Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Checking in with . . . Claire Potter

Professor Claire Potter, host of the blog “Tenured Radical,” has compiled quite a record on the lacrosse case.

First, in April, she published a post in which she:
    • stated, in direct contradiction to the evidence, that “the dancers were, it is clear, physically if perhaps not sexually assaulted”;
    • mused, without producing any evidence, “Do we think that women have not been raped at Duke lacrosse team parties?”
    • stated, in direct contradiction to the evidence, “The ethical culture of this lacrosse team was so out of touch that many players who were not involved in this incident, and who did not do anything wrong, still refused to speak about what had happened, in the misplaced belief that loyalty to one’s friends is a higher virtue than treating people who aren’t on your team with respect”;
    • criticized “those nitwits down at Duke who have been wearing the ‘Innocent’ bracelets” for defending “profoundly screwed up young men”;
    • described the lacrosse team as “a semi-criminal youth gang.”
    After her post, myriad commenters on her blog pointed out Potter’s factual errors. Some might think that an academic, a person whose profession is devoted to pursuing the truth, would have been ashamed at having published an item filled with such reckless and demonstrably false allegations—and about college students, no less.
Not Potter. Instead, in June—after having neither produced any evidence for her extraordinarily serious charges nor having retracted them with an apology—the Wesleyan professor returned to the issue, in a post that:
  • accused me, in direct contradiction to the evidence, of “posting my [Potter’s] email address on his blog [DIW]”;
  • claimed that her April comments, quoted above, “did not spread or make false charges about the students under indictment”;
  • cited “multiple anonymous comments and the accounts opened under pseudonyms” to suggest that it might have been “just the blogger himself[!] in a fit of paranoid rage and grandiosity” that sent her allegedly harassing e-mails;
  • asserted (after complaining that she had been subjected to a “public, personal and vicious verbal assault” in this post, which did almost nothing apart from reproducing her April comments and pointing out that she offered no evidence), “As far as I can tell, he has one identity as a historian and another as the convener of a bizarre, right wing conspiracy group. And the two identities cannot help but overlap because they belong to the same person.”
As in her April post, Potter never produced any evidence to substantiate her claims or insinuations.
Potter is back, having recently listed DIW as one of the ten worst education-related events of the 2007 year. Coming from someone like Potter, I take my inclusion on such a list as high praise indeed. That she placed me alongside Alan Dershowitz only enhances the honor.
Potter, alas, still appears inclined to make reckless, unsubstantiated allegations, writing of my “persistence in harassing members of the Duke University faculty.” (Note the use of “and” in her introductory mention.)
I take a charge of “harassing” other professors quite seriously—indeed, it could be interpreted as an accusation that I engaged in a criminal act. Therefore, I invite Professor Potter (I have sent her a link to this post) to produce evidence to substantiate her claim of my “harassing” Duke faculty.
I also invite Professor Potter to produce evidence for her April 2007 assertion that “the dancers were, it is clear, physically . . . assaulted.”
I further invite Professor Potter to produce evidence for her April 2007 statement that “many players who were not involved in this incident, and who did not do anything wrong, still refused to speak about what had happened, in the misplaced belief that loyalty to one’s friends is a higher virtue than treating people who aren’t on your team with respect.”
And I invite Professor Potter to produce the link where, as she claimed, I posted her e-mail address on DIW.
If Professor Potter cannot produce evidence to substantiate her claims, I call on her to retract them, and to issue a public apology.
I expect Potter neither to produce evidence to substantiate her allegations nor to apologize for making reckless and unsubstantiated assertions. After all, as we have learned from the conduct 
of the Group of 88, being a “tenured radical” means never having to say you’re sorry.

80 comments:

mac said...

Deer Ms. Potter,

This blog thingie, y'know, ain't thu same's email.

Yer email adres is not hard to find, neither. Evaer hear of Google?

No, Ms. Potter, DIW is not one of the "10 worst education-related events of the 2007 year." The Hoax may be, especially as it was aided and abetted by the Klan of 88, and by persons like yourself.

Since you think that gossip should be told as history - such as the gossip about FBI Director Hoover - or at least should be included in the historical records, I believe that your name should be included in the anals of the worst historians ever (top-10 or whatever.)

Your reliance upon gossip as history is a lot like Galaxy Quest's Thermians, who think the show "Galaxy Quest" is Earth's "Historical Documents."

God help us if someone in the future sees a history of our planet written by someone who has such a light touch with historical reality.

mac said...

Potter is said to be the white female equivalent of Al Sharpton, (or he's the black, somewhat-male version of Claire Potter.) That, however, would magnify her importance.

bill anderson said...

K.C.,

You know how these people are. To criticize them is to "harass" them. They are above criticism or even questioning. They are omniscient, even when they are wrong.

As we can see, higher education no longer is about truth, and anyone who tries to deal in truth is said to be engaged in harassing others. However, as we know, the real thugs and bullies are people like Potter and her little friends at Duke.

Anonymous said...

It is funny Claire Potter states in her about me section “My blogging ethic is neither to name or accurately describe individuals unless I am also describing a public event, book or information already published about that person elsewhere”

Yet at a drop of a pin she goes out and names KC Johnson.

What can someone think who is so willing to blatantly lie, and make a contradictory statement on the same page for the whole world to see?

Better yet what can someone think of people who are so stupid and ignore lies like this, and allow her to teach?

Tom E.

Judge Rufus Peckham said...

Anyone who has a son should pray she never "teaches" him. It would be difficult to make up such misandry as she preaches. But, I suppose it goes over well among her kind. And we mustn't allow the facts get in the way of her "truth."

Joe T. said...

LOL. What a bitter thing Potter must be. (Besides, she looks more like Harry Potter).

xutag77 said...

Until these "academics" are held accountable for their remarks they will continue.

Joan Foster said...

Professor Potter posted a pernicious pack of lies.
Professor Potter ,when confronted, produced neither proof nor alibi.
A "profoundly screwed up" posse, a "criminal youth gang"...
Professor Potter pulled no punches in her pseudo-righteous slam.


Professor Potter pontificated of certain "physical assault."
She was pious in her opinion, the Team was predictably at fault.
But when KC proffered evidence and rebutted her with facts
Professor Potter went "postal" and proceeded to attack.


In her panic, Professor Potter parted company with the Truth...
Postulating KC's pastime is harassing the professorate at Duke!
She is peeved that her prevarications are so easily exposed
And those proclivities and biases to which she is predisposed.


