consider the time line relative to known facts before one constructs an after-the-fact defense of the indefensible."

I agree. If we are to truly judge which statements were outrageous and which merely mistaken, we must consider not only the content of the statement but also what facts were known at that point and how widely known.

So why are you afraid of actually taking such factors into consideration? Why are you trying to avoid any actual such examination by announcing the conclusion of "indefensible" before you even know which statement we're talking about?

Ralph Phelan said...

Steven Horwitz said...

"It has always seemed to me that the demonization of the G88 specifically was deeply at odds at the claimed desire to see them apologize, at least as a matter of effective strategy.

People are more likely to do the right thing in an atmosphere that makes it easier for them to do so."

Oh gimme a break.

Remember this?:
“If I publish something like this . . . my voice won’t count for much in my world.”

I really don't think the people yelling "Apologize already" are that big a factor in why apologies have not been forthcoming.

Anonymous said...

"What I said was that there is a clear qualitative difference between statements that are outrageous even in the abstract, and statements that are outrageous given what we know now but are far less outrageous if one considers the context of widespread pernicious misinformation in which they were made."

Nah, not likely.

What probably happened was the 88ers saw the opportunity for a real post-ethical moment, cranked up the old gibberish machine and spread their Weltanschauung everywhere they could. It should have worked - it usually does, but, this time it blew up in their faces.

And now, they're WHINING.

Anonymous said...

I'm with no justice, no peace (3:24 p.m.) and Plato:

You should not honor men more than truth.

At this point who cares whether anyone of the G88 apologizes or not? What could they say after all this time that isn't going to sound coerced and insincere-- which it undoubtedly would be?

What's wrong with public exposure, humiliation, and disgrace, when that's the result of the truth being revealed? Feelings of the G88 more important than the truth about what was said and who said it?

As the lawyers like to remind us, "the cover-up is worse than the crime." So is the lack of contrition. That is the truth of the matter.

Steven Horwitz said...

rr and Ralph:

Note I said "claimed desire to see them apologize." If you have no such desire, then there's no reason to treat them nicely.

If, as 349 says, it's now about deterrence, then let it rip.

AFAIC, I would still like to see some apologies, but would certainly not take them as absolution for what was done. Rather it would be the first sign we've seen that there's some self-awareness of having been in error. That doesn't absolve past sins, but it is still the right thing to do.

It might also be the only way to even start to "heal" in the way that the non-apologists claim to want.

Anonymous said...

3:49 blithers: 'Deterrence. Any other spineless, amoral, venal, idiots in the future that think of pulling such a cowardly act of knee-jerk political street theater (ala G--or Klan--88) might well think twice if they realize that they, too, face: "rabid demonization."'

Not in the real world, sadly. In the real world, people look at your frothing-at-the-mouth ravings and they say "Why should I listen to his ravings or attach any importance to them? I know what I see when I look at the world: I see a complex place with complex people, very few of whom are all good or all evil. The more savage and vicious this guy gets in trying to tell me 'Those guys over there are spineless, amoral, venal idiots!' the more he convinces me -- not convinces me that he's right, convinces me that he's got a view of the world so primitive as to be useless."

If you still believe in the power of "rabid demonization" as a force for social change, let me ask you this: how many people were convinced that it was wrong to support the players due to the efforts of UBUNTU? if the number is vanishingly small, was it because UBUNTU didn't engage in a sufficient amount of "rabid demonization"? Why don't you visit their site now, and report back to us whether being slanderously painted as a racist, sexist troglodyte makes you feel "deterred" from your current opinions.

Anonymous said...

This is off topic, but Mark Anthony Neale, thugniggaintellectual, is quoted in an article in today's Baltimore Sun about the propriety of African-American men wearing baggy pants. "City Council Urged to Take Stand Against Baggy Pants" at sunspot.com.

Perhaps he is updating his CV with this foray into uncharted territory.


Tall T

Penny said...

2:48 says...."apologies from the people that made hasty statements"....what was hasty about the Group of 88's two publically published manifestos? They took the time to draft them by committee and collect signatures. There was nothing hasty with smearing print journalists either. You make it sound as if the most egregious behaviors were mere slips of the tongue in this saga. The culprits here weren't anonymous nobodies speaking from the sidewalks.

We certainly expect apologies from family to elected officials when they behave badly, what makes these adult academics so immune?

And, steven, you seem to be suggesting that those who are shamed get to forfeit the option of contrition. It appears to me they are being demonized rightfully for their lack of shame.

Anonymous said...

Davidson Quote: "...anguish of students who felt demeaned by racist and sexist remarks swirling around in the media and on the campus quad in the aftermath of what happened on March 13 in the lacrosse house. The insults, at that time, were rampant."

I guess she is right in the sense that the LAX players felt demeaned by the racist, sexist remarks at that time. Very insightful.

Ed

Ralph Phelan said...

"So why are you afraid of actually taking such factors into consideration? Why are you trying to avoid any actual such examination by announcing the conclusion of "indefensible" before you even know which statement we're talking about?"

Because the obsessives around here have memorized enough timelines and case facts that they can do that analysis in their heads in about thrity seconds, have done so, and found every example indefensible.

If you disagree, pick one and defend it.

Anonymous said...

Off topic = the black female ADA in the Novack case is bright, clear thinking and speaking. She is what I would have wanted from Liefong. You go girl.

