Friday, October 26, 2007

Updates: Burness, Group in the News

A first-rate editorial from the Chronicle on John Burness’ retirement; as usual, the editorial page hits all the right points. Elliot Wolf offers his personal reflections on the op-ed page. Both columns are worth reading in full.

Several Group of 88 members are back in the news, providing concrete examples what Group defender Prasad Kasibhatla has termed the “mainstream voices of reason” on Duke’s campus.

In a column criticizing Bill Cosby’s critique of black parental culture, Karla Holloway seems to exhibit a belief in “free speech for me, not for thee”: “Instead of addressing how racial biases have hindered our children’s potential,” she writes, “Cosby’s exhortations solidify the association between race and achievement. I think it is time for us to hear less from America’s favorite father.”

(Holloway also classifies Cosby as “a very angry man.” Based on her conduct in the last 18 months, it’s a little hypocritical for her to be dismissing anyone else as “angry.”)

Meanwhile, in a Duke News Service press release noticed by Jon Ham at Right Angles, AAAS professor Anne-Marie Makhulu speaks about her area of scholarly expertise—witchcraft:

“When people say they believe in magical forces, they believe in magic that can make the world equal and just in circumstances where it’s not,” Makhulu said. For some, “witchcraft is about recuperating what is ethical, just and moral.”

“We need enchantment in our lives because our world has become disenchanted,” Makhulu said. “We need faith that promises something bigger and better than what we have.”

Of course, Makhulu has every right to her political belief that “our world has become disenchanted.” But professors need to be wary of allowing their political agenda to shape how they approach their area of scholarly expertise.

And, from the archives, a DIW reader noted a 2001 profile of Houston Baker—a figure who, wrote Emily Eakin of the New York Times, had “a full-time assistant, a plush office and the ear of deans and administrators. And yet, as Mr. Baker sees it, in some ways he has more in common with the black inmates in America’s jails than he does with his white colleagues down the hall. In his new book, Turning South Again: Rethinking Modernism/Rereading Booker T. (Duke University Press [of course]), he elaborates his view that to be a black American - no matter how successful or well off - amounts to a kind of prison sentence.”

Finally, some interesting comments from Cal fullback Zach Smith, who transferred to Cal from Duke. He recalled events from spring 2006. “I had friends on the men’s and women’s lacrosse teams, and as everything transpired, I’d get calls from them about the pressure they were feeling. Some people had their cars keyed if they had a lacrosse bumper sticker on it. All of the players were demonized.” It’s worth remembering that Group of 88 member Cathy Davidson has justified the statement by citing the myriad, but never-disclosed, defenders of the team in time of which Smith spoke.

And Smith provided a poignant, if accurate, summary: “I think a small part of the public understands (the seriousness of what happened) and those closest to the university know. But most people don’t understand the impact. Those guys had to leave school. They had to postpone their educations and not play sports. Reade Seligmann’s a good friend of mine. His girlfriend was at school, but he wasn’t allowed to be around campus. Anytime somebody’s accused of something there’s always going to be some doubt, regardless of what the outcome is. They’re always going to be known as the accused lacrosse players, and it’s something they’ll have to carry around a long time.

214 comments:

1 – 200 of 214   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Is Holloway a Communist?

Anonymous said...

I think it is time for us to hear less from Karla Holloway. Only she could take Drs. Cosby's and Pouissant's benevolent message to the black community about the importance of strong families and personal responsibility, and characterize it as motivated by racial animus and disparagement. Ironically, Holloway criticizes Cosby and Pouissant for casting their message in terms of race, yet Holloway herself has made a career (literally) out of casting everything in terms of race -- with blacks as perpetual victims who can never hope to achieve their full potential because of racism. Cosby and Pouissant reject Holloway's pessimistic and condescending view of black Americans as incapable of overcoming obstacles to achievement such as racism. Cosby and Pouissant don't pretend that racism doesn't exist, but they encourage blacks not to use it as an excuse not to try to achieve. I can understand why someone like Holloway would feel so threatened by such a message.

Anonymous said...

If Houston Baker thinks life as a black American is so brutal, I suggest that he spend a few years living as a black African in Africa. It will give him a whole new perspective on what oppression and hardship really mean.

Shouting Thomas said...

As the posting so ably demonstrates, this whole affair is, indeed, only about who gets the swag.

Screaming racism gets you money, position, power and a nice office in academia. Holloway and Baker aren't going to abandon the crazy behavior that puts money and goodies in their pocket.

Holloway, given her personal circumstances (her son in prison), would seem to be the last person on earth to be talking about these things.

I actually read Holloway's article. She can't write a coherent essay. I'd argue with what she had to say... but I'll be damned if I know what that might be. And, she's a professor at Duke. Such is the power of corruption created by the sexual and racial quota system.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:56,

That is the best paragraph I have ever read on race.

Mike S

Anonymous said...

For Holloway, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton it apparently pays better to be a victim.

TombZ

Ralph Phelan said...

Sorry to get personal, but performance does matter even if the sample size is small. Or at least it should. Holloway seems to live in an intellectual world totally free of accountability in any form or context.

Cosby raised a son who was murdered by a black man.
Holloway raised a black man who became a murderer.
When Cosby talks about the raising of black children, for Holloway to do anything other than shut up and listen is astonishing.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Some people had their cars keyed if they had a lacrosse bumper sticker on it."

Someone should collect the stories of petty and not-so-petty harrassment. They're part of the evidence that something at Duke is seriously wrong.

don t. said...

Anonymous 6:56

Beautiful, absolutely beautiful!! If you are not a professor at Duke, you should be. On second thought, you are obviously intelligent...thus totally unqualified.

As for k. hallway, it is not clear to me why we continue to acknowledge skags like her. They are like 7 year-olds who will say anything to get attention.

Skag by the way, ms. hallway, is not a racial term. It means "worthless protoplasm" when applied to any color.

trinity60

Anonymous said...

Only Holloway would argue with the position of a successful, black man (woops, we shouldn't reference him as black because he's successful, according to Holloway) who has championed the family as the core of success. Cosby's television show promoted family values as does his personal life, including the tragic loss of his son. (Another uh-huh moment - Cosby's son was a kind, respectful young man hideously murdered by someone who was not unlike Holloway's son, who hideously murdered and raped people and was ultimately killed in a jailbreak) Yes, Cosby is a flawed human being, but his message is invaluable. His co-author, Alvin Toussaint, a well-respected Harvard psychology professor, sees the lack of sustained family as problematic for blacks wanting to succeed on their own terms in this country.

Oh, the irony. Holloway criticizes family values, sees Cosby's position as a diss to blacks (hmmm, that fits the victimization rap much better), and that blacks shouldn't be seen as black, but just another group of human beings.

Oh well, in baseball parlance we just say "That's Karla, being Karla" (apologies to Manny Fernandez, who whilst being "Manny being Manny", has also been great an outstanding ballplayer).

miramar said...

I am glad to know that “witchcraft is about recuperating what is ethical, just and moral.” If so, I would say that the G88 needs to turn itself into to a coven to see if it can attain these admirable qualities, none of which it currently possesses.

No wonder my daughter looks at the G88 list before choosing her classes.

Finally, if Professor Baker thinks that (I would assume) a $200,000+ salary, a plush office, and an assistant is somehow similar to a jail sentence, he ought to try being a professor in an underfunded state university. I would guess he would find my job more like spending time in the gulag. Talk about an angry man.

If these professors are so concerned about privilege, they need to look in the mirror.

Amber G. said...

>>>Mr. Baker sees it, in some ways he has more in common with the black inmates in America’s jails than he does with his white colleagues down the hall.
>>>
That is because Mr Baker is judged by the contents of his character rather than the color of his skin.

Anonymous said...

I believe Ms Holloway's son was convicted of murder. Enough said.

W. R. Chambers said...

The Chronicle's editorial about Burness is superb: well-written, interesting, balanced and effective.

scott said...

Karla Holloway writes:

“Instead of addressing how racial biases have hindered our children’s potential,” she writes, “Cosby’s exhortations solidify the association between race and achievement."


What horsepuckey!

As long as Holloway and her crowd keep blaming "whitey" for the hinderance of black children's potential, they will continue to be hindered. She and her fellow race pimps are black people's own worst enemy, but it's just easier for them to blame someone else than it is to assume some responsibility to overcome the hinderance.

Cosby's message is completely devoid of any association between race and achievement. If Holloway would open her eyes and ears for just a few minutes, maybe she could understand what Cosby is really saying is that anyone of any race can achieve more success if they follow a few simple rules in living their life. Simple rules like be a father to your children and get a job that isn't a hustle.

Blacks that cover the political spectrum from Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice to Harold Ford (from Tennessee)and Barack Obama, and Cosby himself, don't subscribe to the ideas embraced by gangsta rap and the 'hood, and guess what, they are enjoying achievement and success.

Duke should be deeply ashamed that it calls Holloway a member of its faculty. She has nothing of value to offer anyone.

traveler said...

DRAGnet acts out political activism
By: Joshua Kazdin
Issue date: 9/27/04 Section: News
Last update: 1/18/06 at 11:36 AM EST

“This past Thursday and Friday, several professors were spotted running around campus dressed from head to toe like drag queens.”
-------------------------

Even the mental image of this needs : “Warning, this image could be hazardous to your mental health.” or “ Beware: Nelson and Lubiano at LARGE”
-----------------------

http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/paper884/news/2004/09/27/News/Dragnet.Acts.Out.Political.Activism-1471312.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I think it is time for us to hear less from Karla Holloway. Only she could take Drs. Cosby's and Pouissant's benevolent message to the black community about the importance of strong families and personal responsibility, and characterize it as motivated by racial animus and disparagement. Ironically, Holloway criticizes Cosby and Pouissant for casting their message in terms of race, yet Holloway herself has made a career (literally) out of casting everything in terms of race -- with blacks as perpetual victims who can never hope to achieve their full potential because of racism. Cosby and Pouissant reject Holloway's pessimistic and condescending view of black Americans as incapable of overcoming obstacles to achievement such as racism. Cosby and Pouissant don't pretend that racism doesn't exist, but they encourage blacks not to use it as an excuse not to try to achieve. I can understand why someone like Holloway would feel so threatened by such a message.

10/26/07 6:56 AM

Anonymous at 6:56 AM said it all at a very early hour. Well done! I would only add that Holloway, in the following quote was being less than truthful about her views with her audience:

"It is as easy as it is foolish to make race matter."

I would also agree that Professor Holloway cannot write an entirely readable essay. She can be transparent when she wants to be, but when she wants to disguise a weak argument, she resorts to indeciperability. For example:

"When, for example, Cosby tells stories of how studious and responsible black children are teased by peers and accused of "acting white," he validates the associations made by those who do not consider the charge a specious association. Because he fails to critique the presumption of this insult, he solidifies the ridiculous notion that education, poise, standard grammar and ambition are properties of a particular racial identity."

Holloway is not writing in a scholarly journal, so she ends up showing little care for her audience.

Search for Meaning said...

Many people face hardships at sometimes in their life. I get the impression that some of the 88 believe that if you are white, male and heterosexual you are free from any pain or injustice in your life. However we can have family difficulties, bad bosses and health and financial problem but we just can’t give the reason as racism.

Debrah said...

The Chronicle editorial was excellent:

".....Burness is the first top administrator who predates Brodhead's arrival at Duke to step down, and so the next few months will be in many ways a litmus test for Brodhead post-lacrosse.

All eyes will now turn to the president to see how he responds to the departure of and selection of a new head of University communications. Indeed, it will certainly be a telling few months ahead."


This seems to mirror KC's previous remarks on the issue....which I like.

Debrah said...

With all due respect to Elliot Wolf, his "assessment" as one individual matters little.

Moreover, from this column, it seems most of his time has been spent schmoozing with the very people in the city of Durham and at NCCU who forcefully tried to perpetuate the Hoax which would have sent his former innocent classmates to prison for about three decades.

Perhaps as an alternative, Wolf would have been served better by just sending Burness a dozen roses or taking him out to a good vegetarian, low-caloric meal at Magnolia Grill.

This column is not great for public consumption....given all that has gone down at Duke for the last year and a half....under the nose of Burness.

As an analogy: I liked Michael Peterson very much as an acquaintance. He was always witty, intelligent, and very complimentary to the Diva.

However, that does not mitigate his flaws and the fact that he was convicted of killing his wife.

I dare think anyone is interested in my personal opinion of him....just because in our conversations he was always so nice.

Steven Horwitz said...

From an email from the President of Tulane, Scott Cowen, to the campus, after a recent talk by Ann Coulter (there are good presidents around):

On Monday, a Tulane
student group invited a particularly controversial speaker
to campus. As a general principle, I have no regard for
people who engage in hate speech, are intolerant and
dismissive of opposing views or advocate views not based on
any credible evidence.

Yet, putting aside my personal views about the value of this
week's event, I strongly defend the right of the Tulane
student group to extend the invitation and the right of
their guest to speak on campus, especially since the speaker
permitted open questioning from the audience. The resulting
interchange provided an opportunity for counterviews to be
considered, which often leads to enhanced learning.

Free speech is at the core of democracy and must be
preserved at all costs despite the fact that at times it
makes us uncomfortable or even outraged. However, think for
a moment of the alternative. In my mind, it is not a
desirable place to be.

traveler said...

A GUY MAROONED IN WOMEN’S STUDIES

Now where is the Anonymous poster who opined that D-I-W does not meet the humor of the Daily Show? I laughed out loud while reading this article. The picture is priceless, you will recognize that “I’m hiding behind my eyeballs" stare. He wrote this in 2000, but if anything, conditions for him would be even more caustic now. I can’t capture his humor is just a few excerpts.
------------------------------------------
where angels fear to tread: A guy marooned in women’s studies-
-graduate student in classical studies at Duke University-

By: Eric Adler

Excerpts:
I gleaned a feature of women’s studies classes as yet undetected by their critics – something I like to call the "women’s studies nod.”

…On the contrary, the class appeared to be a combination of Romper Room and an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.

And the nods proved to be an almost universally appropriate response to classroom banter. When a student bemoaned the evils of patriarchy, the class responded with a round of "women’s studies nods." When the professor hastily employed the phrase "subaltern counter-public," the students – as if they knew what that meant – offered another series of affirming nods.

Chicana lesbian feminist Gloria Anzaldua, for instance, opined that " [Catholicism] and other institutionalized religions impoverish all life, beauty, pleasure.

Her colleague Cherie Moraga, in one of her more subtle poetic efforts, noted: "I hate white people"; elsewhere in her oeuvre she hoped for the dissolution of the United States, castigated "Anglo misogynist culture" for its "rape" of minorities, denounced the " ‘advances’ of Western ‘civilization,’ " and related her dreams of killing white men.

Encouraged by the administrator who insisted that there was no "party line," I began to voice my critiques of the demonizations in our feminist texts ....

Eric Adler is a Ph.D. candidate in classical studies at Duke University.
http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000432.html

Debrah said...

All this talk about KC being in the "epilogue stage" of his blog has given me the blues.

Serious Diva blues!

After reading some of that yesterday---always from those who are hoping KC's popularity and power will diminish as a result--- I even had a dream about it last night.

(In the interest of fora decorum, I won't give details of the Diva dream.)

It's raining really hard today and when I was out this morning, I almost started to cry again.

Weepy Diva tears.

KC, how do you stop with Wonderland?

You can't! It will be like a death!

But most of all, it will make too many detractors very happy.