Can she prove her pernicious prattle against KC and the team?
Or will she slink away in silence...another moral philistine?
Another pretentious pseudo-intellect..exposed on KC's blog?
Professor Potter: profoundly proven to be a pedantic pedagogue!

traveler said...

Re: Student Ethics hearing against Karla Holloway

SodaHead - Opinion Polls

That a poll about a Duke professor even exists, is remarkable. It states that a student ethics hearing will be held. If this is a true situation, or a hoax, needs to be decided “without” a rush to judgment! After the poll question there are votes and student comments.

SodaHead is a site where anyone can: “Create a Poll and Vote in a Community Comment on issues important to you!”

Duke Student: “Well, Our student panel here at Duke finally has finally been granted an ethics hearing against Karla Holloway.”

Poll:
What should we recommend as a penalty?

Comments: “You should also (not surprisingly) know that Prof. Holloway has respectfully declined to be present during our panel meeting.”

Excerpts:
“……. it took 9 and a half months (apparently the pleas of students mean little to the faculty around here) but the Dean of Student affairs has agreed to hear our arguments against her. The Chancellor and Dean of Academic affairs will also be in attendance……

http://www.sodahead.com/poll/28878/

Ralph Phelan said...

From her departmental home page (working from the bottom up), evidence that Ms. Potter is

(1) Arrogant:
SPECIAL ROLE IN DEPARTMENT: Wit

(2) Computer illiterate:
PERSONAL HOME PAGE: tenured-radical@blogspot.com

(3) An idiot:
EMAIL: xxxxxxx@wesleyan.edu
[email address elided so she can't blame hate mail on KC]

Anonymous said...

From the distinguished professor blog, Quote" That these male lacrosse players at a private university, almost all of whom are white, have not been repeatedly identified -- in jest or seriously -- as the semi-criminal youth gang that they appear to be; and that C. Vivian Stringer's squad of public university scholar-athletes, almost all of whom are black and who have consistently carried themselves with dignity and grace, are slandered on national radio, ought to tell us something about selling race and sex in Amerika today. *Who* is innocent? And where are the conservative cultural critics right now who are so eager to purge our public culture of vulgarity?

miramar said...

Being a tenured radical means never having to say you’re sorry because being a tenured radical means never having to admit you’re wrong.

Potter’s nom de plume comes from Roger Kimball’s book “Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education.” Unfortunately for her, she is merely giving Kimball more ammunition if he decides to write a new edition.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: Potter...Binswanger Award Winner for Teaching Excellence.

"...third project in its early stages fouces on the federal campaigns against pornography...teaches survey courses on U.S. Foriegn Relations...and post Stonewall queer political thought...."

One wonders if the Binswanger Co. understands with whom they are bound?

Anonymous said...

"It is funny Claire Potter states in her about me section “My blogging ethic is neither to name or accurately describe individuals unless I am also describing a public event, book or information already published about that person elsewhere”

Yet at a drop of a pin she goes out and names KC Johnson."

Oh, on the contrary!

She didn't name KC Johnson -- she used the epithet "KC and the Sunshine Band", and even though she linked to DiW, helpfully spelled out that she wasn't going to come right out and honestly say that she was talking about the Duke case. It's so much easier to win a battle of words if you can successfully prevent anyone who might call you on your false statements to know you've initiated that battle, isn't it?

And of course, no one can claim that Professor Potter has accurately described KC, or indeed anyone else. It's rather hilarious to see her attempt to cover her ass with irony -- talking in capital letters about "Legal Case That Will Not Be Mentioned Ever Again Lest We Say Something Terribly Wrong", as if making groundless allegations of physical and sexual assaults wasn't terribly wrong.

So, see? She neither names nor accurately describes individuals!

The strategy of "I'll defame people in great detail, but not directly name them so that they won't be likely to find out about my lying behind their backs" is also one used by http://profbw.wordpress.com, the blogger who invented entirely new quotes that she pretended came from the McFadyen e-mail, and then brazenly pointed to "the language" of those faked quotes and claimed it "implies a rape occurred." Even Nifong didn't falsify evidence that brazenly.

jeyi said...

Here's the complete text of my 25 June 2007 email to Prof. Potter (I got her Wesleyan U. email address by Googling her homepage):

"Subject: KC's blog today

Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen... Or at least use your spell-checker.

AP"

in response her attorneys Mau-Maued me as follows"

"You Have Received An Automated Reply****************

Because the words "Duke," "KC,""Johnson," "Lacrosse" or "Durham" were
in the body and/or subject line of your email, you have received this
automated reply. Please disregard it if you have contacted our
client on legitimate business.

Be advised that your email address has been recorded and will be kept
as a permanent record should further action be necessary. Harassing
or abusive emails received at this address may be reported to servers
and/or employers, and continued contact may result in prosecution.

We urge you to discontinue contact with our client immediately.

Dunning and Bancroft, LLC"

What a lightweight little pissant!

Ralph Phelan said...

"And of course, no one can claim that Professor Potter has accurately described KC, or indeed anyone else."

Or that she could accurately describe anything even if she wanted to.

Anonymous said...

Note to Self:

Yes, there are perfekt people in this world, they are the tenured left.

Mao
Stalin
Pol Pot

The above are their heroes. Let those who doubt their word be either re-educated or simply disappear. Let not the masses interfere.

They are revisionaries!!! Claire, please move on, ... to Cuba.

Anonymous said...

RE: Potter

One of the characteristics of a sociopath is that they always have to "win" or be right.

Ralph Phelan said...

the words "Duke," "KC,""Johnson," "Lacrosse" or "Durham"

I bet Ms. Potter says many factually incorrect things on other subjects (e.g. the history of the Pilgrims' interaction with the Indians. See R.R. Hamilton's 11/26/07 8:54 AM).

If she dislikes being corrected whenever she makes a public mistake, she might wind up with a really big keyword list in her email filter.

Or else she could stop making factually incorrect public statements.

Anonymous said...

"Tenured radical?" There are few things as pathetic as an old bag trying to be hip. Claire, retirement looms, and your're well over three-quarters of the way there. Trying to be 'cute' at your age has made you a laughing-stock at Wesleyan, and beyond.

Anonymous said...

One hopes that Professor Claire Potter will simply ignore Professor KC Johnson and his bloglodites. Eventurally, they will crawl back under their rocks. And they call those who disagree with them trolls. If the shoe fits...

Anonymous said...

