Monday, November 12, 2007

Taylor on the State of the Academy

My colleague Stuart Taylor, in this week’s National Journal:

“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. ‘The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture, or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists.’”

Such stuff has long been a staple of the totalitarian “diversity” obsessives who pollute -- and often dominate -- political discourse at almost all of our universities, from coast to coast. The University of Delaware recently got a step ahead of its peers by including the all-whites-are-racists dogma in training those who administered a systematic thought-reform program for incoming (and other) students.

The quoted language appears in an August 2007 “diversity facilitation training” program for resident assistants. The RAs were, in turn, assigned to use far-left propaganda such as this in what university documents called the mandatory “treatment” of freshmen and the rest of the 7,000 students in university residence halls . . .

Another hyperbolic, conservative rant about liberals in academia? Perhaps I should confess my biases. I do dislike extremism of the Left and of the Right. But I have never been conservative enough to vote for a Republican presidential nominee. And the academics whose growing power and abuses of power concern me are far to the left of almost all congressional Democrats . . . But although especially egregious, the Delaware program is hardly an isolated example.

“In a nation whose future depends upon an education in freedom, colleges and universities are teaching the values of censorship, self-censorship, and self-righteous abuse of power,” FIRE founders Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate asserted, with copious documentation, in their 1998 book, The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses.

They went on: “Our students are being educated in ... double standards to redress partisan definitions of historical wrongs.... [The norm is] intolerance of dissent from regnant political orthodoxy [and] the belief that universities not only may but should suspend the rights of some in order to transform students, the culture, and the nation according to their ideological vision and desire.” . . .

An organizer and representative member of the Duke 88, Wahneema Lubiano, has labeled herself a “post-structuralist teacher-critic-leftist.” Her meager scholarly output includes railing against “Western rationality’s hegemony” while making the inconsistent (and racist) claim that “many whites might not ever be persuaded by appeals to reason.”

Another 88er, literature professor Grant Farred, has produced such “scholarship” as a monograph styling Houston Rockets center Yao Ming, a native of China, as “the most profound threat to American empire.” In the fall of 2006, Farred accused hundreds of Duke students of “secret racism” against “black female bodies” because they had registered to vote! The students were trying to defeat rogue Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was courting the black vote by pressing rape charges against three white lacrosse players in the face of overwhelming public evidence of innocence.

At no point during or since the rape hoax has Duke President Richard Brodhead or board Chairman Robert Steel even hinted at rebuking Lubiano, Farred, or the other unrepentant faculty persecutors of lacrosse players.

Only in American academia could still another elite university -- Cornell -- proudly hire away and tenure a character such as Farred after he had proved himself a malicious buffoon. “We are very enthusiastic about Professor Farred, whose work everyone in this department has long admired,” remarked Cornell English Department Chairwoman Molly Hite.

In academia today, a professor who falsely smears his university’s students as racists is a hot commodity. And hate means never having to say you’re sorry.

Read the entire column here.

92 comments:

Anonymous said...

What ever Cornell Admin thinks, Grant and other have exposed themselves as public fools to the general population of America. Better Cornell than Duke.

Anonymous said...

Professor:
As a Brooklyn College student, the Vice President of the Brooklyn College Historical Society and a former student of yours; I would like to say that it is an honor to have you as a tenured Professor at Brooklyn College. I recently read an interview that you gave and it was certainly eye opening. You're a great teacher but you don't need anyone to tell you that, there are hundreds of students who can prove that. I don't think too many students at Brooklyn College had any idea that you were so involved with the Duke case, but I for one, am so happy that you were because I thought those boys were getting a raw deal from day one. I just wonder how this will alter their lives down the road because there will always be those people who look at them differently. It is just a horrible thing.

Anonymous said...

Off topic but perhaps of interest ... yet another laudatory review of UPI in the San Antonio Express-News at http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/diversions/stories/MYSA111107.09P.taylor.1fa6947.html

mac said...

If all White people are automatically "racist," then what is the sense (for White people) in trying NOT to be?

If no Black people are "racist," then what is the sense (for Black people)in seeing and understanding their own racism, and trying not to be racist?

I think the word for the Delaware statement is "submission." People who think like that would like to put a dog-collar on every White person. As someone who grew up hearing Black men called "boy," as if they should be wearing a dog-collar, and being disgusted by it every time I heard it, I am no less disgusted by those who would put a dog-collar on me. It won't fit, and no coercion is going to make me submit. (Try to put a collar on me; just try it.)

That the left would expect me to willingly wear their dog-collar says more about their real intentions than anything:

::That they would prefer to provoke a racial war;

::That they cannot tolerate a growing Black middle-and-upper class;

::that they don't wish to allow Black capitalism;

::that they wish to ignite a White anger and a Black anger so volatile that we'll all sink into some 3rd world sewer.

Talk about politics of destruction.

mac said...

I suspect that Wahneema and Grant and Paula and Mark Anthony and Karla would like to see a race-war: I wonder what color Klan robes they have hidden in their closets?

I once suggested that the White supremacist group "The Order" should rename itself "The Ordure," and that the misnamed "Christian Identity" should rename itself "Mysogynistic Misanthropes from Mars," and that the one thing in common among White supremacists and Black supremacists is their common hatred of Jews, and that perhaps Farakhan and whoever wrote the "Turner Diaries" and their ilk should go live on some hurricane-prone island, indulging themselves in hatred of each other and of Jews, and leave real Christians and Jews (and others) alone on higher ground to live in peace in representative democracies.

Bah-baye, Louis! Bah-baye, Klan! Bah-baye, Klan of 88! Hope "global warming" sends you a big hurricane while you're off on your island!

mac said...

BTW: looks like Tom Wolfe is prescient: "Radical Chic" and "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers" are becoming a general reality at Universities.

AF said...

So sad......but so true.
Welcome to the real world. At least the real world of academia.

Anonymous said...

"Malicious Buffoon"

and

"Hate means never having to say you're sorry"


Exactly--well said. I've nothing to add here...

Anonymous said...

Is Farred a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:53,

Laudatory reviews of UPI are never OT and always of great interest. Thanks for the link!

Observer

traveler said...

Yet another hoax-
George Washington University

GWU student journalist admits hate crime hoax.

