Monday, December 03, 2007

The Group of 88 Rehab Tour Continues

Since January, Group members and their sympathizers have aggressively, if unsuccessfully, attempted to rehabilitate the Group from its rush to judgment in spring 2006. The Group of 88 Rehab Tour has followed a long, and torturous, path.

The tour began on January 5, when Cathy Davidson penned an N&O op-ed terming the Group’s statement a justified response to “rampant” racist defenses of Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans “on the campus quad.” Of course, during the period in which the statement was written (March 29-April 6, 2006), virtually no one was defending the lacrosse team on the “campus quad,” much less using racist rhetoric to do so, and certainly no one was defending Seligmann or Finnerty, who were not (for very good reasons) considered suspects.

That same day, Group stalwart Karla Holloway offered another line of defense. In a mass e-mail, she suggested that the Group’s character assault on the lacrosse players might be justified, since a secret witness might exist who would attest to rampant racial slurs early on at the party. Of course, no such witness existed. Despite the Faculty Handbook’s requirement that she treat all Duke students with “respect,” Holloway apparently has never been disciplined for disseminating highly negative information about Duke students that she either knew or should have known was untrue.

In mid-January, dozens of Group members issued the “clarifying” statement—in which they defiantly refused to apologize for signing the original ad as they stood “by the claim that issues of race and sexual violence on campus are real.” Two of the signatories (Susan Thorne and Alberto Moreiras) attracted attention, having previously apologized for signing the ad to lacrosse players and their families. They gave no advance warning of their plans to publicly retract their apologies. Meanwhile, none of the roughly two-dozen new signatories explained how they could speak of the Group signatories’ intent if they hadn’t signed the original Group statement. When asked about this conundrum, new signatory Kerry Haynie replied, en toto, “Get a freaking life! Quote me!”

The Rehab Tour continued in February, at the “Shut Up and Teach” forum. There, Charlie Piot compared me to (unnamed) West African dictators, while Wahneema Lubiano rationalized the Group’s conduct on the grounds that “Black Studies” professors had a special right to deal with political issues as part of their job.

Holloway, meanwhile, tried to a new line of defense: she admitted that the Group’s statement said that something “happened” to Crystal Mangum, but suggested that the professors weren’t talking about rape. Rather, declared Holloway, “drunkenness” happened to Mangum. If the Group took out a full-page ad every time Mangum was incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, the Chronicle’s advertising budget would have been overflowing for years.

That month, William Chafe joined five colleagues in penning a Chronicle op-ed demanding that all “move forward,” lest people attempt to examine the arts and sciences faculty’s springtime rush to judgment. (For good measure, Chafe quoted an anonymous alleged student who maintained that “we are all guilty because we have never called to account those people who have engaged in date rape or sexual assault.”) Imagine how Chafe and his colleagues in the Group would have reacted had Mike Pressler penned a Chronicle op-ed in early April 2006, announcing that it was time to “move on” and any investigation of the lacrosse players would be unacceptable.

In April, eschewing Chafe’s advice to “move on,” Group member Grant Farred publicly asserted that one or more unnamed lacrosse players had committed perjury. His talk, meanwhile, was advertised through a photoshopped flyer showing a yellow crime-scene tape outside the lacrosse field, with several members of the team, identifiable by their uniform numbers, in the background.

Later that month, Chafe—eschewing his own advice to “move on”—identied the real villains in the lacrosse case: the dozen or so blogs who had criticized the Group. He wrote to the Chronicle, “I am appalled at the way that bloggers who have targeted the ‘Group of 88’ have put words in our mouths, denied our individuality and [used] racist and violent language to attack us—including sending us e-mails and making phone calls wishing our deaths and calling us ‘Jew b-’ and ‘n-b-’.” When asked for evidence that any of the dozen “bloggers who have targeted the ‘Group of 88’” had engaged in such behavior, Chafe could not supply any. I contacted every significant blogger that ran posts critiquing the Group; all categorically denied calling any Group member, ever; most had never e-mailed any Group members; and those who had e-mailed said they had done so only if requesting comment on a post.

Then, in October, Charlie Piot produced a lengthy attack on DIW. He argued that the Group’s statement had nothing to do with the lacrosse case, even though its author, Wahneema Lubiano, had solicited signatures over an e-mail declaring it was a response “to the lacrosse team incident.” And he asserted that the Group’s statement thanked not the guilt-presuming protesters who had carried “castrate” banners or blanketed the campus with “wanted” posters, but instead other guilt-presuming protesters, who wore T-shirts reading “Men’s Lax Come Clean”; posted writings condemning the players’ presumption of innocence; and asserted, “If these three culprits get away with it, it will prove to me that Duke does not honor the black woman’s body.”

---------

Intellectual consistency, in short, hasn’t been a hallmark of the Rehab Tour. Group defenders have veered wildly between:

  • rationalizing the ad as justified because the lacrosse players might have committed a crime;
  • reinventing a past that never existed to suggest that the ad was necessary to counteract the pro-player public opinion from late March 2006;
  • claiming that, despite the explicit wording of Lubiano’s cover e-mail, the ad had nothing to do with the lacrosse case;
  • issuing furious attacks on those who have deigned to criticize the Group.

The latest stop in the Rehab Tour, a series of posts by Duke Music professor Robert Zimmerman, combines the third and fourth of these tactics. In a recent post, Zimmerman criticized DIW for having engaged in “insidiously polarizing,” “irrational,” and “anti-academic” behavior—extraordinarily strong charges to level against the work of a fellow academic. A few days later, he followed up with a post ascribing my criticism of the Group of 88 to a desire “to blot all the stigma off his side and spread it on the other.” Since, as Zimmerman concedes, my initial comments about the Group of 88 came at a time when I not only had no connection to anyone at Duke but had taken no position on either the criminal case or the issue of the lacrosse players' personal character, it's not entirely clear what “side” I had, much less why I would have wanted “to blot all the stigma” off of this non-existent “side.” Zimmerman, unfortunately, offered no illumination on what my “side” was when I initially criticized the Group's statement.

What, meanwhile, caused Zimmerman to reach his conclusion about the “insidiously polarizing,” “irrational,” and “anti-academic” of DIW? He wrote that I had deliberately ignored “efforts when the [Group of 88’s] ad was written to make much different points in a much different way than the protestors.”

In his post, Zimmerman presented no evidence for his claim, which seemed, at the least, counterintuitive. If the Group’s intent were to “make much different points in a much different way than the protestors,” it’s hard to understand why they would publish a statement—“in the most easily seen venue on campus”—saying, “To the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.”

Accordingly, I e-mailed Zimmerman to ask if he had any evidence to corroborate his claim about the Group’s statement. He replied by contending that I had misinterpreted an April 13, 2006 essay penned by Wahneema Lubiano, which was published one week after the ad appeared. In a subsequent e-mail and then post, he suggested that my chief fault was suggesting that the Group’s ad could be interpreted as suggesting that the sole message of the potbangers’ March 26 rally was the “castrate” banner.

Yet neither this nor any other case-related blog has ever suggested that that the “castrate” banner was only aspect of the March 26 protest. On both DIW and in UPI, I have taken note of other banners from that heavily covered protest, such as “Sunday Morning, Time to Confess”; “Get a Conscience, Not a Lawyer”; “Measure for Measure”; and “Real Men Don't Protect Rapists.”

Unlike other protests, the potbangers’ rally received coverage from all four* local TV (WRAL, WTVD/ABC, News 14, NBC-17) stations and local newspapers in the days before the ad appeared. Is Zimmerman suggesting that the contemporaneous press coverage of the potbangers somehow might have fooled the Group into believing that the potbangers were worthy of the Group's salutation for not only making “collective noise" but for “not waiting”? Or, perhaps, is he instead implying that the Group members were so reckless that they thanked protesters through a high-profile public statement, even though they had no idea what the protesters were doing or saying?

Even the “clarifying” letter, ironically, didn’t try to disprove a connection between the Group's statement and this heavily covered protest rally. Indeed, it appeared to give an after-the-fact endorsement to the potbangers—and to the protesters who engaged in the other high-profile protest in the days before the ad was issued, blanketing the campus with “wanted” posters. It stated, “We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence.” The potbangers’ stated goals: addressing “issues of discrimination and violence.”

To date, Zimmerman has not produced any evidence for his original allegation that DIW had ignored “efforts when the ad was written [between March 29, 2006, and April 6, 2006] to make much different points in a much different way than the protestors.” Nonetheless, he suggested that I should apologize to Lubiano for misrepresenting her essay.

The section in dispute from the Lubiano essay reads as follows:

I understand the impulse of those outraged and who see the alleged offenders as the exemplars of the upper end of the class hierarchy, the politically dominant race and ethnicity, the dominant gender, the dominant sexuality, and the dominant social group on campus. Further, this group has been responsible for extended social violence against the neighborhood in which they reside. In short, by a combination of their behaviors and what they represent in terms of social facts, and by virtue of their relation to the alleged victim, for those who are defenders of the victim, the members of the team are almost perfect offenders in the sense that [critical race theorist] Crenshaw writes about.