11:36- the tenured radical can not ignore K.C. she had no reason to comment on this blog other than to increase her own visibility on her mostly ignored blog.
doesn't look like K.C. is leaving this topic anytime soon, and his "followers" don't seem to have lost much interest either.
it's only gonna get uglier.

Michael said...

re: 9:44

A google search on dunning and bancroft reveals a pair of men that appear to be Jazz artists.

Carolyn said...

KC, way to go! How does it feel to be a "convener of a bizarre, right wing conspiracy group"?

Personally, however, this member of your "group" is deeply offended by Professor Potter. I am a devout Harry Potter fan who actually flew to Edinburgh to stand on the sidewalk at midnight to buy the last Potter book and so it bothers me that some Dementor this side of the Atlantic is now using the same last name as my beloved Harry. Why couldn't this Professor Potter instead call herself Professor Umbridge? Umbridge fits better. After all, Umbridge is the professor who turned on students who dared to question Umbridge's narrow-minded, half-assed 'truth' by making the helpless students write with quills dipped in their own blood.

This Weslayan Professor Potter is out for blood as well when she attacks innocent Duke students and everyone else who disagrees with her. She should be booted out of school. Or - at the very least - change her last name to Slytherin so the world can at least be warned she speaks with a forked tongue.

Anonymous said...

[re: "One hopes that Professor Claire Potter will simply ignore Professor KC Johnson and his bloglodites. Eventurally, they will crawl back under their rocks. And they call those who disagree with them trolls. If the shoe fits..."]

One hopes that everyone will simply ignore this post...

Anonymous said...

To the 11:57,
The tenured radical blog doesn't in fact appear to be almost ignored. And, why can't she comment on this blog without the his followers swarming all over her like locusts?

It can only get uglier? That's probably too true. And really sad.

I assume KC Johnson will quit bothering Duke and Durham when:
1) he has to teach again fultime 2) he gets a job at Duke
3. he gets a life.

Perhpas it will take all three. Imagine if he put his energy into world peace or global warming. I guess that wouldn't attrack the large (and strange) following though, would it...

Anonymous said...

1:02, No one really expects you and your ilk to crawl back under your rocks. Don't worry. You can still be offensive and throw mud, because no one much cares about your opinion.

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.07:

Potter is free to comment on this blog as often as she likes. The approach I have taken with DIW, however, is that my credibility is based on the accuracy of my posts.

My post points out several statements made by Potter that appear to be directly contradicted by the evidence. I asked her to provide proof. She was unable to do so. That strikes me as a most serious development. Indeed, it seems to me that a blog whose author makes repeated statements that she then cannot verify loses all of its credibility.

As to my status: I have said, repeatedly, that I never applied for a job at Duke, have no interest currently in a job at Duke, and would have no interest in a job at Duke in the future. Indeed, if I did have an interest in teaching at Duke, I never could have done this blog.

As to my teaching status: I taught full-time at Brooklyn College in the 2006-2007 academic year, and I am teaching full-time at Tel Aviv University in the 2007-2008 academic year. I'm puzzled, therefore, by your reference to my teaching "again" full-time. I never stopped doing so.

Anonymous said...

hey 1:07, 11:57 here!
does Claire have these fits when her blog topic is the "queering of the Ojibwa hunters' hierarchy" or what ever else she blogs occasionally about?-NO
she poked the hornets' nest by putting up her cute little piece on what an educational disaster/turkey this blog was, sat back waiting for the responses, then cried foul and offered NOTHING in response to K.C.'s challenge other than the standard "I got hate mail" bullcrap.
she wanted the attention.
K.C. can quit bothering Duke and Durm anytime he chooses. there will still be legions of blog hooligans left to see this all the way to the bitter end.
see ya at the finish line!

Anonymous said...

Hey KC, don't lower yourself to responding to these fruit cakes.

They deserve no response.

Your fello blog-mates count on you for TRUTH and accuracy. That's why we're here and not elsewhere.

As long as that is your focus, you sure don't need to answer the detractors.

Most are just jealous.

A few really wouldn't know the difference between truth and falsehood if it hit them on the head, because they have been so brainwashed by the PC crowd that they do not believe in OBJECTIVE truth ( as in, guilty of a crime vs. innocent of even being in the building where an alleged crime was being committed).

What is MOST scary, is that educational institutions are willing to hire and support people like this, when education is SUPPOSED to be about the conveyence of past truth, and the search for new truths.

dsl

AMac said...

Here's a fork in the road that most of us encounter.

When thinking about Ideas, do we look for evidence that confirms those we already hold dear, or do we look for evidence that rebuts them?

"The Black Swan" has been discussed in previous threads; this is one of author Nassim Taleb's cautionary questions. [Easy for a Eurasian or American to repeatedly confirm "All Swans Are White," as it takes a trip to Australia to find their Black relations.]

Prof. Potter has Ideas that--for whatever reason--she likes, really likes. She also has quite a few blog commenters who like them just as much--a Community of Idealists.

That her dear beliefs are fairly easily falsified (by following links and reading) would be troubling to an empiricist.

Prof. Potter's cohort is not so easily led. Instead, they can rephrase the question as "Are there people who say or do offensive or stupid things in the course of contesting our ideas?" If the answer is "Yes," that counts as confirmation of the validity of the favored beliefs.

Let us hope that a Fascist, Ageist, Genderist, or Racist never recommends that Prof. Potter drive on the right side of the street.

Unless, of course, she's visiting Australia (but the swans make that unlikely, in her case).

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 11:36 said...

...One hopes that Professor Claire Potter will simply ignore Professor KC Johnson and his bloglodites.
::
It is doubtful that she can as she has chosen to be a radical leader who can't find any followers.

We here at DIW are the only people who continue to wait around to see who she is leading and what they have to say.

The swinging sixties are over Clair.

Even semi-radicals can't get any traction with the younger crowd.

De minimus
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Dear 1:30,

Given the tone of many of the postings here, I have no doubt she got hate mail. There is a great difference between her posting on her blog--I found it pretty funny myself--and sending nasty, sometimes, frightening and threating email to people. If you think that anyone who mentions KC Johnson in any way that is not positive (your hornets' nest stirring) merits nasty e-mail on to someone's university address, than we disagree. If someone has a problem with a blog, post there and make the case.

Anonymous said...

I am curious about the reaction a lawsuit for libel would be by the estimable tenured radical. I don't think the imaginary "academic freedom" protects deliberate and malicious disregard for facts.
It would be amusing to have Potter explain in court how there really is no need for facts, and besided, there is no such thing as a fact.