Looks like GWU student reporter Sarah Marshak, would fit right in at ABC News, The New Republic, CBS, the NYTimes, etc., etc., etc. She was caught on tape faking anti-Semitic hate against herself.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/05/gwu-student-journalist-admits-hate-crime-hoax/

Anonymous said...

That statement from the University of Maryland is so non-academic. Why do we even need the term "racist" when it is 100% indistinguishable from the term "white?"

Mac, I agree with you that this type of labeling removes all incentive to improve. According to the University of Maryland, I will never be less of a racist than David Duke, and I will always be more of a racist than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Mike S

Anonymous said...

When you asked anyone who is successful, regardless of field,why they succeed the answer is basic. They credit their success to hard work, day after day, repeatably doing the basics and seeking improvement.

Many of those that fail have been shown not to have done the basics, regularly- which is work and often have chosen more "glorious" activities in the name of work and forgotten what their work is.

Many of the G88 and others in the academic world have forgotten that their first job is to teach. Which successful teachers will tell you is hard work - day after day.

Seems there are too many highly paid "professors" that feel they are above having to work as teachers at our universities.

Ralph Phelan said...

Is Farred a Communist?

Yes.

Richard Aubrey said...

These--the ones mentioned, anyway--are big-name universities.
They have brand value far beyond the competencies they teach, presuming the teaching actually works.
What percentage of the brand value is the name and what percentage is the value added of the actual competency?
This kind of nutcasery becoming exposed is going to damage the brand piece of their value, leaving them to claim the value of their teaching.
Teaching what?

"state" and community colleges are looking better and better as an investment.

Anonymous said...

Just read in The Chronicle about Melinda French Gates' ( Bill's wife... Duke Alumna) dedication of a new Science Building at Duke.

So glad the Gates money is going toward REAL studies ( Melinda double majored in economics and computer science... how appropriate for Bill's wife!)

Can't imagine anybody wanting to put any real money into the pseudoacademics like the Gang of 88. Exactly how do THEY propose to better the world???

The new science building will be house a multi-disciplinary approach to research.

Can you imagine a multidisciplinary approach to the hate studies of Angy women?

Sometimes all it takes to show up the counterfeit is the presence of the REAL.

I'm not against the real studies in the social sciences, etc. I'm just against the pseudointellectuals who steal the parent's money and the student's brains.

Kudos to the Gates. Good people wiht good money doing going things... uh oh.... white... male.... rich...???? Isn't that the enemy?

They don't allow the kids to watch TV. So they are not being dumbed down by the MSM trash.

Instead, they are watching science lectures!!!

Maybe they are being home schooled in the early years, so when they go to college ( if they do) they have the brains and guts to sift and sort real academics from fluff and indoctrination.

dsl

Michael said...

[One such report, for example, classified a young woman as one of the "worst" students in the residence life education program for saying that she was tired of having "diversity shoved down her throat" and responding "none of your damn business" when asked "when did you discover your sexual identity?"]

From the US EEOC: (some parts omitted)

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:

* The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
* Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
* The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.

It is helpful for the victim to directly inform the harasser that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. The victim should use any employer complaint mechanism or grievance system available.

When investigating allegations of sexual harassment, EEOC looks at the whole record: the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination on the allegations is made from the facts on a case-by-case basis.

Prevention is the best tool to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace. Employers are encouraged to take steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring. They should clearly communicate to employees that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. They can do so by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains.

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

I wonder what a judge would think of an RA asking repeated questions to a student about her personal sexual history. Or of the institution.

Michael said...

From the linked article at the Philly Inquirer:

[Another education professor, Jan Blits, president of the Delaware Association of Scholars, labeled the program "political propaganda and brain-washing."

"I'd be out of a job in a day if I asked students questions about their sex lives or their experiences as oppressors. . . . It's illegal," he said.]

"For the most part students put up a wall," said the 19-year-old junior, who is president of the Latino student union. "When people hear diversity training, they put their politically correct sensors on for three hours, then go back to their regular behavior."

Sounds like the students aren't as dumb as the diversity "experts" think they are.

Anonymous said...

wow ... so can I get special treatment as a disabled/flawed/damaged person? don't hate me 'cause I'm white, I was born this way, and the condition is, well, irreversible.

What's the proper term for a rascist who isn't white?

John from Jersey

jamil hussein said...

"Only in American academia could still another elite university -- Cornell -- proudly hire away and tenure a character such as Farred after he had proved himself a malicious buffoon."

Academia is not the only place. MSM and Democratic party are the other two places for such people. That's why I find it annoying that Stuart keeps repeating that he is not a republican but he opposes this kind of non-sense. The truth is nowadays, that one major political party in this country advocates this non-sense and the other party opposes it.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre; "Racists"

The Klan of 88 and their abettors in the media, administration at Duke and elsewhere remind me of the recent Mutts, (buy Patrick McConnell), comic strip.

Frame #1 (Dog)
Yeh, they trained my to be a fighting dog.

#2 Fight to the death...

#3 No mercy, no reason...

#4 Just senseledd mindless violence...a monster.

#5 I didn't ask for this

#6 Grrrr...

#7 Look at what I've become...

#8 Just like them.

They are what they despise - the most intolerant, worst racisit, bigots of our lifetimes...

It's a sad when I open the funny pages and think of the deplorable state of academia and especially Duke University.

Debrah said...

A fantastic column by Stuart.

"The preferred groups include many faculty members who are manifestly unqualified for their positions and whose websites read like a "Saturday Night Live" parody of wacky professors."

LOL!!!
LOL!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote

"Just read in The Chronicle about Melinda French Gates' ( Bill's wife... Duke Alumna) dedication of a new Science Building at Duke.

So glad the Gates money is going toward REAL studies ( Melinda double majored in economics and computer science... how appropriate for Bill's wife!)

Can't imagine anybody wanting to put any real money into the pseudoacademics like the Gang of 88."

And yet such donations do financially support G88-types. They free up money in Duke's general budget, which is then spent on Lubiano and her ilk.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

The social justice crusade in the humanities will become Antiochian. Let the chips fall where they may, via the root of leftist evil, capitalism.

When the alumni "giving" starts to wean and schools are forced to decide which programs stay then the frauds (Waaahneema, KFC, Grant, et al...) and their pseudo-studies will become a fart in the academic windstorm.

Anonymous said...