Diva nightmares conquering

Anonymous said...

To take a complete "holistic" approach to any critical thinking problem, will it now require us to consider the situation from a witch's perspective? On another note, what can we possibly make of this:

“We need enchantment in our lives because our world has become disenchanted,” Makhulu said. “We need faith that promises something bigger and better than what we have.”

So, witchcraft is the basket in which I want to put my faith? As a fervent astrologist, I would disagree and suggest that people instead place their faith in whatever the position of Venus is in in comparision to the Earth. Doesn't that make more sense?

traveler said...

QUESTION:

Does Duke have tax-free status? If the majority of the faculty are liberal Democrats, and some are actively engaging in political rhetoric, would that not jeopardize their tax-free status? Maybe Duke is like NPR, and espouse freedom of speech, as long as it comes out of the LEFT side of your mouth.

no justice, no peace said...

Duke Senior Stories 2007 - Profiles in Engagement.

I'm sure each of the following students are talented and each are commended for taking action to make the world better in their own way.

There are two or three I might consider hiring. I'll let others judge the tone and framing of the marketing piece.

The girl who is involved with children who have cancer sits at the right hand of God.

It may or may not surprise them in later years to discover what is important to employers. I expect some may end up in graduate programs or law school.

Much, if not all, of the profiled student endeavors should not require a $200,000 education. My children at an early age have done as much charity work through their church and the Boy Scouts.

The marketing piece is produced by the Duke University Student Affairs office and as mentioned before the cover conveys a message that Duke students are learned in both the hard sciences and classical music. That is misleading.

The following are excerpts from the profiles.

They do provide some level of transparency regarding what a student might expect and what the tuition is supporting.

I think I probably paid for this piece through my childs application fee...


1. “…channeling her love of teaching into a position in Harlem.”
2. “…co-founded …an after-school engagement program for local youth.”
3. “..co-directed the … Project to help fight poverty in a Kenyan Village.”
4. “…says service-learning experience defined who she is. She plans to teach dance in New Zealand before moving to Costa Rica.”
5. “…says leadership is “about finding a niche, identifying what needs to get done and doing it.”
6. “…hopes to one day open a free of subsidized hospital for individuals in desperate need.”
7. “…worked locally in a Durham mentoring program and globally constructing homes in Vietnam for war-torn families.”
8. “…co-founded …a community service network that paired students with opportunities worldwide.”
9. “…will channel his talent for listening, reflecting and introducing ideas in a community setting into a career in journalism.”
10. “Creator of a pen-pal network for cancer survivors (children)…her book of human courage was recently published…” and “…became a disciplinary advisor to help students negotiate Duke’s judicial system…” “Her research took her beyond learning to advocacy.”
11. “…returned to Africa to work as a public health intern with Ugandan families taking part in new HIV drug trials…”
12. “Duke taught me to synthesize a lot of varied knowledge to see common themes in global problems …was part of the team organizing Duke’s Hunger Banquet to show how a miniscule portion of the worlds population consumes the majority of resources…”
13. “…she identified with the alienation and sense of otherness that comes with being an immigrant or minority…will take her to South Korea to enact a relationship building program for North Korean growth…co-founded …for North Korea an organization to raise awareness about North Korea and it’s people….”
14. “…following a teaching stint in the Marshall Islands, student government leader and published researcher (peer reviewed journal)…will enter law school…served on Duke’s Board of Trustees…”
15. “…satirist and advocate…Given Duke’s reputation for stellar academics…” “…and English and cultural anthropology major…most …research projects revolve around Durham organizations or things that have been important to Durham…active in programs through the Duke Women’s Center and the Center for Lesbian, Gay , Bisexual and Transgender Life…initially feared she wouldn’t fit in at Duke…”
16. “…the guy to go to for answers for first-year Duke students whom he challenged to “start something…will spend the next two years teaching high school biology through Teach for America.”
17. “…helped launch a diversity immersion retreat, managing six house courses related to identity…was born into an ethnically diverse low-income community then by middle school was living in a predominantly white affluent neighborhood…first leap took him to the Center for Race Relations…chaired the Council of Cultural Group Presidents for the positive changes he effected in issues of diversity – race, gender, socioeconomic status and sexuality - he received a William J. Griffith University Service Award.”
18. “…volunteered to teach physical education at an elementary school that had no gym teacher and no equipment…created FLICK – Fencing and Leadership in Carolina Kids – to increase their confidence and self-esteem.”.

Ralph Phelan said...

traveler asked...
"If the majority of the faculty are liberal Democrats, and some are actively engaging in political rhetoric, would that not jeopardize their tax-free status?"

Of course not! (Not like if they were conservative Republicans....)

Don in New Orleans said...

To Professor Horwitz @ 1:04 pm

I attended the Tulane event at which Ann Coulter had been invited to speak. Although I suppose it is commendable of Scott Cowen, Tulane's president, a man whom I admire, to pat Tulane on the back for the commitment to free speech, I would like this audience to know that the packed house of Tulane students booed and jeered the speech from beginning to end. They did not realize that free speech (on their part) fettered the opportunity of others to hear what the speaker might have to offer in the marketplace of ideas. Tulane students yelled at her, shouted her down, said "F*** you" at the top of their lungs, called her "B****," and generally were childishly intolerant. I was ashamed to be associated with Tulane and embarrassed for the institution and the city of New Orleans.

Gary Packwood said...

no justice, no peace 2:25 said...

...17. …helped launch a diversity immersion retreat...
::
'Diversity immersion retreat' is probably shorthand for the old Human Potential and rapid behavioral change 'est' seminars.

Where did he learn to organize and conduct such retreats on the campus of Duke and is that where students are learning to hate highly visible white males?
::
GP

One Spook said...

Anon @ 6:56 writes:

"I think it is time for us to hear less from Karla Holloway. Only she could take Drs. Cosby's and Pouissant's benevolent message to the black community about the importance of strong families and personal responsibility, and characterize it as motivated by racial animus and disparagement."

Outstanding post! My concern is that all of the teaching and scholarship of Holloway et al is that, at the end of the day, it is that their anger (hence: "Angry Studies")simply perpetuates the teaching of hate.

I'm reminded of the words of Rogers and Hammerstein's "You've got to be Carefully Taught" from "South Pacific."

Cable:
You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

One Spook

jeyi said...

Ennis Cosby murder

Ralph Phelan got it wrong on who murdered Cosby's son, Ennis, then 27. It was, in fact, a white man, Mikhail Markhasev, who was an immigrant from Eastern Europe.

All the more power to Cosby Sr. for not sinking into reflexive racism like the execrable Prof. Holloway's

Steven Horwitz said...

To don:

Not a surprise. I'm sure that's exactly what led him to send the email in the first place. And I certainly don't read his email as praising those who treated her rudely. If anything, his criticism of those who make arguments without evidence etc should apply with force to those who interrupted her in that fashion.

It is, however, hard for me to feel sorry for AC when she's been known to give out as nasty as she gets it. She's hardly a role model for respectable serious intellectual discourse.

Gary Packwood said...

traveler 1:07 said...

...A GUY MAROONED IN WOMEN’S STUDIES
...Now where is the Anonymous poster who opined that D-I-W does not meet the humor of the Daily Show? I laughed out loud while reading this article. The picture is priceless, you will recognize that “I’m hiding behind my eyeballs" stare. He wrote this in 2000, but if anything, conditions for him would be even more caustic now. I can't capture his humor is just a few excerpts.
------------------------------------------
...where angels fear to tread: A guy marooned in women’s studies-
-graduate student in classical studies at Duke University-
...By: Eric Adler
...Eric Adler is a Ph.D. candidate in classical studies at Duke University.
...http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000432.html

...Excerpts:

...Her colleague Cherie Moraga, in one of her more subtle poetic efforts, noted: "I hate white people"; elsewhere in her oeuvre she hoped for the dissolution of the United States, castigated "Anglo misogynist culture" for its "rape" of minorities, denounced the " ‘advances’ of Western ‘civilization,’ " and related her dreams of killing white men.
::
I miss the humor and suggest instead that there article referenced her be handed over to the attorneys who represent Dave, Collin, Reade and the Coach.

I think you just uncovered the training ground for those who designed and executed the Duke University lacrosse hoax.
::
GP

xutag77 said...

Karla Holloway writes:

“Instead of addressing how racial biases have hindered our children’s potential,” she writes, “Cosby’s exhortations solidify the association between race and achievement."

She is right. She is just afraid that it proves that the solutions she is advocating don't work.

Anonymous said...

Very relevant lyrics, One Spook!

Anonymous said...

9:25AM:

"(apologies to Manny Fernandez, who whilst being "Manny being Manny", has also been great an outstanding ballplayer)."

Are we actually talking here about John Kerry's, ahem, favorite ballplayer, Manny Ortiz, or perhaps future Hall of Famer Manny Ramirez (as in Red Sox, World Series)?

Sorry, Manny Fernandez with respect to "Manny being Manny" does not compute.

Maybe it's just me!

Anonymous said...

Steven Horwitz said...

From an email from the President of Tulane, Scott Cowen, to the campus, after a recent talk by Ann Coulter (there are good presidents around):

[weaselly little letter omitted]


It's a sad day in America academia that a university president's defense of free speech rights for conservatives is deemed by a professor as deserving of a "Profiles In Courage" comment.

Moreover, when we read "don in new orleans" 2:49 comment about how Pres. Cowen permitted the guest speaker to be treated by his students, we see now that his letter is a rotted fig leaf that fails to cover his lack of manhood.

RRH

Anonymous said...

Actually, what Nifong said was " My reading of the Nurse's report indicates a rape occurred = which we all know was not true. nifong did not read any report nor did the physical exam the Doctor conducted show any thing consistant with rape. Nifong lied but folk still want to believe him.

Anonymous said...

"(In the interest of fora decorum, I won't give details of the Diva dream.)"

Shouldn't that be "forum decorum" or "fora decora"? :)

Latin Studies grads -- your hour has arrived!

RRH

don t. said...

Don in New Orleans

Sounds like all the students who went to Duke after Katrina returned to Tulane with a message. I thought Tulane was better than that. Let's call it "The Duke of the (far) South".

trinity60

Anonymous said...

Don in New Orleans said...
"To Professor Horwitz @ 1:04 pm

I attended the Tulane event at which Ann Coulter had been invited to speak.....Tulane students booed and jeered the speech from beginning to end...said "F*** you" at the top of their lungs, called her "B****," and generally were childishly intolerant. I was ashamed to be associated with Tulane and embarrassed for the institution and the city of New Orleans."

Don, it's a shame things went so poorly at Tulane, and I wonder how much of that boorish behavior stems from leftist faculty brainwashing. So much for tolerance and the free exchange of ideas!

Ann Coulter artfully goes to great lengths to make a point using exagerated rhetoric. I happen to think Ann is awesome, and she has yet to offend me.

Al SharpTongue

haskell said...

"The circumstances of our pride and of our loss were deeply intimate and isolate." -- Holloway

"For some, “witchcraft is about recuperating what is ethical, just and moral.” -- Makhulu

Makhulu must have meant 'recouping'. I have no idea what Holloway meant by 'deeply intimate and isolate'.

Maybe Brodhead should edit these offerings before they are published. These people are college professors?? How sad.

Anonymous said...

I don't know much about Burness's record early on, but he certainly bumbled his duties with the lacrosse case. It seems to me, the true experts/leaders are those that handle the difficult as well as the routine. Isn't the "difficult" where we distinguish the capable from the leaders?

traveler said...

Flashback:

CRITICAL NOIRE
Cosby Redux

by Mark Anthony Neal

I wrote in the “Update: Neal” thead about Mark Neal’s comments concerning Bill Cosby. He sounded ridiculous and childish to me. I think Neal and Holloway must have collaborated on their,” I hate any thoughs but mine pieces.“ Where are the Free Speech folks when you need them?
Holloway Redux - Neal Redux - Spare us please!

http://www.popmatters.com/columns/criticalnoire/020918.shtml

Anonymous said...

I know nothing about Burness's prior history. It must have been acceptable as he was there a long time. I think the job outgrew him -particulary in relationship to the internet and blogs. That can happen to anyone, when we stay too long.

Ralph Phelan said...

Steven Horwitz said...
"From an email from the President of Tulane, Scott Cowen, to the campus, after a recent talk by Ann Coulter (there are good presidents around):"

You're very easily satisfied. I don't want pretty words, I want disciplinary action against people who disrupt and shoult down those they disagree with.

Anonymous said...

Ann Coulter artfully goes to great lengths to make a point using exagerated rhetoric.

Her calling the Lax scandal "Nappy-headed Hoax" was a classic :)

mac said...

"Scholarly expertise - witchcraft."
Makhulu gets paid to promote her religion? And she gets to call it "scholarship?"

Interesting that it's anything-but-Christianity-and-Judaism on many college campuses these days, and even more interesting that people would be more likely to hear the Gospel in prison than in a public school or in a university.

And the campus Priest (who is the campus chaplain) was one of those who wanted to send the innocent young men to jail! What the...?

But then, there are those who want to even keep the Gospel out of prison. So now, they're being exposed to radical Islam? Madness.

I haven't responded to attacks on Creationism (and won't be baited on the topic,) on the Gospel and on other related subjects, and I'm not going to use this forum now for those purposes. I'll continue to keep my manners on these things, and not to respond nor react to provocation.

But I will say this: the campus Chaplain was a Hoax enabler, and Makhulu gets paid to proselytize her witchcraft stuff?

Duke Blue Devils, indeed. The devils have to be laughing, all the way to...

no justice, no peace said...

Steven Horwitz, Inre: "...she's been known to give out as nasty as she gets it..."

I think one would be very hard-pressed to find Ann Coulter dropping f-bombs and calling those with opposing ideas a bitch.

Hearing her curse others in a public forum would be akin to three white men raping a black prostitute in a house filled with their team mates.

It would not likely ever happen.

Gary Packwood said...

One Spook 2:55 said...

...My concern is that all of the teaching and scholarship of Holloway et al is that, at the end of the day, it is that their anger (hence: "Angry Studies")simply perpetuates the teaching of hate.
...I'm reminded of the words of Rogers and Hammerstein's "You've got to be Carefully Taught" from "South Pacific."
::
Great comment and if I might add...If your teaching area does not 'break even' you need to be careful what you teach.

Battle Over Use of Donor Gift Could Cost Princeton $1.5 Billion
http://www.nysun.com/article/65342

Thanks to the heads up from Liestoppers for this link to Princeton's problems. Duke's Board of Trustees should take note.

Crap runs downhill...in this case...from North >> South.
::
GP

traveler said...

Question to law types: Re: Ann Coulter hecklers

What happened to the heckler's veto? Does it still exist? Does it apply to the circumstances our posters described at the Coulter speech? Did it not apply because the University allowed the speech, but was not responsible if the right to free speech was drowned out by dissenters? I am looking for some pro bono advice here.
---------------------------------------------------
“The American Bar Association addressed the threat to free speech from rampant disrupters: "It is the duty of the officials to prevent the threatened disorder instead of timidly yielding to threats."

“A heckler's veto occurs when an acting party's right to freedom of speech is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior. The common example is that of demonstrators (reacting party) causing a speech (given by the acting party) to be terminated in order to preserve the peace.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto

Anonymous said...