KC Johnson said...

To the 2.00:

I cleared the comment, but was baffled by the line "than [sic] we disagree."

You might be new to the blog; it's generally not my practice to clear comments from multiple anonymous individuals. One person to a comment, in other words.

I'm also not sure about the recommendation of you all that people should go and comment on Potter's blog, given her record of deleting comments that disagree with her viewpoint--a practice, I should note, that I do not share.

AMac said...

KC Johnson 2:11pm wrote --

> ...given [Prof. Potter's] record of deleting comments that disagree with her viewpoint...

I'm not sure, but I seem to recall that Prof. Potter threatened to delete unfavorable comments at her blog, but didn't actually do so.

Not stifling civilly-expressed dissent on her blog is an act of integrity for which she should be credited.

For instance, here is a not-very-complimentary comment I left at Tenured Radical's 4/11/07 post There's Got To Be a Morning After--it's still there:

---- begin copied comment ----

AMac said...

anon 5:02pm wrote --

> To all of you who really think that race played no part in the duke lacrosse debacle

Anon: Can you identify the all of you to whom your remarks are ostensibly addressed? Or are you taking a page from our host and simply assuming your favored talking points, instead of thinking them through?

One of the travesties of this case is that Hard Left academics could have used the Hoax to honorably advance some of their professed causes--in particular, the injustices that the Criminal Justice system metes out all too often. Those in the center of the political spectrum recognize the troubling reality that bad outcomes fall disproportionately on poor and minority suspects and victims.

This perspective should have tempered the rush to judgement among faculty radicals at Duke, such as the whinging pals of Tenured Radical. ("Now you know what it is like to work here"--The horror! Having to delete emails expressing dissent!)

The true shame is that respect for Due Process was more than Duke's Group of 88 could manage.

For a whine-free expression of the ideas that Anon 5:02 was, perhaps, trying to express, we can turn to the same exonerated Reade Seligmann whom I quoted earlier:

"This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed. If it is possible for law enforcement officials to systematically railroad us with no evidence whatsoever, it is frightening to think what they could do to those who do not to have the resources to defend themselves. So rather than relying on disparaging stereotypes, or creating political and racial conflicts, we must all take a step back from this case and learn from it. This tragedy has revealed that our society has lost sight of the core principle of our legal system, the presumption of innocence."

So far, you academic disciples of Gramsci have shown yourselves the equals of the late Bourbon kings,

You have forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.

7:02 PM EST

---- end copied comment ---

Ralph Phelan said...

If you think that anyone who mentions KC Johnson in any way that is not positive
It's not what she says about KC, it's the continued sliming of the Lacrosse players, who unlike KC never volunteered to be a part of this fight.

merits nasty e-mail on to someone's university address, than we disagree.
I do disagree. Incorrect statements of fact on a history professor's blog deserve to be taken very seriously and brought to her attention.

If someone has a problem with a blog, post there and make the case.
Why? She'll probably just delete it.

Ralph Phelan said...

AMac said...
I'm not sure, but I seem to recall that Prof. Potter threatened to delete unfavorable comments at her blog, but didn't actually do so.

See this thread:
Anonymous said...
the tenured radical did not like my suggestion to send you one of her t-shirts and has removed the comment from her blog. sorry K.C. perhaps the Diva can arrange an exchange of a copy of UPI for the t-shirt at some undisclosed location?

"beware the zealot for (s)he is humorless"

11/27/07 1:18 PM


And I describe a post of mine (admittedly a tasteless joke) that was removed.

Apparently Ms. Potter will tolerate dissent, but not mockery.

Anonymous said...

Ralph Phelan said...

It's not what [Prof. Potter] says about KC, it's [her] continued sliming of the Lacrosse players, who unlike KC never volunteered to be a part of this fight.


Ralph, if her political philosophy requires that she slimes her own ancestors with blood-libelous lies*, what makes you think she will ever stop sliming the lacrosse boys?

RRH

* Like this one: "[M]y Pilgrim forebears were turkeys too, and showed their thanks to the Indians who had brought several covered dishes to the first Thanksgiving by killing them afterwards. I don't mean to take the fun out of the holiday or anything, but you can't be in American Studies and not be up front about these things."

Anonymous said...

"One hopes that Professor Claire Potter will simply ignore Professor KC Johnson and his bloglodites."

Whether one hopes it or not, Professor Claire Potter will almost certainly ignore whatever does not fit her prejudices, and will just as certainly invent delusions to take the place of facts. This would be the origin, it seems, of her declaration that:

"the dancers were, it is clear, physically if perhaps not sexually assaulted"

which, far from being "clear", was completely contradicted by the investigation performed by the Attorney General of North Carolina, which determined that "no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night."

Now, if Professor Claire Potter had both honesty and integrity, she has had over seven months since that April 2007 in which to acknowledge that her statement was wrong. She would not even have to acknowlege any personal wrongdoing; she could merely said that from her reading of mainstream media sources, she had believed their incorrect representations that the victim was "beat up", "pretty banged up", with "bruises on her face, neck, and arms", with "injuries to the woman's pelvic area" (these descriptions, for instance, vivid in the picture they paint but all shown to be falsehoods by the actual medical records, appear in a sidebar to an ESPN story, attributed to an anonymous source.) So Professor Claire Potter could simply said that, like most of us, she didn't dream that everything they were printing about the supposed condition of the accuser was entirely fabricated.

But Professor Claire Potter has made no such move to reclaim her integrity.

Instead, she has ignored the wrong she has clearly done, to focus on some alleged wrongs against her which are, shall we say, of dubious factual foundation. I do not rule out the possibility that Professor Potter has received actual e-mails which crossed the bounds of civility; nor can I rule out the possibility that some of those e-mails originated with people who would consider themselves readers of Durham-in-Wonderland. Yet I see no evidence for this and instead I see indications that a) Professor Potter is willing to mis-classify actions which are quite within the boundaries of normal discourse as being outside those boundaries (for instance, asking her to retract those allegations of criminal activity she has made which have been shown to be false), and b) Professor Potter is in some ways quite uneducated about the technical details of the Internet, meaning that even if she is fully sincere in believing that DiW must be the cause of intolerable e-mail she is receiving, that is not necessarily an educated opinion on the matter.