The University of Delaware's late, unlamented RA "diversity facilitating" program reminded me of nothing so much as Fidel Castro's "revolutionary vigilance system," which set up a spy on every block to keep the neighbors in check:

We are going to establish a system of collective vigilance and we shall see how the lackeys of imperialism are going to get around this. We shall see if there is a single district not well represented here. We shall set up a collective revolutionary vigilance system and everyone on the block will be known, what his activities are. If they think they are going to have to deal with the people they will get a tremendous scare. We are going to set up a revolutionary vigilance committee on every block so that the people can see what is going on. Castro speech, Havana, Cuba, Sept 29, 1960

It was intended both for neighborhood (dorm?) surveillance and indoctrination. Of course, like everything else on the island, except for the fabulous medical clinic patronized by MIchael Moore, the system is falling apart.

dave

Anonymous said...

Mike S

That statement from the University of Maryland is so non-academic.

Just wondering what you're referring to. As a relocated Terp I'm aware of the daft statements they're capable of, but I couldn't find any source in the post or links. Also I could always use an excuse to stiff them when they come begging for money.

Anonymous said...

To John from Jersey:

You asked: What's the proper term for a racist who isn't white? The answer, according to the Univ. of Delaware "treatment" program, is that non-whites cannot be racists. Furthermore, whites can never be the victims of racism, according to the UD oracle who authored the "treatment" program. You should go to FIRE's website and read this crap. You won't believe it. And this was done at a state school, supported by taxpayer dollars. Incredible.

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof @ 11/12/07 10:16 AM:

You've suggested that parents and alums withhold contributions to the university in order to shock or starve it into its senses. Working up an analogy here: perhaps we can compare hoping for outside intervention to end the occupation to waiting for the Free French and Allied Forces to invade Normandy, otherthrow the Vichy government and drive out the Germans.

My question is: is there an equivalent to the Resistance inside the University? I don't mean isolated individuals "taking a stand," but a conscious, dedicated core of resistance fighters who plan, cooperate, and use every means available to undermine the system from within? Professors who are willing to take on onerous committee assignments as incremental means to influence and (not to mince words) political power, recruit and inform the likeminded among faculty, students, alums,and the administration, ensure voting blocs on important issues, seek out (or create) occasions to advance your agenda– all the things the other side has done to gain power? I recognize that this sort of "partisanship" runs entirely against the grain of "collegiality" and the disinterested pursuit of knowlege, but if the other side is doing it, how much longer will the uninvolved be permitted to remain "disinterested"?

It's one thing to look to FIRE or Horowitz to shake things up, but I'd bet that even the good guys resent "outsiders" to a large extent.

I guess I'm asking: is anyone– no, as many of you insiders together as there are– fighting fire with fire? And should you?

dave

Ralph Phelan said...

mac said...
If all White people are automatically "racist," then what is the sense (for White people) in trying NOT to be?

You're supposed to accept that you will always be bad, feel appropriately guilty, and give the professional victims' groups tribute to assuage your irredeemable guilt.

The Catholic Church uses the concept of "original sin" in the same way. "No matter what you do, you'll still need to keep paying us."

It's necesary that white people be categorically incapable of innocence. If they even started to consider the possibility, many white males who have some historical context to compare themselves to would figure out that they were, indeed unusually tolerant and egalitarian people, and would withdraw support from the grievance industry. At which point Sharpton and Lubiano would have to get real jobs.

Also, white people becoming less racist is not only not the point, it's actually undesirable. Again, the better black people's lives become, the less use they have for the likes of Sharpton and Lubiano.

Anonymous said...

To Michael @ 8:49

To answer your question, Anson Dorrance, the fabled womens soccer coach at UNC, is now facing a jury trial for the very same allegations by a former player because of a recent en banc decision of the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond.

ACC Esq.

Anonymous said...

I come here every day to read K.C. Johnson's posts and for comments like this:

"Mac, I agree with you that this type of labeling removes all incentive to improve. According to the University of Maryland, I will never be less of a racist than David Duke, and I will always be more of a racist than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Mike S"

I think Mike S meant University of Delaware instead of UM, but I would not be surprised if other colleges had adopted similar dogma. In either event, well put!
____________

Dave: Your analogy between the Delaware groupthink program and Castro's Cuba is very good. What is the difference between either program and a local "Neighborhood Watch" program? Is it just that behavior, and not thoughts, are being monitored? MOO! Gregory

xutag77 said...

"Sounds like the students aren't as dumb as the diversity "experts" think they are."

But the diversity "experts" are as dumb as the students think they are.

Anonymous said...

Dave:

You ask the same PROFOUNDLY important and pertinent questions that must also be asked of the GOOD Durhamites.

It will take some courageous faculty, and local citizenry to take back the ground that was surrendered.

dsl

Nicole said...

Why did Michael Jackson so desperately try to look white? Did he want to be labelled a racist?

W. R. Chambers said...

From Merriam-Webster online:

racism
One entry found.

racism

Main Entry:
rac·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist

Racism is a matter of belief not birth.

For university professors to assign political definitions to ordinary words reminds one of totalitarian regimes which seek to control the meaning and use of words in order to preserve control. It is hard to believe that any american college or university would tolerate such blatant nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Is Farred a Communist?

11/12/07 7:30 AM
----------------------------------
In other words, is Farred a Red?

Probably.

mac said...

Guess the Delaware Declaration means that Nurse Levity, Diane Catotti, Dickie ("Smeagol") Brodhead, and a big chunk of the Klan of 88 are also "racists." Even the ones who teach and promote Gender-Blender Studies (GBS) and Social Animal Husbandry (Kathy Rudy.)

Houston Baker, Duke's former unofficial Animal Husbandry Coordinator (AHC,) is exempt from the definition (partly because he's said to be from the planet Hemo, the so-called "blood planet.")

We already know that Nifong is a racist in the classic sense, misusing Black folk for his own profit and amusement.

weakjokerintellectual said...

Anonymous said...

What's the proper term for a rascist who isn't white?

John from Jersey
------------------------------------
I don't get it ...

This one's better -- What's the proper name for Santa's helpers?





Subordinate Clauses.

John said...

quote - I find it annoying that Stuart keeps repeating that he is not a republican but he opposes this kind of non-sense. The truth is nowadays, that one major political party in this country advocates this non-sense and the other party opposes it. - end quote

As long as we're confessing annoyances, what's really annoying to me is the effort of political partisans of one stripe or another to claim ownership of this issue and thereby disparage - or, depending on the level of hysteria, demonize - the other.

