Thursday, November 15, 2007

Coleman, Then and Now

In a September 12 N&O article, Jim Coleman explained,

how much the lacrosse players suffered is just one factor in determining an appropriate amount to seek. Coleman said he thinks Durham police failed to adequately explore evidence that could have exonerated the players, a charge the city denies. He said other falsely accused people have suffered more, but they often were the victims of negligence rather than an intentional effort to bring charges without evidence.

The question of intent—whether police willfully railroaded the lacrosse players—will be a key factor if the civil case goes to trial, Coleman and Largess said. If police and city officials are found to have maliciously pursued the case knowing the evidence wasn’t there, they should pay until it hurts, Coleman said. “There’s an element of punitive action involved in lawsuits like this,” he said.

On September 13, Coleman added that deterrence can be a critical action of such suits: “When the city acts in ways that are so totally outrageous and could have been prevented, I think the damages ought to be sufficient to deter that kind of behavior in the future and also to send a message to other cities and prosecutors across the state. I have no idea the damage they suffered. There’s no way for us to say $30 million is low or high.”

Here's Coleman, in yesterday's Chronicle, expressing a different opinion, and a far different tone: "There's going to be something of a backlash against the audacity of the litigation against the city and against the University. I think most people believe that the students were harmed by what happened to them but not to the extent that the lawsuits suggest." He didn't explain what caused his shift in opinion from Sept. 12 until Nov. 14.

Meanwhile, anti-lacrosse extremists continue to offer their . . . unique . . . brand of reasoning. Group of 88'er Paula McClain: "Every incumbent who ran has been re-elected. Therefore, there appears to have been little or no political fallout from the situation. In fact, the citizens of Durham have given their leaders a vote of confidence."

I wonder if this is the type of reasoning McClain applies in her political science classes. One of the incumbents re-elected was Councilman Eugene Brown, a vehement critic of the DPD's mishandling of the case. Another re-elected figure was Mayor Bell, who had strongly called for an outside committee to investigate the DPD. Is McClain suggesting that the citizens of Durham gave a "vote of confidence" to Brown's critique of the DPD? That, of course, wouldn't fit into her preconceived ideological agenda, but she seems to have conceded it was so.

And Kerry Haynie was more loquacious for the Chronicle than for this blog, when asked why he signed the clarifying statement (Get a freaking life! Quote me!”). Said he to the Chronicle, ""It will be an issue that will get some news coverage, but the actual effect on the politics of Durham will be very little. I think it's an issue that will come and go."

Again, I wonder if this is the type of reasoning Haynie applies in his political science classes. It is true, of course, that all issues "come and go." But one hardly needs a Ph.D. in political science to make such an observation.

149 comments:

Anonymous said...

How about Elliott Wolfe in today's Chronicle?

Physician, heal thyself

Anonymous said...

I don't have the slightest difficulty believing that Durham elected officials reflect the attitudes of Durham voters. Why there are any sane, intelligent people left in that town is a mystery to me. Any sane, intelligent Durhamites care to tell us why they haven't left yet?

Dave Bynum said...

I don't think Jim Coleman shifted his opinion at all. In the Chronicle, he said "...I think most people believe that the students were harmed by what happened to them but not to the extent that the lawsuits suggest." He's saying what he believes most people in Durham think, and I think he's probably right. It doesn't contradict his September 13th statement. He's simply predicting how many in Durham will react to the lawsuit. His Sept. 13th statement validates the legitimacy of bringing a lawsuit, and a big one, but doesn't address how people will react. With all due respect, I think your reaching on this one, trying to make Jim Coleman look bad, which is a shame as he has been the greatest voice of reason during the whole affair.

Anonymous said...

a ph.d. in poli-sci
(as if there is anything even remotely involved with "science" in such a degree) consists of reading the N.Y. Times for a couple of years, piking a topic the grad advisor/prof is keen on, and then spitting out the party line with some slightly novel phrasing.

so hardly a surprise that every successive utterance hews to that framework.

KC Johnson said...

To Dave:

It's not my intention to make Coleman look bad.

There's nothing in his September statement to suggest a criticism of the "audacity of the litigation against the city and against the University." Indeed, to my knowledge, he never before had criticized the possibility of a lawsuit against the University (the University, of course, settled, suggesting that Duke didn't consider the lawsuit too audacious); and there's nothing to suggest in Sept. that he viewed the lawsuit against the city as audacious.

There's a dramatically different tone here.

Debbie said...

Coleman actually thinks there will be a backlash! Absolutely insanity. I just finished ready UPI and I'm far more angier at the audacity of the police, Nifong, Duke, the Group of 88.

I am MUCH more sympathy toward these young men. I do feel that filing the lawsuit for them is the best thing. It isn't just money they are after. They want things to change in the way police to things for the better so as not to ensnare any future innocent individual.s

Anonymous said...

Anucha Browne Sanders was awarded a judgment of $11.6 million against Madison Square Garden and Isiah Thomas for sexual harassment. By that standard, $30 million in the lacrosse case seems reasonable if not an outright bargain.

Ralph Phelan said...

Coleman:
"There's going to be something of a backlash against the audacity of the litigation against the city and against the University. I think most people believe that the students were harmed by what happened to them but not to the extent that the lawsuits suggest."

McClain:
"Every incumbent who ran has been re-elected. Therefore, there appears to have been little or no political fallout from the situation. In fact, the citizens of Durham have given their leaders a vote of confidence."

Haynie:
"It will be an issue that will get some news coverage, but the actual effect on the politics of Durham will be very little. I think it's an issue that will come and go."

Johnson (in blog entry headline):
Update: Resounding Vote for Status Quo

It seems the four of you are in substantial agreement as to the objective state of Durham politics at this time: the electorate doesn't think their city did anything all that bad, and they would all just like to forget about it.

Here's hoping some fancy New York lawyers keep on expensively refreshing their memories for years to come.

And yeah, when the wrongdoers are made to pay, they're gonna squeal about how unfair it is. So?

Parker Smith said...

Whenever a field of study feels the need to include 'Science' in its title, be skeptical.

e.g., 'Chemistry' (not 'Chemical Science') vs. 'Political Science' (not 'Politics')

Anonymous said...

Is McClain a Horowitzian?

Anonymous said...

Coleman has indeed shifted his opinions. In September, he clearly indicated that Durham had substatntial liabilty and suggested (in the context of letter to the editor writers who claimed that the 30 million doller damages request was outrageous) that perhaps 30 million might be a modest request. From that opinion, in its proper context, Coleman now characterizes the litigation against Durham as "audacious". The "audacity" of the litigation must presume the audacity of the 30 million dollar request for damages ("I think most people believe that the students were harmed by what happened to them but NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE LAWSUITS SUGGEST.") . Coleman has been a moving target since his sucker punch letter to the Chronicle trashing Taylor and Johnson for their characterization of the "Coleman" report as a genaeral vindication of the lacrosse team. Coleman is bound by his own words and conduct.

Anonymous said...

Marxism is taking its toll on Duke. Personal Integrity is always the first target. Slowly courage is drained as self-interests are threatened.

AMac said...

I largely agree with Dave Bynum (9:04am) and Ralph Phelan (9:24am) that Chronicle reporter Kevin Lincoln asked the Duke profs to opine about the state-of-mind of Durham voters. Although their choice of words might bely some wishful thinking, I think that Profs. Metzloff and McClain are basically right in their assessment of Durham voters--not that that is necessarily high praise.

Profs. Coleman's and Haynie's remarks have already been ably dissected. E.g. Haynie, "[The lawsuit] will be an issue that will get some news coverage, but the actual effect on the politics of Durham will be very little."

True for now. True if Durham settles quietly and buries the reforms proposed by the plaintiffs.

Perhaps not so true if the results of Discovery are made public. That might get, er, ugly.

By the way, the comments on Lincoln's Chronicle article are an interesting read.

R.R. Hamilton said...

It sounds to me like Coleman is merely giving hisopinion on what other people think: "I think most people believe that the students were harmed by what happened to them but not to the extent that the lawsuits suggest." So, I think some here may be making more of his remarks than is called for.

And yes, the lawsuit is audacious, though not more audacious than what Nifong did, and less audacious than what BET did when it gave a standing ovation to the Jena Hoaxers or what the 88ers did when they gave a standing ovation to the haters and potbangers.

Anonymous said...

Agree Hamilton.

bystander said...

You know, "All the incumbents have been re-elected" is an excellent argument against the view that the lawsuits will punish the people of Durham who haven't done anything wrong.

They've done something wrong now.

Gary Packwood said...

I think we are seeing a purposeful change in the response from Duke people along the lines followed by large business organizations who are sued regularly. Exxon and General Motors come to mind.

Duke like Exxon needs for their employees to arrive for work each day ready to give their best effort without having to be fearful of the give and take associated with law suits against their employer.

Anxious employees make mistakes; abuse their sick leave benefit; make workers compensation claims and are more prone to request family medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Anxious student, especially freshman and sophomores who have no first hand knowledge of the Duke lacrosse rape hoax, are even more prone to suffer from anxiety based health problems and just general malaise and sadness.

I am trying to move my focus away from content available via the Duke Chronicle and focus more on legal documents and filing made available through the court system and publications\blogs for the Duke alumni.

In my opinion this blog along with the Lie Stoppers and the Duke Community Forum are nearly perfect communication vehicles for us to discuss the layers and layers of issues surrounding the hoax, campus indoctrination and beautiful downtown Durham.

The Duke University students - especially undergraduate students - need our encouragement and not our criticism unless of course they wish to read and comments as bloggers, IMHO.
::
GP

newly pseudo said...

I have to agree with Dave Bynum and RR Hamilton here. KC's response to the former points out a difference in tone--fair enough. But the difference in tone reflects a difference in whose opinion Coleman is stating. In September, it's clearly his own. In November, it's not his own but that of "most people." If you want to argue that Coleman chose is now being more circumspect about expressing his own opinion, and that this may reflect a new, more cautious approach for him, okay--though it might also just be a function of the question he was asked. But there's no way to establish, on the basis of this quotation, that Coleman's own opinion has changed since September.

Shouting Thomas said...

The Isiah Thomas payout is surprisingly similar to what Duke's administration has done.

Both Thomas and Duke paid off their enemies and declared that they will continue to do business as usual. Duke intends to continue hiring Marxist feminists and race baiters, and it's willing to pay the costs associated with these hiring practices.

The same appears to be true of Durham. Race baiting is what the electorate wants, and the candidates are willing to give it to them. The city is stuck with the bill... and so what?

The Marxist feminists and race baiter have just given us all the bird. For the moment, it appears that they have won and that their positions are untouchable.

Anonymous said...

Oh, the City of Durham is correct to say that their police department did not fail to explore the evidence. They did not fail to explore the evidence because there was none. It is sad that the whole environment that is Duke University and the City of Durham and its police department could not understand that this nonexistant evidence or lack there of meant that these men were being falsely accused, charged and indicted. Along with a lack of evidence there was a lack of courage and a lack of character on the part of those empowered to protect and defend the public that is frightening. Fear and ignorance in the face of purposeful fear monering, racist intellectuals and politically correct theses is the primary cause of this incident throughout . . . piggy-backed on to this was incopetence, ambiton, corruption and so many being just plain lazy and malicious. It was just too easy for too many to railroad and lynch innocent people in this toxic academic enviornment that has become an embarassment to the so-called Academy, an Academy that doesn't embarass easily. I don't know how these people can live with themselves. Apologize!

Debrah said...

Take a look at the first sentence of this column. This is from the H-S's John McCann.

People in Durham seem to revel in their outlaw culture; however, I am more taken aback that the first sentence of this column would be allowed to go to print.

LOL!!!

Unbelievable.
***********************************************

City lore includes 'Pee Wee'

Nov 14, 2007

Bull City police getting a little bit from prostitutes isn't the kind of exposure Reyn Bowman's looking for down there at the Durham Convention & Visitors Bureau.

It adds another arrow in the quiver of haters bent on reducing the City of Medicine to the City of Mayhem.

But if Durham's reputation is on the line anyway, then go back and tell it all. Tell the whole story.

Tell the tale of Frank Matthews.

"Pee Wee Matthews?" mortician J.C. "Skeepie" Scarborough III asked rhetorically.

Scarborough's a walking encyclopedia on black Durham. Talk to him long enough and you'll get the sense that we live in the center of the universe, because everything somehow traces back here:

Biff Henderson, the popular stage manager for "The Late Show with David Letterman"? He's from Durham.