Many months after penning these words, Lubiano explained that she was merely analyzing the situation—that she didn’t consider the lacrosse players “perfect offenders,” because, evidently, she couldn’t be considered either a strong defender of the “victim” [sic] or among those who “see the alleged offenders as the exemplars of the upper end of the class hierarchy, the politically dominant race and ethnicity, the dominant gender, the dominant sexuality, and the dominant social group on campus.” I made note of Lubiano’s rationalizations, both on the blog and in UPI (p. 161). I also made clear I found her after-the-fact revisionism unconvincing.

This is, after all, the same Wahneema Lubiano who:

  • Joined Houston Baker and Peter Wood in offering extremist anti-lacrosse rhetoric at the March 30, 2006 faculty meeting, at which Lubiano demanded more aggressive faculty action against the team on the preposterously grounds that the Brodhead administration was overly sympathetic to the lacrosse players;

  • Coordinated the writing and dissemination of the Group of 88’s ad, which she explicitly described as a response to “the lacrosse team incident”;
  • Appeared at an April 12 forum which suggested that things were “moving backwards” on campus because the first DNA test results had come back negative;
  • Unequivocally stated that the lacrosse players were guilty of “extended social violence against the neighborhood in which they reside” and unequivocally labeled Mangum “the victim”;
  • Dismissed those who argued that the April DNA test results should, as Nifong had promised, result in a finding of innocence, claiming that they were making a “demand for perfect evidence on the part of the defenders of the team”;
  • Published a May N&O op-ed demanding that Duke respond to the lacrosse case by immediately instituting a program of “targeted teaching” to expose “the structures of racism and the not-so-hidden injuries of class entitlement in place at Duke and everywhere in this country,” since “we don’t have to wait for working class or poorer students to be targeted by fraternity ‘theme’ parties or cross burnings on the quad or in dorm halls, or for sexual assaults to be attested by perfectly placed witnesses and indisputable evidence.”
  • Was described by an ESPN reporter who had interviewed her in spring 2006 as fully aware that “some would see the [Group of 88] ad as a stake through the collective heart of the lacrosse team.”

Zimmerman, it seems, not only disagrees with the blog’s portrayal of Lubiano and her essay, but has effectively suggested that it is “irrational,” “anti-academic,” and “insidiously polarizing” to label as a defender of Mangum the person whose behavior was described above. That argument is more than a bit far-fetched.

Zimmerman offered one additional defense for the Group’s handiwork. “The central message of the ad as I see it doesn’t need a reference to protestors and doesn’t require the rape allegation to be true, so I don’t think either line is necessary as written.” In other words, if the Group just hadn’t unequivocally declared that something happened to Mangum; and hadn’t said thank you to protesters for making collective noise and not waiting, their ad--what Wahneema Lubiano described as a response to “the lacrosse team incident”--would have been so much better.

Why not take that logic one step further? If the Group had just included a line demanding that Mike Nifong treat all Duke students fairly, they would have undermined all criticism of the statement.

But, of course, rewriting a statement 18 months after the fact isn’t a particularly effective line of defense.

---------

Perhaps, it could be argued, Zimmerman is simply the sternest of taskmasters, a figure inclined to deem “irrational,” “anti-academic,” and “insidiously polarizing” anyone whose behavior he in any way criticizes?

Not exactly. Zimmerman has become the first Group defender to publicly criticize the potbangers—a major development for which he deserves praise. But were the potbangers’ motives “irrational,” or “insidiously polarizing,” or “anti-academic”? Quite the contrary: he bent over backwards to deem their motives benevolent.

“I don’t at all discount,” wrote Zimmerman, “the genuine concern for victims of sexual assault–a terrible, debilitating crime–that motivated most if not all the protestors. I expect that some of the outrage came from brutally real personal experience of assault, something that far too many women have to live with. I can only go on what I can see and read, though, and in that the action is represented not only as a denunciation of the team but also righteous support for the woman alleging rape and for other assault survivors [sic, Mangum was obviously not another ‘assault survivor’].”

Perhaps, then, could it be argued that Zimmerman only applies his over-the-top attack style to professors? Leaving aside the fact that at least two Duke faculty members, Timothy Tyson and Faulkner Fox, attended the March 25-26 potbangers’ protests, there’s little evidence for this argument either.

As noted last week, Wesleyan professor Claire Potter published an April post in which she stated, in direct contradiction to the evidence, that “the dancers were, it is clear, physically if perhaps not sexually assaulted” and that “the ethical culture of this lacrosse team was so out of touch that many players who were not involved in this incident, and who did not do anything wrong, still refused to speak about what had happened, in the misplaced belief that loyalty to one’s friends is a higher virtue than treating people who aren’t on your team with respect.” After her post, myriad commenters on her blog pointed out Potter’s factual errors. Potter has refused to run a correction or to supply evidence to substantiate her allegations against the lacrosse players. Instead, she has repeatedly lashed out at her critics, while making additional unsubstantiated allegations.

Did Zimmerman suggest that Potter was “irrational,” “insidiously polarizing,” or “anti-academic” for publishing, under her own name, the above statements about college students at another school?

“It seems to me that some of Potter’s original comments were in fact,” wrote Zimmerman, . . . “excessive.”

Actually, of course, they were not “excessive”—the two quoted above, which were leveled at students from Zimmerman’s own university, were demonstrably false and arguably defamatory. He then excused Potter for not printing a retraction or supplying evidence to substantiate her allegations, on the grounds that she had been criticized by people who were “huffing and puffing” or “more or less smug and/or self-righteous and/or ignorant and/or hypocritical.” (This analysis, by the way, came from the same person whose own words some might consider smug, self-righteous, or even “anti-academic.”)

Perhaps Zimmerman’s next stop can be the Bush White House. By his rationale, President Bush didn’t need to admit error or provide evidence for his unsubstantiated WMD claims—since, after all, Bush was attacked by people who were “more or less smug and/or self-righteous and/or ignorant and/or hypocritical.”

In the meantime, no doubt, the Group of 88 Rehab Tour will lurch on, with the next participant offering yet another new and unconvincing rationale for why the Group’s statement was an appropriate, necessary, or innocuous academic endeavor.

*--The NBC-17 website does not contain links to its spring 2006 broadcasts.

150 comments:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Zimmerman’s next stop can be the Bush White House. By his rationale, President Bush didn’t need to admit error or provide evidence for his unsubstantiated WMD claims—since, after all, Bush was attacked by people who were “more or less smug and/or self-righteous and/or ignorant and/or hypocritical.”

The gratuitous reference to Bush diminish what was otherwise an excellent rebuttal.

I can't help but think that in KC's world equating someone with Bush is possibly the worst insult.

Anonymous said...

KC - You got them fair and square.

anon said...

It is most unfortunate that KC continues to interject his politics into this blog especially while condemning the the Group of 88 for allowing their politics to trump other clearly more compelling values like rule of law and truth. KC's Bush WMD comment degrades the discussion and reflects badly on his credibility.

Failure to find WMD's in Iraq is simply not proof of their non existence. It is also a mistake of logic to claim it is. While not found, this does not preclude the fact that they may have been there formerly. There could be any number of explanations which cannot be ruled out not the least of which is they were taken to Syria, a Bathist ally of Saddam Hussain. Intelligence photos have recorded long lines of trucks crossing into Syria from Iraq in the many months leading up to the war. It was not exactly a sneak attack, now was it?

If I might give an example from my former occupation as a middle school teacher. If a student reported to me that Johnny had fireworks and I searched Johnny and found none, does that confirm he did not have fireworks? Even if I searched his locker and found none, should I then conclude he had none? No, I cannot convict him or suspend him but finding no fireworks is not proof he did not have them They could be thrown out the window, in the trash, given to another student, etc. So please stop exhibiting symptoms of this ridiculous Bush Derangement Syndrome. Digressing like this dilutes the argument and makes one appear very similar to the illogic and low standards of the Group of 88. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I suggest all readers of this blog write the president of Brooklyn College and let KC's employer know that he interjects politics into otherwise factual posts. What a fraud!

mac said...

See, KC?
Zimmerman's proof of why DIW needs to continue: the enemy hasn't left the field, hasn't been willing to admit defeat.

Oh, they have been defeated.

But they're like the Stalinists who dream of past gories (sp. int.) and the Nazis, who still have their camp followers (in the dual sense of the words.) The 88 are using their playbook.

Without DIW and UPI, the attorneys for the falsely accused and some of the better souls of MSM (such as Ed Bradley) they'd be perpetuating and inflating the myth of the "rape." And after awhile, federal charges would be brought - not against the hoaxers, but against the falsely accused.

This is their strategy.

Or rather, this would have been their strategy.

And this is further reason why Crystal Gayle Mangum should be tried for whatever crimes she may have committed. She should have her day in court in order to determine the truthfullness of the claims of diminished capacity - (especially since the AG claimed the latter) - and if she is found competent to stand trial, to have her day in court.

mac said...

Y'know what?
DIW could be considered something of a populist version of the Canterbury Tales, with KC being the host.

The posters are re-telling the tales.

One wonders how it must feel for the Literature Professors among the 88 - (and their kin at other institutions) - to be skewered in Canterbury Tale fashion.

Geoffrey Chaucer would be proud.

Texas Mom said...

I must agree, K.C., your post was excellent, and I wish that you would just edit out the next to last paragraph.

Anonymous said...

I read this wonderful skewering once again the radical right and their refusal to say 'we screwed up'.

A long, well-researched, well-told tale of history rewrites.