Re: 3:26 pm

You must have missed this one:

Cosby on son's death: "Racism in U.S. is responsible"
By Camille O. Cosby, in Worker's World23 Jyly 1998

[Camille O. Cosby wrote a letter called "America taught my son's killer to hate Blacks" that appeared in USA Today on July 8, 1998, right after Mikail Markhasev was convicted for the murder of her son. We reprint excerpts below.]

I believe America taught our son's killer to hate African- Americans. After Mikail Markhasev killed Ennis William Cosby on Jan. 16, 1997, he said to his friends, "I shot a n----r. It's all over the news."

Anonymous said...

Also to 3:26
...the conclusion of Camille Cosby's reflections on her son's murder. Bias get's a bit complicated for you here, doesn't it? Can't quite fit this into your world views.

"Ennis William Cosby was shot and killed in a middle- to upper-middle-income, predominately white community. The misperception immortalized daily by the media and other entities is that crimes are committed in poor neighborhoods inhabited by dark people.

All African Americans, regardless of their educational and economic accomplishments, have been and are at risk in America simply because of their skin colors. Sadly, my family and I experienced that to be one of America's racial truths."

Anonymous said...

Guess who was Dr. Alder's professor. Kim Curtis!

Anonymous said...

Could it be possible that we continue to hear from Karla Holloway because she doesn't care what we think about her? Could it be that she is going on about her career and writing without considering our judgments about her prose, her ability, her talent?
Horrors!! Could it be that she's not paying attention to DIW at all...call out the, um, who? I know, call out the attack ads. We can get her on the basis of her failure as a parent (and forget the other child, that would mess up the seamless argument we've been struggling to compose)
After all, if we can't understand the message--I mean, we are all educated folk here, right? Well then, it must be the messenger's fault. And the nerve of her to have a job that suggests otherwise!
WITWCT?

Anonymous said...

10/26/07 3:08 PM
Steven H.

Oops, the mask slipped just a little there -- I had been taking you for a sort of an impartial "tertium quid" right up to here... now we know that there are some whose opinions are just too far out to be afforded "free speech".

Old US

Anonymous said...

I just read the following news, maybe it's old, but:

"Professor Holloway will be on leave Spring 2008 at Harvard University's DuBois Institute. Her project for this leave is focused on privacy."

Maybe Duke will get lucky and Harvard will lure her away permanently. I suspect she would leave Duke "in a heartbeat."

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 6:00 said...

..."Professor Holloway will be on leave Spring 2008 at Harvard University's DuBois Institute. Her project for this leave is focused on privacy."
::
There is a Duke connection.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., is the W. E. B. Du Bois Professor of the Humanities and the Director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University.

Professor Gates earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in English literature from Clare College at the University of Cambridge, and his B.A. summa cum laude in History from Yale University, where he was a Scholar of the House, in 1973. He became a member of Phi Beta Kappa in his junior year at Yale. Before joining the faculty of Harvard in 1991, he taught at Yale, Cornell, and Duke.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~du_bois/
The picture on this page is stunning.
::
GP

Don in New Orleans said...

While Coulter in her Tulane attempt at speaking relished the role of provocateur, she did not curse at the Tulane students who repeatedly shouted and cursed at her. She did question the average SAT score at Tulane.

traveler said...

Re: AAAS professor Anne-Marie Makhulu speaks about her area of scholarly expertise—witchcraft.

Halloween approaches, her little heart must be atwitter.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:25 NAILED Houston Baker. It's worth going back and reading that one again. Vanderbilt's loss is our (Duke's) gain.

Anonymous said...

to 5:33

The descriptions of the crime I recall suggest that Ennis Cosby's killer was the kind of lowlife punk who was committing a crime of opportunity, having come upon Cosby's broken down car. That Ennis Cosby was black was coincidental. Not that the killer wasn't a racist as well. If Mrs. Cosby followed European soccer, she have known that racism in eastern Europe is considerably worse than it is in the US. The killer was likely a racist as she asserts but was also likley a racist long before he came to this country.

Anonymous said...

Mikail Markasev was a very troubled Russian immigrant as I recall. Anyone who believes Russians (or most any nationality) are free of racial prejudice and require educating in that subject by Americans really should do more research. That said Ennis Cosby's murder was a horrible, horrible thing, and Camille Cosby's lashing out can surely be overlooked.

Houston Baker's profile was most interesting. The remark about Pearl Buck and Virginia Woolf was quite "ill-judged." I wonder why he chose to be so offensive about these two women writers--a little bias evident here perhaps? What was/is he doing teaching English do you suppose? Or perhaps he was trying to counter the heavy criticism Toni Morrison received when she won her Pulitzer.

I think we should take a look at Paul Gilroy's book "Against Race." Sounds pretty appealing.

The incident detailed about Houston Baker's son's experience with the state troopers could help explain Professor Baker's delight in maligning the LAX players and doing what he could to assist the railroading. Payback. Pure speculation, of course. And now Professor Baker fears for his life every day NOT because of the horrific crime perpetrated on his family in Philadelphia by black men but because of the semi-automatic pointed at his son by the state trooper. Perhaps it would make Professor Baker feel better to know that my son's 17 year old friend who is very white had the same thing happen to him in Montana. A policeman attempted to pull him over, and the kid just plain did not hear the siren--the music was too loud. By the time the kid pulled over the policeman jumped out of his car with his weapon (I assume they are all automatic now--but maybe not) drawn and pointed, yelling for the kid to lie face down on the ground. The kid in question could not possibly be sweeter or more innocent of any wrongdoing other than going too fast, but there we are. As with Houston Baker's son, the story had a happy ending, but I can assure you that in my story the father does not now fear for his life on a daily basis as a result.

On Makhulu and her witchcraft...I think she is correct that witchcraft is a major force for setting ethical boundaries at least in Africa and some other parts of the world. According to the NY Times Magazine some time back (yes, I still consider the Magazine a pretty reliable source of information) witchcraft also contributes pretty heavily to the spread of AIDS in Africa, since the witchdoctor is obliged to have intercourse with new widows to expel whatever evil spirit took the life of the husband and enable the widow to carry on with her own life. You can imagine how helpful this is. No doubt Professor Makhulu practices a much more enlightened version of witchcraft--a reformed witchcraft maybe. On the other hand maybe she put a hex on Durham and that could explain the inexplicable behavior in the hoax..a hoax hex as it were...hmmm...I think it is a tenet of witchcraft that if something bad happens, there must be bad witchcraft at work somewhere. More speculation, of course, at least on the hoax hex. Forgive me.

Observer

anon said...

I am somewhat troubled by Burness' admirers. It looks like he spent a tremendous amount of time and effort creating relationships between the university and the Durham community. This was done to try to reduce the anger and jealousy between Duke and the city whose residents perceived students, faculty and the administration as rich white people not deserving of respect. Despite the efforts of Duke and Mr. Burness, as soon as the Durham community was given the opportunity to behave in a reasonable and reciprocal manner trusting Duke would do the right thing, they chose instead to do the "get down on whitey" routine demanding there be a presumption of guilt against the LAX players and completely ignoring the background and character of Mangham. The university could not bring themselves to behave like grown ups and tell Durham that they were out of line. They chose instead to confirm their feelings of guilt by pandering and rendering mea culpa's simply because Duke is wealthy and Durham is not. They should be ashamed as should the Duke faculty and administration. Burness epitomized this despicable attitude and the debacle resulted. It is not anyone's fault that students at Duke are wealthier than residents of Durham and everyone should stop apologizing. Hating people who have more than you is counter productive and divisive and can never be justified. There will always be people who have more money than you. Duke had no business basically acting in an apologenic manner. Success in this country is available to everyone. Hard work is required. As long as the American people are made to be ashamed of success, we are finished as a nation. Duke provided many opportunities to the city of Durham. They, in turn stabbed the university in the back, wanting more and more including an abandonment of justice and a continuation of the demand that Duke pay tribute as punishment for being successful and white. Again, Burness not only defended the outrageous behavior of the Duke administration, he believed in their position and it showed. Duke doesn't get it. Don't be surprised if Burness' replacement is very much like him. Some years ago, a good friend of mine was a finalist for the city manager position in Durham. After much consideration he decided against taking the position due to the dysfunctional situation in Durham. It looks like he made the right decision.

Anonymous said...

Good for Scott Covan - those who disrupt speech in the Hall deserve to be arrested. Picket all you want outside, where the streets belong to the people. Not the hall that belongs to the School. Remember a few months ago when the police arrested a guy for heckeling? The left wing went out of their mind crucfying the cops. We can not let this happen in America - particularly with the terrosit threat.
Holloway going to Harvard? I am not a fan but she can't be that dumb.

One Spook said...

Regarding Steven Horwitz and others' comments on the Coulter speech at Tulane, quoting Tulane's president, Scott Cowen:

"On Monday, a Tulane student group invited a particularly controversial speaker to campus. As a general principle, I have no regard for people who engage in hate speech, are intolerant and
dismissive of opposing views or advocate views not based on any credible evidence." ... "Free speech is at the core of democracy and must be preserved at all costs despite the fact that at times it
makes us uncomfortable or even outraged."


It's quite curious how Cowen invokes the "Lee Bolinger principle" after-the-fact to criticize Coulter no doubt to mollify his own cadre of G-88 types who must have been so "offended" by Coulter's presence at Tulane ... much like those who were upset at Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia.

And thank you, Don in New Orleans who attended the speech, for immediately telling us what actually happened in that Tulane auditorium ... bless the internet! Did anyone hear, see or read Don's viewpoint anywhere in a mainstream media?

Am I the only person who is sick to death of university presidents (Bolinger, Brodhead, Cowen, et al) who gratuitously remind us of their institutions' great benevolence in upholding "free speech?"

A quick look back at elementary school US History reminds us that freedom of speech means that Ralph Phelan, Hamilton (RRH), Mac and I can stand on a public street and proclaim that certain elected officials are race-baiters and crooks and not be arrested by the police and put in jail for that.

Private universities are under no obligation whatsoever to protect "freedom of speech" at all ... their defense of it has more to due with protecting their own assumed privilege of "academic freedom" (NOT in the Bill of Rights) than anything else.

If universities truly observed "Freedom of Speech," there would be no need for groups like FIRE who constantly badger and even sue universities in order to assert students' rights of speech (among other rights) and protection from speech codes, diversity codes, mandatory diversity training, etc. etc. etc.

The problem most folks have with Coulter is that her techniques sometimes resemble those of many on the far, far left and they criticize her while giving a pass to leftists speakers "who engage in hate speech, are intolerant and dismissive of opposing views or advocate views not based on any credible evidence."

And Horwitz adds "It is, however, hard for me to feel sorry for AC when she's been known to give out as nasty as she gets it. She's hardly a role model for respectable serious intellectual discourse."

I'm not asking you to feel sorry for her, Steven (I'm no big fan of Coulter, either)... I'm asking you and the academy to advocate for ALL speakers to be treated with respect (Horowitz, Minutemen, Coulter) regardless of their views, ummm ... actually, just in line with Duke's own Faculty Handbook on that very subject.

If the academy doesn't want to police its own and The People get angry enough, GOVERNMENT will be more than happy to oblige ...

(For Extra Credit on the "Bill of Rights," examine and discuss why those "Rights" we now hold precious were not in the Constitution itself, but were added as Amendments)

One Spook

Anonymous said...

anon @12/26 5:53 PM writes:

...the conclusion of Camille Cosby's reflections on her son's murder. Bias get's a bit complicated for you here, doesn't it? Can't quite fit this into your world views.

I take it that your world view comports with that of a forgivably but obviously distraught and grieving parent who's lost a child: that America teaches Ukrainian immigrants, during the commission of robberies, to kill African-Americans?

Statistics available from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice would indicate otherwise. From 1976 to 2005, white on black homicides have risen from 2% to 3.2% of all homicides commited. From 1976 to 2005, black on white homicides have risen from 6% to 8.8% of all homicides committed, over twice the number of white on black homicides.

Just wondering, does reality fit into your world view?

traveler said...

Re: A first-rate editorial from the Chronicle on John Burness’ retirement.

“John Burness will go down in the books as something like the Brett Favre of college communications.”
---------------------------
I am a die-hard Packers fan. Please, those two names in the same sentence repulses me.
Well, Burness has a masseuse, and Brett has a Massage Therapist, but that does not make them “Birds of a feather.“ In no way are they alike.

I could say Brodhead will go down in the books as something like the Rex Grossman of college administrators.

Geez that ruined my little day!

Anonymous said...

Let me add that in the story about the kid getting pulled over in Montana, the state policeman also called for backup, so not only was the weapon drawn, the offending vehicle was surrounded by police cars.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Go Bears!

Anonymous said...

DEEP THOUGHTS ON RACISM / CODA

Part I of I

A. General Observations

I have never been very keen on racism. It all seems so trivial when compared to the threat posed by left-handed people. So much is not known about lefties. What is scarier than the unknown? Sure, something that is known that is really, really scary may be scarier, like if you saw real-life zombies that can run and drive cars. But, there isn’t much that is scarier than the unknown, and there are just too many unanswered questions about left-handers.

B. It Ain't Right

Why, for God’s sake, do they use the wrong hand to eat and throw baseballs? Those are blasphemous unnatural acts. I know they think they’re “special” and all, but isn’t that the same kind of “special” your mom used when she was referring to your dim cousin?

C. Science Holds the Key

There is no consensus even on how southpaws come to be, nature or nurture, genetics or hormones, or, more probably, some medieval alchemy gone horribly wrong. The very best case scenario is that these folks are mutated humans. Mutants! Now, do I have your attention? If we would start taking this mutant problem a little more seriously like they do in comic books, then maybe our actions and our outrage would be somewhat commensurate with the very real danger posed by left-handers.

D. Crack the Code

It‘s no coincidence that they picked the word “right” for right-handers. I just wish the person who coined these phrases had had a bigger pair and had used the word “wrong” to describe the wrong-handers.

Think about the phrase “out of left field” and how it describes an odd-ball event. The old Latin word for “left” was “sinister.” Did you know that? Another coincidence? Hardly. When your girlfriend dumps you, she hasn’t “righted“ you, no, she has "left" you.

The etymologists left us more clues and codes than you can find in any painting of “The Last Supper.” (By the way, if you carefully study that painting, and if you see only what you want to see, the evidence is clear: Judas was wrong-handed!).

E. Economic Costs

Left-handers are also a huge drag on society. Americans alone must spend tens of hundreds of dollars each year for the chalk to mark the wrong side of the batter’s box. Think of the opportunity cost involved when we have to shut down all of our golf club, pistol, baseball glove and scissor factories and change out the lines so that they can run backwards.

F. Having It Both Ways

For those who are ambidextrous or “switch-hitters,” I say pick an arm. Are you trying to say that one of your hands is going to be kosher, but the other can hold pork? You’re either with us or ag'in us because when that day comes, and brother it will come, I suggest you make the “right” choice.

G. A Call to Arms!

It is about time we started watching our backs around these wrong-handers. They tend to congregate, and when they do, I just know they’re talking about us. But fear not, for one glorious day, we will rise up en masse and “right” this huge wrong.

H. Coda

In the meantime, keep an eye out for those nasty, shifty-eyed Canadians. Why do they seem so happy all the time? It can’t be on account of ice fishing or hockey. It must be because they’ve been riding on our damn coattails for two hundred years. MOO! Gregory
___________

[DISCLOSURE: I did NOT sign the "Clarifying Statement," but I am a self-hating left-hander.]

Gunslinger said...

Responding to Anon 5:38:

"Horrors!! Could it be that she's not paying attention to DIW at all..."