Anonymous said...

"I asked if any member of Duke's faculty, in preparing that statement, conspired with the DA's office to taint the jury pool. I asked if that was a crime, and if not, whether it should be a crime.
Your answer was not responsive."

Assuming that you ever asked that question in the real waking world, and not just in a dream or absinthe hallucination, you didn't ask that question in this discussion and it shouldn't be a surprise to you that no one's answer to that unasked question was "responsive".

rrhamilton said...

Steven, I see your point at 4:43. I agree with 4:39 more though. And I've just got to comment on this:

Anonymous said...
This is off topic, but Mark Anthony Neale, thugniggaintellectual, is quoted in an article in today's Baltimore Sun about the propriety of African-American men wearing baggy pants. "City Council Urged to Take Stand Against Baggy Pants" at sunspot.com.

Perhaps he is updating his CV with this foray into uncharted territory.


Tall T

9/19/07 4:44 PM


They don't make pants big enough that would be baggy on plugnikklintellectual. :)

Anonymous said...

"Because the obsessives around here have memorized enough timelines and case facts that they can do that analysis in their heads in about thrity seconds, have done so, and found every example indefensible."

Uh-huh.

Well, KC can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even he, whose knowledge of the facts of this case I think towers above that of the rest of us, would consider thirty seconds a sufficient amount of time for analysis. And you're trying to assert that it's actually a significantly high portion of KC's commentariat who possesses that savant-like expertise? And that, in a case where so many people were made to look foolish simply because they believed Nifong's word without questioning it sufficiently, that anyone trying to put the words of those people in the context of Nifong's aggressive distribution of misinformation should in fact just shut up and trust that the Blog Hooligans, Savant Division has already done more than enough consideration to safely declare every one guilty as charged? Pardon me if I don't find that convincing.

Ralph Phelan said...

Steven Horwitz said...
rr and Ralph:

Note I said "claimed desire to see them apologize." If you have no such desire, then there's no reason to treat them nicely.


Don't lump me in with rr on this issue. I'm willing to accept an apology - the chemistry professor who recanted is among my list of heroes in this affair.

I just think it's laughable to claim that the fact that people are calling for apologies is what's preventing them, especially when we have so much reason to believe that there's significant pressure from the rest of the gang not to do so.

“If I publish something like this . . . my voice won’t count for much in my world.”

Anonymous said...

KC - The judge in LA overseeing the Spector case has gotten himself in a mess - trying to change the indictment. He should have been doing his judge thing in Durham, NC.

Anonymous said...

4.43 blathers: " Not in the real world, sadly. In the real world, people look at your frothing-at-the-mouth ravings and they say "Why should I listen to his ravings or attach any importance to them?"

Incredible as you might find this--this ain't about you. And it also ain't about my, as you describe, "ravings." Rather, what this is about (I truly hope), is whether a $30M legal smackdown and the inevitable tax rate explosion or municipal bankruptcy might deter the G88ers and their ilk. And, as a related matter, whether such an "accounting" might also incent whoever might be sane in Durham to ward off such lunacy. I sincerely believe a little financial liability goes some way in, how shall I say, "focusing the collective mind."

Evidently, you and I disagree. Fine. It sure looks as though we're going to find out who is right.

Anonymous said...

3:17 attempts the Brodhead 'hindsight is 20-20' defense. It fails. The outrageous assumption of guilt didn't become worse as the facts emerged, it was unconscionable from the egg. That many believed so readily in the LAX players' guilt carries no absolution whatsoever -- to the contrary, the reason for that readiness is what a lot of this blog examines. It certainly does nothing to mitigate the guilt of the lynch mob and its enablers that a whole lot of them were equally ignorant of due process.

3:17, why not try instead the other part of the Brodhead defense, where vicious anti-LAX statements become okay because the speakers were so 'emotional'? (I don't know if Brodhead meant to imply by that that something about the feminists renders them incapable of restraining their emotion, or that something in black people does the same thing, or both. Maybe they and administrators are hyper-emotional. Or perhaps Birdhead meant that the truly righteous are sometimes consumed by a sort of holy fury, and we mortals shouldn't get to picky about what comes out of their mouths.)

Anyway, both of the Brodhead gems together mean that it was perfectly okay, understandable, to pile on then, and it is not necessary to correct, apologize, or otherwise pay the penalty for anything now.

That full Brodhead defense would be wonderful, if it couldn't be seen through by a six-year-old. But then don't despair - as Brodhead said, 'the facts kept changing'.

Maybe they'll change again, and this whole fiasco will never have happened.

Anonymous said...

It has always seemed to me that the demonization of the G88 specifically was deeply at odds at the claimed desire to see them apologize, at least as a matter of effective strategy.

Stephen, it's the G88 [-1, now] members who have demonized themselves. So, maybe it's they who should stop?

J.P.

Gary Packwood said...

Debrah 3:56 said...
...TO 2:48PM--
...Who's kidding who?
...These people...(and I use that appellation loosely)...have had numerous chances to do the right thing.
...They have had doors open to them so they could just apologize and try to consider their positions as university professors who are supposed to stand for due process, fairness, and concern for their own students.
...However, they came back only with outward defiance by signing yet another statement. Essentially, rubbing salt into an open and painful wound.
...As Ken Larrey said at KC appearance at Duke last week....these are people taking six-figure salaries who use their positions to say anything they want without editing themselves for decorum's sake...as their students pay "an arm and a leg" to listen to their crap.
...
Absolutely and this is why so many people want to see each of them in a witness chair where we know they will attempt a television feed to stupid.