And I get to the comments section and I see the children jumping in, emotions no brains, joyously tossing out gibberish because of a mention of Bush.

Grow up kids.

Michael said...

[“I don’t at all discount,” wrote Zimmerman, “the genuine concern for victims of sexual assault–a terrible, debilitating crime–that motivated most if not all the protestors. I expect that some of the outrage came from brutally real personal experience of assault, something that far too many women have to live with. I can only go on what I can see and read, though, and in that the action is represented not only as a denunciation of the team but also righteous support for the woman alleging rape and for other assault survivors [sic, Mangum was obviously not another ‘assault survivor’].”]

I guess Zimmerman didn't notice that there were quite a few guys at the potbangers rally.

Anonymous said...

I always read DiW aware of the author's particular point of view. I don't mind. It's the MSM I think shouldn't have a point of view.

I wrote a snarky comment about Zimmerman and then decided he wasn't even worth that.

hman said...

Excellent post. And I want to write in support of continuing to hammer the malefactors, the gang of 88, because they are still doing the same evil, destructive things they began with that malicious "We are listening" screed. They are still at it, so there is every reason to keep firing back.
And what is it with a musician calling himself "Robert Zimmerman"? Doesn't he knows that niche is taken? You know, by that skinny folk singer from Hibbings Minnesota.

wdprice said...

Why not take that logic one step further? If the Group had just included a line demanding that Mike Nifong treat all Duke students fairly, they would have undermined all criticism of the statement.

Faulty reasoning maybe...but surely not Logic...

Anonymous said...

No amount of Rehab can help the G88 and their supporters who everyday continue to look more and more like Chinese contortionists as they try to wiggle and squirm their way out of ever admitting they were wrong.

It's not working.

Also, KC's political comments are fine by me. I've frequently had to gloss over commenter's political opinions on this blog that I don't agree with and it's no big deal. I follow this blog because I appreciate KC's efforts to right the wrongs that have been exposed both at Duke and in Durham and I'll be here until his very final post at DIW.

Anonymous said...

"I must agree, K.C., your post was excellent, and I wish that you would just edit out the next to last paragraph."

I am NOT a fan of this administration (or very many members of the GOP), but references to a sitting president denigrates your writing turning a clear, concise and thoughtful analysis into a one-liner from a late night television show host. What's next, a reference to "that depends on what the meaning of "is" is"? Though, admittedly, the WMB reference it is a very apt analogy.

That said, this post has been one of the best of the blog epilogue.

I hope you're not going to abandon your readers after November. Some of us are not in warm climates and need some DIW chatter to keep us warm through the long winter nights. ;)

Anonymous said...

KC:

Excellent dissection. I'll have the filet medium rare.

One point I'd like to have you think about. The G88 are driven by an extreme political agenda that overwhelms any good judgement they may have. It controls them. It subjugates them.

Don't fall into the same trap.

Ken
Dallas

mac said...

Actually, I didn't see KC's comment on the WMDs at all an attack on President Bush.

If I were to ask KC about those issues, I would like to hear what the Mossad would tell KC about their view on the WMD issue - and to ask an ordinary Israeli what he or she thought about removing Saddam Hussein, who thought himself a modern-day Nebuchannezzar. The thought of such a resurrected figure (symbolically, anyway) might send chills up the collective spines of a people who have been conquered and enslaved and embattled for so many generations.

But then, this isn't a thread on WMDs, nor on Israel, and it appears to me that KC was using an analogy, not attempting to score points on political issues.

IMO.

Anonymous said...

Just remember Zimmerman's last article is not covered by the three players settlement with Duke.

Michael said...

I'd suggest reading all of Zimmerman's posts. He does take to task the potbangers and others, including Baker.

One really weak side of Zimmerman's series is that he talks about the problems of rape and how he can see what motivated the potbangers. But he doesn't address the problems of false accusations, false convictions or that the real issues of rape aren't necessarily about white men raping black women.

It's pretty clear that he's watching this board closely so perhaps he will deal with those issues, for balance, in his next post.

Carolyn said...

K.C., as a conservative who voted proudly, twice, for Bush, I'm going to overlook your next-to-last paragraph whupping our President upside the head and instead concentrate on the earlier exceptionally well-reasoned paragraphs in which you used the stupidity, words and actions of the Gang of 88 to whup THEM upside the head.

Our President didn't deserve it - but Lord knows the Gang sure does. What is more, judging by the Gang's arrogance and stupidity, they will continue to deserve such whupping.

duke09parent said...

What's ironically funny about a defense of Lubiano's essay at this point is that the point of her essay was that despite the team's good points, one could still condemn them and believe they did "something" to Magnum. Thus, they don't have to be "perfect" exemplars of rich, racist whites in order to be condemned. And Magnum could have warts on her character and still be believed as a victim. She doesn't have to be "perfect" as a victim to be believed. Even translated into real person's English the essay doesn't stand up to the test of time and truth.

Of course, these points don't have an academic air unless couched in obscurantist language.

Michael said...

"Failure to find WMD's in Iraq is simply not proof of their non existence. It is also a mistake of logic to claim it is. While not found, this does not preclude the fact that they may have been there formerly. There could be any number of explanations which cannot be ruled out..."
----------------------------------
So...Failure to find a monster in Loch Ness is simply not proof of its non-existence. it is a mistake of logic to claim it is. While not found, this does not preclude the fact that it may have been there formerly. There could be any number of explanations which cannot be ruled out... It might have swum to Syria under cover of darkness...

The question is, what EVIDENCE is there? When there's no evidence that something exists, it's not a mistake of logic to believe that the something doesn't exist.

And there's a huge difference between "injecting" one's own politics into one's own blog and injecting one's politics into the teaching of other people's children.

jim2 said...

I seem to have read KC's penultimate paragraph a bit differently than some.

It appears to have become a mantra of the Left that Bush should apologize for WMDs not having been found in Iraq and Zimmerman and the Group of 88 are likely of that ilk.

Thus, I interpreted KC as saying that either Zimmerman and the Left should apologize (just as they have insisted Bush should apologize), or that the Left should agree that Bush has nothing for which to apologize.

Gary Packwood said...

anon 5:40 said...

...If I might give an example from my former occupation as a middle school teacher. If a student reported to me that Johnny had fireworks and I searched Johnny and found none, does that confirm he did not have fireworks? Even if I searched his locker and found none, should I then conclude he had none? No, I cannot convict him or suspend him but finding no fireworks is not proof he did not have them.
::
My money says as a teacher you were not searching, convicting or suspending any student. But you sound as if you would have liked to.

You like Bush had no probable cause.

Remember probable cause? The Constitution of the United States? The Duke lacrosse (no probable cause)HOAX?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

JLS says:

Professor Johnson this was almost a good post until you sunk into partisan politics in the end. Perhaps you should google Sarin Mustard Gas Iraq and see what has been found there.

Not that much was found, but as a man who rides probably rides the NYC subway system from time to time exacly how much would be too much to you? And BTW what types of WMD do you think a dictator would transfer to a terrorist, new WMD with nice paper work trail or the odd bit of sarin or mustard gas that was not accounted for?

Finally I went ahead and did the search for you. The articles are still there:

Google Sarin Mustard Gas Iraq

One of the things I was originally going to say about your post before you made it necessary for me to correct your forray in to recent political events is that Professor Zimmerman should understand that historians have to concern themselves with what actually happened. Facts happen. If dealing with the actual facts is polarizing well that is too bad. Fact can not be either irrational or anti-academic. But alas the actual FACTS matter or should matter to an historian when it comes to what was or was not found in Iraq after the recent US liberation of the country.

Anonymous said...

It is dispiriting to read Zimmerman's statements, and realize that yet another member of the Duke faculty is nothing more than a total idiot.

Is Duke completely infested with fools?

All in the fading days of the failed Brodhead administration.

Thomas Fuller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

What ever happened to the Attorney Generals call for a Federal inquiry. Is it possible (I hope) that the feds are waiting for the civil trial to proceed, since it will provide a lot of deposition discovery ? Or will it never happen ?

KC, as far as the political notes go, that opens up a whole new can of worms. In our Presidents defense, he was not alone in claiming Iraq had WMD's, England, Germany and hosts of other countries had similar intelligence. In addition, Iraq did use WMD's previously, and was in violation of countless UN Security counsel mandates. Though I am not a fan of Mr. Bush, I do feel we should stick with facts, and continue to go after the G88, it is their political stances that I find far more dangerous, teaching hate and spewing lies to young college students is not in the best interest of our Nations future.

BDay

redlight said...

Thanks for the post K.C.

I really, in a way, feel sorry for the "Group of 88". They have got to be a group of sick liberals that never wake up and look forward to a beautiful day.

p.s. the Bush reference should belong to them.
Regards.

Anonymous said...

It is quite possible that Zimmerman regards being compared to Bush as one of the wost possible insults. If so, that just shows how far out of touch with reality Zimmerman is.

I would like to remind KC Johnson and some commenters that Jacques Chirac, then presdent of France and doing everything he could to prevent the invasion of Iraq, told TIME Magazine the he believed Saddam Hussein "probably" had weapons of mass destruction. Given what he is trying to do, it is not credible that he would have said this if he had any serious reason to believe the opposite. As reported in The Economist, _everybody's_ intelligence agency believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Accordingly, the jibe at Bush, while it may provoke Zimmerman into doing something even more stupid, discredits Johnson.