And with former home run king Hank Aaron being in the news by way of Barry Bonds threatening to boycott his own Hall of Fame induction on account of a possible asterisk associated with the slugging record he snatched from The Hammer, does the name Wes Covington ring a bell? What if I told you he was a teammate of Aaron on the Milwaukee Braves squad that beat the New York Yankees in the 1957 World Series? What if I told you Covington's from Durham?

OK, one more: Hollywood's abuzz about Denzel Washington in "American Gangster". The movie was No. 1 at the box office during its first week out despite bootleg copies circulating the day the film was released. (I'm ashamed to say a dude from church had a copy at a Christian men's retreat I attended that weekend; I didn't watch it, though.)

Well, in the movie, Washington reprises big-time black drug dealer Frank Lucas, who hails from La Grange. Which is notable. I mean, not every dope pusher gets a movie made about him.

But I'm getting ready to tell you that Frank "Pee Wee" Matthews during the 1960s and 1970s was a bigger American gangster than Lucas.

By the way, Matthews is from Durham.

"Without a doubt, experts say Lucas pales in comparison to Matthews in terms of wealth, power and reach," according to Ron Chepesiuk, an authority on black organized crime and author of the book "Gangsters of Harlem" (www.gangstersofharlem.com).

"Unlike Lucas, Matthews appears to have gotten away with it, because no one knows with certainty whether he is dead or alive," Chepesiuk said.

There reportedly have been Matthews sightings in several U.S. cities and as far away as Algeria, Nigeria, Venezuela and Europe, said Chepesiuk, who plans to be in Durham early next year to work on a documentary about the cocaine and heroin dealer he refers to as Black Caesar.

Durham's Michael Dixon, 58, said he was a Navy man stationed in Norfolk, Va., when he saw Matthews in "Jet" magazine. The article was about Matthews getting busted for drugs, and Dixon recognized his face from back in the day in North Durham. But the article referenced "Frank Matthews." Dixon knew the person pictured only as Pee Wee, not Frank.

"You know how you know people by their nicknames?" Dixon explained.

Frank "Pee Wee" Matthews -- an American gangster who did his thing in New York.

But he came from Durham.

Anonymous said...

Elliot Wolf pretty much takes Duke Students for an Ethical Duke to task today in the Chronicle. Interesting that Gustafson dissociated himself from the group as well.

Anonymous said...

I posted the following on the Chronicle's comment section for this "article":

What is so funny (read: sadly ironic) is that the Chronicle has to publish three articles in a little over a week's time to claim that the Duke Hoax is over. I am not by trade a futurist, but even I can see this coming:


Friday, November 16, 2007
THE CHRONICLE
"Duke Lacrosse Issues Resolved!"
By: Joe Bootlicker

Durham. The Duke lacrosse case is still over today. We are now free to slap each other on the back, privately, for what we did or didn't do to enable the grotesque lynching of our students and the besmirching of the reputation of Duke University. In other news, Kim Curtis will be teaching at Duke University next semester....

_______________

[I also did a bit about how the article's author did not note that McClain's reputation was entwined with the 88's attempted lynching].

On a final note: Open up the messageboard! Free the people from the shackles of your censorship! The Chronicle's decision not to have a messageboard belies the suggestion that the Lax Hoax is over. When truth goes, hypocrisy and inconsistency become routine. MOO! Gregory

Debrah said...

Ken, from a previous thread says:

"In the end he (Coleman) will live to regret it. Selling your integrity for a pittance is a bad bargain."

Yes, everybody knows this to be the truth.

I have tried to post about Coleman twice recently, but am never allowed to say what an opportunist liar he is.

Thank G/d Stuart Taylor will tell the truth.

Why can't we just admit that a whole lot of people were conned by Coleman?

Will that hurt someone's feelings?

Not half as much as the damage caused by people who are dishonest.

Anonymous said...

I think Coleman is auditioning for an administrative position - perhaps as Brodhead's successor. His change in tone would make some sense in that case, although it is sad to see him as just another politician tailoring his positions to his audience.

One Spook said...

I would join others here in saying that the current Coleman comments do not represent a different stance.

IMO, in September, he was commenting on the lawsuit from a legal standpoint; how valid it was and what punishment might occur if certain arguments of the lawsuit prevail.

In Coleman's current comments, he is opining on voter perception of the lawsuit and how that reflects their voting behavior, rather than about the merits of the lawsuit per se.

That said, I would also agree with KC that there is a dramatically "different tone" in the air and Coleman's comments, to a degree, and other "messages" reflect this new tone being quietly promulgated by Duke.

The new tone is framed around the "let's move on" and "the LAX Hoax is over" meme. It's a new school year, a new strategy and the blackboards from last year are erased and washed clean. Silencing a big mouth like Burnett was part of this strategy and the soft tone from the current Chronicle staff in its not-so-subtle articles praising Brodhead also reflect this same tone.

Universities have a history of doing this type of damage control. When a fraternity is suspended, this usually lasts for 4 years until the offending members are gone, then the fraternity is allowed to reapply. Not many organizations have the luxury of an three month break and beginning a "whole new year" every year.

Duke is making a concerted effort to wash its hands of this entire incident. Unfortunately for Duke, the lawsuit against Durham and Pressler's suit against Duke (watch for that to be settled) will go on and they cannot escape that exposure.

A lot of folks on various Blogs about this case dream of a level of revenge and/or "justice" that I do not think they'll ever see.

Brodhead soon fired? The 88 apologize? Cops at DPD fired and jailed? No; No; Yes/Maybe

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Debrah:

Thanks for referencing my post on Prof Coleman. It has mysteriously disappeared from DIW. How could such a thing happen?

Regards,

Ken
Dallas

river rat said...

I am more convinced than EVER -- given these comments and the fact that the good citizens of Durham REELECTED their city's "leadership" after the debacle they presided over -- that the city should be financially punished to the point of crippling the bastards..

That being said -- If I were a family member of any of the Lacrosse team --- I would go a little easier on everyone in the area, if they would FIRST,

1. Fire Brodhead and his supporting cast.

2. Fire the entire group of "88" for their unprofessional racist rabble rousing, which has NO PLACE on any campus.

3. Fire any city employee who can be shown to have lied, falsified evidence, etc..

None of this will happen, so sue the hell out of them..

Anonymous said...

McClain's and Haynie's comments sound more like wishful thinking than reasoned analysis.

Anonymous said...

“Every incumbent who ran has been re-elected. Therefore, there appears to have been little or no political fallout from the situation. In fact, the citizens of Durham have given their leaders a vote of confidence”

I think it was Ben Franklin that once said;

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for lunch

Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

Tom E.

Anonymous said...

There is no indication Coleman "sold out." He has a job Forever at Duke. He is also brillant and a gentleman.

Anonymous said...

What Con?
Report noted "Good guys, but drink to much and get in trouble while drunk."
Next noted "Report not meant to be a "Stunning vindication" of the team - well he should know - he helped write it.
Next noted " Folk think the demand for more money, agter Duke paid, is greedy" = paraphasing . I still believe he is one of the few people, who can bring honor back to Duke in the coming year.

Anonymous said...

"Every incumbent who ran has been re-elected. Therefore, there appears to have been little or no political fallout from the situation. In fact, the citizens of Durham have given their leaders a vote of confidence."

Brilliant observation Professor McClain, thanks so much.

Let me try one:

"In 1970, George Wallace was elected as Governor of Alabama for the second time, showing he had the support of the majority of the voters."

That is all the history books need to say, right? No comments necessary about what the election might mean about the culture of the voters.

Or perhaps your lack of detailed analysis, for a professor who teaches political science no less, speaks to your biases as loudly as the votes of the electorate spoke to theirs.

Scott66

Anonymous said...

Just as the rank-and-file Bolsheviks came to realize who really mattered, the Chronicle staff and the Duke faculty apparently have concluded that Brodhead and the rest of the commisariat don't like their minions to go off the reservation. That's why we're witness to a remarkable sea change in public opinions. How truly sad.

Anonymous said...

Well said 11:49.

Debrah said...

Ken,

Your post is still there.

Anonymous said...

there is a lot of stuff being posted that now, after eighteen months, Professors have suddenly realized "who signs their paycheck". All I know about tenure, I learned on the blogs. Correct me if i am wrong. The impression I got was "A tenured Professor can only be removed if they kill someone. Then, only because the cops cart them away to jail." How come the 88s do not appear to know who signs their paychecks? Does not make sense, although I believe Steel has threatened all faculty at Duke.

Anonymous said...

Anyone else think Coleman is trying to position himself to succeed Brodhead? I sure do.

Anonymous said...

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Durham, NC -- "Duke University will invest $1.25 million over the next five years for its law school to establish a center devoted to the promotion of justice in the criminal justice system and the training of lawyers to fight against wrongful convictions, President Richard H. Brodhead announced Wednesday...Coleman and Associate Dean Theresa Newman, who co-teach the Wrongful Convictions Clinic and serve as faculty advisors to the law school’s student-led Innocence Project, are expected to play key roles in the development of the new center."

from the Duke University web site.

This is why Coleman's tone has changed.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if the Professor is positioning himself to be President. I do think he is one of the few people who can bring Duke back to the place it was, before the case. He can bring honour back to the school.

Anonymous said...

Is McClain a Communist?

Anonymous said...

CHRIS DAVIS, HARVARD '73

I am curious as to why you believe Steel has successfully "threatened" the radical coconuts that compose the Duke liberal arts faculty. They're comfortably tenured, have Brodhead's continuing support, while the alumni aren't organizing any opposition. Why should the Group of 88, et al., feel particularly at risk??

Debrah said...

Big Karla FC is back targeting black.

I was skimming through the print edition of the N&O just now before going to bed and had to come back to the computer for this one.

Like Orin Starn and some others who exude the stench of 88 mania, Big Karla is using the media to try to rehabilitate her tarnished image.

I didn't even have to read this column to know what it would be about when I saw her name on it.

My first thought was to sit down and write a response to this overwrought BS, but that would most likely be a waste of time.

Given the behavior of Holloway--(I am reminded of her pathetic e-mails to lacrosse parents)--she would do herself a favor by projecting less and engaging in a bit of introspection.

Perhaps in the form of therapy to help her understand what was taught to her late son to make him hate other races so ferociously.

Especially white women.

Now that would make a good column.

I'm disgusted with the N&O editorial staff.

Debrah said...

Check out DSED for Ken Larrey's latest.

Another battle on the rise.

Anonymous said...

Hey 9:53, If all you know about tenure is what you learned on blogs, you might want to "learn" some more. Your impression that "A tenured Professor can only be removed if they kill someone..." Wrong. If you've been reading this blog regularly, you'll know they can be fired for a variety of reasons, see, for example, Ward Churchill on Google.

You make an error that many of those who post here make: tarring all of the signatories (the 88s) with the same brush. Different people, different ranks, different subsequent behavior.

mac said...

Debrah 11:52
Amazing.

Next thing you'll see in the City of Duhh is bumper stickers that say:

"My Kid Sells Drugs to Your Honor Student"

mac said...

Scott 66 4:39 pm

Funny you should mention Wallace. He made an about-face on race, and courted black voters. He stopped being a race-hustler. He apologized.

That cannot be said of McClain and the Klan of 88. They still persist in their delusion. They have not apologized.

George Wallace looks good compared with most of the 88.

mac said...

Coleman is playing "peacekeeper," like the UN-kind of peacekeeper. He will make a fine President of a University, perhaps Duke. People holding those positions are frequently peacekeepers.

Blessed are the "peacemakers," though, not "peacekeepers."

Peacemakers do more than string both sides along. Peacemakers are usually part of the solution, not the problem.

(Not saying that Coleman is lying but...) Peacekeepers will lie to both sides in order to create the illusion of peace.

Kinda like Jimmy Carter.

traveler said...

Re: Still in the news:
Burn the Flag - Professor

"Students for Academic Freedom," Vs.
Radical Professors

Maybe the radical liberals have awakened a sleeping giant, and it is the students themselves that will wage the good fight.
----------------------
The Washington Times
Abusive liberal professors

Miss McDade was so put off by her professor's teaching style that she dropped the class. She is in the process of launching a campus group, "Students for Academic Freedom," with the help of the Leadership Institute, to prevent future incidents like this — where professors' politics play too big a role in the classroom.

As Miss McDade put it: "Students come to school for an education, not to hear propaganda from a radical professor."

Anonymous said...

2:10

"tarring all of the signatories (the 88s) with the same brush. ..., different subsequent behavior."