I don't recall or I didn't know.

And the attorney for the lax athletes will have the opportunity to say ...you earned a Ph.D. in Women's Studies or AABlack studies from UC Berkeley and YOU ....DON'T RECALL --- ...DIDN'T KNOW?

You have some 'splannin to do and right now ...right here in the court room ...is an excellent place to start.

My same thoughts apply to all the elected officials in Durham including the Sheriff.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"I asked if any member of Duke's faculty, in preparing that statement, conspired with the DA's office to taint the jury pool. I asked if that was a crime, and if not, whether it should be a crime.
Your answer was not responsive."

Potbanger stupidly replied:

Assuming that you ever asked that question in the real waking world, and not just in a dream or absinthe hallucination, you didn't ask that question in this discussion...
---------------------------------
Does the 1:48 post not count as part of "this discussion" for some reason? Been at the absinthe again?

Anonymous said...

To 12:04pm

The story in the Hurled-Scum only proves how stupid these people really are.
This is my favorite quote:

" "Ogburn -- a former director of community affairs for Duke and recent N.C. House candidate-- added that she believes "the last thing" the families of the three players want "is for the evidence to be heard." "

Ogburn is a total idiot, the mother's of the three falsely accused men would like nothing better than a day in court not only to again exonerate their children , but to make a corrupt city unwilling to change pay for it's sins. What these morons in Durham don't seem to realize is that they will be playing against top notch hired guns in a federal court. The last thing Durham needs is another opportunity to be under the microscope of a federal investigation. Durham is playing with fire and they will be burned again, this time it will cost serious money and could result in criminal charges for the DPD and Nifong. Bring out the popcorn this will be fun to watch.

Debrah said...

TO 4:43 PM--

No one expects the Gang of 88 and the alarmingly spastic set of activists from UBUNTU to ever catch a clue.

If they had any valid points to make at all other than proving to everyone that the old stereotype held by many that only black people can dance...is most certainly wrong--LOL!!!--(to wit: Their strange video clip).

Indeed, many of the strange 88 and their enablers need to step inside the Wonderland gates for the ride of their lives.

Here, you will find the sizzling brilliance of KC's analysis of the day....which always provides the Diva and others with the sweetest taboo!

Anonymous said...

Dan Rather is apparently suing for 70 million. I have said that I thought 30 million was low.

Duke1965 said...

rrhamilton asked,

"I mean, think of it this way: Let's say my kid comes home and I hear that s/he's been accused of shoplifting. So, I backhand him or her in the mouth, and then almost immediately learn that s/he did no such thing. When's the right time to apologize?"

____________________

Perhaps when you're trying to explain the situation to child protective services..............

Anonymous said...

Is Roberts a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Apparently, the PC economy deals in credit. If anyone goes against the party line, they lose credit. Professor Thorne was worried she would lose her leverage in the politically correct economy.

Now, Jesse Jackson is claiming that he doesn't remember claiming that Obama has been acting too "white." Why would anyone care how Obama acts, as long as his actions are legal, moral and show good judgment?

This type of groupthink must be very inhibiting on campus and in other political arenas, especially when it conflicts with truth, justice or plain common sense. To be part of the PC economy, right now, I guess you can only deal in PC $.
________________

I agree with the poster above regarding deterrence. Until color-blindness finally takes over, there needs to be some form of mutually-assured derision to keep the racist whackos on both sides at bay.
________________

I enjoy reading all of the comments here. Keep up the great work, K.C.! MOO! Gregory

m said...

OT, but...

Dan Rather is suing CBS for $70 million.

Among the most egregious indignities he suffered, Mr. Rather says, was the network’s response to his request to be sent as a correspondent to the scene of Hurricane Katrina in the fall of 2005.

“Mr. Rather is the most experienced reporter in the United States in covering hurricanes,” his lawyers write in the suit. “CBS refused to send him,” thus “furthering its desire to keep Mr. Rather off the air.”


Makes $30 million (divided by 3) for what the lax3 went through seem like bargain basement prices.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

their positions as university professors who are supposed to stand for due process, fairness, and concern for their own students.

Anyone who thinks the 88 are at all concerned with due process is kidding themselves. The 88 and their ilk believe America is an evil racist, sexist, rotten place.

They don't give a whit about US so called due process as constructed by dead white guys. The want racial/sexual retribution and they thought they had a case to get some of it. They have no feeling of shame. They view it as unfortunate that it did not work out for them in this case, I am sure. But they don't feel bad, they are out looking for their next hook to advance their cause of retribution.

Debrah said...

"Mark Anthony Neale, thugniggaintellectual, is quoted in an article in today's Baltimore Sun about the propriety of African-American men wearing baggy pants. "City Council Urged to Take Stand Against Baggy Pants" at sunspot.com."

There seems to be a very strong connection between some in Durham and Baltimore.

This connection you provide of the thugintellectual today...and the horrendous diatribe by someone named Earl Holt from Baltimore that was printed in the H-S last year--which appeared around the same time as Orin Starn's diatribe--would suggest that the Herald-Sun has worked very closely with those at Duke and their Gang of 88.