To clarify b): Two other posters have already proferred some evidence for Professor Potter's lack of Internet knowledge. KC himself pointed out Professor Potter's conflation of publishing a publicly available link with publishing all the information which can be reached by following that link. Ralph Phelan pointed out that in her departmental information, Professor Potter formatted the URL of her personal webpage with an "@" -- in other words, as if it were an e-mail address, not a URL. To add my own small contribution -- I did experiment to see how difficult it would be for someone to get the e-mail address of Professor Potter, starting only with the knowledge that they were looking for whoever had posted the false allegations against the lacrosse players at tenured-radical.blogspot.com .

Results:

Ten keys pressed (including "Enter") to get to Google.com.

Fifteen keys (including "Enter") to search on "tenured radical". The second result of the search lists Professor Potter's name in full and her university name.

Twenty-three keys to search on first name, last name and university name. To be extra-fair to Professor Potter, I did not even use quote marks to focus the search. The third result of the search is Professor Potter's departmental page, which as previously noted displays Professor Potter's e-mail address for the world to see.

Mr said...

Anonymous said...

Dear 1:30,

Given the tone of many of the postings here, I have no doubt she got hate mail. There is a great difference between her posting on her blog--I found it pretty funny myself--and sending nasty, sometimes, frightening and threating email to people. If you think that anyone who mentions KC Johnson in any way that is not positive (your hornets' nest stirring) merits nasty e-mail on to someone's university address, than we disagree. If someone has a problem with a blog, post there and make the case.

11/27/07 2:00 PM

end copied post.........

did I encourage nasty emails somewhere in my posts? NO. I find it mildly humorous that every time one of the 88ers or their enablers is unmasked in any way on this blog,there is the cry of "hateful emails" but never any proof. my limited attempts to correspond with some of the 88ers early in the case brought some reasoned replies, alas, no longer. it's not about K.C., it's about you and yours.

X

Anonymous said...

To 9:37

Thank you I stand corrected :>

Tom E.

Anonymous said...

"Some might think that an academic, a person whose profession is devoted to pursuing the truth, would have been ashamed at having published an item filled with such reckless and demonstrably false allegations—and about college students, no less."

Wow, this is really a quantum leap. Why in the world would anyone, especially after the Duke case, assume that the profession of an academic is devoted to pursuing the truth?

Mike in Nevada

Anonymous said...

"If someone has a problem with a blog, post there and make the case."

This assumes that the blogger does not delete posts which disagree with him/her. I have no knowledge of whether Professor Potter does so, but this is the case with the blog at http://profbw.wordpress.com, which makes allegations even more viciously false against the players. (The most egregious example is probably the false quote which she invented and claimed came from the McFadyen e-mail -- and then pointed to the "language" of her own invented quote as evidence that a rape had occurred.) Of my three polite postings which pointed out the various "facts" she was posting which were, in fact, false, two were eliminated silently and completely; the third had every reference to anything which she had posted being false removed from it, taking it down to just two (disconnected) paragraphs. And to this post, she replied that there were plenty of other blogs out there to "debate" the facts of the Duke case but that "thankfully" hers wasn't one of them.

What is your recommended strategy for dealing with a blog that spreads false and defamatory claims and then disclaims any responsibility to correct even the most egregiously false of that misinformation?

inman said...

RRH @ 4:30 said:

"Ralph, if her political philosophy requires that she slimes her own ancestors with blood-libelous lies*, what makes you think she will ever stop sliming the lacrosse boys?

RRH

* Like this one: "[M]y Pilgrim forebears were turkeys too, and showed their thanks to the Indians who had brought several covered dishes to the first Thanksgiving by killing them afterwards. I don't mean to take the fun out of the holiday or anything, but you can't be in American Studies and not be up front about these things."


I still think she is a fraud when she refers to the Pilgrims as her "forebears." As I stated earlier, I don't think she has any definitive proof of a lineal descent from anyone who landed with the Mayflower.

And...may I add, I am more than willing to challenge her on this, for it is something about which I know.

As a tid bit: Before the 1980's, one did not have to provide definitive proof to submit an application for membership in the General Society of Mayflower Descendants. After the 1970's one had to provide unequivocal written and historical proof (deeds, wills, church records, etc.) of the line of descent to prove lineal descent and eligibility for membership. Oral tradition was and is no longer allowed.

In other words, it's no longer good enough to refer in a casual way to one's relation to the Mayflower unless one is willing to put up or shut up.

So ... Claire Bond Potter refers to and slanders her "forebears" ... I'm still willing to bet that she is a fraud.

And I personally find her fraudulent statements offensive.

I invite her to put up or shut up.
________________________

I do accept that, as an explanation, she was refering to an American indian anscestor named "four bears" .... but I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe Claire, Dines, the 88 or the West Texas law Professor ever got mean and nasty email. If they had, it would be out there including the IP of the sender.

Anonymous said...

By definition, a "radical" is not only someone who can take a lot of punishment, a "radical" is someone who is by their very nature provoking others to punish him/her
in order to gain political sympathy(cf:the recent "Young Stalin")
Potter and her ilk on the other hand demonstrate all the moral courage of grocery clerks, who from the safe perch of tenured positions in academically questionnable departments defame
innocent defendants who have the misfortune to possess politically incorrect backgrounds.
Ergo, the shrillness and lack of authenticity that reminds one more than anything of the puerile film, "Billy Jack", which was roundly parodied on Saturday Night Live.
As for nasty e-mails, Potter and her friends are lucky they haven't yet been SUED for defamation -- forget e-mailing.........

Anonymous said...

Potter, a legend in her own mind!

Sadly denial a very strong sedative, Potter yawns again!

SULAX88 said...

As best as I can tell from my research...There is no such law firm as "Dunning and Bancroft, LLC" in the state of Connecticut, or elsewhere... The only reference on the entire web that I could come up with would indicate that these names belong to two historians from the early part of the twentieth century, who co-wrote at least one book

http://www.freewebtown.com/bobwb/schurz/political/schurzp.pdf

This "Tenured Radical" (anagram for "Dunce Retard" with a remainder of "AIL") can't even bluff very well...though she does get points for being creative in making up her fantasy legal team.

Anonymous said...