Anonymous said...

I agree the Bush slam was gratuitous. Fact is, Clinton/Gore made same claims about WMDs in Iraq. And Congress approved the war. But that's off topic, so...

OT: Another Noose Hoax

redlight said...

K.C.

Thanks for the post.
In a way, I feel sorry for "The group of 88". They are simply a sick bunch of libs that, I'm sure, never wake up in the morning with a smile on their face.
Sad--really sad.

Anonymous said...

The Gang of 88 is becoming a brand name for academic idiocy.

Anonymous said...

The gratuitous smear of President Bush greatly diminishes this post. The evidence indicated WMD existed, and almost all Senators (Democrats and Republicans-including Senators Kerry and Clinton), as well as former President Clinton, thought WMD existed. They may well have existed and been relocated to Syria.

Saddam said he had WMD; and if a madman is running at your home screaming that he has a grenade with the pin pulled, you shoot him rather than asking him to stop or calling a neighborhood meeting to see if everyone will support your shooting him.

Anonymous said...

Zimmerman? Any relation to the German Ambassador in WW1? Neither Zimmerman seems to be able to pull a pony out of the manure. This is standard behavior for those of a delicate condition, lie and repeat the lie until it becomes the truth.

Search for Meaning said...

What does it mean to be anti-intellectual? I’ve seen this charge hurled by many and I suspect that the term has become meaningless, as it seems to be an insult bantered about.

Back in the day it meant opposing the scientific method and opposing the free flow of ideas. Does it still mean this?

bill anderson said...

These people have an endless capacity for self-delusion. Of course, they also could be simply dishonest. Maybe it is a combination of the two.

I appreciate how you have kept their words in front of them, and I fully agree with you that people who are on the faculty at an elite university like Duke need to have CVs that are commensurate with their positions. So many of these faculty members have demonstrated no ability at all to do anything constructive, academically speaking. They are frauds, and frauds howl whenever someone exposes them.

Anonymous said...

KC,
You had me until the Bush comparison. I didn't vote for the guy and I think the war is a disaster, but come on.

Your usual careful, articulate, and objective analysis was tainted by injecting partisan politics into the debate that has nothing to do with the LAX case.

I can't help but think you may be attempting to pacify some of your liberal critics who acuse you of pandering to conservative "wingnuts" and "anti-intellectuals" who supposedly permeate your blog.

Tell us it ain't so KC.

One Spook said...

Anon @ 6:16 writes:

"And I get to the comments section and I see the children jumping in, emotions no brains, joyously tossing out gibberish because of a mention of Bush.

Grow up kids."


In your own demonstration of "emotions no brains," you misinterpret why folks complained about KC's analogy.

It is not because he mentioned Bush or any other particular politician. It is because we have gone many months here without conflating political positions with a dispassionate analysis of the salient facts of the lacrosse hoax.

This is the second time KC has interjected such an analogy, and many complained last time as well ... for the same reason as above.

I'll join the others and state that such politically charged analogies detract from this Blog, KC. Your Blog is better to avoid them both in posts and comments.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

I suggest all readers of this blog write the president of Brooklyn College and let KC's employer know that he interjects politics into otherwise factual posts. What a fraud!"

Hi, Claire! You might have noticed that KC has never objected to anyone's "interject[ion of] politics into otherwise factual posts." (You're welcome to try and find an example, but I doubt you'll come up with anything that would hold up under scrutiny.)

What he has rightly objected to, however, is the interjection of false allegations and irresponsible innuendo into otherwise factual posts.

One Spook said...

KC:

Perhaps the pentultimate paragraph in your posting would read better like this:

"Perhaps Zimmerman’s next stop can be Al Sharpton's house. By his rationale, Sharpton didn’t need to admit error or provide evidence for his unsubstantiated claims of Tawana Brawley's rape hoax—since, after all, Sharpton was attacked by people who were “more or less smug and/or self-righteous and/or ignorant and/or hypocritical,” and those people successfully sued for slander resluting in Sharpton and two other men being ordered to pay $345,000 in damages, the jury finding Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Dutchess County prosecutor, Steven Pagones. Sharpton has never apologized."

You must admit that has a much better ring to it, capisce?

One Spook

Anonymous said...

I read the entire Lubiano statement and I think she was clearly saying that Chrystal was not the "perfect victim" and the players were not the "perfect offenders".

Her statement came out at a time when the credibility of the accuser was beginning to be questioned. There had been no corroboration of her story and physical evidence contradicting her account was leaking out. The only evidence of a rape was Chrystal's accusation.

The group of 88 was never very concerned about the evidence in the case. They were always primarily concerned about preserving the narrative of pervasive racial and sexual oppression.

Initially, when almost everyone assumed that CGM was telling the the truth, her accusation was treated as evidence supporting their world view and they encouraged angry demonstrations and denunciations of the Lax players.

As doubts about the case surfaced, Lubiano wrote her statement that I interpreted as directed primarily at the core Lax bashers. She was saying that even though the accuser was not a perfect victim (she was a sex worker) and even though the players were not "perfect offenders" (they were not stereotypically racist or sexist), the accusations were still valid because the narrative was basically correct.

Even after it surfaced that Chrystal had a history of mental problems, criminal behavior, drug addiction and false accusations, and even when no evidence surfaced of previous abherent behavior on the part of the Lax players, it was still important to take her word because her story fit into the story of racial and sexual oppression.

When the group's first letter appeared in the Duke Chronicle, it was reasonable to suspect a political motivation behind its publication. After the case collapsed completely in December 2006 and January 2007, the clarifying letter removed any doubt as to the political agenda underlying the publication of the first letter.

In a way the group of 88 is telling the truth. For them it was never about the truth of the case. It was always about the narrative.

This is the true horror of their behavior. They were happy to brand three innocent Duke students as monsters and send them to jail for thirty years because they believed doing so would advance their political agendas.

What is as unbelievable as it is appalling is that virtually none of the group of 88 or the clarifying 87 seems capable of grasping why so many people find this reprenesible. They still show no signs that they understand the terrible wrong that was done to the three accused.

People who don't understand there is something terribly wrong with sending innocent people to jail for thirty years are MORAL IDIOTS. The 88 have definitely earned such a designation.

Tom said...

KC's characterization of the people who "attacked" Bush happens, just happens, to be correct. They were indeed smug, self-righteous, hypocritical.

But vastly more imoprtant is KC's fine work on documenting the Group of 88's "rehab tour". This unequivocally shows their dishonest hubris. They will not retreat or reform in civil society, and we must cease our pacifism and take up cudgels against them.

Anonymous said...

What could be more anti-intellectual than to critisize leftist loony academic wanna-be's and has-beens for trying to re-educate the "people?"

After all, Mao did a bang up job on a few million "people" who were exterminated for dissent. Mao is their hero, for he was the master of "targeted education."

Wahneema, you're so Mao!

Anonymous said...

I think Zimmerman's got it just about right. You've "put words in my mouth" when I've commented here. And, mysteriously, when I've sought to clarify your comments about mine, my comment has not been posted. Since this has happened more than once, I'm not convinced my posting was lost in the blogosphere. Maybe. Maybe not.

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.56:

With all due respect, it is very hard to see how anyone can put "words in my mouth" if we're talking about an anonymous commenter.

I would urge you to register and comment under your own name; or at least comment under a regular pseudonym.

Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson has produced the Gold Standard of Internet real-time history blogs. His intellectual honesty and brilliant analytical skills emblazon each of his postings.

I suspect Professor Johnson never dreamed that the slander, deceit, cover-up, and injustice spewing forth from the Duke "humanities" faculty would be so sustained.

It is astonishing that what began as a criminal detective story ended in an an expose/case study of American academic corruption. The utterly unrepentant faculty have only themselves to blame for simply never knowing when to at least stop on-going slander in the face of overwhelming exculpatory evidence.

Ed Sodaro MD

Debrah said...

KC has produced a great piece of work here.

The thorough brilliance electrifies.

He doesn't miss an angle or a shade of nuance as he opens and dissects this repulsive winding tale.

Zimmerman and the rest know the ending. They've always known the ending.

KC has them by the balls and there's nowhere for them to go.

I understand why some are unsettled by KC once again tying GWB to the whipping post. Perhaps if I had voted for Al Gore and/or John Kerry, I'd feel a bit like a lion without a Christian as well.

Not stellar choices.

Now that 2008 is near, perhaps another demon will surface.

We sure can't think about all those Liberal Democrats who gleefully voted for military action and smiled brightly in photo-ops....happy to play along with the still-fit-and-trim president in his flightsuit.

Many leaders around the world were talking up Saddam's WMD with Billy Jeff Clinton long before GWB was on the presidential map.

I believe with Diva certainty that the WMD were taken into Syria.

Clinton talked a lot, but was sidelined for most of his second term, so he coasted on the great economy that was on the upswing--thanks to GHWB--when he and Hillary Mack Truck plowed into the White House in 1992.

Clinton never wanted to make waves and actually tackle the problems in the Middle East. He did manage to bomb an aspirin factory and the backside of a camel, however.

KC is free to highlight his ideological credentials. That's what writers do.

His detractors and critics in the academy have to be reminded that he is not conservative or right wing.