Republicans who hold their noses every 4 years and pander to the racial fears of creationist, one-nation-under-the-living-Jesus, nuke 'em all neocon, far right extremists have just as much to be ashamed of as any Democrats who would pander to the likes of Waheema Lubiano.

IMO, it is just another casual smear, or at the very best a blatantly false leap from the specific to the general, to argue that all Democrats advocate this non-sense.

Falsely exaggerating your political opponent's position to the point of absurdity or, in this case, nausea, while often successful in the best Rovian tradition, does nothing but pollute the discourse.

IMHO

Anonymous said...

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8628.html


This is rather appropriate on Veteran's Day... according to the Angry Studies and PC crowd, it's perfektly fine to desecrate something from the USA. But don't you dare even think about stepping on a Hommas or Hezbollah flag.

No doubt miriame cooke and Rebecca Sein would be foaming @ their mouths. Losers.

One Spook said...

dave @ 11:39 writes:

"My question is: is there an equivalent to the Resistance inside the University?"

Bingo! By "resistance," I assume Dave means resistance to the totalitarian forces of "PC."

Dave does a much better job of expressing the same question I have asked in this forum before:
"When will the American academy begin to police itself?"

When Steven Horwitz addressed this issue here at DIW (btw, where the heck IS Steve?), he always opposed government or "dogmatic" intervention in the academic community, such as that advocated by David Horowitz' "Academic Bill of Rights."

And, that's fine to say, but my question remains: What is the academy doing to achieve ideological balance; where's the diversity of thought?

Highly publicized events like the Duke hoax and the Delaware debacle are harbingers of a much deeper imbalance in the academy. Recently, a commenter here linked to an article about the University of Iowa's department of History with 27 professors, all registered democrats.

Imbalance.

I repeat Dave's question: "Is there an equivalent to the Resistance inside the University?"

One Spook

Gary Packwood said...

jamil hussein 9:16 said...

..."Only in American academia could still another elite university -- Cornell -- proudly hire away and tenure a character such as Farred after he had proved himself a malicious buffoon."
...Academia is not the only place. MSM and Democratic party are the other two places for such people. That's why I find it annoying that Stuart keeps repeating that he is not a republican but he opposes this kind of non-sense. The truth is nowadays, that one major political party in this country advocates this non-sense and the other party opposes it.
::
Sure is beginning to look that way.

Hopefully faculty and their staff member friends who wish to revise the Constitution of the United States are about to figure out that undergraduate universities are not a good place to plant their flag.

Undergraduate students have parents, relatives, friends and bloggers who are not going to tolerate such revisionists nonsense.

And we vote.
::
GP

mb said...

People like Lubiano, Holloway, et al. owe their entire careers on the notion that racism is pandemic and enduring in white society so that they can be ensured that they will have not only relevancy, but a job. Without the trifecta of racism, sexism and classism those bufoons would cease to have any relevancy and thus would have do *real* work, which IMHO scares the living sh*t out of them since most of them are only qualified to work in jobs where the operative phrase is "would you like to Super-size that?"

It's simple: They perpetuate racism/sexism/classism because their livelihoods depend on it. Follow the money.

Anonymous said...

dave at 11:39 was advocating much more affirmative action from inside to undermine the system. Unfortunately, we have proof from the Duke case that the majority of those inside are rightfully afraid to buck the system. Very few were capable of "taking a stand" and painfully few were capable of anything even remotely resembling "resistance."

After an extensive effort, FODU was able to assembly a list of only 99 "Duke Faculty for Truth and Justice."

http://z10.invisionfree.com/FODU_Open_Board/index.php?showtopic=27&st=0

Their list of 88 + 27 additions from the clarfying statement plus 6 strong supports, totals 121 and that doesn't include Brodhead or many others who are clearing on their side.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Is Farred a Communist?

11/12/07 7:30 AM


Far-Red a communist? You think he picked that name by accident?

R.R. Hamilton said...

If you aren't called a racist by the likes of the 88ers, you're part of the problem.

Anonymous said...

And a lot of money it is too! So while the rest of you labor away here on the blogs and at your minimum wage jobs, or those other jobs where you can only be envious about the elite college salaries (think 200K+) you will never earn, you can always come together here to ... talk amongst yourself.

Anonymous said...

dave wrote

"My question is: is there an equivalent to the Resistance inside the University? I don't mean isolated individuals "taking a stand," but a conscious, dedicated core of resistance fighters who plan, cooperate, and use every means available to undermine the system from within?"

One such group is the National Association of Scholars, which has numerous local chapters -- including one at Duke. Often, its members try to establish classical liberal arts programs at their home institutions.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

A question for Mr. Taylor and Mr. Johnson: Why does one have to be or vote for a democrat in order to have a legitimate opinion? It seems to me that this is part of the same problem afflicting the Group of 88. Only a certain group can have a worthy opinion so whites, conservatives, and other similar jack booted thugs need not apply. Only if you "have never voted for ....." can you have an opinion. Opinions and view should be judged as worthy based on the (factual)content of their argument and not by the colors of their political coalition. Like it or not, when Johnson and Taylor use their political view to support their arguments, they are making the same argument as the Academy they criticize.

traveler said...

Flashback: “....the problem on the planet is white people."

Activist: Exterminate White People
Black Raleigh activist says on C-SPAN

By Jon Sanders
October 21, 2005

RALEIGH — A Raleigh activist and bookstore owner told a panel at Howard University Law School on Oct. 14 that the solution to many of the problems faced by black people is the extermination of “white people off the face of the planet.”

Dr. Kamau Kambon, who taught Africana Studies 241 in the Spring 2005 semester at North Carolina State University, also said this needs to be done “because white people want to kill us.”

Kambon closed his remarks by urging participants and C-SPAN viewers to "get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem, and the problem on the planet is white people."

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=2869

Anonymous said...

According to "their" assessment of racism, why not let the white "racists" support the real academic departments (econ, engineering, math) and let the agenda crowd support the pseudo-academic departments (anger studies, cultural anthropology). They may be able to support their interests but somehow I doubt it.
Why do these people think that the "rest of the world" owes them something (for nothing--except instigational purposes)?????
Put up or shut up. We've listened to the whining and complaining from the anger studies crowd long enough. Let them go look for the silver lining in their dark clouds.