Perhaps not...then again, the ongoing (albeit feeble) attacks on KC from the Gang of 88 and their lackeys would suggest that they are in fact paying attention, Holloway included.

"call out the, um, who? I know, call out the attack ads. We can get her on the basis of her failure as a parent (and forget the other child, that would mess up the seamless argument we've been struggling to compose)"

I take it you think one for two is pretty good...most parents manage to do better than that.

"After all, if we can't understand the message--I mean, we are all educated folk here, right? Well then, it must be the messenger's fault."

Oh, we understand the message all right (Holloway's tortured prose notwithstanding). But you knew that.

Anonymous said...

While we are waiting for Professor Johnson to put up his Monday post from Israel, I thought I'd run up some trial balloons - script ideas for "Saw V." If you haven't seen any of the "Saw" movies, good for you. Neither have I.

My understanding, based on TV commercials and imagination, is that the plots devolve around some wicked character who places innocent folk in sinister Rube Goldberg-like situations in which they have to make life-or-death decisions. In any event, here are my ideas:

FIRST SCRIPT -

"A plate of boysenberries is placed next to a plate of poisonous berries and the hero is forced to eat from one plate or the other, knowing that there is a 50/50 chance he will die or at least need some type of professional medical care. The protaganist, however, has placed a sign above one of the plates that reads either: "DON'T EAT" or "THIS PLATE CONTAINS THE POISONOUS BERRIES." Remember, though, whoever is forcing the hero to eat the berries presumably also wrote the sign. What would you do?"

SECOND SCRIPT -

"You are a Duke University administrator and you have to either risk your job by standing up to a sinister faction of faculty members or passively allow three innocent students to get lynched. What would you do? What WOULD you do?"

I think the second script would make an excellent book AND movie! You have evil, innocence, and a diabolical plan the heroes must somehow narrowly escape. On the other hand, the first script just seems too silly and contrived for my taste. MOO! Gregory

R.R. Hamilton said...

The Anonymouse at 5:38 said, sarcastically....

We can get [Prof. Holloway] on the basis of her failure as a parent (and forget the other child, that would mess up the seamless argument we've been struggling to compose)


The mouse pre-supposes that Prof. Holloway considers her parenting of "Bem" to be a failure. Does she? Has she ever said so? Did she attend the trials?

And as for the "good child", how good is she? She didn't murder any white people (yet)? So that's the standard? What's she done to reach out to the communities that have been victimized by her family members?

Anonymous said...

Duke Chronicle has an excellent explanation of the relationship of DUMC to DUke Health Services, under "AGre to Hopkins".

Debrah said...

(Ruth Rogaski, Vanderbilt University
"A Plague of Vampires: Problems in the Legacy of Japanese Colonial Medicine"
Commentary: Anne-Marie Makhulu, Princeton University)


The above is an excerpt of a worksop at Princeton in 2003 in which, it seems, Makhulu participated.

In googling, only about 3 or 4 pages emerge with her name......and they are almost empty of any information. Very strange.

She is now on salary at Duke and a part of the Franklin Institute?

And anyone would question why the average objective Joe or Jane is concerned about the brand of "diversity" on university campuses?

Seriously, this woman seems to have arisen from the underbelly of a New Orleans voodoo swamp.

Debrah said...

"I mean, we are all educated folk here, right? Well then, it must be the messenger's fault. And the nerve of her to have a job that suggests otherwise!
WITWCT?"


You reveal so much about yourself with the above comment....(apart from the word "folk").

Why would anyone choose to align themselves with someone as demented and damaging--yet accepting and covetous of this country's riches--as one, Karla Holloway?

What the woman stands for, what she has done...and moreover, the infantile and inhumane e-mails she has sent to some Duke lacrosse parents....reveal her to be a most wretched human being.

The fact that she is a bottom-feeder in the academic world among the real scholars only magnifies her indecency.

Carolyn said...

"A first-rate editorial from the Chronicle on John Burness’ retirement; as usual, the editorial page hits all the right points. Elliot Wolf offers his personal reflections on the op-ed page. Both columns are worth reading in full."

KC, I read the same two articles you did - thus I have absolutely NO idea how you could possibly come to the conclusion you did. "First rate...", "hits all the right points", "personal reflections"?????

Those descriptions must be your euphemism for "fourth rate", "lies about the truth" and "sucks up for a job recommendation". This garbage written by the Chronicle and Wolf isn't fit to line a bird cage. (If I tried, the bird would be justified in going for my throat.)

Anonymous said...

The first step in solving a problem is to identify the fact that there is a problem. And there are lots of problems everywhere that have been defined that people work on to improve the situation.

Fixing the problems of the AA community, however, in many ways invalidate the AA studies disclipline that has emerged over recent history. This is a classic case of the needs of the few to continue with their misdirected nonsense from a lofty perch, over the good of the many, who need real and immediate need of leaders to step in.

How about it Oprah - are you make of the same stuff as Bill - or are you too busy counting your stacks. You've made it. You have more respect and money than you can spend in many lifetimes. Give back in a way that makes a difference. ..and I don't mean a free car give away.

Invest by slowly introducing a campaign that gets further into the core problem issues and take a stand against the academic issue that are so obviously flawed and hurtful to AA studies. Redirect them, single handedly if you have to, in ways that matter. Work with Bill - between you two you might actually make a real difference. But only if you genuinely "get it" as well as genuinely care.

And what about the rest of the intellectual blacks in corporate America and government - time to lead folks. You have assimilated and are enjoying the spoils - time to give back - I mean really give back. Thing like Jenna were your father's fight. We are beyond that now. The fight of your generation is with Bill. He is pointing the way. He is trying to fix the one bad element of entitlements that keeps the AA community (and others who feed at the trough of entitlements) in slavery.

mac said...

KC,

I have to agree with Carolyn 2:08 am. Burness is a dip, and the "must-read" articles are a crock. I won't apologize for my opinion of Burness.

Apologize? For what?

Meanwhile, he still has some serious apologizing to do...for real.

KC Johnson said...

A quick note:

Mrs. Cosby's opinions on this matter are off-topic; there's no record of Karla Holloway knowing those opinions or criticizing them.

wayne fontes said...

Anonymous dijo...

If Houston Baker thinks life as a black American is so brutal, I suggest that he spend a few years living as a black African in Africa. It will give him a whole new perspective on what oppression and hardship really mean.

10/26/07 7:02 AM

Keith Richburg's book "Out of Americahumorously explored the topic of an African-American living in Africa. I would recommend it to anybody.

To Anon 4:52 who wrote "I know nothing about Burness's prior history. It must have been acceptable as he was there a long time. I think the job outgrew him -particulary in relationship to the internet and blogs. That can happen to anyone, when we stay too long.

The eyeball test tells me Burness "outgrew the job".

traveler said...

Anonymous said...
Guess who was Dr. Alder's professor. Kim Curtis!
10/26/07 5:36 PM
--------------------------
Wise one--Might you have valuable information to share
concerning Duke’s infamous
Palestine Solidarity Movement
LOCKDOWN
(a.k.a.) Free Hatred Speech Symposium?

The B.& B. boys were in charge of damage control that time too, were they not?

Gary Packwood said...

anon 9:13 said...

...I am somewhat troubled by Burness' admirers. It looks like he spent a tremendous amount of time and effort creating relationships between the university and the Durham community.
::
It is not his job to create relationships between Duke and Durham. That's the President's job.

But I think you are correct. He took on those job responsibilities because the current President and former President didn't want anything to do with Durham or didn't know how to create relationships.

And, he almost drove himself into a frenzy trying to behave as a university president without the authority to do so.

Those executive job descriptions at Duke need to be reviewed and ...soon.
::
GP

traveler said...

G-88 Stalwart Dr. (Say it like it is) Neal

Once again we see the deep subject discussions afforded to college students these enlightened days.

Dr. Neal briefs us on the topics for Northwestern. It just goes to show you can say the “F” word if you parse it just right…er…LEFT.

NewBlackMan
Mark Anthony Neal

Black Performance Studies: A Symposium at Northwestern University

3:45-5:15 Panel 4
Northwestern University
Keynote: Daphne Brooks, Princeton University
“Fucking A”:
Toward A Genealogy of Black Feminist Profanity

http://newblackman.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html

Anonymous said...

Believe me the Group and its enablers are paying attention to this blog. I recall a local university scandal about 15 years ago (before blogs) at a medium-sized institution, like Duke.

I had some insider information. The president of the university came within 1 board vote of being removed from his position as a result of the scandal. Publicly, the president denied any concern about the unfolding story documented by a series of fine articles in the local newspaper. The articles were written by a well-respected reporter who diligently pursued the facts. Ultimately, one of the vice-presidents, and three other high level administrators were fired. The university's reputation was left in tatters. Even privately, the president downplayed concern.

However, someone who was really close to the president confided that the he was reading every article, cutting them out of the paper, measuring the size of each article, and then computing the total area taken by the series in the newspaper.

I wouldn't be surprised someday to find out that someone has computed total area taken by KC's blog as well as his fine book.

By the way, the reporter earned an industry prize for investigative reporting.

Anonymous said...

The mouse pre-supposes that Prof. Holloway considers her parenting of "Bem" to be a failure. Does she? Has she ever said so? Did she attend the trials?

And as for the "good child", how good is she? She didn't murder any white people (yet)? So that's the standard? What's she done to reach out to the communities that have been victimized by her family members?

10/27/07 12:17 AM


What has she done to reach out to the communities her child(ren) have victimized? Exactly nothing (in my estimation--based upon news accounts and other online-based resources). Nothing.

I would guess she doesn't feel the need to reach out to anyone, least of all the families of those her family has harmed, as she views herself and *her* family as the true victims. In her very warped world view, had it not been for the existence of bad ole whitey, her boy never would have killed (white people) and he'd still be alive today.

Like Burness--Holloway stumbles through life with the the "Apologize--for what?" approach.

Holloway (and her ilk) sicken me.

Debrah said...

KC is right. Mrs. Cosby's remarks are unrelated to the work that Bill Cosby is now doing.

And he has never publicly agreed with her opinions after the death of her son; however, in the interest of illumination of what actually occurred, you may read the column here where I have provided a link at the bottom of the page.

Mrs. C

Anonymous said...

I have no desire to defend Holloway's politics, much less her deplorable conduct regarding the lacrosse hoax and its (actual) victims.

But I take exception to the exploitation of her adopted son's criminal history -- it is just a crude smear tactic, masquerading as some kind of point.

None of you know what torment Holloway has endured as a result of her late son's crimes, his public disgrace and his death. Nor do you have any clue to whether her so-called parenting had anything to do with the young man's horrible deeds and the tragic outcome. And your natterings, speculations and accusations about it reflect far more on yourselves, than on her.

I speak as someone who strongly agrees with the core mission, philosophy and purpose of this blog. And I say to all of you, this issue tests your character and your integrity -- and to pass this test, you must be mature and humane enough to walk away from the whole subject.

Sure it is tempting -- damn tempting -- to take cheap shots at Holloway because the central heartbreak of her life was her adopted son and his awful life and death. But it has nothing to do with her politics, or with the lacrosse rape hoax, and you bring disgrace only to yourselves when you dump on her about this particular subject.

Go ahead and dump on her about anything else at all -- but when you start harping on this subject, you only hurt the credibility and reputation of yourself and, by extension, the rest of us here.

Debrah said...

After checking out a few other related blogs the last few days, I see very clearly the battle that KC is up against.

It really frightens me to see that there are so many radical and destructive people who are a part of the academy.

Some will do anything to discredit KC.

Debrah said...

Some H-S letters. It will be interesting to see who they vote for this time around.
*************************************************

Durham split on Nifong

Correction, Bud Cerne [Letters, Oct. 22]. The majority of Durham voters did not vote for Mike Nifong. There was a split, thanks to citizen Lewis Cheek, who took the time to get his name on the ballot, but had no intentions of taking the position. If you add up the percentages of votes received by Cheeks and Steve Monks, they were greater than 50 percent. Had the citizens of Durham united, we may not be facing some of the issues we're facing now.

Beth Nichols
Durham
October 27, 2007

No majority for Nifong

In response to Bud Cerne's letter of Oct. 22: Cerne makes what I'm sure he feels is an accurate assumption when he says the majority of Durham residents choose Mike Nifong for district attorney. However, the following vote tally, easily found with just a couple of minutes of Internet searching, tells a different story:

Primary election: Mike Nifong -- 45 percent; Keith Bishop -- 13 percent; Freda Black -- 42 percent. Total anti-Nifong votes: 55 percent.

General election: Mike Nifong -- 49 percent; Lewis Cheek -- 39 percent (stated he would not serve if elected) Steve Monks -- 12 percent (write-in). Total anti-Nifong votes: 51 percent.

So, in both cases the majority of Durham voters did not vote for Mike Nifong and therefore cannot be blamed for the election of Nifong as our district attorney.

Justin B. Clark
Durham
October 27, 2007

It's Stith's time

We have had enough of Mayor Bill Bell. He gave us the highest taxes in the state. Bell also gave us the poorest roads. If you live in the northern part of Durham, you get the poorest service. All projects were for the inner-city. We do have needs in northern Durham. We have ditches that started out two-feet deep. Now they are 8 feet deep -- thanks to Bell's Engineering Department.

A group was willing to pay for a complete audit of the city budget. But Bell said he would do the audit internally. We never did hear any results from his "famous" audit.

Why is it that every time there is a project going on in the city, he needs consultants?

Then, there is the crime in Durham. Every time there is a big uproar about a murder, Bell hires another consulting firm to resolve the crime in Durham. It's the same old, same old.

I think the Durham residents deserve better. It's time to elect someone who will be more responsive to all residents of Durham -- not just his "friends."

Steve Brosnan
Durham
October 27, 2007

Bell has shown class throughout campaign

We want to thank Mayor Bill Bell for maintaining his poise and character throughout this election year. It has been refreshing. We have appreciated the fact that he stands up for what he believes in and doesn't stoop so low as to trash his opponent. Our home has been inundated with "junk mail" from challenger Thomas Stith's campaign. They're trying their utmost to assassinate the character of Mayor Bell.

In fact, they have used photos that were purposely distorted to gain votes. It is amazing that not once on Stith's mailers does he or his campaign stand on their own strength as to why he should be elected.

Why is that? Mayor Bell has our vote, not only because of his dedication, perserverance and determination, but also because of his ability to remain in a den with lions and not be harmed (Daniel 6:22).

Rick and Beth Phillips
Durham
October 27, 2007

City needs leadership

I have noticed a steady decline in city accountability during Bill Bell's tenure as mayor. Unpermitted city yard waste facility, rising taxes and improper notification of lead in our drinking water. I watched the first mayoral debate. It didn't look like Bell was ready. He looked unprepared, like he just showed up at the last minute. Why exactly should I or anyone else give Bell another term as Durham's mayor? Durham deserves new leadership.

Barbara Green
Durham
October 27, 2007

Anonymous said...

KC:

Re: "the editorial page hits all the right points"

I think it missed a few. Allow me to jog your memory.

This heroic spokesman for Duke was silent during the time the cowardly President refused to even speak to the parents of the accused. The parents, for God's sake! While he was busy with scheduling massages, three of his students were crucified by the Duke staff and fellow students. He did and said nothing.

Hit all the right points? In your dreams, my man, in your dreams.

Ken
Dallas

Gunslinger said...