Why else would an angry black man from Baltimore, Maryland named Earl Holt be allowed such a prominent space in the Herald-Sun at such a strategic time in this case back in 2006?

Holt wrote vile things about the lacrosse team and lambasted and sneered at the women's lacrosse team for supporting the guys.

As I see this connection, I become even more disgusted at what, no doubt, was going on behind the scenes at the time.

Anonymous said...

How Wendy Murphy not ranked higher? That is not only incorrect, it is stupid on so many levels. She actually thought that might persuade someone?

Anonymous said...

Selena Roberts is perhaps the worst sports writer in the world. She wrote an article on Michael Jordan that was stunning in its complete lack of insight and mean spirited attitude. Maybe she just doesn't like male athletes that go to school in North Carolina. Or men. What are the chances she was a Howell Raines hire?

Steven Horwitz said...

Do head over to the VC to see our old friend Polanski on the prowl on Stuart's post from this evening.

Anonymous said...

KC - the most unbelievable thing about your #19 is not the Herald-Sun editor's conduct and ultimate lack of acknowledgement, rather the conduct of many others in positions of authority and respect (you know who those are) who KNEW this H-S editorial to be patently false and an utter lie. Yet, they did not use their positions to speak out - they said nothing. This non-cooperation myth became the mantra that fueled so many of the MSM to jump on the bandwagon. Silence by many in the face of lies is worse than the initial untruths of a few, and throughout history has been a key enabler for the mob.

KC Johnson said...

Volokh--fortunately--does allow banning of commenters by IP . . .

Debrah said...

Was Polanski banned from Volokh?

LIS!!!

Gary Packwood said...

Duke1965 7:12 said...
...rrhamilton asked,
..."I mean, think of it this way: Let's say my kid comes home and I hear that s/he's been accused of shoplifting. So, I backhand him or her in the mouth, and then almost immediately learn that s/he did no such thing. When's the right time to apologize?"
____________________
Perhaps when you're trying to explain the situation to child protective services..............
::
Which you are paying for with your property tax dollars and we will not even talk about your attorney fees, family court fees, psychological therapy sessions, along with the cost of your weekly serving of crow for the rest of eternity.

Seemed like a good idea at the time?
::
GP

Steven Horwitz said...

and Polanski's been obliterated already :)

no justice, no peace said...

Gregory, inre: "...mutually-assured derision..."

Very nice, though I think some need to be terminated.

Though derision is fun sport, these intellectuals do not lift the human spirit - of any race or gender.

Debrah said...

So, I backhand him or her in the mouth....

LOL!!!

Just take your rings off first.

Ralph Phelan said...

"anonymous said...

To 12:04pm

The story in the Hurled-Scum only proves how stupid these people really are.
This is my favorite quote:

" "Ogburn -- a former director of community affairs for Duke and recent N.C. House candidate-- added that she believes "the last thing" the families of the three players want "is for the evidence to be heard." "

Ogburn is a total idiot"

Not necessarily. She just mightbe playing a different game than you are.

Remove any implicit assumptions of good faith you're making. Do not assume that this is anything meant for your consumption, the consumption of the players' families. Do not assume that the subjects she is talking about are in fact her primary concerns.

Assume instead that the purpose of her words is to help the criminal conspiracy that is Durham city government play for a little more time by winning the next election. Assume that the target audience is not you, but the sort of people who gave Victoria Peterson an endorsement.

Does it still seem so dumb?

Anonymous said...

"Does it still seem so dumb?"

Yes, and evil, too.

rrhamilton said...

Duke1965 said...
rrhamilton asked,

"I mean, think of it this way: Let's say my kid comes home and I hear that s/he's been accused of shoplifting. So, I backhand him or her in the mouth, and then almost immediately learn that s/he did no such thing. When's the right time to apologize?"

____________________

Perhaps when you're trying to explain the situation to child protective services..............

9/19/07 7:12 PM


My question was directed to steven horwitz, not to the weak-minded.

RRH

Michael said...

I don't recall if "poultry" was used in the Duke Lacrosse case but it would surely make for the shortest memorable quote.

rrhamilton said...

Ralph Phelan to Steven Horwitz said...

Don't lump me in with rr on this issue. I'm willing to accept an apology


Are you really to accept an apology and "let that be that"? If so, you're right -- you're not in my lump. I'm willing to accept that an apology could be Step 1 of something like a 12 Step Program of rehabilitation and reconciliation.

Among other steps, I would say make April 6th and/or April 11th student holidays at Duke. Each April 6th could be "Respect for Students Day"; April 11th could be something like "Duke Student Innocence Day". If I were a Duke professor next Spring, I would give my students those days off even before the university announces them as official holidays.

RRH

Anonymous said...


Debrah said...
So, I backhand him or her in the mouth....

LOL!!!

Just take your rings off first.

9/19/07 10:08 PM

Don't worry, Divah, I'm anti-bling anyway.

Btw, in case it wasn't clear -- so many super-sufficiently sensitive souls here -- my point was that I can understand how the 88 could do something stupid in the heat of the moment, like a parent who backhands his kid in a momentary lapse of judgment.

Like ralph, my admiration for Arlie Petters is not less than it is for any professor who did not sign the "What Does A Faculty Disaster" ad. Prof. Petters signed the ad, but almost instantly realized his error and apologized. That's the point I was trying to make about the parent who lashes out in anger -- Everyone does crazy things occasionally; the good people are the ones who quickly realize it and seek to make amends.