The G88's behavior was as homogenous as white milk. They mandated their opinion that the players were guilty by their signatures. They still have yet to apologize for their guilt presuming actions. Worse, they continue to tow the same line they did in March of 2006.

I truly hope "the same brush" has hurt these ideologues in some way.

The g88 are one in the same. When have there been ranks in the social justice crowd, since a keystone to their ideology has been to view each other as equals, as long as one is not a white male, all along?

mac said...

Just visited Liestoppers video of Cpl. David Addison, declaring that a rape occured etc.

I didn't know he was black. I did know he was stupid, but I didn't know he was black. Not that it matters. Even Forrest Gump knows about Addison. "Stupid is as stupid does."

Hearing Addison's declarations of the players' guilt, and considering his promotion,(WTF?) I hope with all my heart that the City of Duhh is sued until it becomes a desert and is uninhabitable for even the lowliest microorganisms.

Coleman should watch the video a couple of times if his knees are getting a little wobbly, and if he is starting to feel the urge to walk with a prevaricating gait.

Straighten up, Professor. Find your strength. You are still needed.

Anonymous said...

Re Coleman: I think that in some ways, he was put in an awkward position by those who desperately sought a "white hat" hero in this fiasco. His criticisms of Nifong were appropriate for someone with his background: a former criminal defense lawyer and Innocence Project advocate. His initial comments were properly within his sphere of expertise and he did demonsrate courage by speaking out. Nevertheless, his views weren't novel, and he wasn't the first one to the party on these issues. He said what any reasonable observer would have expected him to say.

However, once he was asked by Pres. Brodhead to chair the lacrosse culture committee, he was fishing out in a far different pond. Once the committee's report was made public, its conclusions were suseptible to many different, and reasonable, interpretations. Yes, the lacrosse players had more than their share of brushes with the law for boorish alcohol-related misadventures. But, no, their misdeeds were not different in kind (although perhaps in extent) from the misdeeds of other athletes and non-athletes. The committee found that the players were basically good kids and solid students and there was no cedible evidence that they harbored or expressed racist or sexist views.

Things got a bit more complicated as the white hat seekers interpreted the commitee's findings as a vindication of the team. Compared to the team's portrayal in the media, the report was indeed a vindication. However, when assessed through the lens of what the university should expect from its athlete-representatives, the report was rightfully critical of the team.

Where I part company with Coleman is his failure to timely and publically correct what he believed to be mischaracterizations of the report by commentators like KC and Stuart, who viewed the report as a vindication of the team in the context of the media rabid attacks against them. Coleman was silent on this issue for nearly 16 months, and his ultimate response was in the form of a very unfair and personal attack on KC and Stuart. What motivated Coleman to choose this tactic is anyone's guess.

For better or for worse, Coleman's acceptance of the chair of the lacrosse committee has placed him in the crossfire between those who view his committee's report as a vindication of the team, and those who view the team is a bunch of racist, sexist louts. Coleman is now in a difficult position. It seems fair to me, however, for people to see how he is now resolving this tension. I think he is moving towards the anti-lacrosse team view. His letter to the Chronicle slamming KC and Stuart, and what appears to be at least a substantial change in tone on the pending lawsuit against the City are undeniable evidence of this shift.

The white hat seekers seem to be unwilling to step back and reassess Coleman's positions in their totality. I understand this reluctance. As a Duke grad, I, too, want to believe that there some Duke faculty members worthy of the white hat designation in this mess. However, I must confess to lamenting that the bar for white hat accolades was so low at Duke from the very beginning.

Debrah said...

H-S editorial:


City should order release of records

Superior Court Judge Carl Fox ruled on Wednesday that the Durham Police Department could keep secret the names of officers suspended due to allegations of sexual misconduct. The ruling and the DPD's position are troubling, since they both seem to contradict the state's public records law, which requires disclosing the date of the last suspension or change in status for every employee.

Durham officials pulled a semantic sleight-of-hand by calling the suspensions "paid administrative leave," and contending they do not need to be made public. Surprisingly, Fox agreed.

The issue is important. Five officers were suspended with pay (or placed on leave, if you prefer) after allegations that officers received sexual favors from prostitutes. Three of the five have reportedly been exonerated.

Durham officials refused to name the officers, despite a lawsuit by Capitol Broadcasting and prodding by The Herald-Sun's attorney. City officials say the employees deserve a cloak of anonymity until a misconduct investigation is complete.

In his ruling, Fox said that without confidentiality, "one of two things would have to happen .... folks would just have to stay in their jobs, and that would raise even more questions. Or maybe people would be discouraged from .... looking into investigations ... and determining what the truth is."

No, something else could happen. The employees could be suspended and the names could be released. Yes, we imagine that might cause embarrassment for some individuals. But the alternative -- bringing a cloak of secrecy over city functions -- is unacceptable. It could allow, for example, workers to be placed on paid leave for long periods with no public scrutiny. And Fox's notion that government might just ignore wrongdoing seems insulting to honest workers.

We might point out that police don't have a problem charging civilians with crimes and causing them embarrassment although they might wind up innocent. And given the police department's current problems in the lacrosse case, this seems a poor time to further harm public confidence.

City Manager Patrick Baker has the authority to order the Police Department to do the right thing. He should do so immediately.

no justice, no peace said...

Here's an interesting metric - Cornerstone Society membership.

How many Duke alumni have broken the five year + continuous giving chain that qualifies them as Cornerstone Society member?

"How do I make a gift? Duke makes it easy fo you with a variety of options. You can mail a contribution...",(no kidding, this is on the annual fund promtional piece...)

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "Whenever a field of study feels the need to include 'Science' in its title, be skeptical...."

Very nice. "Studies" provides a similar red flag. Have any ever heard of Finance Studies? Or Mechanical Engineering Studies?

a duke dad said...

Anonymous 2:10 am said:

[Your impression that "A tenured Professor can only be removed if they kill someone..." Wrong. If you've been reading this blog regularly, you'll know they can be fired for a variety of reasons, see, for example, Ward Churchill on Google.]

I have been reading this blog regularly, and believe 2:10 am is incorrect.

Ward Churchill was an academic fraud, and was fired for that.

On May 16, 2006, the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado concluded that Churchill had committed multiple counts of academic misconduct, specifically:

plagiarism
fabrication
falsification.

On July 24, 2007, Churchill was fired for academic misconduct in an eight to one vote by the University of Colorado's Board of Regents.

University president Hank Brown said of the firing, "This case was an example not of mistakes, but an effort to falsify history and fabricate history... This is a faculty that has an outstanding reputation and this move today protects that reputation."

Anonymous said...

9:03 - I haven't left yet because I can't. My house needs work, it has never appreciated in value due to being in Durham, and I lost my job 5 years ago.

But I will not let those circumstances stop me. I will get out of this urine soaked hell hole and find another, better place to live. Idaho sounds pretty good about now.

KC Johnson said...

To the 8.23:

A most perceptive analysis--I hadn't quite thought of it that way before, but believe you are correct.

AMac said...

Deborah (11/16/07 1:15aml inked an interesting N&O Op-Ed on Race by Group of 88 Prof. Karla F.C. Holloway.

Holloway asks some good questions. For example, she writes, "[Race] certainly mattered for those African-Americans whose race makes them the target population for the heart-disease drug BiDil. How black must one be to merit the drug?"

It's too bad that her approach to the issue is uninformed and inane.

After some dithering, Holloway ends her discussion of BiDil with "The importance given to "race" in the United States does not easily align with information on population markers that geneticists have discovered. But there seems to be little room for us to parse these significant differences."

An educated, inquisitive person writing about "How black must one be to merit the drug?" would have read BiDil's package insert.

It recounts that two studies showed that BiDil didn't help heart failure patients in general, but that retrospective analysis revealed benefts to the subgroup of black patients. So a third study restricted to self-identified blacks was undertaken. In this population, BiDil reduced mortality by 43% over 18 months, and had other beneficial effects.

Hidden in plain sight, there's the answer to Holloway's clumsily-phrased question, ""How black must one be to merit the drug?"

To have participated in the 1,050 person A-HeFT trial that showed that BiDil worked, a patient had to self-identify as black.

No need to serve N&O readers with bafflegab about "parsing 'race'". As a famous black scholar once famously observed, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Anonymous said...

I am confuzzled, 9:33: you seem to be agreeing with the 2:10, that academics (example: Ward Churchill) can be fired for misdeeds other than murder, yes?

Anonymous said...

HELP WANTED

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS

An international company has two high-level management positions available in an extremely profitable, niche market. As the undisputed leader in the field, we can pay top salaries, provide an outstanding benefits package, and a real go-getter has the opportunity to earn large commissions.

We are looking to fill two positions titled Executive Assistant Race Baiters. Job duties include shaking down companies, appearing on national television, and the ability to travel at the drop of a hat. The opportunity for advancement is there with the eventual retirement of our Chief Executive Officers.

SALARY: Commensurate with experience as well as 30% of anything you "shake down."

BENEFITS: Health, dental, 401(k), Profit-sharing, and everybody will be scared to argue with you.

EDUCATION: Four year Angry Studies degree or equivalent life experience. Qualified applicant must also be loud.

CONTACT: Jesse at (312) 555-1200 or Al at (212) 555-3000. Only serious applicants need inquire. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Well, we all know about Ward. thanks to Ward. Does anyone know of another Professor with tenure who has gotten themselves fired? The murder was an obvious joke - like irony with humour.

inman said...

Mac @ 10:11

Of more interest is that there must be a statistically significant genetic difference between black and white, other than the obvious. (This assumes, of course, that the drugs reaction must be based on a common denominator -- which I assume must be genetic in origin. The different reactions could relate to differences between the races in lifestyle, but I doubt it.)

Holloway's question "How black must one be to merit the drug?" is interesting, but one could also simply postulate that, if one responds to this drug, then one is black, regardless of the extent to which one appears to be white.

Good God, this would have been social dynamite in the era when 1% was enough. A genetic test for racial background.

It seems to me that this may also have implications for anthropological and genealogical investigations of DNA haplotypes. Perhaps, in addition to mitochondrial DNA and Y-STR haplotypes, further distinctions could be based on drug reactive DNA.
_________________________

And it also leads to, how many other race genes are there?

Anonymous said...

It's a little refreshing to see you taking this side of the argument, RRH. If I may address some aspects that I disagree with, though:

"It sounds to me like Coleman is merely giving his opinion on what other people think: "I think most people believe that the students were harmed by what happened to them but not to the extent that the lawsuits suggest." So, I think some here may be making more of his remarks than is called for."

That remark of Coleman's can be easily and plausibly explained as Coleman merely offering his view as to what other people think. However, Coleman also said:

'There's going to be something of a backlash against the audacity of the litigation against the city and against the University.' (emphasis added)

That writing is far more ambiguous. If Coleman had written "There's going to be something of a backlash against what people perceive as the audacity of the litigation," it would have been clear that he is talking throughout about what people think. By phrasing it as he did, however, it becomes ambiguous and some would even say that it commits the existential fallacy by presuming "the audacity of the litigation" to exist.

"And yes, the lawsuit is audacious, though not more audacious than what Nifong did, and less audacious than what BET did when it gave a standing ovation to the Jena Hoaxers or what the 88ers did when they gave a standing ovation to the haters and potbangers."

"Audacious" does not always come with a negative connotation; one can talk, for example, about firemen performing an audacious rescue. The mention of "backlash", however, makes it clear that a negative connotation was meant. And what is the difference between:

* Nifong's race-baiting demagoguery and criminal prosecutorial misconduct;
* BET lionizing the undisputed perpetrators of a violent group assault;
* The 88ers thanking those who had already presumed the guilt of the lacrosse players and already taken retaliatory actions of harassment;
* The indicted lacrosse players seeking legal reforms to prevent injustices such as those they suffered and financial compensation for what they endured?

The difference is that the last of those four is neither committing nor supporting evil. The only way left in which someone could claim the lawsuit is "audacious" is to claim that the amount is too high... but when the amount being asked per player is less than that recently awarded to the woman who sued Madison Square Garden and Isaiah Thomas for sexual harassment, "too high" doesn't sound plausible. Isaiah Thomas had the power to make that woman uncomfortable, to make her working conditions intolerable, perhaps even to make her afraid. He didn't have the power to put her in prison for thirty years.

Anonymous said...

Nice job on the Holloway article, amac, like a surgeon. You make it look easy. Or she does.

dave

Anon said...