Anonymous said...

Is there a race war going on? Is this episode at Duke a microcosm of black attitude toward whites? What do you honestly think the outcome would be if you polled black america today regarding the disposition of this case? Read some African-American blogs. If they're any indication, most black people don't believe justice was served. They'd feel comfortable having those three white boys behind bars for the crimes of being white and wealthy. 42 years of Great Society and...what? Is this it? It would seem that all of the well-intentioned subsidies and quotas have morphed into appeasement schemes to prevent black violence. And golly gee, with their birthrate, how is this going to have a happy ending?

Anonymous said...

When I first read the story. I thought that the young boy who outwitted the tiger by tricking it to run round and round the palm tree and turning itself into sirup was so smart and clever. How little did I know. Racism touches everything in everyones life. Why in the grocery stores today there is a cereal called Coco-Puffs that is called crazy. It is called crazy because the puffs themselves are colored brown while another cereal called Frosted Flakes coated white with sugar is called, by none other than Tony the Tiger (a distant relative who escaped Sambo's wit) as being great. Clearly this is a rascist plot to describe the black or brown cereal in rasicst terms while the other whited sugar coated cereal is "Greattttttttt! This observation was first made by a black man on BET. I do not recall his name. I am sure a woman could have determined this but neither cereal has been mentioned in the serious feminininist studies. I like Coco-Puffs and think Tony' is great. I think this needs to be studied and emphazied with rigor near as I can figure.

no justice, no peace said...

The New Criterion looks at Alan Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind" twenty years later.

How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students

"...Bloom claimed that the West faces an intellectual crisis because no one any longer can make a principled defense of its institutions or way of life. This is most evident in the university, which has reformed itself according to the ideas of openness, tolerance, relativism, and diversity—all of which claim that no political principles, institutions, or way of life can be affirmed as being superior to any others. This is the near-universal view among students and faculty at our leading institutions of higher learning. The tragedy here, according to Bloom, is that relativism has extinguished the real motive behind all education, which is “the search for the good life.” If all ideas and ideals are equal, there is little point in searching for the best ones..."

Clearly Duke has abstained from searching for the best faculty and administrators.

a Duke Dad said...

No no no, KC. You don't understand.
It was not merely that "a professor who falsely smears his university’s students as racists is a hot commodity".

While that certainly is accurate as far as Grant Farred's appointment, how about Ms. Cynthia "Hit the Security Guard with the Cell Phone" McKinney?

Finally voted out of office, ex-congresswoman McKinney was immediately appointed to a "Rhodes Class of '56 University Professorship". These are "designed to enrich the undergraduate experience at the university, are awarded for a period of one to five years, and appointees are considered full members of the Cornell faculty. During each year of their appointment, Rhodes professors will visit the campus for a minimum of two weeks."

So you see, Mr. Farred does not have to assume alone the burden of changing Cornell to his level of scholarship and pedagogy. He has a colleague there who has demonstrated her ability to provide leadership and creativity also unhampered by rational thought, academic merit, or accomplishment of any significance.

And, as you have documented, the universities are full of these types.

And so are government, corporations, primary and secondary education, social services.

Is the Duke-Hoax barely the snowflake at the tip of the iceberg ? Has our society gotten so thoroughly immersed with "some Animals are More Equal than Others".

One shudders to think that George Orwell had it exactly right.

Anonymous said...

Being reported today that Kim Curtis is teaching at Duke in the spring?!?!?!?

Is this the administration and BOT mooning all us blog hooligans?

Anonymous said...

3:38

Also noteworthy is the BET presentation by 2 of the Jena 6: Lauded as heros for beating a white student senseless. In reality the the so-called 'systematic racism' is a media-generated myth.

Carwin Jones and Bryant Purvis were introduced by Katt Williams, a comedian and the awards show's host, as two of the students involved in a case of "systematic racism."

"By no means are we condoning a six-on-one beat-down," Williams said during his introduction of the teens, one of whom is still facing attempted murder charges in connection with the attack on white student Justin Barker. "... But the injustice perpetrated on these young men is straight criminal."

As Jones and Purvis walked onto the stage at the Atlanta Civic Center, where the awards show was filmed on Saturday, they were greeted by a standing ovation.

"They don't look so tough, do they?" Williams joked as the teens stepped up to the podium.


I bet the victim and his family are not laughing.

Anonymous said...

To John at 2:30 PM said:

"Republicans who hold their noses every 4 years and pander to the racial fears of creationist, one-nation-under-the-living-Jesus, nuke 'em all neocon, far right extremists have just as much to be ashamed...

Falsely exaggerating your political opponent's position to the point of absurdity ... does nothing but pollute the discourse."


Um... I can't tell, is your post intended to be a humorous contradiction, or is it true self-blindness?

-RD

anon said...

Re:IMHO

I am sorry but when examining various proposals and policies of Democrats one can only deduce that they are using the philosophies of academics like the Lubianos and the Holloways as justification for them. One need only look at statements made by main stream senators at Supreme Court confirmation hearings to verify the truthfulness of this assertion. Chuck Shumer for example raved on and on about how in his fantasy world, court decisions should always be made in favor of the underdog regardless of the facts of the case or of the law itself. Mainstream Senator Kennedy imagined a racist under every rock and began to appear unhinged in his quest to find and expose them all. I am truly irritated by Stuart's comments about Republicans. I am almost sorry I bought the book. He is pandering, plain and simple. One wonders at how he could possibly express such devotion to a political party that has contributed so many ideas so antithical to American ideals as the current Democratic Party.

Alan Furman said...

Is Castro a Communist?

Anonymous said...

I am truly irritated by Stuart's comments about Republicans.

So am I, and I say that as a registered Democrat who hsn't voted for a Donk presidential candidate since McGovern (and grew to regret that). The only reason I haven't changed parties is that the Donks are the party in control in my area and it makes more sense to vote in their primaries. Does this mean that Stuart (and maybe KC) voted twice for both Carter and Clinton?

Anonymous said...

After 51 years, I changed my voter registration from Democrat to Republican, in order to vote for Rudy in the primary. The Dem's were a disgrace at the Roberts and Alito hearing. All they were interested in was smearing these brillant guys, who are willing to serve the country and abortion. Time for Teddy, Biden and a few others to retire.