RRH

scott said...

This is OT, but I offer it in hopes that at least one dim bulb from Durham reads it.

For the last week, we have had a parade of Durham citizens decrying the audacity of the Laxers for asking for $30M in damages. How outlandish!!! What an outrageous sum of money!!! Blah! Blah! Blah!

In the last couple of days enlightened commenters on this blog have written to say that in this day and age, $30M isn't all that much to be seeking.

Well, here's some perspective. On the way home from work today, I heard on one of the bottom of the hour news breaks on the radio that Dan Rather is suing See BS for $70M (that's right Durham, 70, as in 7-0 million). On what basis? Well, Gunga Dan thinks See BS made him the fall guy for the debacle that forced him into retirement and now he wants payback. Everyone who knows anything about the fake Bush TANG document story knows that Rather was involved in that deal up to his eyebrows, and to this day, he is still insisting the documents were real (paging Lucy Ramirez), so unlike the laxers, he is innocent of nothing in the case he is suing over. And he's suing for more than double.

So, Durham, it appears that Dan Rather thinks $30M is chump change. Looks like the laxers are giving you a bargain.

I'm willing to bet Bob Ashley is a big Dan Rather fan. If Dan is successful in his suit, maybe Bob can approach him about providing a bailout for good ol' Durham when their pending tab comes due.

Anonymous said...

Houston Baker wrote about "silent whiteness" in derogation of the lax players. I always thought this was an interesting quote. Is Jesse Jackson decrying the fact that Obama does not sport "loud blackness" in his actions? At thestate.com, it is reported that,

"Jackson sharply criticized presidential hopeful and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for 'acting like he's white' in what Jackson said has been a tepid response to six black juveniles' arrest on attempted-murder charges in Jena, La."

Obama's campaign pointed out that the candidate had issued a statement calling on the Louisiana prosecutor to drop the excessive charges in the case.

Can Obama transcend the PC crap to maintain a sense of justice? I am heartened by his response to the Duke fiasco, and, from what I know about the Jena situation, his call for a reduction of those charges sounds reasonable.

In a few years, nobody will pay attention to the PC economy. The demand will subside, and the supply will have to find some other market.
________________

no justice, no peace: Our campaign of mutually-assured derision marches on! Although I think I want to change the analogy to suggest that we play the part of Switzerland.
_______________

"If you say his name three times in a classroom at midnight, he appears and you die." Whispered story told by cheeba-smoking grad students around campfires. No foolies. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

That is a neat idea about the holiday, RRH!

Debrah said...

TO RRH @ 11:17PM--

Don't worry, I knew you weren't serious.

Yes, Petters is to be commended for realizing his mistake and apologizing.

(And everyone lashes out when they feel tired or overworked...or just frustrated.)

Why....just the other day, I smacked Kitty Diva on the head because she was taking too long in the kitty loo and I had to be somewhere and was really in a hurry.

Impatience is a very big reason I've gone to great lengths not to have children.

LIS!

I like them and they are usually drawn to me....but I also like being able to give them back to their parents.

LOL!!!

Anonymous said...

"My reading of the report of the emergency room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place," Nifong told WRAL on March 29.

Lawyers for lacrosse player David Evans on Thursday questioned how Nifong could make such comments. Duke Hospital did not copy the medical records for prosecutors until March 30, the lawyers said, and police did not pick up the copies until a week later.

Anonymous said...

Nifong has also said "He did not read the report."

Anonymous said...

11:39 Yep!

Penny said...

I heard on one of the bottom of the hour news breaks on the radio that Dan Rather is suing See BS for $70M

I think $30 million is chump change too. The rot that pervades Durham from the DA's office to rogue cops to sheer citizen stupidity in their attitudes and voting patterns is worthy of a punative head tax. This little dump on the map needs kicked and dragged into the 21st century.

It's pretty apparent that change won't happen internally, so a big hit to their wallet just might wake these people up.

Gunga Dan's lawsuit might blow up in his face when CBS counters with how his "fake, but accurate" documents were not up to their standards, not that agenda driven CBS gave a damn at the time. The idiot now has CBS tearing apart his phoney documents in their defense, how stupid is that. Lefties aren't the brightest bulbs on the porch as the Duke faculty demonstrates too.

Anonymous said...

debrah says ...

Impatience is a very big reason I've gone to great lengths not to have children.
(emphasis original, and I'm not even gonna ask)

Divah, this is why one should get married before having kids: Having to deal with one's dumbass spouse teaches one the patience he'll need when the kiddies (with a "d") come along. And I say "spouse" as I'm sure the wives learn patience dealing with the husbands, too.

le Commenter c'est Moi

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
That is a neat idea about the holiday, RRH!

9/19/07 11:34 PM


Thanks Anonymous @ 11:34. I said that if I were a Duke professor, I would give my students those two days off (or one of them, minimum). If I were a Duke student I would urge my professors to give us one or both those days off, and if they didn't, I would write a letter or column in the campus paper to urge a student boycott of classes those days.

RRH.

Anonymous said...

1:52,

I'm the person you replied to. I would like to note three things:

1. If you're the recipient or one or two racist comments on a campus or anywhere, it's easy enough to feel that such remarks are rampant. If your group doesn't make them or isn't victim to them, you assume they aren't rampant.