Anonymous said...
Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Durham, NC -- "Duke University will invest $1.25 million over the next five years for its law school to establish a center devoted to the promotion of justice in the criminal justice system and the training of lawyers to fight against wrongful convictions, President Richard H. Brodhead announced Wednesday...Coleman and Associate Dean Theresa Newman, who co-teach the Wrongful Convictions Clinic and serve as faculty advisors to the law school’s student-led Innocence Project, are expected to play key roles in the development of the new center."

from the Duke University web site.

This is why Coleman's tone has changed.

11/15/07 11:05 PM


They say every man has his price. Apparently Duke discovered that Professor Coleman's price was $1.25 million over 5 years and appointment as Chair of this new center.

Coleman. Bought wholesale by Dick Brodhead and DU(h) for $1.25 million.

Coleman has sold his soul and his integrity to the Devil. And I don't mean Blue Devil--I mean Lucifer.

I offer prayers for this man's tortured soul. He sorely needs them.

traveler said...

Re: Ward Churchill Untenured -
Petition for Freedom of Speech

It seems Diane Nelson signed a petition that Ward Churchill should have his freedom of speech rights. Too bad she didn’t defend David Horowitz and his freedom of speech rights while he was on the Duke Campus. One might ask Diane about her different stances in such a short span of time. I think Nelson and Coleman would made good weathervanes.

THE DEFENDER:

To Whom It May Concern:
As members of academic professions committed to the principle of academic freedom, we deplore the procedures and recommendations of the University of Colorado in the case of Professor Ward Churchill…….

322. Diane M. Nelson, Cultural Anthropology, Duke University

http://www.teachersfordemocracy.org/?q=node/19

THE OBSTRUCTOR:

Three feminist professors, Diane Nelson, Caroline Light and Jocelyn Alcott, originally urged a group of about 20 male and female students to remove their shirts during Horowitz's speech, but later decided the protesters should laugh repeatedly throughout the event and harangue the speaker, said Ben Johnson, a writer for FrontPageMag.com.

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t52795.html

Anonymous said...

Interesting little tidbit over at Forensic Talk about rapist. Author write "Rape is not about sex" "It is about anger, control and violence." Well yeah,

Debrah said...

TO 8:23 AM--

Yours is one of the best posts I've read in a long time inside Wonderland.

You break it down and spell it out in a most realistic way....without the melodrama.

Below is the issue for most people when assessing Coleman's true character.

Coleman was silent on this issue for nearly 16 months, and his ultimate response was in the form of a very unfair and personal attack on KC and Stuart. What motivated Coleman to choose this tactic is anyone's guess.

Thank you from the bottom......and the essence......of the Diva heart for stating the obvious. You have illuminated so many points I have been making since Coleman began to be given "hero" status.

So many people were desperately looking for a hero somewhere in this case.

The fact that for a time Coleman stated the obvious in a then-objective way made lots of people swoon...simply because we were dealing with racist loons like the Gang of 88.

Alongside them, anyone reasonable would seem to be pure gold.

I think perhaps all this even made Coleman uncomfortable.

After all, he has to rub elbows with Karla, Thug Neal, little Orin, Wahneema....and all the rest from the Allen building.

And lastly, if anyone here wishes to believe that Coleman's politics are any different from the 88, then you have really been dreaming.

mac said...

McClain:
"In fact, the citizens of Durham have given their leaders a vote of confidence."

Reminds me of the votes for Saddam Hussein. Who would run against him? Who would vote against him?

Does this mean that the City of Duhh is run by the Bath party? (straight line, waitig to be hit out of the park...)

Anonymous said...

Trying to reconcile these statements would take a politician, maybe someone running for the office of president of Duke. I think Professor Coleman would be a significant improvement over Caspar Milquetoast.

Anonymous said...

Debrah,
This is the 8:23 a.m. Thanks for the props. Very nice feedback coming from you! While I agree with much of what you said in your 4:53 p.m. comment, I want to make clear that it was not my intent to turn Coleman into a "black hat" guy. The main point of my 8:23 comment was to illuminate the difficult position that I think Coleman is in now.

I'll bet you dinner at Bullock's (I'm a Durham guy) that Coleman had no idea that his report would be so controversial. I also doubt very seriously that he lobbied for the committee chair position. Instead, I think that he honorably answered the call to duty (Brodhead's request) under obviously difficult circumstances.

Moreover, his committee was under extreme time duress, and what it produced, in my view, was top shelf given the limitations. What we have to remember is that the prevailing tide of public opinion at the time of the report was angrily against the lacrosse team. If Coleman was in the tank for the University and truly in synch with the prevailing media frenzy, he would have had an easy out by trashing the team. He did not do that. Instead, he presented a balanced, lawerly account of the team based on the evidence available at the time.

I have many issues with the report, and Coleman's conduct. I am very surprised that a lawyer who is committed to establishing innocence through DNA testing didn't immediately scream "drop the charges" once the DNA tests of the team came back negative. And I can't explain Coleman's failure to defend the Duke Three in the same way he would have defended a black Innocence Project defendant under similar circumstances. As noted earlier, I also can't explain Coleman's hit job on KC and Stuart. What I can say is that only Coleman can answer these questions, and I am willing to give him that opportunity before assigning motives to his words and conduct.

Jim, are you there?

somaking said...

inman said...
Good God, this would have been social dynamite in the era when 1% was enough. A genetic test for racial background.


When you have actual scientific data about race, it confuses the race baiters. Just like when you have no scientific data about a rape.

Duke1965 said...

Debrah said,

"And lastly, if anyone here wishes to believe that Coleman's politics are any different from the 88, then you have really been dreaming."

Ok, call me a dreamer.......... I've been following the case very, very closely, and I don't recall Professor Coleman ever making racist statements of any kind, or even implicitly throwing any students under the bus, or doing anything but standing up for due process at a time when it was out of fashion........... how has he now become an 88 clone? What am I missing here? I continue to have tremendous respect for Prof. Coleman.

Anonymous said...

Amac, Let me get this straight. so if you said you were black that would be enough reason to give you BiDil?
The appropriate question that Holloway asks is regardless of self-identification or physician identification, race is not significant information for this kind of medical judgment.
Your biases are showing. Looks like you are a bit too eager to find an error, so eager in fact, that you fail to get the point. It doesn't matter WHO is identifying race. It is a mistake to give drugs to people based on that identification alone. I certainly would not want someone to tell me this is a drug for white people only.

R.R. Hamilton said...

Anonymous said...

It's a little refreshing to see you taking this side of the argument, RRH.

11/16/07 01:32 PM


I am no doubt regarded as a "hardliner" here. The reason I gave Prof. Coleman the benefit of the doubt is that I never gave him the benefit of the hope. That is, I never lionized him for his early performance -- feeling that he, like AG Cooper, did nothing more than his duty. Thus, I feel no "betrayal" by his more recent performance. I can understand why some, like KC, feel differently.

Moreover, as I've said before, Coleman is a law professor. "Legalese" is a real language (more than "ebonics", at least). I think that lawyers read the words of Prof. Coleman differently than do non-lawyers.

I will not disagree with the 8:23 comment that has been lauded by KC and Debrah. One of the eyeopeners for so many of us non-academics is the incredible powers on college faculties of the Marxists, Feminists, and Diversity-Racists. So, yes, it may be true that Prof. Coleman has decided that none of his professional ambitions can be realized unless he condemns the likes of KC and helps Duke resist all efforts at reform. If so, this means that Prof. Coleman will blow with the prevailing wind. That means we must create a new wind blowing.

Anonymous said...

1.Many times, posters like myself with an opposing viewpoint have posted on this blog that the Coleman report was NOT a vindication of the team by any stretch of the imagination and that only biased individuals trying desperately to rehab the team's image would intrepret it as such. We were showered with ad homineum attacks, villification, etc by the other posters for stating this. Kc routinely used the word vindication in many posts about the report, etc. Now lo and behold, Coleman has come out and stated his report was not a complete vindication after all and then has lashed out at KC and his co author in print. Coleman wrote the report and so can definitely say what it was or wasn't. It was not a vindication folks and Coleman was not the prototypical " good Negro" you all wanted him to be( also known as Uncle Tom). He is a tenured professor at Duke and was trying to mitigate some of the pr damage the team's behavior was causing Duke in the news at the time; that was what he was paid to do. He was told to try to save Duke's image and protect it from the perception that the Lax team was not being monitored or disciplined properly. He is now protecting Duke again in his discusion about the lawsuits( see #3 for the probable reason for this).

2.Coleman may also be hardening to a more anti-lacrosse viewpoint because of his problems with KC and also he works at Duke and he has seen/heard for himself the kind of racist filth that Duke 3 supporters have been bombarding his collegues with in terms of hateful emails and death threats. These have not been exaggerated and anyone seeing that sort of thing would have to re-think their priorities in supporting a cause such people support. Thus, Coleman is probably not in the same mindset he was early in the case in terms of supporting the "cause of the Duke 3". It is one thing to support a legal argument about evidence and to support your employer with a report but it is another thing to support people who are writing they want to lynch Karla Holloway and that all black professors are frauds, etc( some of these viewpoints are also on this very blog),etc. Coleman is still black and maybe this struck a nerve with him. The emails have been the talk of the Duke faculty and most of the faculty identified in the group of 88 have security software now and LE is monitoring it.

3.Coleman has the new job as above and as the Lax players, etc are suing Duke and he is a team player with more position to lose, this has also caused an attitude change.

4.Coleman also lives in Durham, and although he is an academic, he has some contact with other citizens and he is simply stating what he has experienced/heard, which is that there is indeed a backlash in Durham(and the rest of NC) about the $30 million dollar settlement request and subsequent lawsuit from the Duke 3. Pressler's re-opening his suit has not helped either. The lawsuits and settlement talks lost the players a lot of sympathy they had(the amount of money was ridiculous; had they just said unspecified damages they would have done better than a $30 million dollar demand!) and people's attitudes are changing. Coleman, a canny politician in his own way, is aware of that and this also explains his attitude change. It is no secret, Bell and crew leaked the amount to the press for that reason and Bell's support for fighting the case instead of settling won him support. Stith's more measured response cost him votes.

r.r. hamilton said...

I almost forgot: I read the article posted here by Debrah and amac by Karla "Killer Son" Holloway.

All I can say, on behalf of all the trial lawyers of America: PLEASE DUKE, REFUSE A PAYOUT! LET ONE OF US LAWYERS CONDUCT AN EXAMINATION OF PROF. HOLLOWAY ON THE STAND!

Everything she says is soooooo rich with opportunity to humiliate her on the stand. She can barely write a grammatically correct sentence. She's a fugging GOLDMINE for plaintiff's attorneys.

OK, I wasn't going to "betray my hand", but this one is just too good: "Killer Son" Holloway writes, As the scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. recently cautioned, "We are walking a fine line between using biology and allowing it to be abused." ... To which the examining lawyer asks, "That 'fine line' is thicker than the line between the mother of the racist rapist and the mother who falsely calls other women mothers of racist racists, isn't it?" Oh, and then it just gets better for the lawyer: the moron says, "Exactly what percentage of African ancestry must one have to merit a particular drug marketed to black folks?" The lawyer quotes her and then asks, "Exactly what percentage of African ancestry must one have to get a job at a top tier university despite having intellectual qualifications no better than yours?"

Seriously, I'm skipping over nearly every sentence she wrote that could be shredded. It's a fugging fish shoot in a barrel.

What I think we need to do is to keep BLEEDING the EMPLOYERS until they can no longer afford to hire these morons.

I am ready to help for free.

RRH

river rat said...

Gary Packwood said:
"Duke like Exxon needs for their employees to arrive for work each day ready to give their best effort without having to be fearful of the give and take associated with law suits against their employer.

Anxious employees make mistakes; abuse their sick leave benefit; make workers compensation claims and are more prone to request family medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)."


It would be MORE in Duke's and society's longterm interest if Duke had not protected the "88" in their settlement with the families of the 3 accused..

Racists, Morons and professional haters on faculty as represented by the "88" would do well to get a little "anxious" and worried over the consequences of their outrageous,unconstitutional and flagrant violation of faculty "rules"...

In a sane world, "staff" such as this is not entitled to professional security, nor should they be immune to the most drastic consequences for bad behavior...

KC Johnson said...

To the 4.15:

"He is a tenured professor at Duke and was trying to mitigate some of the pr damage the team's behavior was causing Duke in the news at the time; that was what he was paid to do. He was told to try to save Duke's image and protect it from the perception that the Lax team was not being monitored or disciplined properly."