Anon 12:06 said:

"But I take exception to the exploitation of her adopted son's criminal history -- it is just a crude smear tactic, masquerading as some kind of point."

Although I tend to agree that Holloway's disastrous career as a parent is less germane to this blog than many other topics we've discussed, the fact remains that her racist drumbeat on the subject of "white violence" inevitably invites attention to ...how to put it?... "Holloway family violence."

"And your natterings, speculations and accusations about it reflect far more on yourselves, than on her."

That people will seize an easy opportunity to throw Holloway's hypocrisy into sharp relief really shouldn't come as a shock. That said, I for one will try for more surgical strikes...Holloway's work does present a target-rich environment after all.

luke said...

Endora didn't want to make the world equal and just in circumstances where it’s not. She just wanted to get rid of that damn Derwood.

no justice, no peace said...

"...pestilence will find you, ... just wait..."

The more things change the more they stay the same. One could save $200,000 in tuition and study The Andy Griffith show which spoofed N. Carolinian mysticism...

Barney Fife: Inkem binkem notamus rex, protect us all from the man with the hex...

and,

Barney Fife: Fly away buzzard, fly away crow, way down south where the winds don't blow. Rub your nose and give two winks and save us from this awful jinx.

Inre; Nifong, Brodhead, the abettors...

Andy Taylor: Where can we find this Ernest T. Bass?
Dud Wash: Aww, he's a pestilence and a pestilence will find *you*... you just wait.

Anonymous said...

The Master is back (@10/26 11:19PM), but to him we say:

It's time for us to hear less from this rabid disambiguationist cerebral laterizationist, and we'll thank everyone for not listening!

Celebrate ambidexterity!

[in unison:]
Los manos! izquierdos! shall never be defeated!
Los manos! izquierdos! shall never be defeated!
[repeat ad nauseum]

dave

Gary Packwood said...

Ken (Dallas)1:41 said...

...KC:
...Re: "the editorial page hits all the right points"
...I think it missed a few. Allow me to jog your memory.
...This heroic spokesman for Duke was silent during the time the cowardly President refused to even speak to the parents of the accused. The parents, for God's sake! While he was busy with scheduling massages, three of his students were crucified by the Duke staff and fellow students. He did and said nothing.
..Hit all the right points? In your dreams, my man, in your dreams.
::
Difficult issue apparently.

I was under the impression that the spokesperson for any organization speaks when told to speak...period.

The spokesperson IS silent until s/he is told NOT to be silent.

Is everyone at Duke a free agent?

Is there anyone at Duke who actually understands that they work for and report to someone else?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I have no desire to defend Holloway's politics, much less her deplorable conduct regarding the lacrosse hoax and its (actual) victims.

But I take exception to the exploitation of her adopted son's criminal history -- it is just a crude smear tactic, masquerading as some kind of point.

None of you know what torment Holloway has endured as a result of her late son's crimes blah, blah, blah...


Maybe she should tell us what (if any) "torment she has endured".

Sorry, mouse, your kite won't fly. It's like if Hillary called Laura Bush's husband a womanizing rapist but then we can't talk about Hillary's husband and Juanita Broderick?

Yes, if Karla Holloway had never said a word about other moms' sons being racists and rapists, then I would agree with you. Once she opened her mouth about other women's sons, her own son became fair game -- especially as his life of anti-white crime seemed to be inspired by her philosophy.

R.R. Hamilton

traveler said...

Re: Cosby vs. Karla

Duke Afro-Marxist Group Leader Chastises Bill Cosby

On: digg
“You know it is kind of funny that these idiots would put out there that Bill Cosby doesn't know what he's talking about. As if they are the voice of the black people?

I'll bet that their fan base is nothing compared to that of Cosby.
After reading what KKKKarla wrote I get the distinct impression that she has fewer fans now than before she spoke up.”

http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Duke_Afro_Marxist_Group_Leader_Chastises_Bill_Cosby

haskell said...

When I listen to the radio, or watch TV, there are ads which I call 'button-pushers'. They usually start with "FRIENDS!!" and end with the toll-free number repeated 6 times. Now, when I see an article by a "Named Chair Duke Faculty Member", I just turn the page, just not interested in what these folks have to say. Can't the real faculty stand up? Aren't they embarrassed?

To the woman professor who talked on obscene words used by black women: Genealogy refers to living animals, meaning a pedigree. Words are 'derived'. Words don't have a 'genealogy' -- Large Words Used Almost Correctly -- the hallmark of the semi-literate.

John said...

One has to wonder how the personal narrative of Karla Holloway w/respect to her son and, it turns out, the personal narrative of Houston Baker w/respect to his wife have affected their politics around race issues, and the way they have displayed this politics throughout the LAX case.

On a March 27, 2000 Nightline, Houston Baker said the following about his reaction to his wife's horrifying experience (While he was tied up during a home invasion in Philadelphia, she had been brutally and repeatedly raped by two Black men) --

" It produced a—a—a bizarre—a weird world, because to hate black men, as a category, or as a group, was to hate myself. "

Very troubling ...

Anonymous said...

"Once things change, they are never the same again" Pick the quote of your choice. Hamilton - seeing the death of a son or dayghter as "fair game" is not only terrible but against the ten commandments. The man was a sick despertately mentally ill psychopath - nothing to do with up bringing. I am ashamed for you.

Anonymous said...

Yeah - the guys had a bad year - millions of dollars will certainly help compensate the "rough time", they had. Nothing compensates for the death of a child, adolescent or adult son or daughter.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "Burness...a tremendous amount of time and effort creating relationships between the university and the Durham community...."

I think you may be on to something. One thing that struck me was the condescending nature of many of the Duke Senior Profiles. Some of the photos had the students helping minorities in Durham.

By the way that was NOT a sample of the profiles. It was 100% of what was presented.

no justice, no peace said...

Spook Inre: "...must have been so "offended" by Coulter's presence at Tulane ... much like those who were upset at Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia."

Ahmadinejad wants to kill my children.

Coulter wants to make me laugh.

Ahmadinejad is currently and actively supporting the efforts to kill our troops in Iraq.

Coulter wants to expose the leftist through humor.

Big, big differences...

Anonymous said...

CHRIS DAVIS, HARVARD '73

I think highlighting the issue of Holloway's family dysfunction is totally germane to her public stance opposing black Persian messenger, Bill Cosby. It irnically confirms the Letfist doublespeak that passes for logic in these types of arguments: here is Holloway, who can't even manage her black progeny, heaping scorn on Cosby, who, in turn, dares to broach the touchy subject of the pathology of the single-parent black family.
ONLY in a PC world would a parental failure like Holloway even be asked for her "unbiased" opinion when she possessed such an obvious conflict of interest.
Perhaps next week, the American media will treat of to Victoria Gotti's thoughts on reform of the criminal justice system? Or Phil Spector's feelings on gun control?

Ralph Phelan said...

"Could it be possible that we continue to hear from Karla Holloway because she doesn't care what we think about her?"

N, we continue to hear from her because newspaper op-ed page editors think what she says is interesting and/or significant.

But then, that newspapers are mostly run by a less-bright version of the PC types who run universities isn't exactly news.

Ralph Phelan said...

The problem most folks have with Coulter is that her techniques sometimes resemble those of many on the far, far left and they criticize her while giving a pass to leftists speakers "who engage in hate speech, are intolerant and dismissive of opposing views or advocate views not based on any credible evidence.

When they don't criticize their own who do the same you know it's not a real reason, it's just an excuse.

Their real problem with her is not how she attacks liberalism and leftism, but the fact that she does it effectively.

Anonymous said...

RR Hamilton said:

Maybe [Karla Holloway] should tell us what (if any) "torment she has endured".

-----

Why should she? It's private. You think she "owes" that to YOU?

And by the way, Eff You for even suggesting that maybe she is not bothered at all by her son's crimes and death. You really think that? What's wrong with YOU?

You really think Karla was a cheerleader for her adopted son's rapes and murders? "Go sonny boy, PLEASE rape and kill them white wimmens, just like Mommy wants you to." That's what you are implying, and as I said before, that shows you to be an ignoramus, an idiot, and a negative reflection on the whole blog. And I, for one (although you obviously have a right to spout whatever ignorant shit you choose), resent your casting all of us in such a negative light.

At a time when the forces of evil are on the attack against this blog, we don't need stupid arguments like yours lending support to those who think that this blog is full of morons and haters. Wise up, and pick your arguments more carefully -- please.

Anonymous said...

Read up on dear Karla Holloway--the one being defended against harsh (and justified IMHO) critcism.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story/531318.html

November 6, 2006

Prof. Holloway,

I am the mother of a Duke Lacrosse player. After reading your article in September, I penned a response. I held off sending it, to see if my thoughts would change as my anger subsided. Unfortunately, my anger has not subsided. I do not want to prejudge you as those who prejudged the innocent Duke Three and the entire lacrosse team. Therefore, I respectfully request you respond to my letter so I may better understand why you would write such a vile article. Below is my response to your article.

I sit and ponder, how could any woman be so cruel and callous, and judge a whole class of individuals without any facts. What was more puzzling and definitely more alarming was that you had a son convicted of rape and attempted murder, and who was going to be tried for the murder of two others. It has always been my belief that educators not only had a moral obligation but a duty to have an open mind and to encourage your students to do the same. I teach History to high school students. Clearly, you do not understand this obligation. My first reaction was to attack, but what would be the sense. I wondered, do you attack our sons, because you feel guilt for your own failures as a mother? Do you attack our sons, because you are so selfish that you cannot stand the thought of our sons leading successful lives, when your son did not and can not? Do you attack our sons to justify your own short comings? Do you attack our sons because it's easier than looking yourself in the mirror? Do you attack our sons because they are innocent and your son was not? The answer may be yes to all of those questions. How sad for you that you have been reduced to a pathetic, heartless individual. While people with souls and hearts, would suffer and wallow in their own pain for a while, when the dust settles, they would fight to turn a tragic situation into something positive. Instead, you are so self centered, you have made yourself the victim in your son's death and in the Duke hoax.

"We all leave footprints in the sand, the question is, will we be a big heal, or a great soul." - Source Unknown

This week I was touched by two families who have suffered the worst imaginable loss in any parent's life, the loss of a child. One was Rachel Scott, age 17, the first person killed at Columbine, the second was Louis Acompora, age 14, killed while playing the game he loved, lacrosse, by a syndrome known as commotio cordis. What struck me is that both these remarkable young individuals were able to leave a lasting legacy that has and will continue to touch million of hearts and souls. Rachel Scott's legacy has been the formation of Rachael's Challenge which challenges us and inspires us all to do random acts of kindness. Louis Acompora's foundation has saved countless individuals by making defibulators available in schools and other public areas.

Though I cannot compare the loss of a child, with the loss of a child's trust in the kindness and goodness of man, I wrestle with what will be the legacy of our sons and our families as we emerge from this travesty of justice. Rachel Scott said, "Look hard enough and you'll always find a light." So I have challenged myself to find "my light".

At this time the path is dim for I have not let go of the anger and rage I feel against Nifong for creating and continuing this hoax for his own personal and political gain; against the Duke administration for abandoning our sons, even today as the evidence clearly shows their innocence, and using the lacrosse team and Coach Pressler as the scapegoats in a feeble attempt to protect Duke's reputation; against some of the Duke faculty for condemning and harassing our sons without a scintilla of evidence to further their own philosophical agendas; and against [accuser's name withheld] for not having the courage to end this charade by telling the truth.

However, I also recognize that to find the light I must choose forgiveness. Forgiveness does not mean I do not want Nifong disbarred or Duke to walk away without an apology to our sons. Forgiveness is just the ceasing to feel resentment and anger. I am not there today, but I am at a point that I must consider the possibility that there is a "light", for if I do not, I will find myself like you, Professor Holloway, a sad, bitter, resentful woman, attempting to squash the dreams of others because after your own personal tragedy you were not able to find your "light" and therefore have no dreams of your own.

When Colin, Reade and Dave are exonerated, what will be our legacy? I believe these three courageous young men will be great souls. They have showed us over the past six months how to handle adversity with class and dignity that is beyond their years. Each one of these young men will leave lasting imprints on all those they touch. They will have entered the eye of a hurricane and come out to tell others abut it. The legacy of the lacrosse team will be that of "truth". We will not stop, no matter what, in our quest to let the world know the truth of what transpired on March 13/14, the lacrosse team has stood steadfast in the events that occurred, even after being vilified publicly.

But what will my legacy be? I need to find a goal, as do many of the mothers and fathers of the lacrosse team, so we will be able to try to make sense out of something that has no sense. It may be a crusade to protect the "accused's" identity in rape cases much like the accuser's. Sadly, even when the young men are exonerated, there will still be many who will characterize the lacrosse team as "rapists". There will still be whispers. Many still want to turn a blind eye to the facts. Without any evidence the Durham Police Department, put our son's pictures on a "Wanted Poster" and published it in main stream national media for days. Colin, Reade and Dave's pictures, continue to be shown in the mainstream media. I hope I am able to emerge from this travesty with a vision to make the choice to make a change to protect other innocent young men.

I live the negative impact of this hoax daily knowing the three families live it greater than I do. I hope that one day I have the strength to choose to make a positive impact for if I don't, I may waste my life, like you, Prof. Holloway, wallowing in self pity. You are a big heal in the sand, I chose to be a great soul.

The Scott and Acompora families will be my inspiration! They will lead me to my light. You have also inspired me, of what I choose not to become.

Patricia Dowd Mother of Duke Lacrosse Player, Kyle Dowd


Read for yourself Ms. Holloway's response to Kyle's Mom.
-----------------------
Nov. 6, 2006

Dear Patricia Dowd,

Indeed, you should have held off sending it. Your letter reflects nothing so much as an impoverished spirit and intellect. What a shame, for you, and your family.

Karla FC Holloway

-------------------------------

Ms. Holloway couldn't find it in her little black heart (and by black heart, I mean cold dead black heart, not the fact she is AA) to have an ounce of compassion for this LAX Mom.

Well, I am a mother too. I find it incredibly difficult to be feel any warmth, compassion or kindness towards Holloway. Not with the way she has comported herself over the last 18 months or so in the LAX case.

She has revealed herself to be a heartless, hate-filled racist and anti-white bigot whose attitudes and opinions surely influenced her son to choose racial hatred and violent criminal behavior for his life.

She has no room to condemn or criticise another mother or that mother's son.

She ought to worry about the log in her own eye, before she goes inspecting the eyes of others.

traveler said...

MOO! Gregory Writes:

SECOND SCRIPT -

"You are a Duke University administrator and you have to either risk your job by standing up to a sinister faction of faculty members or passively allow three innocent students to get lynched. What would you do? What WOULD you do?"
--------------------

MOO! Gregory-
Get real, who in the he** (tender eyes)- I mean, H-E-double toothpicks, is going to believe a story like that? Where do think we are, in the twilight zone?

I would appreciate a third script based on a clinical study of the dereliction of ones duties. One must detect a hoax before moving forward on a whim, don‘t you know?

Your readers are not going to swallow a storyline about an elite college administrator acting like a...., like a...., the right word escapes me at the moment.

But Wait! Truth is stranger than fiction.
HBO awaits you.

inman said...

I would like to know if Karla Holloway expressed anger toward white, asian or hispanic people in the comfort of her home. One can imagine that day-to-day discourse may have involved brittle and adverse analysis of races, other than black. You know ... talk over the breakfast room table ... or after a difficult day at work ... a day at work in which perceived racial prejudice caused visceral anger.