2. Many of the postings here, in response to these quotes, make me sympathetic to the feelings of minority students. Some of the people who post here are incredibly vicious & think their comments are ok because they're "true."

3. I can also live without comparisons to Hitler, Nazis, and Fascists, but comparisons seem thick on the ground in this case, so her comment fits right in. (See comments on this blog in general.)

Comments taken out of time and place and released into the blogosphere often take on new meanings their makers had never imagined.

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

I can never understand the importance to some people that a lying, immoral person apologizes. It's just one more lie for them to say they are sorry.

Anonymous said...

Professor:

I read your book. It made me angry. My derision towards academia only gets deeper.

That said, this article out today.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070919/COMMENTARY09/109190034

Duke Students may not know American history, but hey I bet they all about AAS pet projects.

Im sure their degrees in "Drivel" will serve society well.

End tenure...Do it now.

Anonymous said...

You know what's really depressing is that KC has done so much stellar work exposing the groupthink attitudes of the Group of 88, and here on his blog, his commentariat are building up the same pattern of groupthink. Anyone daring to suggest anything that even sounds like it's bucking the trend -- even a simple suggestion such as "maybe some of these quotes are more outrageous than others when context is considered" -- is dismissed as a G88 defender or even as a member of the G88 itself (without the slightest shred of evidence, of course.) A healthy intellectual group is able to examine new suggestions; one mired in groupthink views any questioning of the group's current position as an assault which must be coming from an outsider or a traitor to the group. A healthy intellectual group believes in the common points which define them because they can support those points in the fact of such questioning. A group mired in groupthink tries to substitute the wonderfulness of the group for the actual act of supporting their points ("... the obsessives around here have memorized enough timelines and case facts that they can do that analysis in their heads in about thrity seconds, have done so, and found every example indefensible.")

What do I think of the Group of 88? I think their effect is poisonous. I think they are intellectually crippled by their groupthink. But when I look at what caused that groupthink, I see a whole cluster of what are now considered academic disciplines across the nation, with a multi-decade history and with who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people participating. You guys have much less to excuse you; you simply wound up being right about the key issue of the case and you decided that meant you were going to be right about everything in the case.

Anonymous said...

10:27 Gotta agree with you. It is not all posters though, just a few who post constantly. They know who they are and so do we.

Anonymous said...

At the rate some of these posters are going on, soon they will be advocating a National Day of Recognition for Dave, Colin and Reade. Let us rememger the deaths and injuries of those serving in Iraq and all the other wars.

Debrah said...

TO 10:27AM--

A very good show. Wonderful effort you have made in an attempt to seem clever and fair.

Some of us have lived around an academic environment most of our lives. There was no accident or guessing exercise in my conclusions...and I would suspect that most here are similarly familiar with this subject matter.

You act as though the people participating on this blog merely lucked out and chose the right size casket for the Gang of 88.

Not so.

Let me add that the reason so many absolutes exist among the comments here is that the Gritty Duke Gang of 88 and their sad and misguided janissaries are so thoroughly and absolutely wrong with respect to everything they have done in this open and unapologetic démarche against their students.

A metasticizing cancer such as they requires a sure and strong remedy.

No room for ambiguity on this one.

Debrah said...

TO 11:03 AM--

When you post like that, do come out and use your name so that "we can know who you are" as well.

Otherwise you are tedious breath on a mirror.

Anonymous said...

Hey 10:27 - You make a right purty argument about groupthink except you left out pesky little things like facts. Please support any position you might have about the context of K.C. Johnson's quotes. I am waiting to hear how the context was better when 90 years of freedom was at stake.

Hey 11:08 - I don't think the poster who came up with the idea was suggesting a national holiday, just a day that Duke can reflect on how badly it mangled due process and fundamental fairness. If you are so concerned about the Iraqi war, perhaps you should be posting on one of those blogs.

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 8:09 a.m.

It's called "redemption" - and all humans are capable of experiencing redemption upon confession and forgiveness.

Debrah said...

I love to see some of these milquetoast apologists coming out of the woodwork now that they think the worst of this Gang of 88 treacherous and criminal behavior has been swept under the rug.

No one will forget.

They are lucky that the lacrosse players had the funds to hire good lawyers. They are lucky that Duke University paid the bills for their criminality.

They are lucky that their agenda didn't damage three young men as they had planned....although the damage is quite enough.

For if all this had happened as a result of their filthy actions, there would not be a place in the United States where they could find comfort to live.

People everywhere would be treating them like the pariahs they actually are.

mac said...

11:08
Yes, let us memorialize all the dogs Mike Vick tortured and murdered, too. Troll.

10:27
If you think we all agree, and are in lockstep on every issue, you are a bigger idiot than I can describe. There are lots of varied opinions expressed here, some real flame wars. We all agree about one thing, though: the 88 attacked their students and violated their contracts vis-a-vis the student handbook, and that Duke University did enough to pay a settlement.

We also all agree tha Nifong was convicted, and served time, and that he was disbarred.

We also agree that a state investigation found the students completely innocent of any crime on the night in question.

We also agree that there was a rush to judgment on the part of Wendy Murphy, John Feinstein, Nancy Grace, Bob Ashley and many others in the media.