This is an astonishing attack on the integrity of both Coleman and Brodhead. I have encountered no evidence, of any type, that Coleman was "told" in any way to shade the facts in his report to "try to save Duke's image. I also have encountered no evidence, of any type, that Brodhead or any other administrator gave any instruction that even remotely resembled such a demand.

As to Coleman's attack on Stuart and me--as we noted in our reply to the Chronicle, we characterized the report as we did in the WP op-ed on no less than 23 occasions, in print, over a 16-month period. During that time, we had extensive contact with Coleman by e-mail and (in my case) in a one-hour interview and several other personal conversations. At no point in any of those conversations did he suggest any disagreement with our characterization of the report, much less in the harshly personal manner of his Chronicle letter.

That behavior, to put it mildly, is a little peculiar.

Anonymous said...

"There's going to be something of a backlash against the audacity of the litigation against the city and against the University."

Since I am one of those who most enthusiastically endorsed Professor Coleman as a "hero," let me weigh in with this. Sometimes insisting on adherence to facts or simply doing one's job faithfully in a certain vicious milieu IS heroic. That is why, I believe, Judge Horton, who set aside the guilty verdict in the Scottsboro case was, is, and always will be considered a Hero, even though it could easily be argued he was simply doing his job. Had everyone (or even a very solid, determined minority) at Duke spoken out against the abuses taking place in Durham, there would have been quite a few White Hats (as 8:23 so eloquently notes), and Professor Coleman's heroism would not have been so distinctive and compelling. Just think back for a moment to the 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley. The race of both men exponentially impacted the White Hat status of BOTH men.

That Professor Coleman has removed his White Hat and flung it in the dirt is yet another indication that most adults at Duke do not appreciate (as in they do not approve of it) Prof. Coleman's significant role in redirecting the case. This is a man who should have been getting high fives all around, especially after the exoneration. Most clearly the opposite has happened. It appears great effort has been made to compromise his integrity and the impact of his role.

Unlike Judge Horton who knew his decision meant he would be voted out of office (and he was forthwith) and who did not flinch from that inevitability, Professor Coleman wants to keep his job, be able to do something important with it--like open up a center of justice (again the irony is too much), and live in relative harmony with his colleagues. His dramatic change in attitude and tone, captured completely in his much delayed public dissent from the "stunning vindication" language and reflected in the above captioned quotation, make plain these points.

Either he is a little delusional (a common problem in Durham) or, more likely, he understands, despite protestations to the contrary, how he has forfeited at least some of the honor his report on the LAX team and his 60 Minutes appearance had garnered.

Observer

P.S. Amac, KH's piece is exactly that--completey "inane." Thank you for checking out that insert. I did not bring it up at the time, but within the past couple of weeks, the NYT (yes, I am still reading it) had a cover story about DNA and race again pointing out fears about reviving prejudice based on genetics. What was most noteworthy about the article, though, was the extent to which the article quoted blogs as a source of valuable information. I have to run now, but will try to post a link later in the day. You can probably pull it up with googling the NYT, DNA, race, Watson (of course his fate is mentioned in the piece, reminding everyone of the potential implications of discussing the subject).

Debrah said...

"I've been following the case very, very closely, and I don't recall Professor Coleman ever making racist statements of any kind, or even implicitly throwing any students under the bus, or doing anything but standing up for due process at a time when it was out of fashion........... how has he now become an 88 clone?"

You conveniently and deliberately manufacture a narrative in order to have anything to say at all.

No one said that Coleman was "throwing students under the bus" or that he is "an 88 clone".

Perhaps your sense of understanding of the meaning of words is just as selective as Coleman's now seems to be.

Coleman has changed his tone to suit himself. He's an appendage of Duke and will do/has done what is best for him as things progress.

I, too, wanted him to be some bright light at the end of this racist Hoax; however, he was always very measured...even on the "'60 Minutes" segment.

His comments were never anything close to how he would have undoubtedly defended the lacrosse players had they been black and had they fit the description designed for what is "important" inside the heavily-funded program at the Duke law school which he now heads.

My senses tell me that many of you who comment here have never had a close personal relationship with someone black......and most certainly never a physical one.

You might have no real idea just how monolithic the black community is......despite protestations to the contrary.

You might never have been inside such an environment for any length of time to inform you how silly some of your dreams and wishes are with regard to Coleman.

Indeed, Coleman is not an "88 clone". You are posting something that I did not say.

He is, however, a very reasonable version of such partisans.....and his sensibilities and his ideology are exactly the same.

Unlike them, he doesn't use that strained ideology to manufacture lies about other people.

I wanted Coleman to be something he isn't just like many others; however, I was endlessly left wanting every time he made a comment about the case.......simply because he was always so tepid.

Now we all know why.

Coleman is fundamentally a player and just talking about him so much assigns more significance to him and his role than is deserved.

Stu Daddy said...

Somewhat off topic for this thread, but following up on earlier posts and comments on D-i-W...

In the latest issue of Duke Magazine, editor Robert Bliwise responds in his column "Between the Lines" to criticism of the publication's treatment of letters regarding the lacrosse case.

Jim in San Diego said...

To anonymous 4:15:

I believe that Professor Coleman's goal was not just to "mitigate the p.r. damage the team's behavior was causing Duke." If that was his goal, then shame on him. He does not deserve the respect he earned from those of us who do not have a "position" in this case other than innocent people should not be convicted of crimes.

It was not the team's behavior which brought disgrace upon Duke. It was Duke's disgraceful response to unproven allegations about that behavior.

Those allegations turned out to be false. But, astonishingly, most of those responsible for the truly disgraceful behavior (G88, Duke administration)felt no consequences. In fact, most do not appear to understand today that their behavior was disgraceful.

The word "vindication" does not have a precise meaning. From afar, the contrast between the conclusions of the Coleman Report and what we were hearing from members of the Duke faculty and the DA about the character of the Lacrosse players sounded very much like vindication. It still does.


Jim Peterson

Debrah said...

TO 4:15--

You are quite correct in that far too many people were relying on Coleman to be a clear and objective voice throughout the Lacrosse Hoax.

I, too, was attacked many times for cautioning people about using the word "hero" and thinking that Coleman was somehow going to be a "savior".

Like others have posted above, he was doing his job as a trained attorney--looking at the facts and commenting only on those.

At no time did I hear him enthusiastically defend Reade, Collin, and David. IMO, after the DNA results came back early on he should have been asking for all charges to be dropped.

He did not.

Does anyone think that Coleman would not have been on the bandwagon for charges to be dropped if these young men had been black?

Really.

In remaining so tepid, Coleman betrays the mission of his much-ballyhooed work with the Innocence Project.

While I was happy that he did remain objective, I became increasingly disappointed that he did not use his position at the Duke law school and his past history as a champion of those falsely accused to provide more help for the Duke 3.

Not only did his ties to Duke keep him from doing so, but the fact that he is black and that many of his friends are members of the Gang of 88, definitely kept him from doing so.

All that is his own business.

However, his strangely late attack on KC and Stuart as a means to get back some street cred with Duke's radical faculty is the business of everyone.

Lastly, don't use the childish behavior of some who might have responded to the Gang of 88 to cover for their racist and undeniably grotesque behavior. Most normal onlookers are shocked that those people are still allowed to be on the faculty at Duke.

Do not try to tarnish this blog with more obfuscation.

Pointing out the shocking behavior of those professors at Duke will continue.

Fasten your seat belt.

It's not civilized for adults to attempt to facilitate the incarceration of innocent young men. Whatever backlash they have gotten, I'm sure is well-deserved.

The national and international embarrassment, alone, must be killing them.

JR said...

Coleman's comments yesterday hold little merit in my opinion. Backlash based on "audacity" would apply more to a civil case taking place in the Durham Court System. But, the demand, exceeds the threshold to allow this Civil case into a Federal Court sytem, and a much more (dare I say) 'diverse' jury pool.

Technically, I can't see this case taking place within the bastion of Durham simply based on a conflict of interest. The verdict, should it be high enough, would likely effect the pocketbook of each sitting juror.

Finally, while everyone seems to think that Durham has $5,000,000 available in their coverage for the policy year, I would point out that the aggregate has probably been rather eroded by other cases requiring compensation. So, I doubt that Durham has their policy limits available on their Professional Liability coverage.

I'll make a prediction (having over twenty years in the insurance industry) that the $30,000,000 demand was a high ball from the plaintiffs. But, should this go all the way through the system, the award will well exceed that before moving onto the Appeals process.

Get out your checkbook Durham residents...you elected (and re-elected) Mr. Nifong. There are repercussions for his arrogance and your racially motivated blindness. Poetic and True Justice can be expensive.

Anonymous said...

Stu Daddy said...

The latest on the never ending news about nooses, with ties to Duke lax and the Triangle area...

All The Noose That's Fit To Flush.

As has been said before, "Only in Wonderland."

Debrah said...

TO RRH--

You are one of few posters who is able to offer unseasoned-by-emotion commentary.

The fact that someone like you--a self-described conservative--is able to dissect Coleman's words and decide that he did not shift so much....but merely gave lawyerly opinions....makes you more credible than some.

At least you didn't defend his moving target crap as something stupendous....as some fellow lawyers might have done. LOL!!!

I have to say that in all my experiences, conservatives are able to maintain reason and a level head when debating someone.

When I was a teenager and very outspoken with my Liberal--yet mostly naive--views, I would say the harshest things to conservatives.

They would allow me to say what I wanted and listen respectfully....however, on the other side, every time I have disagreed with a Liberal, they have tried to censor and deny the right to speak.

Many Liberals simply cannot tolerate anything that is not in line with the repetitious CD playing inside their heads.

No analysis or reason at all.

Just like the Gang of 88.

So RHH, although I disagree with you that Coleman was just being lawyerly, I do appreciate your cool Virgoan analysis.

:>)

jamil hussein said...

Sounds familiar?
Spineless University President caves in and hands out $50M to Klan88/Ethnic Studies Dept and introduces mandatory indoctrination program (led by Klan88) for freshmen.

November 17, 2007 -- It is amusing - and instructive - to learn that Columbia University Presi dent Lee Bollinger's spine hasn't got ten any stiffer since he stood by a year ago and watched the First Amendment get an on-campus trashing.
Thursday, he coughed up a cool $50 million on behalf of five Columbia students who had gone on a hunger strike to protest ongoing "offenses" against multiculturalism at Morningside Heights.
Bollinger opted to give in on several of the kiddies' demands - including an appreciable expansion of Columbia's ethnic-studies endeavors and a beefed-up freshman brainwashing (that is, orientation) program for next fall.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11172007/postopinion/editorials/columbias_cave_in_565327.htm

mac said...

Um. Professor Coleman. Sir?
"Audacity?"

You mean, like the model (Milana Dravnel) who has a 100 million dollar lawsuit against Oscar De La Hoya, for interfering with her publication of pictures of him in a fishnet girly-getup?

100 million, because he said the pictures were bogus, photoshopped, fake?

Let's see: how about the Administrative Court Judge (Roy Pearson) who was suing a Korean couple for $54 million because of some errors regarding his laundry? Of course, don't ask a jury in the infamous City of Duhh: Pearson is black; they might not think the lawsuit is "outrageous," as racist as the denizens of Duhh appear to be. Pearson, BTW, is no longer an administrative law judge. Perhaps he will be teaching alongside you in the near future?

With all due disrespect to your word-choice, Mr. Coleman - (but not to you, personally) - those are examples of litigation that anyone with half a brain would rightly call "outrageous," not what the young men are seeking from the City of Duhh.

Anonymous said...

Coleman has been one of the most overrated figures in the entire fair, in my opinion. Sticking up for due process was the right thing to do, clearly. But, for any person person with integrity, it was the only thing to do.

When you do what is expected of you as a professor, sticking up for students who are the victims of a grave injustice, you should not be praised for it. It is the only choice, depending on the ethics of the professor. He has ethics and saw the fraud being perpetrated on the defendants for what it was.

If the accused students were African American, there would have been 80 versions of Coleman, alleged voices of reason.

Just because the other professors at Duke acted disgracefully over the past year-and-a-half, does not mean Coleman, as one of the only people do the right thing, is some kind of a hero.

And seeing his depressing view on the status quo at Duke, it appears he is another leftist ideologue, but clearly falls more in the middle than the rest of the tenured radicals, many of whom have just proven themselves to be hypocritical whackjobs in the sordid affair.