To the KC Johnson at 2:11 pm,

You're not teaching this semester, so maybe you have forgotten that faculty e-mail mailboxes can relatively easily overfill and not accept more mail, including university correspondence. If Professor Potter's blog is not on the university server, you are doing a disservice by seeming to encourage people to contact her on her university e-mail, which may well be meant only for university business. (This is the case at many universities.) So many of your bloggie guys and gals go at faculty for not doing enough research **that you/they like** or spending enough time on teaching or whatever, you'd think they'd not want a faculty member--any faculty member--wasting time removing attack-dog e-mails. It does take time to clear out a mailbox of junkmail, which is what hate mail is.

Professor Johnson, you seem to think Professor Potter's record of deleting comments that disagree with her viewpoint is somehow wrong. Her approach is in some ways better than your record of leaving up nasty comments, which I understand as indicating approval, even, endorsement, of what is said, despite any claims you might make to the contrary..

KC Johnson said...

To the 2.56:

I'm not sure where you have gotten the idea that I am "not teaching this semester." I am a visiting professor at Tel Aviv University, with a full-time teaching load.

I also would invite you to point to any statement by me at any point in which I was "seeming to encourage" people to contact Prof. Potter in any way, much less via e-mail.

"Her approach is in some ways better than your record of leaving up nasty comments, which I understand as indicating approval, even, endorsement, of what is said, despite any claims you might make to the contrary."

Your logic is an interesting one. Since I have cleared your comment, and left it up, are you suggesting that I approve of it?

The argument that any comment that appears on a blog reflects the viewpoint of the blog author, of course, has been commonly made--by figures such as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, in their criticism of the blog Daily Kos. It's refreshing to see the anti-intellectual left and anti-intellectual right offering identical critiques of the blogosphere.

Anonymous said...

Dear Professor-KC-Johnson-who-always-has-to-be-right,

I think you butted in yesterday to commenter B responding to commenter A's remarks. There was an on-going discussion about e-mail, yes? No one accused you of doing anything.

In you 5:20 this morning, you have engaged in one of your far-too-cool-for-school little tricks: the 2:56 didn't quite contain the nasty name-calling that too often passes that so often passes for discourse on your blog. If you still can't figure out what is meant, check the names Debrah has called Professor Claire Potter in her recent postings here. These are ad hominim attacks. Different in style and substance than some of the other strongly worded statements that appear here from time to time. But, Debrah's comments are not nasty? Clearly you thought mine were. Why? Thin skinned are we, Professor?

KC Johnson said...

To the 6.35:

It's impossible for me to determine your reference--"Clearly you thought mine were. Why?"--when you comment under the cloak of anonymity, and do not provide even a note to the time of the comment to which you refer. Therefore, I am unable to answer your question.

Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson at 6:54, I think you can probably assume 6:35's question was rhetorical.

Here are three questions you can answer:

1. What consistitutes your *full load* in Tel Aviv? How many students do you teach a week? I'm wondering if the university is run more like an American one or an English one.

2. Do you think Debrah's name calling on your blog is appropriate?

3. Don't a lot of people who are not *Democrats* support gay marriage (eg, people who have personal experience with the problems of gay couples who have no legal status)?

KC Johnson said...

To the 7.16:

1.) I teach a 3-2 load at TAU. My courses meet twice a week for two hours per meeting, with a class size ranging from 17 to 29. If you want to learn more about one of my classes (on US-Middle East relations), I invite you to sample the course blog; and, if you are in Tel Aviv, you're welcome to come by and sit in on a class.

As for the differences between English and American universities, I fear that question is beyond the scope of this blog. I am teaching my TAU classes no differently than I teach my courses at Brooklyn.

2.) There are some comments on the blog, including some of Debrah's, that do not reflect my viewpoint. I have stated as much on several occasions, including in at least three posts. However, my policy is to clear all comments save those that are off-topic, racist, or vile, under a faith in the marketplace of ideas. Professor Potter obviously doesn't share that faith, though, given her performance in the lacrosse case, I can see why she takes the course that she does.

3.) According to the most recent statewide poll on gay marriage, only 17% of Florida Republicans favor it. A 2004 CBS News poll found "Republicans, conservatives, and people in the South are the most likely to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage – about three-quarters of each group does." So, no, a "lot" of non-Democrats do not support gay marriage. That, it seems to me, is unfortunate, but it's the current reality.

That said, I'm not quite sure why you needed me to answer that question--the polling data is readily available on the internet. I'd advise you to pursue such a course in the future, rather than relying on me as a reference source.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Potter and her ilk on the other hand demonstrate all the moral courage of grocery clerks"

Why the gratuitous slam at grocery clerks?

R.R. Hamilton said...

anonymous said...

To the KC Johnson at 2:11 pm,

If Professor Potter's blog is not on the university server, you are doing a disservice by seeming to encourage people to contact her on her university e-mail, which may well be meant only for university business. (This is the case at many universities.) So many of your bloggie guys and gals go at faculty for not doing enough research **that you/they like** or spending enough time on teaching or whatever, you'd think they'd not want a faculty member--any faculty member--wasting time removing attack-dog e-mails. It does take time to clear out a mailbox of junkmail, which is what hate mail is.

11/28/07 2:56 AM (emphasis added)


I am one of KC's "Sunshine Band" and I have not written a single e'mail to any of the academic frauds that he has highlighted on his blog. I have not done so because none of them seem to have an IQ above 120 and so I did not feel that they could benefit from reading anything I wrote. It did not occur to me until now, however, that their students and indeed the entire institution of American academia could benefit if I sent an e'mail that would subtract from the time the frauds had for their *cough!* research and writing. (For example, my e'mail might distract the fraud at Wesleyan University from writing more lies about the Pilgrims killing Indians, as I've highlighted here.)

So, 2:56 AM, you have encouraged me to send a "hate-mail". But since KC is the one who posted your e'mail and left it up, you can blame him.

Anonymous said...

Btw, I'm a political independent, religious agnostic, and retired sexual libertine who thinks "gay marriage" is a ridiculous idea.

RRH

Ralph Phelan said...

Btw, I'm a political independent, religious agnostic, and retired sexual libertine who thinks "gay marriage" is a ridiculous idea.

RRH

Funny. I'm a right wing atheist who thinks "gay marriage" is both good policy and good politics (I expect that after they get married, adopt a child, and buy a house in the suburbs, getting their property tax bill and meeting their local public school teachers will shock them into registering Republican). I just want to see it voted in rather than imposed by the courts, to avoid setting bad legal precedents and disturbing the proper separation of powers.

Anonymous said...

Who are you to decide, RRH, if Professor Potter is a good teacher or not? Her students probably won't appreciate it much if you make it difficult for them to contact her by behaving in the offensive and v. juvenile way you're threatening.