We all agree that the NC NAACP kept it's website unchanged for a long, long time, a website that claimed that a rape occured, and that the young men who were charged were the perpetrators. We also agree - perhaps unanimously - that the NC NAACP slandered and libelled these young men by not changing the website in a timely manner, and that they appeared either racist, ignorant or all of the above by failing to be responsive to the truth.

We also agree that the evidence was not given to the defense as-ordered, and that the defense attorneys for the accused students capably defended the students.

Yup. We're all in lockstep.
Which of those things do you disagree?

Anonymous said...

10:27 a.m.

...KC has done so much stellar work exposing the groupthink attitudes of the Group of 88, and here on his blog, his commentariat are building up the same pattern of groupthink.

In my year or so of observation, the group that comments here is anything but in lockstep.

11:03 a.m.

10:27 Gotta agree with you. It is not all posters though, just a few who post constantly. They know who they are and so do we.

Especially the "regulars." I've never read a more colorfully diverse group of opinonators (neologism courtesy of the angry studies stylebook) at any other blog. You can almost pair them off against each other: Horwitz vs. RRH, Debrah vs. the Acephalous guy (and Horwitz and et. al.), the Polish director (RIP) vs. everybody, Inman vs. well, even himself sometimes, and one could go on. Sometimes these posters agree with one or another, about as often not, and all have disagreed with KC at various times.

Ironically enough, it's the commenters who characterize these threads as "groupthink" who all sound alike.

Anonymous said...

10:27 & 11:03,

I also agree and I wonder what makes it so? Why can't someone agree with some, but not all, of KC's assertions without being attacked by some of the other posters?

Anonymous said...

6:31 AM--
I'm 1:52. Point(s) taken. A few more specific thoughts:

1.) I'm sure you are right on this as a general matter, though I could argue about the exact meaning of "rampant" (which to me means more than "common," closer to "constant"). But Davidson's claim was much more specific: "The insults, at that time, were rampant. It was as if defending David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann necessitated reverting to pernicious stereotypes about African-Americans, especially poor black women." The clear implication is not just that some people had experienced racist remarks, either recently or generally, but that there was a widespread atmosphere on campus of vocal and openly racist support for the lacrosse players (interestingly, she names Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann even though none of these players had been charged when the ad was published). That's just not so.

What public support the lacrosse team received at this point, before indictments came down, was mostly of the "let's wait and see, innocent until proven guilty" variety, with some of the people who actually knew the team members quietly expressing doubt that any rape occurred. In fact, a far more noticeable phenomenon on campus was vocal harassment of lacrosse team members--and at least one white male student who was not on the team but happened to be wearing a high school lacrosse t-shirt--with shouts of "confess!" "why won't you tell what you know?" and similar remarks. Ms. Davidson, not herself a member of a racial minority, surely should have been able to notice this as well as any perceived racist remarks.

2. Yes--I agree with you on this one.

3. Fair enough--there is a bit of the pot and the kettle here, and Wendy Murphy is a particular object of bilious and derogatory commentary. But her initial remark (as we apparently both agree) was at least dumb, and I might argue that people who voluntarily choose to become "colorful" media personalities assume the risk of "colorful" response.

Cheers back at you.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 11:03 said...

...10:27 Gotta agree with you. It is not all posters though, just a few who post constantly. They know who they are and so do we.
::
11:03 and 10:27 Do you have suggestions for us and ...who is we?
::
GP

Duke1965 said...

10:27,

I agree with you...... for at least a few of the commenters on this blog, any deviation from the established point of view will be dealt with summarily in a very crude way. It's sad, because these crude and often childish posts (probably unwittingly) give ammunition to KC's detractors.

Here's an example of one of the crude comments, posted in response to a very polite (I thought) comment by a person who identified himself as "Jared", a current Duke student:

"Stuff it, you little self-righteous turd. Maybe when you get out into the real world for about a decade, you'll understand the irreparable damage your 88 professors do to students everyday.
I have no doubt that some of them do nice things and they don't beat their children, but what they have done and what they continue to do is leave a cancer inside the young minds that are being molded for the future.
Signing onto that ad and not also being a human turd would require those nice ones whom you admire to also plead stupidity, for that's what they are. Stupid on all matters of life that count.
Best of luck, Jared. You'll need it."

Very sad. I'll be happy to post the comment from the Duke student that provoked the above quote. By the way, the Duke student wasn't by any stretch a supporter of the actions of the 88 professors.

Anonymous said...

No Gary - No suggestions. KC if out of here soon - unfortunately. If you do not know who "we" is, you are not part of the "we".

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 11:24 said...
...No Gary - No suggestions. KC if out of here soon - unfortunately. If you do not know who "we" is, you are not part of the "we".
::
Well, that is a fact. I have no understanding of the anonymous and royal 'we'.

So it goes.
::
GP

no justice, no peace said...

10:27 So the blog posters are more like the Klan of 88 than the Klan of 88? And since the Klan of 88 are more like Archie Bunker, than Archie Bunker that would make blog posters more like Archie Bunker than Archie Bunker? That is rich.

One would never imagine that enough Boca Chica Butt weed existed in Durham to soften ones thinking so much.

A very poor defense of the indefensible.

Blaming the deplorable action/inaction of so, so many pathetic people on blog posters...

It is so very clear that much more light need be delivered.

Ralph Phelan said...