I just wish he had included all the players who swore there was WMD.

How can someone as dumb as GWB produce such evil?

Just the fact that he coaxed all of those high-minded Liberals in Congress to go along with him is proof enough of his evil.

I must offer an analogy while I'm on this subject introduced by KC.

The GWB reference is like the Diva saying that SANE nurse Tara Levicy has as much experience in nursing as Barack Obama has in the Senate.

He has charisma and smarts, but who he married will make it impossible for an Obama presidency. No one wants an alienating ultra hardliner who would be having people like Ron Karenga as their constituency and as guests in the White House.

Like KC's GWB reference, it's kind of off-topic and a gross analogy; however, I get to toss in some politics.

If any of the Wonderland crew--or anyone else for that matter--wishes to discuss something political that would be off-topic here, you can do so on the newly installed Politics and Prose page over at my place.

anon said...

To Gary Packwood:

Regarding my teacher comment, "convict" may have been an imprecise term but in Catholic schools, students were indeed searched in the '70's and '80's and if the object of the search involved explosives, their lockers and desks were also searched in addition to trash cans, restrooms and pretty much every nook and cranny. The reason? The safety of individuals in the entire school was deemed more important than the rights of individual students. I realize that might be an alien concept for some today in this age of "privacy" fanaticism but it worked well at preventing students and teachers from being blown up and I suspect it may be utilized even today in private schools. If one disagrees with safety policies, as with other policies, they have the right to withdraw their child. In public schools, I would make a similar argument. Schools should serve as "in loco parentis" and their first responsibility is to provide a safe environment. Gee, this almost sounds like the WMD argument. Perhaps we have come upon the area of disagreement.

Anonymous said...

Keep Bush out of it.He is a good president unlike the Stalinist Gang of 88 (they will all share a tiny footnote in history to their everlasting shame).

mac said...

Anon 1:56 am must be an 88er.
'"You put words in my mouth'" when I've commented here? (Is that you, Thingyfuzzyintellectual?)

Someone should tell Professor Zimmerman: more words won't water down the things Duke has already paid for in the first settlement, (and may pay for in the broader suit.)

Your words will never provide cover for things like grade retaliation, harrassment, threats; allowing/promulgating intimidation and an atmosphere of intimidation; violating students' privacy rights; spreading rumors, lies, and innuendo; firing of Coach Pressler, things like those.

Those are facts, just as Ms. Lubiano's mass email was a fact that neither you nor Professor Piot can sweep away.

Get over it.
Just apologize, and then firmly press your lips and teeth together. No one is asking you to pucker up.

Anonymous said...

"I'd suggest reading all of Zimmerman's posts. He does take to task the potbangers and others, including Baker."

I agree with this sentiment. Read Zimmerman's three posts.

They are quite good for someone admittedly attempting analysis without any purported involvement in the affair at the time. If he were an enabler or apologist (which I don't feel is a fair label), then in terms of writing ability and analysis, the music teacher puts the supposed English and Humanities professors to shame in my view.

There is a slant, but nonetheless, he attempts to address both sides of the issue. He furthermore continually qualifies his conclusions as colored by his own opinion and perception. Yet clearly Zimmerman has done a great deal of homework as well, the over-the-top characterizations using bombastic and prejudicial language of "insidious" and "polarizing" in reference to DIW notwithstanding.

His link to Dean Lange's letter and discussion of it was quite informative for me.

He might lean towards sympathy and support in attempting to identify or construct a rationization for professors who signed the listening statement, but he does criticize and seems open to readjustment, given enough facts that would convince him.

Read his posts and assess for yourselves. I know many have utmost confidence in the DIW post as it stands without further due diligence, but it always helps to understand the full context of both sides of the argument.

Regards,

D in Washington

Michael said...

The NY Times continues with articles on those that have been exonerated from convictions at

Putting a Price on a Wrongful Conviction

[“We’re really still learning how to best make these people whole,” said Stephen Saloom, policy director at the Innocence Project, which has helped to exonerate many prisoners. “And the reason it has taken us so long is that we’re really just starting to accept the imperfections of our judicial system and admit that mistakes do happen.”]

No mention of the Duke Lacrosse Players here but it does talk about how hard it is to regain footing in society.

I don't know if this was a mistake or not but here's a comment about people that are charged:

[“Once you open up those floodgates, where do you get all the money to pay for these falsely charged people?” asked state Rep. Thomas R. Caltagirone of Pennsylvania, co-chairman of that state’s House Judiciary Committee, where a compensation bill recently stalled.]

I think that the answer here is to take more care that innocent people don't get charged and convicted. And that you clean up acts like Nifong and the Durham Police Department.

Here's something that the Gang of 88 can speak out against if they have nothing better to do.

Ralph Phelan said...

I can't help but think that in KC's world equating someone with Bush is possibly the worst insult.


Well duh - it's academia!

From Zimmerman's point of view, comparing him to Bush stings worse than accusing him of being a serial child molester.

KC was just using the most effective tool for the job.

Ralph Phelan said...

My money says as a teacher you were not searching, convicting or suspending any student. But you sound as if you would have liked to.

You like Bush had no probable cause.

I know of no Constitutional requirement that Congress have "probable cause" or even a "preponderance of evidence" to declare war, just sufficient votes. Which they did, despite the mealy-mouthed "use of military force" instead of coming right out and using the "w" word.

In foreign policy you've sometimes got to take action based on information you know is incomplete and partially incorrect. The way the legal system treats US citizens is supposed to be a different - but in Durham and at Duke it wasn't.

Ralph Phelan said...

Michael said...
I'd suggest reading all of Zimmerman's posts.
I'd rather go wash the cat.

Anonymous said...

Kudos, Deborah Diva!

and Packwood as well.

Rove speaks at Duke tonight. They have assured us that his RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH will be protected. Hope they confiscate all the pots and spoons that the idiot protestors are bound to carry.

Left-wingers are extremely verbal about waterboarding and free speach, whle the majority of conservative Americans are grateful that somebody is willing to protect our country and keep the war OVER THERE instead of on our shores... for awhile.

If you have to waterboard somebody so that we don't have another twin towers I say bring on the water.

But IMO, some of the same people who will be protesting Rove are the ones who pulled up the directional signs to KC's speech at Duke, and were the powers that carefully avoided publicizing Stuart Taylors appearance on campus.

Such hypocrites! They want the freedom to say their piece, while at the same time shouting down those who disagree with them, or worse yet denying them the freedom to speak.

KC is a great historian and author, but I'm not sure he is a very good politician. It's always easier to dissect the past than to chart the course for the future.

I continue to hope that this blog can stay focused on the DIW issues... and not loose the amazing congeniality that we have shared because of our common concern.

BTW why do you continue to hit on people who prefer to remain anynomous, KC? I was invited to take a blogname but chose not to. Does that render my comments invalid? Perhaps I shall do it, if that is what it takes to be heard with respect, but if so, why do you permit the "anynomous" choice? Perhaps some of us are public enough in our own corners of the world to want to speak our minds here without being identified with the other aspects of our lives.

Ralph Phelan said...

What does it mean to be anti-intellectual?

Back in the day it meant opposing the scientific method and opposing the free flow of ideas. Does it still mean this?


Nowadays it means someone without a Ph.D. daring to question his "betters".

Jamie said...

Reporting on, criticizing, or deviating in any way from the 88's extremist, intentionally divisive script is "polarizing". Sigh.

Refusing to accept their tortured posterior reorganizations of reality is "insidious". Sigh again.

Could anyone able to read simple sentences actually swallow this tripe, or does it simply make some of these buffoons feel better, for some bizarre reason, to keep compounding their folly?

bill anderson said...

I don't have a problem with K.C.'s comment about Bush and WMDs. After all, that was given as the justification for the U.S. Armed Forces to invade a sovereign country -- that it posed an imminent threat to our safety and security. So, it is fair game. K.C. has demonstrated that over the course of this affair that he is not using it for partisan purposes.

The Karla Holloways and Mark Neals use the language of academic freedom to quash academic freedom and free speech. I believe that "hypocrites" is much too gentle of a term to describe them. They are sinister people who crave power, period. They actually believe that "truth" is whatever can be enforced at the point of a gun, period.

To think that these people are the "stars" of "elite" higher education today tells us what we need to know about these "institutions of higher learning."

Ralph Phelan said...

Could anyone able to read simple sentences actually swallow this tripe....

"There are some things so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them."
- George Orwell

Michael in NH said...

Zimmerman has posted their back-and-forth emails.

http://reharmonized.an-earful.com/2007/12/the-exchange/

I'm going to have to change my tag as there are too many michaels here.

Anonymous said...

Re:

"I seem to have read KC's penultimate paragraph a bit differently than some.

It appears to have become a mantra of the Left that Bush should apologize for WMDs not having been found in Iraq and Zimmerman and the Group of 88 are likely of that ilk.

Thus, I interpreted KC as saying that either Zimmerman and the Left should apologize (just as they have insisted Bush should apologize), or that the Left should agree that Bush has nothing for which to apologize."

Amen. The knee-jerk negative reactions of so many commenters to Johnson's use of the WMD analogy really is discouraging. Something about their not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Ken Duke
durham, NC

Anonymous said...