Professor KC Johnson, if people like RRH are your fans, I feel sorry for you. Do you really want to be associated with someone who threatens to harass those with whom he disagrees?

BTW, you might have provided information on how many Republicans in New York are in favor of gay marriage. Probably a bit higher there than in Florida. Your claim to being "liberal" based on supporting pro-gay marriage is mighty slim, old son.

I think your high tolerance for really offensive remarks **based on what you permit to remain on line** speak volumes about your politics.

Anonymous said...

Here is an idea - We need to chip in and charter a flight to Israel so we can sit in on KC's course.

KC Johnson said...

To the 10.13:

You clearly have access to the web--I invite you to find a poll on Republicans in New York on gay marriage and report it to the blog.

I also invite you to produce a link where I claimed to be "liberal," or offered any other such description of my beliefs. I have said, repeatedly, that I am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, and a registered Democrat who is supporting Barack Obama for president (I was recently a founding member of Historians for Obama). Perhaps there are lots of Republicans who share those beliefs; I certainly hope so.

Anonymous said...

The 2:56 AM said:

"If Professor Potter's blog is not on the university server, you are doing a disservice by seeming to encourage people to contact her on her university e-mail,"

What an interesting comment. Let's play Arguendo.

2:56 claims that there is some standard under which KC can be said to "seem[] to encourage people to contact her on her university e-mail". Let us assume, arguendo, such a standard, and see if we can define what that standard is.

Did KC give direct commands to anyone to contact Professor Potter? "Contact Professor Potter and let her know what you think of her defamation!" No.

Did KC give indirect commands to anyone to contact Professor Potter? "Someone really should contact Professor Potter and let her know what they think of her defamation!" No.

Did KC try to describe any sort of inducement for anyone to contact Professor Potter? "It would be entirely entertaining to find out what Professor Potter would do if someone ..." No. Wow, this standard of "seem[] to encourage" is not looking a whole lot like any conventional meaning of that phrase.

Did KC make any attempt to highlight or call attention to Professor Potter's contact information? The evidence does not support it. A quick look at the pages of Wesleyan U.'s history department shows that it is by Wesleyan's decision, not by Professor Johnson's, that professors in that department have their e-mails publicly listed on their university webpages. By the logic of 2:56, KC has "seem[ed] to encourage" people to consider all the positive information that webpage makes available about Professor Potter -- the four titles she holds within the department, her undergraduate degree from Yale and her graduate degrees from NYU, the academic organizations she belongs to... the fact that someone within the department (perhaps Professor Potter herself, or perhaps the phantom law firm of Dunning and Bancroft, LLC) considers her the "wit" of the department ... by 2:56's logic, KC has thrust all this information at his readers, has implicitly implored them to read it, simply by making an unremarked link to a page where it could be found. But 2:56 is of course specifically alleging that KC has "seemed to encourage" readers to contact Professor Potter with negative comments. So of course 2:56's logic contradicts itself; anyone who was encouraging or "seeming to encourage" hate mail would hardly encourage his/her myrmidons to contemplate the respectability and responsibility to the target. Thus we must acknowledge the obvious, that merely linking to Professor Potter's page at Wesleyan (which, as we've seen, can be located in about 25 seconds, starting only from the knowledge that her blog is at tenured-radical.blogspot.com) can hardly be considered a directive to employ for any specified purpose the information there.

So, at the end, we are left with: KC pointed out that Professor Potter had made false accusations against the lacrosse players, and had refused to either provide evidence for or retract her accusations, as academic integrity would dictate. In 2:56's world, this is all it takes to be 'guilty' of "seeming to encourage" hate mail. If you catch someone doing something morally reprehensible, and you call attention to the fact, you thereby "seem[] to encourage" hate mail, by 2:56's standard.

So, let's see how Professor Potter ranks by that standard.

"the dancers were, it is clear, physically if perhaps not sexually assaulted" -- ooooh. Not good, Professor, not good. With those false claims, Professor, you are seeming to encourage harassment of the exonerated lacrosse players! "this behavior was said to be part of a pattern of ingrained, anti-social behavior" -- ohhh, Professor, now you are encouraging harassment of the lacrosse players based on unattributed gossip! oh, but here we get to the smoking gun...

"That these male lacrosse players at a private university, almost all of whom are white, have not been repeatedly identified -- in jest or seriously -- as the semi-criminal youth gang that they appear to be ..."

Wow. If 2:56 AM had integrity -- that is, if he/she actually believed in universal application of the standard he/she would like to impose on KC -- then he/she should be writing a furious missive to Professor Potter right now. What else can this be, according to the standard 2:56 has identified, except for a direct order by Professor Potter to slander the players as a "semi-criminal youth gang"?? If KC merely observing the perfectly true facts of Professor Potter slandering the exonerated players is "seeming to encourage" mail to her, then there can be no other reading of Professor Potter specifically bemoaning that the players have not been "repeatedly identified" as a "semi-criminal youth gang" than a command to do so!

Anonymous said...

My best friend's 90 year old father says "Of course, gays should marry." "Why should they be happy when over half of the heterosexuals in America are miserable?"

Debrah said...

I think your high tolerance for really offensive remarks **based on what you permit to remain on line** speak volumes about your politics."

You don't EVER want to go there.

Educate yourself before you make such idiotic statements.

You need to visit the blogs and websites of those who support people like Potter and the Gang of 88.

These people are offensive beyond belief.

Let someone direct you to a place where you can read some of the e-mails that those Duke professors sent to the parents of lacrosse players, and the others things they have uttered publicly.

You are offensive because you are so clueless in your remarks.

R.R. Hamilton said...

KC, he addressed both of us here. You've had your swing at the pinata; my turn:

Anonymous moronic professor said...

Who are you to decide, RRH, if Professor Potter is a good teacher or not? Her students probably won't appreciate it much if you make it difficult for them to contact her by behaving in the offensive and v. juvenile way you're threatening.


First, professor, keep your speech codes for the poor kids on campus -- your desire to censor independent voices has no effect here. Second, professor, I didn't "threaten" to send an e'mail. Don't blame us if you can't read. I said at 8:40 AM that I was encouraged to write an e'mail by your 2:56 AM comment. Finally, are you telling me that I can point out Prof. Potter's lies about history, but I can't then "decide that she's a bad teacher"? Or am I forbidden to even point out her lies?

The clueless professor continues...