Anonymous said...

Voted once for Carter and twice for Clinton. Big Bill would be elected again to the Presidency if he could run. Put a write in for Bobby in 64 and 68 - Unlike numerous Americans, I never voted for Nixon or Lyndon Johnson. Happy Trials.

Anonymous said...

6:14 How do you know how much these folk make? I do not even know most of their first names and none of their last names/

Anonymous said...

This is at the heart of what happened in Durham either directly or indirectly. These Neanderthals who would constitute the Academy are grossly dishonest even corrupt in their behavior. That this kind of dishonest crap would be allowed . . . it is racist and corrupt . . . it is wrong and yet it is allowed . . . what fraud. These people are supposed to be better than this. What they are doing is basically unAmerican and racist.

inman said...

6:14

$200 thousand a year is chump change for many.

All $200 thousand a year (with tenure) buys is a comfortable life... but it buys nothing beyond economic pleasure and sustenance.

I've known lots of folks who'd waste that amount on a party.

c'est la vie

You shouldn't boast when you have no frame of reference. When you've got a couple of hundred million, then you can start spouting off about economics.

Oh....and by the way...I'll take a person living in genteel poverty (of any race)... a person who has character and integrity and honor ... into my home on any day of the week and welcome them warmly. And I will admire their humanity and humility.

And lest you misunderstand, many fine people take a vow of poverty, yet still pursue a life of the mind and soul.

So, I couldn't care less what the gang of '88 spouts as their annual income.

They are still losers with a hollow life.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

A question for Mr. Taylor and Mr. Johnson: Why does one have to be or vote for a democrat in order to have a legitimate opinion? It seems to me that this is part of the same problem afflicting the Group of 88. Only a certain group can have a worthy opinion so whites, conservatives, and other similar jack booted thugs need not apply. Only if you "have never voted for ....." can you have an opinion. Opinions and view should be judged as worthy based on the (factual)content of their argument and not by the colors of their political coalition. Like it or not, when Johnson and Taylor use their political view to support their arguments, they are making the same argument as the Academy they criticize."

I understand your argument but I think you are missing a factor in the situation. Johnson and Taylor are not volunteering the information about their political affiliation in order to say "See! My opinion is worth something because of my political affiliation!" Rather, they are citing their political affiliations because it is the quickest way to knock the props out from under their opponents' ad hominem circumstantial arguments.

Many people don't understand how ad hominem circumstantial (hereafter "AHC") differs from the more familiar form of ad hominem. The basic ad hominem form involves finding, or manufacturing the appearance of, some negative quality about person A, and then acting as if A's facts or arguments are weakened by the existence of something negative about them. (Where, in reality, those facts and arguments are not affected by who happens to hold them.) The AHC form involves finding, or manufacturing the appearance of, some way in which person A would benefit if people believed A's facts and arguments, and then acting as if A's facts or arguments are weakened by the overlap between what they say and what would be favorable to them. Obviously, there is such a thing as a conflict of interest, but AHC goes beyond pointing out that a person's interests might sway their perceptions and instead tries to completely nullify anything A says which might be in A's favor because it is in A's favor.

The most notorious example we saw over and over during the lacrosse case was "Well, sure, this information is seriously damaging to the prosecution's case, but it's coming from the defense attorneys so it's as if this evidence doesn't even exist." Only slightly behind, though, was "Well, it's coming from Republicans and white supremacists and people who hate rape victims so it's as if this evidence doesn't even exist." Obviously one way to puncture an argument like that is to point out that it's an invalid argument form: wildly conflicting stories do not suddenly become reconcilable even if it's the Grand Wizard of the KKK who points out their mutual contradiction. But the other way is to point out that the identity premise is a false fact: if someone is illogical enough (or enough of a sophist) to offer the argument "So-and-so is a Republican, so everything he says should be discounted" in the first place it's probably more effective to debunk the "So-and-so is a Republican" premise than to try and explain how AHC is a fallacious form of argument.

One Spook said...

Whooooooooaaaaaaa!!!
(Making time "out-sign" with my hands)

Let's move away from the democrat vs republican issue ... it is irrelevant.

Bear in mind that the only time either KC Johnson or Stuart Taylor, Jr. have mentioned which political party got their vote is when they answer the ridiculous charge that their opinions in the Duke hoax are somehow "rightwing-inspired" issues.

Since when have due process, the rule of law, and excellence in the academy ever been the exclusive domain of any political party in America?

These are issues that are of concern to ALL American citizens; let's leave it at that.

By participating here, I had hoped that our focus would be on those issues and that commenters would refrain from co-mingling these important issues with political affiliation.

I'm with Taylor ... I'm skeptical of the far fringes of either major political party in America.

I am concerned about America, however --- its laws, and the quality of its educational system.

Oddly, when I read the US Constitution, I see no mention of "Democrat" or "Republican."

I do see this: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

One Spook

Anonymous said...

One begins to doubt the sincerity of professional politicians from both the Republican & Democratic parties who conveniently fall into two lines on a handfull of hot-button social policy issues, e.g., gay marriage, school prayer, abortion, burning the flag, etc.
Of all the OECD countries only the American electorate is STUPID enough to fall for this crap in place of legitimate policy debate.
No European politico worth his salt would spend a nanosecond on the abortion issue, because European voters are smart enough to realize its a religious issue, not a political one.
And while I personally may not be thrilled if Teddy marries Freddy next door, I would like my political representatives to focus more on real political issues, eg., mortgage regulation, security of oil supply, military cost thereof, education(terrible), etc.

Anonymous said...

1:23 and the prior 2 -3 comments. Abortion and personal sexual preferences ARE personal matters. I believe that abortion and homosexuality are a fact of life and nobody's beliefs for or against is going to change that. What I DEEPLY resent is being forced to pay taxes to support something which is a personal choice.


That is where the line is drawn.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and we could wave a wand and make the liberals pay for treating these cause - effect problems from the stance of a conservative they would have an absolute fit!

But because our country is now controlled in almost every segment by the economic and social liberals, the conservatives have to pay for programs that are repugnant to them... and they have to endure the ridicule of being called biggoted people and intellectual dolts for their point of view.

It is a serious issue.

I saw the interesting apparent conflict when KC (whom I admire to the hilt) openly endorsed Obamma, who came to Durham to endorse Bell.