Anonymous troll 10:27, 11:03 & 9/20/07 12:57 said...

"Why can't someone agree with some, but not all, of KC's assertions without being attacked by some of the other posters?"

I basically called KC a statistical illiterate and nobody attacked me for it.

Anonymous said...

"Which of those things do you disagree?"

Absolutely none of them.

Which is what makes the shrill hysterical accusations, talking about "you on the faculty" and addressing me by the label "Potbanger", based on no more than the simple question of whether maybe accurately ranking these questions by outrageousness would require taking context into account, pretty damning evidence of groupthink.

Anonymous said...

Ralph Phelan said...

Anonymous troll 10:27, 11:03 & 9/20/07 12:57 said...

"Why can't someone agree with some, but not all, of KC's assertions without being attacked by some of the other posters?"

I basically called KC a statistical illiterate and nobody attacked me for it.

DITTO. I have questioned the usefulness of the Group Profiles and was able to engage in intelligent and polite discourse with other posters, i.e., to potbanging or name calling.

mac said...

Duke 1965
Where blog did that quote appear? I don't recall it on DIW.

If it isn't, why are you not honest enough to say so?

Anonymous said...

"You make a right purty argument about groupthink except you left out pesky little things like facts. Please support any position you might have about the context of K.C. Johnson's quotes. I am waiting to hear how the context was better when 90 years of freedom was at stake."

Debrah, Debrah, the facts are all over this page. The fact is that I am not a potbanger or a supporter of the Group of 88 and yet all it took for me to be labelled and dismissed as one was to suggest that perhaps quotes like Nifong's "one would wonder why one needs an attorney" and Chan Hall's statement that the players should be prosecuted "whether it happened or not" occupy a level of outrageousness above some of the other quotes. Some of these quotes can be explained by ignorance of the facts. Others, like Chan Hall (how on earth did he not make the list anywhere?!) cannot be explained except by a complete contempt for the whole concept of justice.

There are two responses to that. One is reasonable: the simple acknowledgement that, yes, some of these quotes are more outrageous than others. One is inherently ridiculous: a fervid self-righteous surety that every one of these quotes is more outrageous than all the rest, because to believe otherwise is to believe that some of these quotes do not occupy the peak of outrageousness, and to believe that any of these quotes are not the most outrageous thing ever is to let all of the G88 off the hook entirely, and so on ad infinitum. Among reasonable people, the flaws of such an attitude are neon glaring. Only among a group that is succumbing to groupthink can it get adopted as a loyalty oath.

mac said...

10:25
I agree with you that Chan Hall's comment should be included, and certainly placed in the top-10, along with Nifong's comment (#18)about the purposes that attorneys serve (defending only the guilty.)

We all have our own opinions about what's top-10 material.

So much for groupthink.

Debrah said...

TO 10:25AM--

Please don't use a quote from someone else....and then address me.

Go back and read the thread before posting.

That quote was not from me. I don't use words like "purty"...although I think it is supposed to reference dialogue from the old classic film "Deliverance".

mac said...

8:54
I never called you a "potbanger."
You're lumping me in with someone else.

I guess you're doing a form of "groupthink" of your own?
(as in: "they all look alike to me?")

Duke1965 said...

mac @ 10:14:

Do you really think I would make up something like that? Disagree with me if you like, that's what this comment section is for.... but why do you need to start this discussion by questioning my honesty? Something's very wrong here...........

Anyway, here's the link:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/06/nifong-politics-and-press_20.html

mac said...

Duke 1965:
I apologize.

For those in the 88 that are wondering how that was done, please follow these instructions.

Write "I." Then write "A-P-O-L-O-G-I-Z-E."

But I actually mean it. Shouldn'ta questioned your honesty. I AM sorry.

Anonymous said...

Personally I found the "Group Profiles" to be a lot of "inside baseball" kind of stuff -- of far more interest to faculty-types like KC than to we in the great unwashed mass.

This is not to say I didn't find them interesting, just that I'm sure I didn't find them as compelling (or disturbing) to read as professors did.

R.R. Hamilton

Duke1965 said...

mac,

Apology accepted..... :)

I do think it will be a cold day before the 88 apologize for anything...... inside their little bubble-culture, that would be treason. My guess is, though, that despite their public rhetoric, many of them have had one of those "Oh Shit!" moments, upon realizing the real-world boundaries of their particular culture. It's one thing to have Houston Baker at a radical-chic dinner party, but something else entirely to have him influencing university policy. Many commenters here have (rightly, I think) criticized the Duke Administration for not supporting due process for their students. If the Administration had followed Baker's lead (expell all the players, eliminate the lacrosse team, etc.), there would have been a "social disaster" that would have made your head spin!!

I'm hopeful that Broadhead's successor will make those boundaries perfectly clear....... while some might argue that a "containment" policy is simply appeasement, I don't think it's possible to quickly remove this culture from academia....... as others have noted, it's much too entrenched across the country.... and Draconian measures such as eliminating tenure and academic freedom, might well bring in a whole new set of problems.

Anonymous said...

11:22AM I am concerned with the soldiers and marines who have died or been horribly injured in Iraq and other wars. That was very clear.
Bob Steele is "getting right on the Duke Day of Reflection." Duke or the BOT does not care about anyone's opinion but their own.
Troll, idiot and moron are three favorite words in the groupthink.