The small and accepting child listened, not really knowing or understanding the import of what the adult, the person who provided their sustenance, was really saying. But the child hears frustration and perhaps even anger, not directed at anyone in particular, but abstract and aloof, beyond day-to-day understanding. The child however hears reality in words meant only to analyze and parse meaning. The child is, over time, immersed in the notion that race, or sex, or class has a venal, a dark, a horrid potential formed in the mind of fellow man.

The child hears so much, listening to the adults who talked while he listened, that at a point he decides that he must act to authenticate the adult belief.

Murder. Bem Holloway.

Anonymous said...

gregory @10/26 11:19PM:

And how about the left-handed compliment? Defined as a compliment with two meanings, one of which is unflattering to the receiver.

Example:
Karla, I don't believe you've written anything more lucid than your latest on Cosby.

dave

Anonymous said...

I agree about Karla Holloway- she trades on her son's death when it is convenient for her, so his crimes and death deserve mention in the context of her hypocrisy and lack of empathy as a mother.

re. Burness- he seems to be TOO closely involved with the powers-that-be in Durham and not involved enough in the actual purpose of the academy- the education and nurturing of its students. Duke is a cash cow for Durham's power structure and they are milking it for everything they can. At La Scala, the lead singers must pay the "clacque" so they won't be booed off the stage- Durham is the "clacque" and Duke is a "castrato."

TexasMom

Anonymous said...

Should not the correct term be "88 from the Group" as opposed to the Group of 88?

Professor, what do you think? You weren't being arithmetically correct, were you?

Anonymous said...

Drinking and blogging does not mix. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Anonymous said...

"The forces of evil...against this blog?" Folks - what are you smoking and drinking? No body cares about this blog except us - certainly not Duke, its administrator or faculty, let alone the "forces of evil." Good for a laugh thought. The words of groupthink are troll, moron, idiots and now we can add stupid. Shame on you for crucifying Karla about her poor demented dead son.

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.12:

It appears as if Duke faculty member Charles Piot cared enough about the blog to devote an entire "scholarly" article to it.

Since you haven't identified yourself, it's not clear if you are a Duke administrator, professor, or grad student of a Group of 88 member, but I thank you for caring enough about the blog to comment.

R.R. Hamilton said...

I see the little anonymice are after me.

One of them at 12:06 PM said, “None of you know what torment Holloway has endured as a result of her late son's crimes”.

I replied at 3:18 that, “Maybe she should tell us what (if any) ‘torment she has endured’”, and went on to say, “Once she opened her mouth about [the lacrosse mothers’] sons, her own son became fair game -- especially as his life of anti-white crime seemed to be inspired by her philosophy.”

One of the mice went ballistic at 8:32 PM, saying to me:

Eff You for even suggesting that maybe she is not bothered at all by her son's crimes and death. You really think that? What's wrong with YOU?

You really think Karla was a cheerleader for her adopted son's rapes and murders? "Go sonny boy, PLEASE rape and kill them white wimmens, just like Mommy wants you to." That's what you are implying, and as I said before, that shows you to be an ignoramus, an idiot, and a negative reflection on the whole blog.

My response is: Do we suppose that all parents of rapists and killers are bothered by their sons’ crimes against humanity? Do you think Saddam Hussein was? Unlike you, I don’t pretend to be able to x-ray the conscience of Prof. Holloway.

And as for being “a negative reflection on the whole blog”, I think I could come closer to being that if I made up a quote of a African-American university professor speaking ebonics (“them white wimmins”).

Oh, I just realized that the mouse included Bem’s death as well as those of his victims: "Eff You for even suggesting that maybe she is not bothered at all by her son's crimes and death." I’m bothered by Bem’s death: His life wasn’t worth the cost of the bullet that killed him. I’ve heard that in some countries the criminal’s family is billed for the cost of the bullet that kills him. I hope the taxpayers didn’t have to pick up the tab for burying him.

Another mouse popped up at 5:15 and 5:17 to say,

"Once things change, they are never the same again" Pick the quote of your choice.
I’m not sure what to say about that one.

Hamilton - seeing the death of a son or dayghter as "fair game" is not only terrible but against the ten commandments. Which commandment was that one? Also, I should point out that I referred not to Bem’s “death”, but specifically to his “life” as being fair game.

The man was a sick despertately mentally ill psychopath - nothing to do with up bringing.
Ok, it looks like you are firmly on the side of “Nature” in the “Nature vs. Nurture” debate on human development. But why do I think that if a son of David Duke started raping and killing blacks, you would be singing a different tune?

I am ashamed for you. Um… o.k., but let’s keep the debate going.

Yeah - the guys had a bad year - millions of dollars will certainly help compensate the "rough time", they had.
Probably tens of millions … Prof. Holloway is probably responsible for at least $5 million of that; the guys should thank her by sending her a free copy of KC’s book.

Nothing compensates for the death of a child, adolescent or adult son or daughter. I hope you are talking about the parents of Bem’s victims, and not Prof. Holloway. Bem took a life (apparently two) so he owed a life. By taking a bullet in the back, all he did was to pay (half) what he owed. I hope he also paid for the rapes he committed – and if it’s true about what they say happens to rapists in prison, I have cause for optimism.

Looking at the 8:53 PM which quotes Prof. Holloway’s reply to Patricia Dowd, which is nothing less than “the finger” in written form, I wonder if there is any reason for us to hope that if the parents of Bem’s victims had sought to reach out to Prof. Holloway, that she would not have said as she did to Mrs. Dowd -- in essence, “Fuck you; your kid deserved it.” I am not aware that Prof. Holloway ever wrote anything suggesting she believes that white bodies have value beyond what she can make them pay for.

When I first read Mrs. Dowd’s letter, I thought it was a little bit harsh. But then I remembered, the Dowds (mother and son) are innocent; the Holloways are the wrongdoers. I hope others will re-read the questions Mrs. Dodd posed to Prof. Holloway and realize why Coach Pressler is suing Duke again: Yes, it seems like his grounds are fairly meager, but as I’ve said here before, Duke has shown that it will spend almost any amount of money so as not to see Prof. Holloway or the other diversity-hires on the witness stand.

I said here earlier that, "I don't pretend to have an x-ray of Prof. Holloway's conscience". What lawyers do in examining a hostile witness is like what a surgeon does with a scalpel. I would love to see some bright lawyer like Brad Bannon do "exploratory surgery" on the souls of Prof. Holloway and crew. It would be enlightening.

R.R. Hamilton

Anonymous said...

Gary Packwood:

" was under the impression that the spokesperson for any organization speaks when told to speak...period."

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. We have any number of Duke "spokepersons" who have been speaking out rather frequently without being prompted.

In the case of Burness, Duke now has another lawsuit on its hands because this loose cannon couldn't stop shooting his mouth off.

The suggestion that The Chronicle editorial hit all the right spots in their piece about the Burness departure is ludicrous.

Ken
Dallas

traveler said...

Charles Piot does not look "BLACK ENOUGH" to me, to be making these racist remarks. There is a fine line between what a black, or white person, can or cannot say. Charles do be careful, you may fall into the gray color-blind pit. Man, you don’t even want to think of those you might meet down in the trenches.

Anonymous said...

8:53 pm
If those missives are real, then Holloway is seemingly more disturbed than her son. IF they're real, and I hope they aren't, I can't imagine that anyone would send that kind of reply to a once-grieving mother of a lacrosse player; if they're real, it proves that the apple doesn't have to grow from the tree to fall from it. The lacrosse Mom has a heart; Holloway is an empty cave.

I'm adopted, too: my Dad set an example that I (still) try to follow, as he helped others whenever they had a broked washer/dryer or car, or if their kids needed tutoring in algebra; he always volunteered to fix the church air conditioner, cut grass for the church and was a kind and exceptional manager in an engineering firm, where he's still regarded as a legend for his kindness and effectiveness as a leader. He always found a way to bring the best out of people.

I've learned a great deal from my Dad: the apple didn't grow on the same tree, but it still has the same kind of fruit.

Contrasted with the coldness of Holloway's (alleged) reply, it is apparent that Berm was taught to have a cold heart. Looks like those people who say she can't teach don't know what they're talking about.

traveler said...

Anonymous said...
I have no desire to defend Holloway's politics, much less her deplorable conduct regarding the lacrosse hoax and its (actual) victims.

But I take exception to the exploitation of her adopted son's criminal history -- it is just a crude smear tactic, masquerading as some kind of point.
-------------------------------------

Let me get this straight, Bill Cosby makes statements about child rearing, and Karla takes great excerption to his opinions. Observers note that her own qualifications to speak about child rearing are suspect.

Now you opine that any reference to her parenting skills is barbaric. Freedom of speech certainly gets bent when you curtail the opinions of others based on what YOU think is cordial conversation.

Can you suggest a little book of “dos and don’ts” on goody-goody -speak for BOTH sides of the subject? You know the old ”People in glass houses….,” well Karla should have passed this one by.

Stating an uncomfortable fact is not an attack in my opinion. To open the subject of child rearing, and then limit the discussion because of political correctness is….. well, ….typical.

It’s like Ann Landers, after years of telling us how to stay married, gets divorced, and wonderes why her advice became suspect.


PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES - "Those who are vulnerable should not attack others.”

Anonymous said...

Retraction. The story about witchcraft in Africa was not in the magazine section but in the body of the newspaper. You can read about it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/11/international/africa/11malawi.html

or google witchcraft, aids, africa, new york times

Observer

traveler said...

I see I wrote the word "excerption." The worst thing about spell-checker is, a word is a word!

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "Should not the correct term be "88 from the Group" as opposed to the Group of 88?..."

Outstanding. With additional time the number of signatories would surely have grown as evidenced by the lack of distancing from faculty after the hoax was revealed.

From where I sit 88 from the Klan speaks even better to the totalitarian nature of the group.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 8:53 said...

...Read up on dear Karla Holloway--the one being defended against harsh (and justified IMHO) critcism.
...http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story/531318.html
::
I have not seen this letter from Mrs. Dowd or the response from Professor Holloway and I am just stunned at the heartless response from Professor Holloway.

If UPI is a better read than a John Grisham novel (KC @ 8:25 AM today) it is because UPI needed to be written by two scholars as a warning to universities that sad, bitter and resentful people must not be hired to teach the best and brightest of our young people in America.

Thanks for posting this letter from Mrs. Dowd and the response from Professor Holloway.

I will order more copies of UPI today for those on my Christmas list who are loyal alumni of colleges and universities and will see UPI as a warning that needs to be passed alone to their alumni organization.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

WOW Hamilton - Why don't you just apologize for going "over the line" with your posting on this matter. People who disagree with you are "anonymice" - that is not going to help the debate. The Commandemt is "Judge not, that you be not judged".

Anonymous said...

This one’s probably been mentioned before, but I’d recommend historian Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals as an example of an instructive, and in my view legitimate, use of the ad hominem. It’s a depressing look at the private lives of public intellectuals, the ideological pioneers or exemplars of modern (socialist) culture: Rousseau, Marx, Russell, down to Mailer, leftists all (too bad, what a time he could have had with Mencken or Ayn Rand). Johnson’s thesis is that their intellectual contributions are seriously compromised by the embarrassing details of their private lives, which I found to be entirely relevant.

For example, Marx argued that socialism and communism were “scientific” formulations, yet he never did any research, never entered a factory to observe the actual workings of an industry, made up facts, and then got really, really angry when challenged about these things.

And so goes the entire book, revealing the extent to which “intellectual leaders” have been willing to lie, cheat, steal, and condone violence in the furtherance of anti-rational ideologies, or as Johnson put it:

…the curious paradox that intellectuals, who ought to teach men and women to trust their reason, usually encourage them to follow their emotions; and, instead of urging debate and reconciliation on humanity, all too often spur it towards the arbitrary use of force…

…and thank you for not waiting.

Televangelists whose private lives are a mockery of what they preach are considered fair game by all. Anyone who presumes to instruct the public on the proper ideological conduct of family life is fair game for having his or hers examined. I’m with rrh on this one.

dave

Anonymous said...

3:12AM here
Oops, sorry KC - it was not my intent to insult either you or the blog - just to comment on the super hype of " forces of evil". I am an RN out here in Sin City and no supporter of Duke. Actually, Duke was not in my line of sight until the 2006 and the event.

Duke JD said...

It annoys me, probably more than it should, that Karla Holloway, with Duke's connivance, bills herself in the press and in academia as a 'Professor of Law.' She isn't a lawyer and has no law degree or other qualifications in the subject. She offers one class at the law school, having to do with race and gender issues.

If she gave a class at the medical school (e.g. 'Racism in Emergency Room Treatment') would that make her a Professor of Medicine?

If she was allowed to give a class in, say, 'Gender Imbalance in the Structural Engineering Profession' at the School of Engineering, would she then be entitled to call herself a Professor of Engineering?

I'd be interested in an answer from someone in academia (SH?) who knows how this works.

Anonymous said...

To the 8:45 am -
Here's my source if you doubt what I posted re: Holloway's exchange with Mrs. Dowd:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story/531318.html

(sorry, I still haven't mastered hotlinks, please cut and paste the URL into your browser)

I'm sorry to let you down, but I do believe this exchange between Holloway and Mrs. Dowd has been shown to be true and accurate.

As for you and your family--sounds like your Dad was/is a real gem and a rare find in this world. How blessed you are that he and your Mom picked you to be their child! If only all adoptees were so fortunate!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
WOW Hamilton - Why don't you just apologize for going "over the line" with your posting on this matter. People who disagree with you are "anonymice" - that is not going to help the debate. The Commandemt is "Judge not, that you be not judged".

10/28/07 11:40 AM


LOL...I've spent the afternoon looking for the Number of your commandment, and damned if I can find "Judge not, that you not be judged" in the 10 Commandments that were handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Oh wise and all knowing biblical scholar, could you point me in the right direction? ROFLMOPIMP!!!!

Here...I'll refresh your memory, if you need help.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'


WHERE is "Judge not, that you not be judged"????

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 11:45 said Re: Johnson’s Intellectuals

...And so goes the entire book, revealing the extent to which “intellectual leaders” have been willing to lie, cheat, steal, and condone violence in the furtherance of anti-rational ideologies...
::
Many say that they look stupid. Perhaps it's because they are stupid.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Matter of fact--if *anyone* has broken one of the 10 Commandments, it is not Hamilton.

It is Holloway herself.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor" (that's commandment #9, btw).

Holloway breaks this one early and often, and feels absolutely NO guilt about it whatsoever.

Then, of course, is the one about coveting anything that belongs to your neighbor (#10). She breaks that one too in her life-long quest to hustle money, position and power from others by using race-baiting to get what she covets.

Dang. Wish you hadn't brought up the 10 Commandments. Holloway sure comes up short in review.

Anonymous said...

You are right - my mistake - The "judge not that you be not judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is from Jesus.

Anonymous said...

R.R. Hamilton

While I'm sure some would consider having a battle of wits with the unarmed is unkind (over the line), it surely makes for some entertaining reading.

I nominate John 7.24 as a new "Commandemt" - "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

Anonymous said...

3:55 At the time of the comments no one know what the evidence was against the team. The "bear false witness is not clear to me".
Coveting your neighbors stuff is a stretch - like, she is going to Harvard for a semister. I have not idea if she hustled money, position or power by race baiting and neither do you.

One Spook said...