And when KC, who teaches history and whose special field is US Congress, endorses Obama who is shown in a current photo alongside Hillary and others, REFUSING to pledge allegiance to the flag of the USA.

I wish I did not know those things about KC.

And I wish that Stuart had not made those comments about never voting for a Republican in his life, as if that is some big sin. I am not surprised, given his education, and the fact that he is a Harvard grad, and Mass has returned the evil Kennedy's to the Senate for years.

BUT these realities do NOT in any way diminish the great esteem I have for Johnson and Taylor in their momumental accomplishment of researching, documenting, and exposing the Lacrosse Hoax.

As a life-long Republican, and as a person of faith who values integrity, I have been appalled at some of the revelations about leaders in my own party... their greed, dishonesty, and outright corruption have stunned and disappointed me. Kinda like I have felt about the Democrats for years.

Now I am coming to the conclusion ( I'm a little old to just be leaning this... just got my medicare card!) that both parties have the same problem: people!


I think that the fact that KC and Stuart have felt the need to reveal their political leanings is because the guilt-weight of the Lacrosse Hoax, politically, was mostly on sitting Democrats. When KC and Stuart went after truth, regardless of politics, they overturned the bad apple cart. In order to try to validate their objectivity, they reveal their own political leanings.

I don't recall whether Bernstein and Woodward did the same when they went after the Watergate scandal.

But it is a sad day when we are tempted to equate integrity with political party. And I guess that sad day has arrived. Ad homonem arguments or not... we are doing just that.


Taylor and Johnson stand as two heroes for intellectual and journalistic integrity in the Lacrosse mess. I can only hope that pervades all other areas of their lives because I have become great admirers of them and would absolutely hate to see their work discredited because they failed to apply the same razor sharp intelligence to other pursuits....regardless of their political leanings.

Anonymous said...

So now Duke's chorus sings: "we're beyond the lacrosse case."

Imagine what they'd be singing *if* there had been a rape: "We'll never be over the lacrosse case. We need initiatives, investigative committees, firings, more money and status for "diversity" faculty, required courses in "multicultural" "education" -- forever.

Funny how they argue that racism is endemic to American culture and academia, and that we must "never forget." But the root cause of the lacrosse hoax, PC? -- "I don't see you. I don't see you."

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

Alan Furman said...

Is Castro a Communist?

11/13/07 6:29 PM
------------------------------------
Yes, but he's a paragon of moderation compared with Kim "Castrater" Curtis.

Anonymous said...

Duke Prof @ 11/12 6:31 PM

Thank you for your referral to the National Association of Scholars, an obviously high-minded organization for academics dedicated to reforming higher education in this country. I'd encourage everyone to visit the website (hint: check out the NAS Online Forum for commentary by one KC Johnson on several topics @ 06/13/06 and 10/18/06 and by Prof. Staddon of Duke @ 05/08/06– relive those thrilling days of yesteryear– and more recent commentary on Duke by Prof. Jay Bergman, CCSU @ 08/14/07).

From what I can surmise about its membership, the Duke affiliate doesn't appear to be a shabby affair, either. (And it's not too hard to guess who might have provided some of the impetus for the Economics Department's defense of the lacrosse players' rights.)

So this is why I'm surprised that, as a national organization, the NAS doesn't appear to have addressed the Duke scandal at all. A review of its press releases and articles shows that it has spoken out on the Summers affair at Harvard, on the Dartmouth Board of Trustees "coup," on the University of Delaware RA "diversity" indoctrination program– it salutes its Delaware affiliate for the "critical role it played in exposing the abuses"– as well as on other issues. The NAS has joined with FIRE and ACTA (American Council of Trustees and Alumni) in speaking out on some of these matters.

Any insight as to why NAS has not formally addressed the Duke scandal?

Just as the G88 attempted to use the national publicity surrounding the Duke case to advance their own agendas, why doesn't NAS do the same, and push back? Perhaps the Duke affiliate could host the next NAS conference. And invite ACTA and FIRE. Topic: Lessons of the Duke Lacrosse Scandal (I know, I know, the title needs a colon). Several days of meetings and position papers right in front of Brodhead, the G88, and everybody. In. their. face. As a handful of professors at Duke, you are perhaps vulnerable to retaliation. As the vanguard of several national organizations that could mobilize a fair amount of attention on Duke (assuming they have their national political action coordination committee acts together), you are much less so. This is what I meant earlier by "fighting fire with fire." High-minded fire, to be sure.

dave

Ralph Phelan said...

dave wrote

"My question is: is there an equivalent to the Resistance inside the University? I don't mean isolated individuals "taking a stand," but a conscious, dedicated core of resistance fighters who plan, cooperate, and use every means available to undermine the system from within?"

If there is, then by definition they won't be talking about it. And rightly so.

Anonymous said...

These organizations would not touch this hoax with a ten foot pole. They only want to involve themselves in what is trendy and safe.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know if Peter Wood is retired?? If so, where is he living? Gotta track this boy down.

Anonymous said...

"My question is: is there an equivalent to the Resistance inside the University?...

ralph phelan @11/14 4:48 PM said

If there is, then by definition they won't be talking about it. And rightly so.

Yes. There is "behind the scenes," but there is also "the scenes." Both are needed. Along with clandestine infiltration of the Abwehr, the Resistance blew up bridges, reminding everyone that there was a Resistance.

dave

Ralph Phelan said...

So let's keep an eye out for the equivalent of bridges going "boom" but not waste time asking people if they're helping to do it.

What would the academic equivalent be? Leaking Lubiano's cover letter, perhaps?

Anonymous said...

There was, connected to the underground, a very visible Free French movement. I think Duke Prof, for whom I have several times expressed my appreciation, based on his reply, properly understood the salient of the question: where are the de Gaulles and the Free French forces at Duke– "the Resistance"– not "are you a member of the underground"?

Leaking the Lubiano cover letter leak was helpful. Leaking who at Duke leaked the McFadyen email would make a much bigger bang.

But more germane to my original question: Why isn't an angry cohort of Duke faculty loudly and publicly demanding that the administration investigate the violation of one of their student's privacy rights and turn the culprit over to the Feds for criminal prosecution?

The other side does stuff like this, and they get a new academic department.

dave

Ralph Phelan said...

"Why isn't an angry cohort of Duke faculty loudly and publicly demanding that the administration investigate the violation of one of their student's privacy rights and turn the culprit over to the Feds for criminal prosecution?"