KC:
You claim:

"during the period in which [Davidson's] statement was written (March 29-April 6, 2006), virtually no one was defending the lacrosse team on the 'campus quad,' much less using racist rhetoric to do so"

Not true. Here's one example from one of the more prominent Duke student blogs of the time:

"Innocent
(Anonymous)
2006-03-31 08:05 am UTC (link)
The lax team is obviously innocent. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to shut the fuck up. This fucking shit pisses me off so much. White people are racist this, white people are rich that. Quit trying to take your fucking anger out on the fucking lax team. Why would anyone believe a fucking prostitute? She's black and cracked out. She's fucking looking for a way to climb out of the fucking ghetto. I can't wait until those tests come back negative like we all know they will. They are fucking innocent bro. I hope they hurry this shit up so we can go for the championship." [emphasis added. Source http://dukeobsrvr.livejournal.com/6388.html?thread=225268#t225268]

KC Johnson said...

To the 10.14:

I'd urge you to reread the clause quoted above, with a notation on the word "virtually."

I also was unaware that a blog--on which, as we know, people can comment from anywhere in the world--can be described as the Duke "campus quad," a specific piece of territory on the Duke campus.

Anonymous said...

OT:

I guess the Baltimore chapter of the NAACP joins the NC chapter in favoring the pushing of a narrative over examination of the actual facts.

In the story linked to by 9:38 AM, a noose hoax was committed by a black fireman whose job was at risk. After the fireman's confession, the president of the Baltimore NAACP chapter Marvin Cheatham tried to argue that this still put blame on racism in the fire department: "It really saddens us to hear that evidently things have reached a stage that even an African-American does an injustice to himself and his own people as a result of a negative culture in that department".

Hmmm, I have the suspicion that if a white person framed a black person for a theft that was actually committed by the white person, and after the frame was exposed, someone tried to call it "the result of a negative culture of theft in the black community", Mr. Cheatham would quite rightfully outraged. He would doubtless point out, in the strongest possible terms, that just because someone tried to play into a prejudiced assumption that black people are prone to theft is hardly evidence that that prejudiced assumption is true.

But that's exactly what Cheatham's claiming here: he's stating, as if it were fact, that the decision of an individual to commit a hoax playing on the perception of racism in the fire department is the result of a "negative culture" of racism in that department. Where is the logic there? To play on a prejudice only proves that the prejudice exists, not that the prejudice is justified.

Anonymous said...

"in Catholic schools, students were indeed searched in the '70's and '80's and if the object of the search involved explosives, their lockers and desks were also searched in addition to trash cans, restrooms and pretty much every nook and cranny ... it worked well at preventing students and teachers from being blown up"

Out of all those searches, how many times were explosives ever actually found? If the answer is "none" then the statement "it worked well at preventing students and teachers from being blown up" would be entirely false. It would be just like the old joke about the man who blows a trumpet to keep the elephants away from his Manhattan apartment; when someone points out that there are no elephants in Manhattan he claims that as a result of his trumpet.

mac said...

10:14
Considering the language and the use of the "F" word, perhaps it was something concocted by someone like Mark Anthony Muthafriggaintellectual Neal? (His alter ego, Fuzzywuzzyintellectual was on break that day?)

Nah. Just yanking your chain.

But seriously, with editing, the piece isn't all that bad.
Here it is, rewritten for taste, clarity and adult audiences:

"The Lacrosse team is obviously innocent. Anyone who thinks otherwise should keep it to themselves. This stuff makes me very angry. The constant repetition of racialist diatribe, 'white people are racist because they're white' and 'rich white privileged boys' is too much: quit trying to take out your personal anger on an athletic team."

"Why would anyone believe a woman with a sordid history, and a history of mental illness, as well as a history of making false, unsubstantiated charges? She's a racist, and she's using drugs, and she's delusional. She's also looking for a way to sue three innocent young men, as she stated that she was going to 'get some money from some white boys.'"

"I can't wait until the tests all come back negative like we know they will. The accused are innocent. I hope they get this process over with so that the team can go about its business of winning the national championship."

Of course, we now know that the writer was - rephrased - right on target with all those things. Unfortunately, the use of language was not what we would expect of someone enrolled at a university, but considering what people like Grant "Prowess Envy" Farred was capable of ("War criminals!") and Houston ("Farm Animal") Baker and others, the sentiment is understandable, even as the language is lamentable.

Anonymous said...

From Vince Williams to KC and all posters: Of course GWB and WMD should not have been included in the post. Half or more of posters have focused on issues/opinions irrelevant to the blog's intent. Mentioning Bush and WMD devalue the effort. This blog is immensely important. Don't screw it up.

Ralph Phelan said...

DIW is not '“insidiously polarizing,” “irrational,” and “anti-intellectual”' because it treats "tenured radicals" unfairly.

DIW is '“insidiously polarizing,” “irrational,” and “anti-intellectual”' because it does depict an honest portrait some of the denizens of the modern campus, a portrait which has the inevitable effect of enraging any normal person who sees it.

no justice, no peace said...

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams

It appears the Klan of 88 and their abettors are foolish enough to attempt to be more stubborn.

And they annointed with the responsibility of educating the next generation(s) at a cost of$50,000 per year?

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ken Duke at 10:09.

I have read, and re-read, the offending paragraph regarding GWB, and the only overt "attack" is directed to the critics of GWB, "who were 'more or less smug and/or self-righteous and/or ignorant and/or hypocritical.'"

As I read it, KC is merely suggesting Zimmerman reconsider the viability of his argument.

-RD

traveler said...

This interesting post from The Johnsville News, just about covers every player we have come to know too well!
------------------------

Duke Case—You are a Flackademic if . . .

You confuse students from your prestigious university with farm animals. (see Houston Baker)

Your keen historian eye helps you to compare a student stripper party to a horrific racist murder. (see William Chafe)

You publicly spread malicious racist-based slander about students from your school. (see Karla Holloway)

Continues………………….
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/12/duke-case-you-are-flackademic-if.html

Richard said...

This was a battle of the narratives.
The first one, the rich, white, violent guys taking advantage of a black woman's body as in the bad old days had to be reinforced. That's why the reaction and the reluctance to let it go.
A real rape, about that time, got no ink. The perp was black, the vic was white and that narrative, the violent hypersexuality of the black male, especially wrt white woman, had to be fought. In this case, by ignoring it. No potbangers, no outraged feminists, no faculty making idiots of themselves.
Tough luck, kid.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Unfortunately, the use of language was not what we would expect of someone enrolled at a university,"

True, he sounds a lot more like a Duke faculty member.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "What does it mean to be anti-intellectual?..."

It is meaningless in the context presented by today's academy. One must have intellectuals to have anti-intellectualism. The Klan of 88 and their abettors have done a poor job presenting any evidence that intellectualism exists on the modern campus.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "...expose/case study of American academic corruption..."

One might consider characterizing it as academic fraud instead of academic corruption.

Anonymous said...

Well, as recommended, I'm going through Zimmerman's own posts, and I've got to say I'm underimpressed so far. As far as I can see, he starts from the assumption that whites are generally guilty of racism and sexism and classism and therefore any protest against whites' racism and sexism and classism is automatically justified; any attempt by whites to protest being assigned guilt in this fashion on the basis of their skin color is automatically a racist/sexist/classist defense of racism/sexism/classism, since guilt is predetermined and not open to any serious questioning. Even cases such as the Tawana Brawley case, where it was shown that unthinking belief in this inherent racism/sexism/classism of whites could lead to utterly incorrect condemnation of innocent persons -- to Zimmerman, this is not reason to question the assumptions he's made. It's instead pre-defined by him as "a freakish outrage". It's amazing how the evidence will always support your thesis if you pre-define anything that defies your thesis as a rare aberration to be ignored.

No, sir. Not finding a lot to be impressed with in Zimmerman.

Debrah said...

Gang of 88 mentality working overtime.

Santa told "Ho Ho Ho" is offensive to women.

LOL!!!

Debrah said...

TO 9:08 AM--

".........some of the same people who will be protesting Rove are the ones who pulled up the directional signs to KC's speech at Duke, and were the powers that carefully avoided publicizing Stuart Taylors appearance on campus."

There is no question about it.

Both KC and Stuart's appearances were sabotaged.

Both were successful; however, an even larger audience would have been reached if not for active forces working against that happening.

Anonymous said...

10:35 There is a gooc chance that students and teachers, knowing about the searches, any potential offender was detered. We may never know - which was the chicken and which was the egg/

clapton said...

I'm not convinced that the Dylan Doppelganger deserves quite the level of criticism he has attracted here. Considering that he's a comparatively low-level non-tenured faculty member, at the mercy of the likes of Paula McClain, he's gone further than any other similarly-situated person at Duke in publicly condemning the potbangers and the 88-1+27. For those not inclined to read through all of Zimmerman's posts, here's an extract.
-----------------------------------

"How did protesters espousing an end to not only sexual violence but all violence convince themselves that it was a good idea to stand in front of the lacrosse players’ house on Buchanan Blvd. with a banner screaming “Castrate!!”? Even given the rally’s aim of confronting the lacrosse team to get them to talk, it’s hard to see what purpose such a vile but empty threat could serve, and also hard to imagine that no one involved realized how much it made them look like hypocritical, bloodthirsty zealots. ... The “Castrate” banner, which was likely the work of only a few of those present but was apparently tolerated all around, shows how much the action was ultimately defined by what was opposed rather than what was supported...