Do the right thing and get praised, huh? Then there should be a lot more praise going around the country for people doing their everyday jobs. As a law professor who focuses on civil rights and has spent hours devoted to the Innocence Project, demanding due process when one of the largest cases of prosecutorial misconduct unfolds in your community, was there any other choice to make? Not if he wanted to keep his credibility as a person who demands equal justice for all.

Enough with the Coleman nonsense, please.

Anonymous said...

It is not about the truth . . . yes, now it is about the truth, and the truth of the matter is that we have all been harmed by the behavior of an ignorant dogmatic professorship that cared nothing for the truth. These counterfeit intellectuals plunder the truth . . . they have no understanding of proportion in their discernment. To them and for them the truth is always to be had in their own interpretations and opinions and not in the reality of the facts no matter what or where or whether the facts of that "other reality" are if those facts are outside of their own opinions, and in doing so, this infectious, opinionated and arrogant group have no responsibility in the righting their biased behavior. The law is an imperfect and blunt instument, but this sickening intellectual infestation of bigotry that is Durham and its police department and Duke and its administration needs to be exposed in a sunlight of human opinion. All of us would be helped even the self interested bigots of Durham who seem to represent the entire university faculty as Nifong purported to represent the law by only representing himself at the expense of all. The people who publish on this blog are really a minority tired of being put outside of the law. There is no alternative than a law suit to establish a public record of behavior in dealing with these racist enablers of the near lynching in Durham. Apologize!

Anonymous said...

KC:

As Stuart has commented, things are destined to get uglier and uglier.

It is certainly true of the comments from Duke officials and supporters who, if aything, appear to be more polarized now than ever before. Not good.

I am surprized that Duke alumni have not yet set up a separate trust fund for their contributions pending a major change in the political direction of the university.


Ken
Dallas

Anonymous said...

Looks like Columbia will go the way of Antioch.

wayne fontes said...

Anon 1:47 said:

Amac, Let me get this straight. so if you said you were black that would be enough reason to give you BiDil?
The appropriate question that Holloway asks is regardless of self-identification or physician identification, race is not significant information for this kind of medical judgment.
Your biases are showing. Looks like you are a bit too eager to find an error, so eager in fact, that you fail to get the point. It doesn't matter WHO is identifying race. It is a mistake to give drugs to people based on that identification alone. I certainly would not want someone to tell me this is a drug for white people only.


Since the drug only proved effective for blacks it was only proscribed for blacks in the third round of tests. The method chosen to select blacks was self identification. What method do you think would be simpler, the brown paper bag test?


To 1:47 and the rest of the inane anons please pick a pseudonym so we can tell you apart.

Debrah said...

Regarding the dust-up between DSEDuke and the Chronicle's Eliot Wolf, those at the Chronicle show themselves very clearly to be Brodhead's gofers.

They have been trying to minimize the Hoax.......urging everyone to move on.

I'm not surprised that Ken Larrey of DSEDuke is now being attacked since his organization is the only one on campus holding the radical faculty to account.

In his column, Wolf says:

"Michael Gustafson, assistant professor of the practice of electrical and computer engineering and a highly regarded commentator on all aspects of the lacrosse case, was originally tapped as DSED's faculty advisor."

He then goes on to say that Gustafson has distanced himself from DSED.

Why should that concern or surprise anyone?

This professor has been nothing short of a milquetoast player throughout.

After Stuart came to Duke, Gustafson tried to write a little post telling everybody about it......yet the only thing he wrote were copies of what I and a few others had already reported here on Stuart's talk.

And he was late in doing that.

If Gustafason had an authentic desire to help change things, he would be assisting DSED, not maligning them.

Just like all the cowards, this professor is just about worthless when it comes to veracity and endurance.

No one will put themselves on the line the way some Duke students have.

From what I've read from Gustafson--and admittedly, very little--he should just keep quiet unless he has anything important to add to the conversation.

Anonymous said...

Awww, heck, r. r. hamilton, now you've done gone and told everybody. (cf., 11/17 3:47 AM and especially 4:49 AM)

Two-part follow-up question for attorneys to speculate upon (knowing how much you love to do that :): if Durham doesn't settle, and the civil suit does make its way through the system, any way that 1) Duke could get dragged into it, too; resulting in 2) the whole thing turning into the equivalent of a Scopes Trial for political correctness, town and gown?

dave

Debrah said...

Some rather odd insights from a mid-20th century article written by Norman Mailer who died last week.

This is interesting because it shows the sensibilities--which are often comical--and the machinations of what was considered avant garde writers during pre-Civil Rights Movement in the U.S.

Debrah said...

Some might find this video interesting from April 2007.

Panelists from the Duke Law School, including Coleman, are discussing ethics, no less.

Just click. You'll need Real Player.

Lessons learned from the lacrosse case.

Anonymous said...

11:08--What is your evidence for your assertions of "brainwashing"? Did you go to Columbia? Have you attended orientation there? Lotsa "ethnic studies" programs at Columbia, many of them left over from the Cold War...which ones are you hating on? Or all of 'em?

I'm sure the folks up in Morningside Heights really care what you think...

wayne fontes said...

Debrah said:

In his column, Wolf says:

"Michael Gustafson, assistant professor of the practice of electrical and computer engineering and a highly regarded commentator on all aspects of the lacrosse case, was originally tapped as DSED's faculty advisor."

He then goes on to say that Gustafson has distanced himself from DSED.

Why should that concern or surprise anyone?

This professor has been nothing short of a milquetoast player throughout.

After Stuart came to Duke, Gustafson tried to write a little post telling everybody about it......yet the only thing he wrote were copies of what I and a few others had already reported here on Stuart's talk.

And he was late in doing that.

If Gustafason had an authentic desire to help change things, he would be assisting DSED, not maligning them.

Just like all the cowards, this professor is just about worthless when it comes to veracity and endurance.

No one will put themselves on the line the way some Duke students have.

From what I've read from Gustafson--and admittedly, very little--he should just keep quiet unless he has anything important to add to the conversation.

11/17/07 3:35 PM


Gustafson has responded further to this controversy at JIC.

I'll leave it to Gustafson to respond to Debrah if he thinks it's worth his time.

I would however ask readers of this blog to reflect on whether Gustafson or Debrah has been a more effective advocate for the Lax players.

I'd also hope people would examine whether Debrah's participation in this blog has been an asset or a detriment to the lax players.

jamil hussein said...

"11:08--What is your evidence for your assertions of "brainwashing"? Did you go to Columbia?"

I'm not sure how that's relevant, but as a matter of fact, I did. I was a visiting scientist at Columbia U few years ago.

I remember the Marxist students there all too well and the outright
hatred towards jews and republicans. The rest of the evidence is well documented (see e.g. Stuart's articles).

"I'm sure the folks up in Morningside Heights really care what you think.."

I don't doubt that.

Anonymous said...

I find it disrespectful to call the Professor, Coleman,just because he did something you folk do not like. Nor do I think you are helping the defendants cause. That is why I do not take a name. It is bad enough and extremely ugly when someone disagrees with the groupthink. To give a name only invites more uglyness. Very sad that those of us who worked together for over a year, to help set this injustice right, now can not debate without meaness.

Anonymous said...

A question for the lawyers out there:
Does the fact that Judge Stephens put a stay on destruction of the DNA samples mean the city of Durham is going to use them to intimidate the three suing? Is there any purpose to be had from not destroying them that benefits the city otherwise? Or that might help the guys in some way? All those samples represent falsely accused,innocent people.

KC Johnson said...

To the 6.59:

It's not clear who the "you folk" to whom you refer are. While I have called Prof. Coleman a few times, I generally have e-mailed him during the case; I fail to see how contacting him in any way was disrespectful.

Finally, it's certainly not my intention in this blog to be "helping the defendants cause"--I think the City of Durham, Nifong, and DSI should be held liable for their misconduct. I'm not aware of any blog devoted to helping their cause.

Ruth said...

wayne fontes

In spite of the fact I don't think you are truly objective, I agree debrah was too quick to judge Gustafson based on too little information. I've read his blog and his comments at LS. He did step up and he's young.

On the other hand, I was more distressed by your attack on her.

I think some of her comments are good, some informative, some funny, some not, but I skip over whatever I don't want to read. I do the same with your's.

I can accept you both as assets. I appreciate that Professor Johnson seems to as well. Unlike your buddy Rojstaczer, who doesn't seem to appreciate anyone's thoughts but his own.

Debrah said...

TO Wayne Fontes--

Let me explain something very quickly to you, little buddy.

You are in no position to pose and preen on this blog.

After all, didn't we see you over on Stuart Rojstazcer's balcony practicing for his choir?

I understand that you don't have a very high opinion of UPI.

That being the case, why should anyone inside Wonderland rely on your questionable opinions?

On anything.

Now you want to attack me for making comments about the major faux pas of Gustafason?.......which did damage to Ken Larrey and DSEDuke?

I think you need to explain to everyone why you are so exercised.

Very odd, that.

BTW, I have a very strong distaste for your taste.

Anon #1 said...

wayne fontes said:
Gustafson has responded further to this controversy at JIC.

I'll leave it to Gustafson to respond to Debrah if he thinks it's worth his time.

I would however ask readers of this blog to reflect on whether Gustafson or Debrah has been a more effective advocate for the Lax players.

I'd also hope people would examine whether Debrah's participation in this blog has been an asset or a detriment to the lax players.

11/17/07 6:45 PM


I think the mini-melodramas that seem to accompany Debrah's every post (including her own self-focused melodramatic TMI postings about her personal life) do nothing but detract from the cause.

Nothing good is accomplished by this dispute between Debrah and Gustafson.

What this does is tell the other side that there is bickering and derision amongst those who support the Duke 3 and that they're accomplishing exactly what they want (ie, dividing and conquering the supporters).

Of late, there have been several mini-wars Debrah seems to have taken great pleasure in instigating. This is *far* from productive and ought to stop. It's unhelpful to Reade, Collin and Dave.

If all else fails, lets take this kind of divisive behavior offline, behind the scenes, if people feel they simply MUST engage in it.

All of that said, there have been many good postings from Debrah. She's provided a lot of valuable information and links to articles I certainly would not have found on my own. She's done good here too.

However, as she herself so caustically reminded another poster a week or two ago, this blog is about the Duke 3 and the injustices perpetrated on them. This is not the place to discuss things unrelated to the frame up.

Of course this is JMHO and I freely admit that I could be wrong. It's happened before.

But about this, I know that I am not:
Can we not bring the focus back on the BOYS and their case? PLEASE.

mac said...

Dear Anon 12:20

Perhaps my "Dear Professor Coleman" post was not endearing enough?

I would like to hear how you and the other "defendants" of Duhh (meaning the municipality) can reconcile Professor Coleman's many masks and personalities? And how his apparent agreement with the view that the suit is somehow "audacious" can be reconciled with reality?

Perhaps you will respond to my 12:27 pm post on the subject?

As to "groupthink"?
Hey, dude, put a filter on your spigot. The lead, y'know? It's a problem in Duhh.

"Mean?"
Oh, you mean like the characterization of the falsely accused, the threats, the intimidation, the Hoax...

Stop smoking weed. That's my advice. Either that, or you'll be seeing the same "secret racism" as Grant Farred.

Professor Coleman probably doesn't smoke the stuff, but he seems to be drinking Koolaide these days.

Anonymous said...

Wayne Fontes, you say:

"I'll leave it to Gustafson to respond to Debrah if he thinks it's worth his time.

I would however ask readers of this blog to reflect on whether Gustafson or Debrah has been a more effective advocate for the Lax players.

I'd also hope people would examine whether Debrah's participation in this blog has been an asset or a detriment to the lax players."


1. On the first question (who has been a more effective advocate for Lax players) Gustafson wins this hands down. Let's remember that Debrah's income does not come from Duke while Gustafson's does. Plus, let face it: who really cares about what Debrah says? What Gustafson says makes a difference. There is no contest on that score.

2. On the second issue (whether Debrah's participation in this blog has been an asset or a detriment to the lax players) Debrah has been nothing but a distraction on this board. The board would have been a better place without her.

Debrah said...

H-S:


Public opinion of police takes hit

Durham Police Department report

By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun

DURHAM -- Public confidence in the Durham Police Department fell sharply from 2006 to 2007, according to a late-spring poll commissioned by the Durham Convention & Visitors Bureau.

Only 25 percent of the people questioned from mid-May through the first week of June agreed in any way that the department was "doing a good job of protecting and serving Durham residents," according to a report of the findings relayed to city officials.