Professor KC Johnson, if people like RRH are your fans, I feel sorry for you. Do you really want to be associated with someone who threatens to harass those with whom he disagrees?


I'm thinking that Prof. Johnson would probably prefer to be associated with the grit beneath my toenails than with most of the professors who post on here. And again, is it "harassment" to call out a professor on her lies?

KC, are most of the professors really as dumb as the ones who comment here? I'm hoping for the alternative explanation: they're smart but evil.

Btw, Prof. Gutless, why don't you pick up a pseudonym before you post again -- or is that beyond the capability of your imagination?

Anonymous said...

correction to my 8:40 AM:

So, 2:56 AM, you have encouraged me to send a "hate-mail". But since KC is the one who posted your [comment] and left it up, you can blame him.

RRH

Mr said...

Tortmaster/MOO! Gregory has tried his hand at leaving Claire a comment on her blog. wonder if he will get a t-shirt?

X

Anonymous said...

Re. leaving comments on Prof. Potter's blog:

Don't forget the Biblical injunction involving pearls and swine.

Anonymous said...

I just took a look at the "Tenured Radical" blogspot. Professor Potter's entry, "....Giving Good Paper" caught my eye. As she noted on her Wesleyan Department of History website, she is just so witty!

Anonymous said...

Ralph Phelan said at 9:23 AM ...

RRH
Funny. I'm a right wing atheist who thinks "gay marriage" is both good ...


Ralph, with all due respect to your "right wing" credentials, you're in New Hampshire. Come to Texas and see how right wing you are. *smile*

This country needs same-sex marriage like a fish needs a bicycle.

RRH

Fon said...

Thanks for the information on topics.I was excited by this article.
Thank you again.

College online for good ideas.

Anonymous said...

I've enjoyed and learned from this blog for several months.

I am a white, 60ish well-educated business woman in the South who has no love for Obama and no patience at all with the same-sex marriage agenda.

As afar as I am concerned this blog is supposed to be about Duke, the Lacrosse Hoax, the sorry state of Higher Education, and the need for accountability and consequences when renegade Police Departments conspire against innocent people.

My respect for KC and Stuart as reliable researchers and incredible authors knows no bounds.

But I would really prefer that another blogsite be set up for the perpetrating of political views and all that goes with the upcoming elections. There is absolutely no point in alienating many of the readers of this blog, who have rallied around a concern that we hold in common, by digressing to the side issues which most certainly will divide us.

There is a huge need in this country right now, IMO, for finding any kind of common threads of agreement. We are hugely divided, and it is not helping us.

Let's PLEASE not let this blog disintegrate into one more thing that is fractured. It may be one of the few places of agreement where liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, etc. etc. can all find a common meeting ground.

This is NOT an attempt to silence such discourse. I am all for the free-market exchange of thoughts, opinions, perspectives, and information. However, KC carries a "big stick" on this blog, and has an awesome intellect. It would be absolutely futile to disagree with him on the Obama thing on this blog. I just think it would be better to separate the issues, and let there be another blog where the political mess can be hashed out in an open forum... but NOT this one.

dsl

Anonymous said...

DSL - Good post. Agree completely. This is the only blog where the political "mess" comes together in common cause. A precious commodity. And one of the few places, we can disagree without an attempt of total annihilation from most posters.

Ralph Phelan said...

Sorry if I gave a wrong impression. My main motivation for airing my views (which I know are pretty freakish) is to demonstrate my part of the philosophical diversity of this group.

Part of the PCist's attack is to claim that we're all clones of KC and/or all a bunch of conservatives. Though such ad-hominem charges should be irrelevant to enlightened thinkers, considering who we're arguing with it's also worth demonstrating that they're untrue.

Anonymous said...

4:04. Some people would have a lot of trouble even believing that conservative DO THINK.

And I am SURE not Kc's clone... nor do I want one of my own.

The greatest joy I have had from this blog, personally, is finding a common ground among people with whom I would not naturally do so. I might hope the same from them???

dsl

AMac said...

I withdraw the qualified praise I offered to the Tenured Radical blogger up-thread, on 11/27/07 at 2:34pm. I had been under the impression that TR saw "dissent" as a two-way street, at least at times.

Ralph Phelan's experience at her blog shows that this is not the case, as does the recent DiW post, "Airbrushing."

Then there's TR's most recent post, The Radical of America Goes to Washington City... This takes disingenuousness to new lows. If it can be said to cross at some point into outright dishonesty, than TR has accomplished that trick.

A true disciple of Gramsci. The sad part is that this chic posture seems to garner admiration rather than the needed reprimands from her academic colleagues.

I'll skip the t-shirt.

gwallan said...

Anonymous said in response to KC Johnson...
If Professor Potter's blog is not on the university server, you are doing a disservice by seeming to encourage people to contact her on her university e-mail, which may well be meant only for university business. (This is the case at many universities.) So many of your bloggie guys and gals go at faculty for not doing enough research **that you/they like** or spending enough time on teaching or whatever, you'd think they'd not want a faculty member--any faculty member--wasting time removing attack-dog e-mails. It does take time to clear out a mailbox of junkmail, which is what hate mail is.

From her blog...
About Me
Tenured Radical
Claire B. Potter, Professor of History and American Studies at Wesleyan University in Middletown Connecticut.


Ms Potter gives her employer pride of place in her self description. Her employer's PO Box is therefore an appropriate destination for correspondence.

Anonymous said...

Finally, we have the answer to the hate mail. It is really just junkmails, Who would of thought???

AMac said...

One thing about revising blog posts after they're posted is that remarks about a prior version might not make sense any more. That's a reason why it's nice for authors to note that they have altered a post, and preferably what they've added or deleted, as well.

In a comment last night (11/29/07 at 11:46pm), I wrote:

"Then there's TR's most recent post, The Radical of America Goes to Washington City... This takes disingenuousness to new lows. If it can be said to cross at some point into outright dishonesty, than TR has accomplished that trick."

In the last short while, Prof. Potter pulled the referred-to post and placed a different one at its URL. Perhaps this is how somebody who never makes mistakes (and thus never apologizes) responds when she finds she's made a mistake. Does that make much sense? Well, no. But it is of a piece with Potter's other remarks touching on the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame.

Signed,
K.C. Johnson *

* The signature line is a joke. (It's so funny because one of Potter's long-standing Talking Points is that anybody who disagrees with her about the Hoax/Frame must be a Johnson's sock puppet, or else some malign clone of his.)