Behind the rally was a spirit of vigilantism. The call to protest that went out the night before (see below for a link) describes the alleged rape as a fact and says the lacrosse team has to be confronted because they’re “maintaining a strict code of silence.” The “Castrate” banner as well as the other slogans like “You can’t rape and run” and “It’s Sunday morning, time to confess” were apparently meant to break down the team’s resistance. The decision to shout down the team as rapists was based on incomplete, highly filtered, second- or third-hand information, or, in the case of the “code of silence,” misinformation... I can’t blame activists acutely aware of sexual assault as a largely unacknowledged, unpunished crime for having an intense urge to do something. But I wish they’d treated the story the police were telling about a “wall of silence” with even a fraction of the skepticism they would have treated a story from the same source that was unfavorable to the accuser...

The reading that pulled the ad into the swirl of controversy dwelt especially on two lines–the mention of “what happened to this young woman” near the top, taken to indicate a firm belief that a rape occurred at the party, and the nod to “protesters making collective noise” near the end ... The mention of protestors seems especially superfluous, and it’s on that point that I’m most sympathetic to the criticism of the ad–it’s hard to reconcile the blanket endorsement of protestors followed by a long list of faculty signatures with the crowd on the sidewalk at Buchanan Blvd. holding a banner that says “Castrate” and hounding out the lacrosse team as rapists. I find it odd and disappointing that those who signed the ad and continued to speak out and editorialize didn’t meet the issue head on. Is all collective noise really good collective noise? The one line in the “concerned faculty” statement issued last January -- ”We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time” -- was worse than nothing, I’m afraid, since all it did was to acknowledge that the issue was being dodged."

Anonymous said...

Hey KC,
You know those spy movies where they are interrogating someone and the person telling what he knows starts repeating old information? And then the guy asking the questions says, "You are repeating yourself, You are no longer useful to us and...."
Well, you know.
Hey guy, you are repeating yourself. No new information here. What happened to blog epilogue? Or are you too obsessed to even hide your own obsession?
Sorry stuff this. Get some real work guy--or a life. Whichever.

Ralph Phelan said...

Anonymous 12/3/07 2:21 PM is self contradictory. If KC is indeed recycling old information and generally "just phoning it in" would that not be proof that he is not obsessed, and is putting most of his energy into other things?

darby said...

2:21...

Are you suggesting that all who keep repeating the same tired arguments over and over should be....

"well.. you know"ed

Anonymous said...

Rehabilitation aside, these people ought to be ashamed of themselves, and if they are not ashamed, and they do not appear to be ashamed, they need to ask themselves why are they not ashamed. Some sort of help is needed by this group. Apologize!

Gary Packwood said...

Whether or not the Iraq people were entitled to probable cause hearings as per the rule of law is a good debate topic for another time.

However, there is probable cause to know that our soldiers in the middle east on their TOUR of duty are preparing for the holidays and they need our help.

http://www.anysoldier.com/WhereToSend/ is a web site that has been created by parents and loved ones of our soldiers.

The names of the soldiers are on the left side of the screen and what the soldier's group needs in the war zones is on the right side of the screen ...after you click on their name.

They are really big on calling cards so they can call home. AT&T calling cards are apparently the best. I send a bunch of calling cards each month by clicking on this link.

http://www.anysoldier.com/WhatToSend.cfm

Some of the soldiers include pictures from Iraq. SFC Brockway for example. Just type in Brockway into the build in search function.

Prepare to spend some time on this web site. It is addictive.

Perhaps the G88 will give their students and friends this web site as part of THEIR rehab TOUR.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Re 9:08's comment that:

"Left-wingers are extremely verbal about waterboarding and free speach, whle the majority of conservative Americans are grateful that somebody is willing to protect our country and keep the war OVER THERE instead of on our shores... for awhile.

If you have to waterboard somebody so that we don't have another twin towers I say bring on the water."


My jaw drops to the floor at the irony of someone posting a pro-waterboarding comment on a blog that is dedicated to due process and the rule of law. Would the commenter have approved waterboarding the lacrosse players until they "confessed" or turned on their fellow players? Of course, we now know how inaccurate such "confessions" would have been, since we also now know that the players did not, in fact, assault CGM.

If the pro-torture people "win the debate," and torture becomes an acceptable interrogation technique, then the fundamental character of the United States will have changed in a way that would make the framers of the Constitution roll in their graves. And having just fought a war against people from another country intent on doing them harm, it's not as if the people who wrote the Bill of Rights were unfamiliar with the threat of violence from across the seas. They just realized that there are some things in life -- such as freedom -- that trump pure security.


Ken Duke
Durham, NC

Anonymous said...

My, my, my! KC is now into reruns. This blog has gone the way of his book, which I saw in Walmart's $5.00 bin this weekend.

Calling KC obsessed has to be the understatement of the year. Rumor has it that he is on meds and in therapy over this.

I love it that all 6 of you who contribute to this blog are constantly squirming and going spastic.

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.22:

Wow--thanks for the great news. Only books with very large printings get sold at Walmart.

I hope you'll stay on the lookout for the book in other places that you visit.

mac said...

3:22
Hi, Kathy!
Have you been sneaking your pet's meds into your drinks? And do your fellow/sister 88ers know that you frequent Walmart? Maybe you went in disguise?

Jim in San Diego said...

What has proven most ominous is the peer pressure on G88 members and supporters to remain G88 members and supporters despite the evidence the premise for the G88 advertisement was wrong.

Even the few who have had enough of a conscience to feel sorry for the harm they caused innocent Duke students have been unable to withdraw from the G88.

This demonstrates a level of Groupthink one would never expect among academics. It shows there is a vicious control of minds and opinions within Duke. Individuals are not permitted to deviate from the Party Line.

Ominous.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
10:35 There is a gooc chance that students and teachers, knowing about the searches, any potential offender was detered. We may never know - which was the chicken and which was the egg/

12/3/07 1:54 PM"

By the same logic, you could say that there was a "good chance" that the only reason secret conspiracies of reptilian humanoids posing as humans did not plant mind-control transmitters in student lockers was that they knew that the searches performed with the intent of finding explosives would instead reveal the mind-control transmitters. I will ask it once again: Out of all those searches, how many times were explosives ever actually found? There's no reason to conclude that explosives were deterred if there's no reason to conclude that explosives were ever actually there to be deterred.

Anonymous said...

"Calling KC obsessed has to be the understatement of the year. Rumor has it that he is on meds and in therapy over this."

Hi, Claire!

Debrah said...

"This blog has gone the way of his book, which I saw in Walmart's $5.00 bin this weekend."

LOL!

Just like the book "Atlas Shrugged"--the bestseller written 50 years ago......still selling hundreds of thousands of copies a year.

Your information is much appreciated!

Ralph Phelan said...

"My jaw drops to the floor at the irony of someone posting a pro-waterboarding comment on a blog that is dedicated to due process and the rule of law."

Law and war are very different things, and it is important to know the difference. Rhetoric like "War on Drugs" endangers our freedom by blurring the distinction one way, and treating law enforcement like a war (no knock raids, etc.)

But applying the rules of law enforcement to a necessary war is just as bad for our freedom - it impedes victory.

Ralph Phelan said...

I hope you'll stay on the lookout for the book in other places that you visit.

ZING!!!!

KC sure knows his targets.
I wouldn't have thought he could come up with something they'd consider a worse insult than comparing them to Bush, but calling them Walmart shoppers is it.

Once again, I bow to the master of sarcasm. You rock!

mb said...

3:22 PM: It appears to really p*ss you off that UPI is likely more popular - not to mention readable and comprehensible - than anything you have ever written, and perhaps ever will write. A diet of sour grapes is becoming the mainstay of the K88 and their fellow travelers these days. Given the dietary monotony, you should consider taking multivitamins.

I agree with clapton re. his comment that Zimmerman is probably just pandering to K88 fascists. Based on what I've read, Zimmerman seems to have a streak of moral fiber and conscience, but IMNSHO he has to keep it buried beneath a facade of support for the bigots in the Angry Studies ghetto at Duke so that he can keep his job.

And so it goes on the contemporary American campus.

Ralph Phelan said...

mb - your post inspired the following mixed metaphor, which I'm sure can be applied usefully somewhere in this fiasco

Drinking the sour-grape-flavored Kool-Aid.

Debrah said...

It occurred to me today....while contemplating the strange...and the myriad mysteries of life.....

.....that the ever-disgruntled and nonplussed Gang of 88 and their ilk are most frustrated because they cannot in any way control KC.

In most every aspect of their pedestrian and predictable academic lives they can force their will on other people by using the methods we all have witnessed and know so well.

But KC frustrates them not only because of his intellect, but because he uses that intellect to make fools of them.....and most of the time by using their own words.

And it also occurred to me that this is the one and the ONLY thing the Diva might occasionally share with such humanoids.

KC is unpredictable and mercurical. You never know what he will do next.

One day you are wildly and madly in love with him....and the next you feel like strangling him.

Such is the Wonderland world of the magnificent and provocative KC!

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson at 3:31 wrote "Wow--thanks for the great news. Only books with very large printings get sold at Walmart.

I hope you'll stay on the lookout for the book in other places that you visit."

That. Was. Awesome.