The visitors bureau at the department's request has sponsored the survey for three years running. The same question drew favorable responses from almost 58 percent of the Durham residents who voiced an opinion when consultants asked it in the spring of 2006.

Asked the reasons for their unhappiness, about 29 percent of the department's critics this year indicated they thought police used fraud, stereotyping and double standards to make their cases.

Another 19 percent said they thought police were in some way indifferent or unresponsive to the public's concerns.

Sixteen percent laid blame on poor administration and training, 12 percent on the department's failure to solve crimes and about 7.5 percent on its handling of the Duke lacrosse case.

Discontent came from whites and blacks in nearly equal measure.

Consultants reported that 24 percent of whites and 30 percent of blacks thought police were doing a good job. The difference in those numbers fell within the survey's margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent.

Police Chief Jose Lopez -- briefed on the survey when he was interviewing for his job this summer -- said he considers its findings useful.

"It's something that I can use as a guide toward understanding how our community feels," Lopez said on Friday. "The bottom line is what we do here is what the community needs and wants done. I'm hopeful that time and our actions will change the perception."

Department critics warned against counting only on the passage of time to turn opinions around.

"Certainly confidence has to be earned, and it seems that when wrongdoing is allowed to occur, and in certain instances wrongdoing is rewarded or ignored, that doesn't earn anyone's confidence," said Alex Charns, a Durham lawyer who's spoken out repeatedly against the department's handling of the lacrosse case.

Opinion surveys are part of the "results based accountability" program the city and county governments launched a few years ago. Police get their data by working with the visitors bureau. It in turn hired The Catevo Group, a Raleigh-based consulting firm, to conduct the poll. The firm reported questioning 400 Durham residents.

The survey's timing both this year and last put it amid major developments in the lacrosse case.

This year's survey began about a month after state Attorney General Roy Cooper exonerated former Duke players David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann and said the bogus rape charges against them had been the product of a "tragic rush to accuse."

Catevo's staff went to work about the same time that City Manager Patrick Baker and former Police Chief Steve Chalmers issued a joint report about the department's handling of the lacrosse case that defended detectives' use of an against-policy photo lineup and lay blame for the botched case on the players' supposed unwillingness to cooperate with authorities. Defense lawyers countered by saying the Baker/Chalmers report was a whitewash.

The 2006 survey got under way as police were wrapping up the initial phase of the lacrosse investigation. They secured indictments of Finnerty and Seligmann that April and followed up by procuring an indictment of Evans in mid-May.

The Catevo Group's latest findings hinted that the 2006 numbers might have been a fluke. "Approximately three in 10 Durham residents now agree that DPD is doing a good job," its July 13 report said. "The ratio was also three in 10 in 2005."

Consultants aggregated a wide range of answers volunteered by survey participants before reporting on the results for the discontent.

A pre-aggregation breakout of that data indicated that single most-mentioned reason for doubting police, given by 29 people, was that "there is fraud in the department," their report said. The lacrosse case was the fourth most-mentioned reason, given by 19 people.

Baker acknowledged that the lacrosse case likely had a major influence on the results.

"I can't imagine that any entity affiliated with the prosecution of that case would come out looking good," Baker said on Friday. "I would imagine that had a survey been done about the [district attorney's] office, that number would have been really low as well."

He noted that there was a sharp discrepancy between the department's approval rating and the answers people gave when asked if they felt safe in Durham and their neighborhoods.

About 75 percent of survey participants reported feeling safe in the city, and about 85 percent feeling safe in their neighborhoods.

"Not that those numbers have to be the same, but you'd expect them to have a closer relationship than they appear to" have to public confidence in police, Baker said.

Asked for comment, Mayor Bill Bell said Friday that he didn't recall having seen the survey's results. He otherwise declined comment.

City Councilman Eugene Brown said the figures show that Lopez and "the entire force have their work cut out for them."

Debrah said...

H-S:

Julius Chambers offers his familiar refrain. Perhaps he and Bowen can write another report.


Experiment in socialism

From a Herald-Sun article on Nov. 14: "The median education level for blacks and whites is a high school diploma ... However, the median household income for whites is $19,570 higher than that of blacks, and there is an $11,970 difference in per capita income."

"There's no way to explain that other than discrimination," says Julius Chambers, the former chancellor of N.C. Central University.

On the contrary. A high school diploma is not a reliable gauge of educational attainment (and therefore earning potential): "By the time [minority students] reach grade 12, if they do so at all, minority students are about four years behind other young people. Indeed, 17 year-old African-American and Latino students have skills in English, mathematics and science similar to those of 13-year-old white students." (Closing the Achievement Gap, National Governors Association Clearinghouse)

Moreover, "household income" conflates incomes from two different family structures: two-parent families and single-parent families; the former, which are relatively more common among whites, will naturally have higher incomes.

How to lift educational attainment and improve family structure, then, is the question.

Schooling is America's "great socialist project." Schooling in America means compulsory attendance at the local unit of government monopoly assigned to your family by distant central authorities. Your family has no say.

Perhaps this dramatic imbalance in power between the state and families is not a good thing for education -- or for families.

TOM SHUFORD
Lenoir
November 17, 2007

Debrah said...

To all detractors above. let me ask one thing......since you are so bold with your opinions...

....be bold in a meaningful way and stop posting anonymously when you write these kinds of comments.

Then you will be seen as more than ankle-biting cowards who have found "your chance to pounce".

LIS!

Gustafson is much too tentative. Like Fontes, some like to have things all shiney....both ways.

KC has provided all of you a forum to use the personal agenda of a few to attack one person anonymously.

Fine.

Then go about your day pretending to be adults....as you sit at your keyboard getting off on this most delicious chance you have to vent your anger.

KC can do as he wishes; however, I will reiterate that if Wonderland ever goes back to the cut-and-dried atmosphere of some of the other blogs, the comment section will become as barren as theirs.

I personally do not care what my detractors think. Most are anonymous and idle people who want to vent.

However, if you think the Diva will be inhibited by a few people who have used this occasion to attack someone they dislike for a multitude of reasons, then think again.

Lastly, try to keep up.

This case has moved far beyond the boys. They have prevailed. Remember?

The prominent issues are the civil suits and the world of academia.

But you still use three young men as a cover of concern to slam a woman.

LOL!!!

Bet it makes some of you religious types all moist as you "defend" the weak on a Sunday morning.

LOL!!!

Forget about the small stuff. Just find some character before you give your opinions.

That would make you appear less ridiculous.

mac said...

Anon 8:37 am

I think Debrah's posts (9:17, 9:31) show why she's such an asset to the blog. She provides links, while you attack her on a personal level.

So, if we're going to do business that way...

You...obviously...should go back to your place under your little bridge and find some salamanders and crickets to terrorize. The Troll rings true for thee.

jamil hussein said...

This is almost too funny:

Tawana Brawley case re-opened


NEW YORK (AP) -- Twenty years after her allegations of a racially charged rape became a national flash point, Tawana Brawley's mother and stepfather want to reopen the case, a newspaper reported Sunday

Glenda Brawley and Ralph King want to press New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to re-examine the November 1987 incident, which a state grand jury ultimately concluded was a hoax, the Daily News reported.

Brawley has changed her name and become a nurse, the Daily News reported

The Rev. Al Sharpton was an outspoken advocate for then-teenager Tawana Brawley 20 years ago

Jim in San Diego said...

Re: Professor Coleman's place in the history of the hoax

It is a mistake to belittle Professor Coleman's early defense of due process, and criticism of the Nifong prosecution. That it was the right thing to do all along is beside the point. Or, maybe it is the main point.

Sometimes doing the right thing takes a hero. At Duke, there appears to be a powerful Groupthink that would make George Orwell turn in his grave. Woe to those who do not toe the line.

Students know it (Kim Davis is still teaching at Duke). Faculty know it (look how the AAS and key members of the G8 have been rewarded and promoted; how the entire Brodhead administration is still intact). The world knows it (which explains the longevity of this blog).

John Kennedy's Profiles in Courage was essentially about why it took courage for those in positions of responsibility to do the right thing. Moral courage is a very scarce resource.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

Twanna Brawley's attempted opening of a twenty year old rape case is reason enough to pursue every avenue of legal redress in this horrible hoax that is known as the Duke Lacrosse Rape. The people who participated in this and spoke without knowing anything but their prejudice need to be sued. Their participation in a near lynching needs legal redress. As it is, the accusing participants in this near lynching having shown that they will prefabricate evidence out of nothing but thin air and their own prejudice and coruption need to be circled legally and not allowed to continue to lie without challenge. The "something must have happened" is legal redress. Apologize!

traveler said...

Re: Debrah attackers:

I am quite sure Debrah can handle a couple of hecklers herself, but I enjoy the passion she brings to the discussion. It is the variety of opinions and personalities that make this an AWARD WINNING blog. I can agree or disagree with her, but I don’t try to judge her personally.

KC is the moderator of this blog, and if he allows a post, then it is in for debate. Personal attacks on a fellow blogger are not necessary, and quite frankly beneath MOST of the posters in D-I-W.

You are asking if we appreciate a regular poster on this popular blog? Re-posting her entire post just a few entries later than hers, is more distracting in my opinion. From now on, I will just skip over your posts, see how easy that is?

Anonymous said...

From Va BON - Tawana is either a nurses aid or a Licensed Practical Nurse - I think the LPN as it is in Claremont, VA.

Anonymous said...

It is a mistake to try and belittle Professor Coleman. Those who try only belittle themselves. The man is a giant.

Anonymous said...

11:58: I think an apology is not going to happen. A look at the comments on this blog reveal why: what many people who post here appear to want is to humiliate people. They don't want an apology & then they'll stop already. They want an apology and then they'll crow. The LAX III seem to have gone on with their lives. The LAXERs, too. Including those who are still at Duke.

Talk about groupthink--the way some posters on this blog attack those with whom they disagree (that would be you, Debs)--it's here. Maybe even more than at Duke.

Duke1965 said...

Jim in San Diego,

My problem with some of the commentary on this blog is that, in my opinion, it oversimplifies a very complex situation. I agree with you, that in the context of the Spring and Summer of 2006, given the racist, anti-student attitude prevailing among some of the Duke faculty, and the absolute certainty in some quarters that the LAX 3 had done "something" despicable, Professor Coleman's actions at that time, both in his public comments and in his chairmanship of the Coleman Committee, were indeed laudatory. I think it is a mistake to speculate on whether Professor Coleman would have advocated due process even more strongly if the defendants had been black........... we simply do not know the answer to that, but nothing in his public comments indicates that he pushing some pro-black agenda.

Totally aside from the due process issues, there are now a number of issues which the Duke community should now address........... and I don't think one size fits all in this context, nor is there necessarily a simple answer to some of these questions, given the complexities of a large institution like Duke. These issues include the following:

1. Is it in the best interest of Duke to replace President Broadhead?

2. What are reasonable behavioral standards for students who publically represent Duke, including student atheletes? Should the standards of acceptable conduct for these students be higher than the general student population?

3. What responsibility do Duke coaches have for the behavior of members of their team?

4. What academic standards should be expected from the faculty? Should there be exceptions, similar to a "poet in residence" exception? What are the consequences of failing to meet these academic standards?

5. What steps can and should be taken by the administration in response to commentary by the faculty which is arguably in violation of the faculty handbook? Should the faculty be entirely self-monitoring, or should there be a "process" for dealing with faculty behavior?

6. Should a faculty member's position and influence be used as a "bully pulpit" for that person's particular idealogy?

There are, of course, many other issues worthy of discussion and action. These issues cannot be resolved by simplistic, unrealistic solutions such as "throw out the Leftist faculty".... as other commenters have noted, that simply isn't going to happen, and it wouldn't necessarily be an improvement if it did.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who has read the lengthy grand jury report on the Tawana Brawley rape hoax understands that this case was nothing but a pathetic lie concocted by a teenage girl who didn't want to get punched in the face (again) by her violent mother because she (the girl) had missed her curfew. As in the Duke hoax, there was an abundance of evidence (including a rape kit) that proved no gang rape/beating could have occurred as the "victims" alleged.

It's interesting that the parents of Tawana (now Maryam) want to re-open the case. Have they burned through the $300,000 "defense fund" that they ran off with, and think now is the time to try and soak a few more suckers . . . er, supporters? Is the mother willing to return to New York, where there is still an outstanding subpoena for her? Is Tawana herself willing to return to New York, where there is an unsatisfied civil judgment against her for over $100k, based on her malicious lies about a NY prosecutor, one of her alleged "rapists"? But the question I'm probably most curious about is this one: Is Tawana/Maryam, now reportedly a nurse, certified as a SANE?