Because as a group tenured faculty are even less courageous than Frenchmen(*).

Sorry Duke Prof, Horwitz et al., but I calls em like I sees em.

Through revolotions, counter-revolutions, kings, emperors, and how many republics is it by now ... six? ... the French have remarkably never changed their battle ensign: Two white fleurs-de-lis separated by a diagonal white stripe, all on a white background. The lack of contrast in the design sometimes leads to it being misinterpreted.

Anonymous said...

The other side does stuff like this, and they get a new academic department.

Not even. The other side bangs pots, and they get a new academic department.

dave

Anonymous said...

As someone or someones in Duke Admin violated the team's privacy and civil rights giving out the keycard information, I doubt Duke faculty is entering into the fray. I think these violations is what made the BOT authorize the pay out to the defendents, asap. Could the violations have anything to do with Burness' retirement. That is speculation on my part about Burness.

Anonymous said...

Between the Bakers, Grant, Burness and Peter Wood, I think the bells are starting to toll at Duke. Where is Robinson Everett these days?

Anonymous said...

As someone or someones in Duke Admin violated the team's privacy and civil rights giving out the keycard information, I doubt Duke faculty is entering into the fray.

Obviously, they're not, but they would be if they thought it was in their own interest to do so. I simply submit that it would be in the interest of faculty who oppose their radical "colleagues," and an administration that caters to them, to embarrass them by– taking the students' side! They would endear themselves to the students (traditionally good allies to have in campus confrontations), and the parents, and probably most alumni, leave a little egg on the PC crowd's face, and be recognized as a Force To Be Reckoned With before the next go around.

Radical faculty are always on an administration's case, whatever it (or someone in it) does, just to keep their agenda moving forward. That's how Larry Summers got to be ex-president of Harvard.

But 2:52 PM has nailed me on my faculty analogy to the French Resistance, and I'm realistic enough to recognize that this is not where the line will be drawn.

I share your suspicion that the Duke administration's violations of the students' privacy rights were one of the primary reasons for the very quick settlement with Seligman, Finnerty, and Evans. Another reason I think the administration would be extremly sensitive to faculty criticism on this and related points. It's a brilliant missed opportunity for push-back, which might have moved things further along than... moving along.

dave

Anonymous said...

Ever the Lindburg kidnapping, 9/11 Pearl harbor, President Kennedy's assination, etc eventually moved out of the news. Events far greater than Duke Lax. I hope that the case is taught in law schools forever, but eventually most folk will lose interest. Moving along is human nature. It is not a conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

The past is never dead. It's not even past. --William Faulkner

dave

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote:

"Even the Lindburg kidnapping, 9/11 Pearl harbor, President Kennedy's assination, etc eventually moved out of the news. Events far greater than Duke Lax."

With all due respect to the epochal nature of those events, they were *not* "events far greater then Duke Lax" -- at least not if one grasps the underlying reasons for the destruction caused by some Duke faculty and administrators.

Two driving ideologies of that destruction are political correctness and "diversity." This is well documented in _UPI._ Those two are trying to transform the very purpose of higher education, indisputably one of the most important institutions in our culture. They want to change colleges from institutions of learning to institutions of proseltyzing -- from places that worship the "life of the mind" to places that worship race, gender, and class.

Since colleges and universities prepare the culture's next leaders in business, education, politics, science, law et al., it is hard to imaging an event -- properly understood -- that is much "greater."

As the saying goes, if one does not understand history -- and its causes -- then one is doomed to repeat its mistakes.

Duke Prof

R.R. Hamilton said...

Ralph Phelan said...

"Why isn't an angry cohort of Duke faculty loudly and publicly demanding that the administration investigate the violation of one of their student's privacy rights and turn the culprit over to the Feds for criminal prosecution?"

Because as a group tenured faculty are even less courageous than Frenchmen(*).

Sorry Duke Prof, Horwitz et al., but I calls em like I sees em.

Through revolotions, counter-revolutions, kings, emperors, and how many republics is it by now ... six? ... the French have remarkably never changed their battle ensign: Two white fleurs-de-lis separated by a diagonal white stripe, all on a white background. The lack of contrast in the design sometimes leads to it being misinterpreted.

11/15/07 2:52 PM


For one of the few (only?) times I have disagreed with RP:

Due to my experience as both an amateur military historian and as a soldier who has met with the soldiers of many other nationalities, I cannot agree with this view of the French or any other nationality. If you want to say the French military was incompetant in WW II, then fine. But basically soldiers are soldiers: some may be better trained, equiped, and led, but all are equally courageous.

Now, as for a "military strategy" against the occupation forces at Duke, I would recommend a guerrilla campaign. There should be no opportunity missed to identify the 88ers (I use this term to include the additional 27 who signed the "We hate you" letter, but I exclude Prof. Petters, because he withdrew almost immediately). Students, professors, and other Duke employees should never miss an opportunity to write "88" next to the name of any of the 88ers. Students should force 88ers to defend their anti-student actions and professors should refuse to cooperate with them. Make them understand that their role will never be forgotten.

I understand that schools like Vanderbilt, Cornell, and Harvard are welcoming 88ers like Argentina welcomed the fleeing Nazis, but that's o.k. Eventually, if we "keep our eyes on the prize", they will have no haven.

Anonymous said...

We need to avoid any comparisons of this case to the activies of the Nazis. It ain't the same.

Ralph Phelan said...

We need to avoid any comparisons of this case to the activies of the Nazis. It ain't the same.

How much of their history have you studied? Wjile of course it's nothing like the Nazis in 1939, it is disturbingly reminiscent of the Nazis in 1933.


Even the Lindburg kidnapping, 9/11 Pearl harbor, President Kennedy's assination, etc eventually moved out of the news.

Only after Hauptman was executed; Oswald was assassinated and Ruby was executed; and Japan was laid waste, nuked twice, and occupied for nine years.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with that Ralph. BTW, Ruby was not executed but died of cancer. Oswald was shot dead by Ruby two days after the assassination. It was front page new for months. Wake Island, etc put Pearl Harbor off the front news fairly quickly. Disagree with the 1933 Nazis also. None of the 88 hold an elective office.

Anonymous said...

So much for it all being past and forgotten. Mr. Faulkner, call your office.

dave