Duke JD @ 1:47 PM writes:

"It annoys me, probably more than it should, that Karla Holloway, with Duke's connivance, bills herself in the press and in academia as a 'Professor of Law.' She isn't a lawyer and has no law degree or other qualifications in the subject."

Excellent point ... I thought the same thing when I read the OpEd. Of course, misrepresenting credentials is standard behavior for some of the 88, so Holloway's fraud in this is no surprise.

What is somewhat of a surprise is the Holloway would be so ignorant as to think her impersonation of a Duke Professor of Law wouldn't get back to Duke, but they won't do anything about it even when they do learn of it. At some level I'd like to believe that the Dean of the Duke Law School, particularly after reading Holloway's convoluted logic that barely resembles discourse conducted in the English language, would be mortified that Holloway is holding herself out to be a Professor of Law at Duke.

If you have a JD from Duke, perhaps you should write to the Dean and express your opinion on this matter.

As we all have seen throught this episode, most professors in the Angry Studies field believe that traditions of the academy, ethics, honor, academic honesty, and such trivial things as a "Faculty Handbook" do not apply to them.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
R.R. Hamilton

While I'm sure some would consider having a battle of wits with the unarmed is unkind (over the line), it surely makes for some entertaining reading.

I nominate John 7.24 as a new "Commandemt" - "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

10/28/07 5:27 PM


5:27 imagines him/herself on par with God (from whom we received the 10 Commandments).

Amazing.

Anonymous said...

3:55 At the time of the comments no one know what the evidence was against the team. The "bear false witness is not clear to me".
Coveting your neighbors stuff is a stretch - like, she is going to Harvard for a semister. I have not idea if she hustled money, position or power by race baiting and neither do you.

10/28/07 5:29 PM


Keep telling yourself that--if it makes you feel better. LOL.

Anonymous said...

duke jd wrote

"It annoys me, probably more than it should, that Karla Holloway, with Duke's connivance, bills herself in the press and in academia as a 'Professor of Law.' She isn't a lawyer and has no law degree or other qualifications in the subject. She offers one class at the law school, having to do with race and gender issues."

"I'd be interested in an answer from someone in academia (SH?) who knows how this works."

It is considered "cv puffing" -- aka a lie.

It is standard practice for faculty to teach courses for departments or schools in which they are not appointed -- for example a history prof who teaches the history of business for the department of business, or a philosopher who teaches a medical ethics course for the medical school. But, in the name of truth in advertising, the first should not bill himself as a "professor of business," nor should the second call himself a "professor of medicine."

Of course, at Duke, the "annointed ones" get to do whatever they want.

In my view, Holloway perpetuates this fraud because she's trying to hitchhike on the prestige of the law school. That she has an "appointment" in the law school does not lessen the fraud.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

6:06PM I do not care one wit about Holloway. It surprises me that otheres do. I found nothing entertaining about the Berm Holloways remarks and found them disgusting.

Michael Sheehan said...

Re: 10/27/07 8:53 PM

What an outstanding read that was!

Thanks for posting it.

After reading the article and considering the bottom of the ethical cesspool to which Professor Karla Holloway has seemingly sunk, it was disappointing to discover that, all along, she was merely standing on a trap door.

… disappointing … but not surprising.

Anonymous said...

Holloway graduated in 2003 from Duke Law, and served on the committee to find the dean. So you can write him, but he's probably on her side given she helped get him his job.

Anonymous said...

"This one’s probably been mentioned before, but I’d recommend historian Paul Johnson’s "Intellectuals' as an example of an instructive, and in my view legitimate, use of the ad hominem. It’s a depressing look at the private lives of public intellectuals.... Johnson’s thesis is that their intellectual contributions are seriously compromised by the embarrassing details of their private lives ..."
-----------------------------------

Paul Johnson is one of the world's great hypocrites. A notorious drunk, serial adulterer and S&M devotee who subjected his saintly wife to a lifetime of humiliation. He had the nerve to write "Intellectuals," bemoaning the drinking habits, infidelities and other imperfections of liberals and leftists. Shortly thereafter he was outed in a memoir by one of his S&M "mistresses." For some reason his reputation in the US and A survived, after a fashion. In Britain he remains a laughing-stock.

Christopher Hitchens' article "The Rise and Fall of Paul 'Spanker' Johnson" is entertaining reading for connoisseurs of hypocrisy.

http://www.salon.com/media/1998/05/28media.html

Anonymous said...

10/28 11:40 AM (replies by 10/28 3:41, 3:55 PM) and 10/28 5:20 PM again (and further, 10/28 5:27, 5:29, 5:52 PM):

The Commandemt [sic] is “Judge not, that you be not judged.”

No one ever quotes the entire pericope. Four sentences later Jesus added: “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine…” Whom do you suppose he meant was to decide, or “judge,” who is a “dog”… or a “swine”…?

Identifying anonymice would not appear to fall under Divine prohibition, either.

dave

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: Paul Johnson's book "Intellectuals"...

A common theme is how badly they, the mighty intellectuals, treated those closest to them. Marx treated his primary benefactor Engels horribly. Others were consistent in the deplorable way they treated others.

In fact one could make the case that the behavior was similar to the way the Duke faculty treated their students.

Well, except that it is a big stretch to consider the Duke faculty intellectual. They actually think in a very shallow linear fashion, do not accept criticism of their ideas, and have no concept of the notion of perpetual self-assessment.

They also were largely inept at financial management. They never walked-the-walk and lived among the lower classes. In short they are fraudulent dead-beats with few friends.

One wonders how the 88 members Klan members and their fellow travelers treat those closest to them. How is their credit? Did they default on the student loans that likely supported their academic efforts?

At $46,000 per year, the 88 members of the Klan should be rightly considered frauds.

Ralph Phelan said...

"a warning to universities that sad, bitter and resentful people must not be hired to teach the best and brightest of our young people in America."

What sort of people choose security (tenure) over opportunity (going IPO)?
What is the long-term effect of having made that choice and then watching its consequences?

Ralph OPhelan said...

One Spook said...
"Of course, misrepresenting credentials is standard behavior for some of the 88, so Holloway's fraud in this is no surprise.

What is somewhat of a surprise is the Holloway would be so ignorant as to think her impersonation of a Duke Professor of Law wouldn't get back to Duke, but they won't do anything about it even when they do learn of it."

Why should she expect Duke to "do anything" when she and her associates have done far worse and continued to be rewarded for it?
Is she "ignorant" to think they won't do anything about it?
Or does she maybe know the place better than you do?

Ralph Phelan said...

re: "Intellectuals"

Pop culture has noticed the tendency too:

How can people have no feelings
How can they ignore their friends
Easy to be proud
Easy to say no

And especially people
Who care about strangers
Who care about evil
And social injustice
Do you only
Care about the bleeding crowd?
How about a needing friend?
I need a friend

Anonymous said...

Of course, Hitchens isn't above making a few bucks with the assistance of Paul Johnson (and David Horowitz!)– 8 years after his "Spanker" column– but then, hypocrisy is one of those charges to which Hitchens himself is frequently subject.

The moral of which is: public figures employ the ad hominem at their peril. But if you can fact-check their books, and the facts hold up, we can discuss the facts, not the man. Who cares if Johnson was a spanker, he was right that Rousseau was.

dave

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof @10/28 6:07 PM re Holloway's new "title":

It is standard practice for faculty to teach courses for departments or schools in which they are not appointed -- for example a history prof who teaches the history of business for the department of business, or a philosopher who teaches a medical ethics course for the medical school. But, in the name of truth in advertising, the first should not bill himself as a "professor of business," nor should the second call himself a "professor of medicine."

This strikes me as somewhat analogous to the producer's girlfriend taking the "Associate Producer" credit because she slept with him during production.

The Producers Guild of America cracked down on the abuse years ago in Hollywood. Anything like that in academe?

dave

Duke JD said...

Anonymous said...

Holloway graduated in 2003 from Duke Law, and served on the committee to find the dean. So you can write him, but he's probably on her side given she helped get him his job.

10/28/07 8:20 PM
-------------------------------------
She didn't graduate from Duke Law in 2003. She doesn't have a J.D., which is what one generally means by a law degree. She isn't a lawyer and doesn't possess the minimum qualification to be one.

But Duke Law did award her an MLS degree in 2005 (Master of Legal Studies, not Major League Soccer.) It's a one-year degree. She was the only person to be awarded that degree in 2005, which seems a bit odd.

So I apologize to Professor Holloway for erroneously stating that she has no qualifications in the subject of law.

I still maintain that describing herself as a Professor of Law is a sham.

She is currently listing herself as 'Professor of English and of Law' on the Harvard/DuBois Institute website. She lists herself as 'William R. Kenan Professor of English, Law and Women's Studies' on the Duke Law site, implying that she holds an endowed chair in law.

I agree that writing to the Dean would be a futile act given the circumstances of his appointment.

Anonymous said...

It seems that the only African-Americans with the temerity to challenge the PC status quo are either super rich (Cosby), dying from a terminal illness (Bradley), have life-time tenure (Keyes) or have such well-established public mastheads that they can thrive with the controversy (Sowell, Whitlock, Williams). Am I missing anyone?

Every time a public figure claims, for example, that it would be good for children to have two parents, he or she is shouted down. This same principle, as it applies to the university campus, is apparently so well-established that Evan Thomas of "Newsweek" felt he did not need to cite a source for (or provide any additional argument to shore up) this statement:

"The president of a modern, elite university must be careful not to cross his politically correct faculty."

NEWSWEEK, at p. 34 (9/10/07)(print ed.)(reviewing "Until Proven Innocent").

A problem has been well and clearly identified, leaving only the solution to bicker over. MOO! Gregory
_______

P.S. Dave: By highlighting my utter failure to mention the concept of the "left-handed compliment," which is THE perfect example of an etymologist's "clue," are you giving me a left-handed compliment? Just kidding!

Anonymous said...

dave wrote

"This strikes me as somewhat analogous to the producer's girlfriend taking the "Associate Producer" credit because she slept with him during production.

The Producers Guild of America cracked down on the abuse years ago in Hollywood. Anything like that in academe?"

The "cracking down" or the "casting couch?"

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

Duke JD said...

But Duke Law did award her an MLS degree in 2005 (Master of Legal Studies, not Major League Soccer.) It's a one-year degree. She was the only person to be awarded that degree in 2005, which seems a bit odd.
------------------------------------
I'm surprised she hasn't proclaimed herself valedictorian.

One Spook said...

Irish Ralph O'Phelan @ 8:24 AM writes:

"Is she "ignorant" to think they won't do anything about it?
Or does she maybe know the place better than you do?"


Good point, Ralph ... I'll just settle on the fact that she's ignorant, period.

One Spook

One Spook said...

Duke JD @ 12:26 PM writes, regarding Fake "Professor of Law" Karla Holloway:

"But Duke Law did award her an MLS degree in 2005 (Master of Legal Studies, not Major League Soccer.) It's a one-year degree. She was the only person to be awarded that degree in 2005, which seems a bit odd. ...

I still maintain that describing herself as a Professor of Law is a sham."


I agree, and it's more than a sham ... it is misrepresentation of her credentials. The MLS program is a 30 hour course and, according to Duke's own law school admission standards, does not qualify a graduate to sit for the bar exam or to engage in the practice of law.

I'm sure that Duke, or any other accredited law school, would NOT hire a Professor of Law who did not hold a JD degree.

SANE Nurse-in-training Levicy took an 84 hour SANE course, but no one would consider her a "Professor of Medicine."

This isn't semantics ... Holloway has misrepresented her credentials in a newspaper and on the DUKE website and that is wrong, period.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof @10/29 1:02 PM

Anything like that in academe?"

The "cracking down" or the "casting couch?"


LOL. I guess we know that no one's going to crack down on Holloway for appropriating a law professor credit. Comments on private tutorials are best left to your discretion.

dave

Anonymous said...

CHRIS DAVIS, HARVARD '73, PHILOSOPHER, SAVANT, GENIUS, INTELLECTUAL, GRADUATE of est, DOCTOR of SCIENTOLOGY, PROFESSOR of TRENDS,PREDICTOR of FASHIONS,
NEVER FINISHED MY THESIS, ANGER MANAGEMENT ISSUES, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY CREDENTIALS...

Anonymous said...

Loved the seal and whale story - one spook

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof: "The 'cracking down' or the "casting couch'?"

dave: "LOL. I guess we know that no one's going to crack down on Holloway for appropriating a law professor credit. Comments on private tutorials are best left to your discretion."

Duke's "casting couch" is lower (and less excusable) than is Hollywood's. It's a *spiritual* casting couch -- where some prostitute themselves in order to get along with PC bullies.

I've lost track of the number of such sell outs (most of whom have tenure) who've said to me in private: "I'm glad you stand up to them." When I ask: "And why don't you?" -- they respond with the equivalent of: "Um, err, faculty lunches, 'my voice,' my kids play soccer with their kids," etc, ad nauseum.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

Gregory @10/29 12:29 PM:

Aw, just lending a hand. Although I deplore your anti-deviationist tendencies @10/26 11:19PM (Los manos! izquierdos! shall never be defeated!), I'd defend to the death your right to satirize them.

dave

Duke said...

This is simple to fact check. All faculty who have "professor of" appointments at duke outside of their main departments have to have a vote by the faculty of the other department or school made after reading the credentials of the candidate. Then they get a letter from the provost telling them they can add "professor of" to their titles. Now if she did this without the vote and provost letter you are right. But if she got the vote and the provost's letter, you are wrong. Anybody interested in checking the facts? I guess she did do this by the book..she is not known to play around with the rules on these things.

Anonymous said...

duke said... @ 10/30 1:55 PM re Holloway's "professor of law" title:

This is simple to fact check. By all means, please do.

I guess she did do this by the book... Fact checked already? Great! A dozen commentators up this thread would love to know exactly what you found out and how and where you found it. No point in fueling endless rounds of speculation, is there?

dave

Anonymous said...

To 1:55 PM

On the Duke Law School's website she is listed under "Faculty Holding Joint Appointments" (in contradistinction to "Governing Faculty"). If one looks at others holding joint appointments, some are listed as "Professor of Law" (in addition to their regular departmental or school appointment). Others are not. Holloway is not.

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof:

Appreciate your comments as always, and even more your taking a stand.

dave

Anonymous said...

There was a unanimous vote for her appointment to the Duke Law Faculty.
Fact checked.

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.36:

Could you provide a citation for the statement above?

Anonymous said...

To 3:36

Of course the faculty had to ratify a joint appointment in the Law School. Nonetheless - and this is the point - she still does not hold the title of "Professor of Law" at the Duke Law School.

Anonymous said...

If the Duke Law School faculty actually did bestow the title of Professor of Law on Ms. Holloway, then it is the dean, rather than she, who owes an explanation of why that honor was accorded to such a manifestly unqualified individual. An honorary degree is one thing, but it devalues the law school's reputation when someone with no professional legal experience and little legal training or knowledge can hold herself out as an actual working Duke professor of law -- William R. Kenan Professor of Law, no less.

Anonymous said...

There is a website called Uncrowned Queens (http://www.buffalo.edu/uncrownedqueens/) that features, according to the site, "African American Community Builders". "Her Majesty", KFC Holloway, is one of those "community builders" (and "uncrowned queens") who is featured on the cite. There is an additional entry that features the biography of KFC's late mother, Ouida Clapp. While the biographical entry on "Her Majesty's" late mother might be thought to be off topic, it is perhaps of interest, here, in that it mentions her daughter, KFC Holloway, and, in addition to her already myriad titles, lists her as Professor of Linguistics at Duke. Is there anything that Holloway isn't a "Professor of", at Duke University? There would appear to be no end to the internal honors and titles that Duke seems intent upon bestowing on the rancid clowns (not to mention flatulent windbags) comprising the "Gang of 88".