Anonymous said...

Tawana is a Licensed Practical Nurse - not a Registered Nurse. One must have an RN degree to take the 84 hour Certification course to become a SANE. In the real world, most rape kits are done by a Physician and the RN does the QA.

Anonymous said...

I know I have better things to do than read Tawana's Grand Jury report.

Debrah said...

TO 2:05 PM--

Try again, Jethro.

The only "groupthink" exists among the strange members of the Gang of 88 and their growing number of apologists--(like Coleman has become).

You seem to have the same problem understanding reality as does poor Mr. Fontes and a few of the anonymous attack dogs above.

The issues before us are the state of the academy and the civil suits.

Not Reade, Collin, and David. Thankfully, they escaped the racist clutches of Durham and the radical Duke faculty.

It's now time to keep the focus on the harmful members of the academy.

Attacking me, little one, does very little to show that you understand reality.

One has only to jump ahead to KC's next post to get a glimpse of your brand of embarrassing "groupthink".

And always in cowardly anonymous fashion.

LOL!

mac said...

I still want to know whether Professor Coleman would consider the denizens of Duhh right when he said there'll be a "backlash against the audacity of the litigation against the city and against the university?"

Just as a matter of law, I'd also like to know, Professor: are you for or against tort reform?

In the cases I've previously mentioned - (Roy Pearson's suit against a dry cleaner for 54 million because they may have lost his pants, and a model's suit against a boxer for 100 million because he claimed her pictures of him in fishnet stockings were fake) - perhaps these are fine examples for the need for reform. Wouldn't you agree?

Which do you think is more audacious? Three young men who are still being disparaged in a city by the "something happened" crew of idiots, suing to get their reputation back, to shut the SH people up? Or these other cases, one of which was pursued by a... judge? (now no longer a judge.)

C'mon, Professor. Tell us the truth: are the words "audacity of the litigation" a phantasm, perhaps words put into your mouth by someone else? How did that phantasm happen to get into your mouth, and then emerge?

If you want to define "audacity," dear Professor, IMO, it's the promotion of Cpl. Addison, who aided and abetted the whole charade, igniting the whole deal in the press. Wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps you meant, dear Professor, that you think the City of Duhh will be justified when it riots after it is sued successfully? Are you giving future rioters the go-ahead?

Be careful with your reply; your words could light the very first match in a tinder-dry city. Your words.

Debrah said...

To Ruth, mac, and traveler--

Your objective analyses were refreshing.

Indeed, none of us is in agreement on everything; however, it was painfully clear that a few irregular posters showed up to transpose one issue onto many others.

I stand by all my posts and would not change a thing.

I also must admit that there is a kind of hidden pleasure watching how badly a few nuts want to "get" me.

LOL!!!

I will say it again:

DSEDuke and Ken Larrey deserve a few dedicated members of the faculty on their side. All the way--unequivocally--on their side.

Anonymous said...

JR at 10:25 AM --

"Get out your checkbook Durham residents...you elected (and re-elected) Mr. Nifong."

Not quite true. Nifong was only elected as District Attorney once -- he was originally appointed to the office by Governor Easley. This means he was either elected, or he was re-elected (depending on your definitions) but not both.

Anonymous said...

"KC Johnson said...

To the 6.59:

It's not clear who the "you folk" to whom you refer are. While I have called Prof. Coleman a few times, I generally have e-mailed him during the case; I fail to see how contacting him in any way was disrespectful."

I think that 6:59's poor writing skills obscured his/her meaning. I believe that what he/she objected to was the person who is most fully and respectfully referred to as "Professor James Coleman" being referred to as "Coleman", rather than "Professor Coleman" or at least "Prof. Coleman".

Frankly 6:59's argument seems quite hollow. It could possibly have been made in sincerity, but only by someone who had no idea what "confirmation bias" is or what steps one must take to combat it. If 6:59 were to read through the archives of this blog without preconceptions, he/she would find that in fact most if not all individuals, no matter how greatly respected, are eventually referred to by their last names. Is there anyone that the commenters whom 6:59 calls "you folk" would respect more than State Attorney General Roy Cooper? And yet I am sure that any unbiased reading of this blog and the comments upon it would show that he is most often referred to just as "Cooper". And of course no fair-minded reader could miss how often our own "host" is casually referred to as just "KC"!

6:59 makes no secret that he/she feels Professor Coleman is referred to as just "Coleman" "because he did something you folk do not like." There seems no evidence for such a dubious theory when "most people don't do needless typing when everyone who will read their typing knows who they're referring to" fits the same facts -- and the facts that 6:59 has somehow overlooked -- so much better.

Anon #1 said...

Anonymous said...
I find it disrespectful to call the Professor, Coleman,just because he did something you folk do not like.

11/17/07 6:59 PM


By your standard, then, you should be referring to KC Johnson as "Dr. Johnson".

He is, afterall, KC Johnson, PhD.

Anonymous said...

No 10:09PM. By my standard, we call KC, KC because most of us and KC are comfortable with that name. Until the no "stunning vindication", the Professor was called Professor Coleman - I think because of his natural class and dignity. The folk who call him Coleman now, are just being disrespectful. Makes them look bad.

Anonymous said...

6:59 her - In spite of my poor writing skill, you managed to understand my point. You are correct. I was commenting on the disrespect shown to Professor Coleman by calling him Coleman.
It is a blog and not a term paper. Commenting on english skills demonstrates a definite lack of argument on your side.

Anonymous said...

2:05PM You are right. They want the 88 burned at the stake. It ain't happening. Here comes Debrah and others from the groupthink attacking the poster instead of the ideas.

Anonymous said...

KC - You saved me. It is 12:27PT time. Checked the blog one last time before retiring for the night and there were the new comments. Way to go.

Anonymous said...

Very busy weekend, and I am just catching up.

That Debrah's contributions, enthusiasm, and links are quite valuable here is way beyond question to me.

I do not know what happened with Prof. Gustafson and Ken Larrey. IF Ken Larrey went too far in calling out the faculty and administration over the LAX incident, and lost the professor's good sponsorship, I cannot help but be struck by the irony yet again of the world that is Duke. Faculty and administration can behave in the most abominable fashion towards indicted students whose very liberty is at great risk, spreading any unfounded rumor, publishing documents excoriating the students, and enjoy not only continued employment unmolested by any official censure but promotions and honors. The students, however, quickly lose even professorial sponsorship for assertions against the administration and faculty perceived to be based on something other than thoroughly documented fact. AMAZING!

Observer

Debrah said...

TO Observer--

An excellent point you make regarding the irony of it all.

Also, your Diva support is very much appreciated.

:>)

Anonymous said...

To duke1965 at 4:23

Good post. If there was sensible management in place at Duke, those are some of the questions they should be addressing now.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
6:59 her - In spite of my poor writing skill, you managed to understand my point. You are correct. I was commenting on the disrespect shown to Professor Coleman by calling him Coleman.
It is a blog and not a term paper. Commenting on english skills demonstrates a definite lack of argument on your side."

Now, see, this is exactly what I mean by "confirmation bias" -- you are seeing only that 'evidence' which fits into your existing ideas. You propounded your theory: that for a given effect (Professor Coleman being referred to as "Coleman") the cause could only be "disrespect for Professor Coleman". You were refuted by the presentation of counter-evidence (two persons who are quite certainly highly respected here, and who are most frequently referred to by last name -- if that) and by a theory less fragile than your own -- that a desire not to do unnecessary typing, rather than any attempt to evince an attitude of disrespect, explains the use of short designators rather than long ones.

And you think you were met with a "lack of argument"? Again, confirmation bias.

Anonymous said...

Mac said:

"In the cases I've previously mentioned - (Roy Pearson's suit against a dry cleaner for 54 million because they may have lost his pants, and a model's suit against a boxer for 100 million because he claimed her pictures of him in fishnet stockings were fake) - perhaps these are fine examples for the need for reform. Wouldn't you agree?"

---

Not at all.

Roy Pearson's "$54 million" case got thrown out. Moreover, he was held up to national ridicule for being a fool, and, most recently, he lost (was not reappointed for) his job as an administrative judge, all as a result of his overreaching.

All with NO need for "tort reform," thank yew. What his "case" in fact proves, is that "tort reform" is NOT needed.

And the boxer case will be similarly handled, under current laws, just fine.

The insurance lobby and their dupes do not really care about these nonsensical "non-cases" -- what they want is immunity from any and all responsibility in REAL, legitimate cases.

And they use the "joke" cases to whoop up the public about a so-called lawsuit "crisis", so they can achieve their real goal of taking all of the money they want, from everybody, always, and giving none of it back to anyone, ever. Don't be fooled, folks.

Anonymous said...

I doubt that anyone here, time is so valuable, they can not write Professor Coleman - it was never a problem before their misunderstanding of nuance.

mac said...

Anon 5:39 pm
That the (laundry) suit even made it to court shows how much valuable time is being spent on ridiculous stuff that clogs up our system.

Is that you, John Boy?

Still conjuring up phantasms from the past, each retelling more dramatic than the last?

Anonymous said...

It is America - everyone has a right to sue - it is what helps keep us great. He has paid for being a dope with his job and reputation.

mac said...

Right: in America, "have-nots" sue people who "have," while people who "have" eventually find ways to secure their property.

If that's not a cause of class division, I don't know what is; people like John Boy Edwards cause most of the class divisions that they claim to despise. JB sows distrust and discord, and he makes his money by soaking both sides.

When the wealthy (and even the not-so-wealthy) feel threatened by the poor and people like John Boy, they sequester themselves in gated communities and send their children to private schools. Who can blame them?

And that is what's happened here: CGM was looking to "make some money from some white boys," and Duke wouldn't protect its own students from this kind of predation; they even participated in the process.

Yup, the wealthy will adapt: they'll send their kids to places where they won't be under seige, and where their mistakes (like hiring a fat, incoherent, mentally ill stipper) won't cost their families all that they worked so hard to earn.

You still think lawsuits are a great idea? You must be a denizen from the City of Duhh, or a have-not.

(Personally, I'm a half-have-not, half-have, who still believes that in America, I can "have" if I just keep working at it.)

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
I doubt that anyone here, time is so valuable, they can not write Professor Coleman - it was never a problem before their misunderstanding of nuance.

11/20/07 9:42 AM"

All right, this is the 6:59 who managed to translate your "calling the Professor, Coleman" post and this time I have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

Anonymous said...

try "anyone heres time is so valuable" Is this not more fun than being rude and nasty?

Anonymous said...

Mac said:
"Right: in America, 'have-nots' sue people who 'have,' while people who 'have' eventually find ways to secure their property.

----

Fooey. Research has proven for many years that, in the big picture, the court system is tied up overwhelmingly by big corporations suing each other.

This is because corporations regard the court system as their private playground (which, to a large extent, it is). That's one reason they resent seeing acutal human beings get access to their turf.

Anonymous said...

Whether or not it is "more fun", it doesn't solve the actual problem here, which is that you write in a way that no one seems able to parse. I still have no idea what "it was never a problem before their misunderstanding of nuance" is supposed to mean.

mac said...

4:37

No, we-the-people resent lawyers like John-Boy who've successfully sued innocent doctors, when there are so many actual cases of malpractice.

Go ask a doctor if he trusts his patients - particularly the indigent ones, who are encouraged by the hacks and ambulance chasers. When a baby doesn't come out perfect, and Mom has been doping and entertaining, what do you do? Blame the doctor!

Meanwhile, lots of actual malpractice is either forgiven or ignored - (my family is one of those who could have sued, and probably successfully.)

Then there's the attorney who supposedly represented Duke AND the accused, slowing down the process of obtaining genuine legal counsel and putting them in harms way. It's in UPI; read it for yourself.

You must be proud of your profession, John-boy. We haven't heard one comment about your support for the innocent players - nor from any of your fellow travelers - except for Obama. Instead, you treated us to Amanda Marcotte. Spineless jellyfish!

No, the best representative example of what an attorney should act like appeared in this case, with those who actually represented and represent the accused.

This is one case where a huge settlement is in order. This ain't a spilled cup of coffee, a missing laundry suit, a birth-tragedy hoax. The damage to the (formerly) accused is still evident in the words and perceptions of the people of Duhh.

John-Boy, shouldn't you be paying attention to the things that really matter?