Debrah said...

"Uncrowned" Karla

It is lamentable that such mediocrities as Karla Holloway are discussed in overblown and exaggerated terms and are awarded titles and positions which are far above the actual station of their intellect and expertise.

This widespread habit only serves to diminish the achievement of other black professionals who are authentic.

Anonymous said...

Debra,
Usually I am right there with you...but sometimes your judgments seem odd in the face of the facts. This was a really wow! link. And frankly, after reading it she seems to come from a very accomplished family, and her list of accomplishments seems pretty impressive itself. Were we reading the same website? Or do your own biases just make you see all this in a different way? Or don't you believe what it said in her bio?

Anonymous said...

Poster at 12:45 PM said:

[re: KFC Holloway's 'accomplishments':]

"...do your own biases just make you see all this in a different way? Or don't you believe what it said in her bio?"

----------------------------------

I don't believe how far "Her Majesty" has gotten, given her penchant for academic charlatanism and intellectual fraud. But then, again, she is at Duke, where, now apparently, one sinks to the top and rises to the bottom.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me but where exactly is the fraud and charlatanism? If she got a PhD in Linguistics and the Duke English department lists her as linguistics faculty, then that is correct. If she got a law degree, and they gave her an appointment in law, then we can argue with the smartness of that, but it is not dishonest. What else is the evidence here? I'm trying to stay with this blog and its arguments because it's on target...but when we start misrepresenting, it's hard to see the difference between them and us.

Anonymous said...

To 3:22

For God's sake! The Holloway doesn't have a Ph.D. in Linguistics and the English Department does not list her as a member of the linguistics faculty (and neither does the Linguistics Program). THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

DukeFac said...

Holloway graduated with a PhD in Linguistics and English from Michigan State. Two completely different departments. When she came to Duke she taught in the linguistics program. If she doesn't now, it's a choice she made. This may surprise y'all but professors get to choose which areas they are listed under in the faculty web directory (I guess that's your reference). Actually, what is surprising is how many of you use web pages as the beginning and end of factual documentation. I don't know who wrote the web page for the Queens page. But it could easily have been at the time when she taught linguistics. It doesn't say anything there about law on those pages, maybe because it was probably written before she got that degree. That doesn't mean she is not now a professor of law. Academics change directions. And faculty affiliations with one department program vs another on department web pages change every year because of faculty preferences. She did teach linguistics some years ago because I had social science who took linguistics from her. Plus, she was on the linguistics search committee for the department. You don't get on a search committee if you are not an expert in the field.
People please, fact check means, call or email the department chair or the dean. They actually answer these public record questions.
So try again. This bird don't fly. God's sake or not.

Anonymous said...

To the 3:55

KFC does claim to have a PhD in "English and Linguistics" from Michigan State. Are you sure she doesn't?

Anonymous said...

KC knows damn well that Karla Holloway has degrees in linguistics and law. Roy Weintraub did the "research" for you. Yes, we know all about you and ERW. Yet another example of your pettiness.

Debrah said...

"Or do your own biases just make you see all this in a different way? "

Such a provocative question.

I am torn between answering you in a frivolous way and just glossing over it....and actually going into this issue which is at the heart of why we have people teaching at elite universities who should never be there.

The question you pose is similar to many posed as a way to silence people when they begin discussing the real performance and the real intellectual talents--or lack, thereof--of people like Holloway who have infested academia.

Let me assure you that I have absolutely no "bias" toward anyone because of their race on a personal level.....and anyone who has known me will tell you this. My issue is not with any group of people, but with what we have been forced to accept from certain groups of people and call it "equal"......when it is not.

I live in a place which has been calculated to have more PhD's than in any other area of the country. Consequently, just by osmosis it's easy to tell who the intellectuals are (KC) and who has a nice padded, feathery résumé full of stellar-sounding names and pursuits......which actually boils down to pure BS-on-a-stick (Holloway).

Affirmative action has made it possible for anyone to get a PhD in almost anything and call it what they wish.

At elite universities, if you are female and black and have any talent at all, you can write your own ticket....never mind that when you see the writings of some of these people, it sometimes borders on illiteracy.

Embroidery and embellishment for diversity.

Not everyone--whatever their race--can be a Condoleeza Rice; however, we should at least expect something substantive from those like Karla Holloway.

Have you actually read some of the things she has written? Why must I--or anyone--pretend that she is a smart woman when she is a clown?

KC Johnson said...

To the 9.09:

"Yes, we know all about you and ERW."

If by "we," you mean the 3.4 million-plus readers of the blog, you're absolutely correct: I have, in fact, never made it a secret that I interviewed Prof. Weintraub for one of my posts.

As for Prof. Weintraub (or anyone else) "doing [my] research" for me, I'm afraid you're mistaken: it's been my practice, throughout my career as a professor, to do my own research.

Also, you seemed to suggest I had challenged Prof. Holloway's claim to hold various degrees: could you point to anyplace on the blog where I had even suggested such a thing?

To the 7.36:

I should point out, for those who read the blog and are not academics, that the overwhelming majority of academics are hired, tenured, and remain in one department. I wouldn't want readers to think it customary that profs, willy-nilly, shift departments left and right.

As for Prof. Holloway's intellectual evolution, I'm sure that the criticism the law school had received for the low numbers of black females on its faculty (one) had nothing to do with the decision to have Prof. Holloway join the faculty as an affiliated member.

Anonymous said...

Interesting swipe KC, but more revealing of your own biases and professional jealousies than you might have intended.
You ought to preview these things, you 'tell on your self' with this kind of underhand. But, after all, what's left to know about you? There's a history of unpleasantness in your own professional life that comments like these make quite current.

KC Johnson said...

To the 8.24:

My "professional life" is quite an open book: my tenure fight was profiled in the CHE after I chose to make public my entire personnel file. In recent years, I have put all my class notes and syllabi on-line.

As to my own "biases" and "professional jealousies," I can say unequivocally that I neither have had nor currently have any desire to join the Duke Law faculty, and I cannot imagine a future scenario in which I would desire to join the Duke Law faculty.

I was troubled, however, that the commenter above seemed to be less sure than I am that the criticism the law school had received for the low numbers of black females on its faculty (one) had nothing to do with the decision to have Prof. Holloway join the faculty as an affiliated member. Instead of defending Prof. Holloway's extensive legal credentials, he/she lashed out at me.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Interesting swipe KC, but more revealing of your own biases and professional jealousies than you might have intended.
You ought to preview these things, you 'tell on your self' with this kind of underhand. But, after all, what's left to know about you? There's a history of unpleasantness in your own professional life that comments like these make quite current.

11/1/07 8:24 AM


"... a history of unpleasantness ..." Wake us when KC takes a 4-year-old child and makes a racist rapist-killer of him like Prof. KFC Holloway did.

Anonymous said...

The Duke Law School does not even call Holloway "Professor of Law". On the Law School's website she is listed under "Faculty Holding Joint Appointments". If you look at the the other faculty in the law school who have joint appointments, some of them are listed with the title "Professor of Law"; some of them are not. Holloway is not. She is listed as William R. Kenan Professor of English. Period. Presumably those "joint appointees" with the additional title "Professor of Law" either possess a J.D. degree (which Holloway most assuredly does not) and/or have made a significant scholarly contribution bearing upon the field of law via their main field of expertise (which Holloway most assuredly has not). She is listed as offering, among other things, courses on ethics and constitutional legal rhetoric. All well and good - it would make sense to have an expert rhetorician or ethicist teaching such courses (and since she seems to be an expert in just about every other academic field, why not ethics and rhetoric, as well?) However, given her recent command performance(s) in the Lacrosse mess, I would think that Holloway would be the last person a law school would want pontificating on contitutional rhetoric, much less ethics.

Ralph Phelan said...

"There's a history of unpleasantness in your own professional life that comments like these make quite current."

Yes, we all already know that pointing out true things (of which the fact that affirmative action really does mean lowered standards for minorities is only one example) is considered "unpleasant" and "uncollegial" by most faculty.

You and your ilk's constant reminders of this fact does not reduce my respect for KC. It reduces my respect for the rest of academia.

Anonymous said...

Let me say this slowly so you who are reading impaired can get it. Duke faculty write their own bios for these blogs. Sounds to me like this is an old posting, it doesn't even reflect the elevation of her distinguished professorship. A fact some of you careful readers seem to have missed. So if you are looking to these websites for info, you are not looking for the facts. Do some research. But that's the failure of your interests or capabilities. Research for you is checking a website rather than getting the facts from those who would have them. What's the matter--afraid you will find out you are wrong?
And KC...the reason that 8:24 did not refer to her credentials is because hers are not in question. It's your lackluster professional reputation and its very public history that you are still trying to redeem. And unlike others, it's the professional life that seems a reasonable issue here. If KC had any integrity at all he would have barred those comments about her personal life. But he gets his jollies there too. You lose on the integrity front KC--one of your bloggers suggested you consider these off topic, but you can't even take that clue. But clueless, about what trails from your newest professional interests seems to be the watchword of the day.

KC Johnson said...

To the 12.25:

"Duke faculty write their own bios for these blogs."

My comments have referred to Duke University's official website. I never have heard that website referred to as a "blog" before. Whether Duke faculty or someone else writes their bios for this website is irrelevant; it is a university publication.

The idea that students, parents, alumni, and trustees cannot trust basic factual information on the Duke website--that all such information needs to be cleared with the department chair before it can be trusted--is an argument initially floated by Charlie Piot, and is one of the most extraordinary assertions I've heard in this case. Duke is not a third-tier community colleges, which lacks basic resources to keep its website accurate.

As for my "lackluster professional reputation and its very public history," I refer you back to the Chronicle of Higher Ed article. I'm not sure that many people would describe the first sentence in the article as suggesting a "lackluster professional reputation." But I'm sure the Group of 88 would disagree.

Anonymous said...

Suggestions for casting for the upcoming HBO movie based on KC's book:

Houston Baker (played by Queen Latifah)
Mark Anthony Neal (played by Mo'Nique)
Wahneema Lubiano (played by Stanley Crouch)
Karla Holloway (played by Tyler Perry [as Madea])
Crystal Gail Mangum (played by Martin Lawrence [as Shanaynay])

Anonymous said...

"Sounds to me like this is an old posting, it doesn't even reflect the elevation of [Holloway's] distinguished professorship."

-----------------------------------

Oh, pardon me all to hell. Holloway has now been 'elevated' to Arts and Sciences Professor of English (but she still isn't "Professor of Law", and you know it). What further heights could she possibly attain? Oh, yes. There's still the little matter of an impending coronation (she is, after all, an uncrowned queen). In which case "Her Majesty" will need to assemble her court. Allow me to suggest the following (whose qualifications and credentials for the respective jobs are impeccable):

Ladies-in-waiting: Houston Baker and Mark Anthony Neal
Gentleman of the Privy Chamber: Diane Nelson and Wahneema Lubiano
Custodian of the Royal Chamber Pot: Richard Brodhead

Ralph Phelan said...

"What further heights could she [Holloway] possibly attain?"

President of Duke University? After all, Brodhead will need a replacement.

R.R. Hamilton said...

anonymous 88ist says ...

It's [KC's] lackluster professional reputation and its very public history that [he is] still trying to redeem. And unlike others, it's the professional life that seems a reasonable issue here. If KC had any integrity at all he would have barred those comments about her personal life. But he gets his jollies there too. You lose on the integrity front KC--one of your bloggers suggested you consider these off topic, but you can't even take that clue. But clueless, about what trails from your newest professional interests seems to be the watchword of the day.

11/1/07 12:25 PM

This is fucking rich.

The 88ist wants to censor discussions of Prof. Holloway -- "limit it to her professional life". Does it hurt her precious feelings to be reminded of the facts of her own past?

Well guess what? Did Prof. Holloway limit her discussions of the lacrosse players to just their "professional life"? Was she talking about the quality of their on-the-field play?

Oh wait, now I remember! Prof. Holloway organized a Duke faculty greenlight for a racist railroading of lax players that she knew or reasonably should have known were innocent. More than any other person, she created the Duke faculty imprimatur for Nifong to prosecute innocent white children. His prosecution grew from her persecution. Meanwhile, we've learned that "behind the scenes" Prof. Holloway was orchestrating the conditions that led to the firing of the lacrosse coach and other hateful ventures like the CCI.

And did some parents suffer from this Holloway-led persecution of their children? Did you hear Reade Seligman relate how he heard over the phone how "the life was just sucked out of" his mother? Does that sound like a painful moment for a parent, anonymouse at 12:25 PM? Or did you hear that Colin Finnerty saw, for the first time in his life, his own father sobbing? Does that sound like a painful moment for a parent? Did you hear how the stress of the Holloway-endorsed persecution caused Dave Evans' father to endure a new strain of diabetes? How about that for parental pain, anonymouse @ 12:25 PM?

Those parents suffered because of the lies told by Prof. Holloway about their children. (Oh, yeah, you can argue that "there was no causal connection" between the Holloway-led persecution and Nifong's prosecution, but Duke's highly-paid lawyers already advised against trying to make that argument!)

Now that Holloway's lies have caused so much pain to so many innocent people, she deserves to be shielded from the consequences of the truth about herself and her own family? Sorry, out here in the real world -- outside that ivory tower that protects evil -- that's not a bargain even worthy of consideration!

Thinking about how many innocent people have been hurt by Prof. Holloway, her son looks good by comparison.

R.R. Hamilton

Anonymous said...

"It's [KC's] lackluster professional reputation and its very public history that [he is] still trying to redeem"

-----------------------------------

Intellectually and academically, KC dances circles around the likes of, say, Alex Rosenberg(not to mention every single one of the other preposterous gasbags that constitute the Gang of 88). He's widely recognized as being in a wholly different league.

Anonymous said...

""What further heights could she [Holloway] possibly attain?"

President of Duke University? After all, Brodhead will need a replacement."

-----------------------------------

I wouldn't be surprised if, at this very moment, she is busy engineering his departure behind the scenes (she appears to have had experience doing this on at least one other occasion).

Debrah said...

RRH (4:44 PM)--

Excellent.

Anonymous said...

R R Hamilton at 4:44 PM, 11/1/07,
good recounting of some of the extensive pain Holloway has caused.

Anything is possible in DIW, even Holloway as president of Duke. I'm hoping, however, she'll politic her way to a permanent appointment at Harvard, and Duke will be rid of one more of the most egregious of the 88.

Anonymous said...

You could throw darts at almost any faculty directory at Duke and hit the names of academics whose credentials, intelligence, and powers of articulation make them more qualified for an appointment at the law school.

Why is everyone afraid to name the obvious? (That's a real question.) She got the law school *annointment* because she is a black female who keeps playing the race/gender card. That, and she's buoyed by administrators who keep falling over themselves to prove how race/gender sensitive they are.

Duke Prof

Ralph Phelan said...

Why is everyone afraid to name the obvious? (That's a real question.)

Duke Prof


We're not afraid to name it here. You're the "Duke Prof," you tell us. I really am curious about the detailed mechanisms and mindset involved in faculty self-censorship.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 214   Newer› Newest»