I'm laughing so hard my side hurts!! And in this corner is the undisputed champion of biting sarcasm: KaaaaaaaaySeeeeeeee Johnson

p.s. I'm not disappointed that I paid full price at Barnes and Noble for my copy of UPI!

Anonymous said...

Zimmerman wants to have it both ways. The problem is, in some instances, there is right and there is wrong. It really is that simple.

I can imagine what Zimmerman would have done if selected to be on the jury in the hypothetical Duke rape case:

ZIMMERMAN: "It is true that there was no evidence of rape, that the evidence, in fact, established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mangum was lying ...."

JURY FOREMAN: "Right, so let's acquit and get the Hell out of here."

ZIMMERMAN: "Not so fast. I think Mangum had some valid reasons for claiming she was raped. For example, (1) rape, in general, is bad, and (2) bringing attention to sexual violence is good...."

[END HYPOTHETICAL JURY DELIBERATIONS]

If you distill Zimmerman's principle argument down to its essence, it doesn't look entirely unlike that. MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

President Bush does have something in common with the Gang of 88: he deeply believes in his world view, is not particularly interested in ideas that conflict with that world view and he surrounds himself with people who share his beliefs to the exclusion of those who don't. His mind is limited by his beliefs.

Anonymous said...

"Calling KC obsessed has to be the understatement of the year. Rumor has it that he is on meds and in therapy over this."

If one is going to put forth candidates for medication and [long-term] therapy it would be the dangerously unbalanced and disordered personalities constituting the bulk of the Gang of 88 (and their mindless minions).

Anonymous said...

"I suggest all readers of this blog write the president of Brooklyn College and let KC's employer know that he interjects politics into otherwise factual posts. What a fraud!"

Not that it's any of the president of Brooklyn College's business.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps Zimmerman’s next stop can be the Bush White House."

Perhaps Zimmerman's next stop can be a real job. Spring 2008 he is slated to teach Music 56.01: Songwriter's Vocabulary. Now there's a real meat and potatoes item on the music department menu.

Anonymous said...

The Group of 88? Rehab? Forget it. The recidivism rate is so high among them as to render it pointless.

One Spook said...

Somone help me here ... did KC ever comment on the 1/11/07 Provost Lange Letter mentioned in musical Zimmerman's "The Duke lacrosse racket" posting?

The letter is here: Provost Peter Lange on 'Free Speech and Speaking Freely'

This could be a blog topic all to itself. I respected Lange's efforts in his letter to Houston Baker, and in his comments made on video tape in person to the protestors, but this letter is lame. It basically states, When I exercise my free speech, folks who do not agree with what I say pick on me; I'm a victim!.

I was wondering if he wrote a similar letter after David Horowitz spoke at Duke in March of '06. Does anyone know?

And finally, regarding the use of analogies in Blogs, I happened across this helpful guide; From Tiny Tim to 'Lil Kim: 1001 Useful Analogies, Similes, and Metaphors" by Moo, Gregory "Harvard Journal of Education" (1988)
www.harvardjouredu.edu/guides258.html

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Claire Potter is now not only removing posts critical of her, but also any post that doesn't completely agree with her.

Of course, it could be that the one or two people commenting on her blogs are really sock-puppets (Potter herself)......

mac said...

MOO Gregory 4:40

You distilled it to perfection!
As always.

Once again, Chaucer, Twain and Swift would be proud!

Anonymous said...

"To the 10.14:

I'd urge you to reread the clause quoted above, with a notation on the word 'virtually.'"

That's a hedge. Read the blog comments. What I quoted is not unusual at all. And you'll also notice several points where posts were deleted (people criticizing someone for using "the n word" when the original "n word" post isn't there anymore). The blog owner had to delete the worst of the posts. This should be believable to you -- haven't you had to remove some outlandish posts from this blog?

"I also was unaware that a blog--on which, as we know, people can comment from anywhere in the world--can be described as the Duke 'campus quad,' a specific piece of territory on the Duke campus."

First, notice the use of "we" at the end of the comment I quoted -- are you saying that was fabricated? Second, unless there were microphones in the trees, the evidence of "campus quad" conversations is lost to history. Blogs like dukeobsrvr are as close as we can come. That particular blog was popular with frats, after it ran an unofficial rush guide that became a small campus phenomenon in February.

Anonymous said...

Please tell me where your WalMart is. I'd LOVE to buy them out of all those discounted UPI book. LOTS of happy holiday recipients... Oops... forgot. Lots of Happy CHRISTMAS gifts.

yep! Funny that Walmart has them in stock when you have to beg for them at your B & N.

KC Johnson said...

To the 8.12:

"To the 10.14:

I'd urge you to reread the clause quoted above, with a notation on the word 'virtually.'"

"That's a hedge."

No, it's a desire for accuracy.

"Read the blog comments. What I quoted is not unusual at all."

I did read the blog comments. Three consecutive people--quite properly--took the anonymous commenter to task for his/her racist tone. The fourth pointed out--not incorrectly--that Mangum's status as a prostitute affected her credibility. There was nothing racist in the comment. The final commenter then wrote, "Since we are in the mood to make generalizations, the lax team is not to be trusted because they are white and are coked out. Their credibility has been shot due to past incidences." I'd hardly say that's an anti-Mangum comment.

"Second, unless there were microphones in the trees, the evidence of "campus quad" conversations is lost to history. Blogs like dukeobsrvr are as close as we can come. That particular blog was popular with frats, after it ran an unofficial rush guide that became a small campus phenomenon in February."

Not all conversations of the campus quad are lost to history--for instance, when one lacrosse player was surrounded by black Duke students who screamed at him to tell what happened (March 28) or the flooding of the campus quad with "wanted" posters (March 29).

That said, perhaps it's unrealistic of me, but I expect Prof. Davidson, a professor of English, after all, to say what she meant and mean what she said. Her passage was as follows:

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

"On the campus quad," to me, at the very least presumes evidence by Davidson that Duke students were making "rampant" sexist or racist remarks as sizeable numbers of them were "reverting to pernicious stereotypes about African-Americans, especially poor black women." An anonymous comment in a blog--a comment that could have come from anywhere in the world, and for which no evidence at all exists came from a Duke student--is hardly evidence of "rampant" use of racist and sexist remarks on the 'campus quad.'

If, in fact, by the "campus quad" she really meant "an anonymous comment from anywhere in the world on a blog," I don't think it's unreasonable to expect her to have written as much.

There were, of course, racist statements on the "campus quad" at the time--such as Houston Baker's 3-29-06 letter. But those statements, of course, did not concern Prof. Davidson.

Anonymous said...

I've read & reread Zimmerman's blog comments. I find his arguments more reasonable than many KC Johnson has made here. I also find him more tolerant of other opinions, including KC Johnson's. The ad hominim remarks about him that have appeared in DiW in response to KC Johnson's post reflect a weakness of this blog. It has been unable to facilitate real discussion of post-LAX events. (That being said, I am not asserting that discussion with tolerance of dissenting views is one of the Prof's goals; I don't know.) Too many of those who comment here chase off voices of dissent by ridicule and misrepresentation. Debrah is chief among them; KC Johnson's head cheerleader, she has produced numerous juvenile, vile attacks on those with whom she disagrees. As she has noted, she never offends people accidentally. I don't think KC Johnson helps discourse among varying views with his sometimes willful misreadings of both people/articles he disagrees with: (the original statement) and the responses posted here. Again, although he claims to advocate free speech, he might not want to have wide-ranging discussion on this blog and knows that many of his regular posters need little encouragement to attack others who contribute.

At least two of his Strategy students also believe that he does not welcome different points of view. (Before anyone starts in on how high his evaluations are on Ratemyprofessor.com, they are not among the highest within the Brooklyn College history department.)

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.10:

I have never used "ratemyprofessors" to comment on Duke profs because of my own experience with it.

Over the years, I have received very negative reviews from "students" for "classes" I have taught called "political science" or Core 9.

The only problem: I have never taught a class in political science at Brooklyn, and have never taught Core 9.

Nor have I ever taught a class called "history" or a class called "strategy."

Yet I have ratings from "students" from all four of these classes.

Intriguingly, there's a very large gap between the comments from "students" in my classes called "political science," "history," "strategy," and "Core 9" classes and those whose comments list course titles that I actually teach.

The explanation isn't hard to determine. Ratemyprofessors is an open site: it doesn't vet its comments, so anyone can post an evaluation of a professor, claiming to be a "student" in one of his/her classes.

As for your comments about my desire/lack of desire for open discussion, DIW (unlike other blogs) does not censor comments based on the commenters' viewpoints has been the official policy of the blog. That said, this isn't an open discussion forum--the comments, presumably, have to relate in some way to the post. If my goal were to censor comments, of course, I would not have cleared yours.

John said...

Any time a poster questions an analogy that is based on an impliedly pro-administration or conservative Republican position on this blog, the thread digresses into a vigorous defense of this right-of-center political views.

I happen to agree with Prof. Johnson about the now totally discredited administration causus belli, as well as the damage the approach to this war has done to the policy interests it was ostensibly designed to advance.

IMO his analogy is spot on.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Anonymous said...

To KC Johnson at 3:28: Interesting that you only explain the problems with ratemyprofessor.com only when the evaluations in question are of you. Plenty of your poster-fans have cited this site against their "enemies," ie, the professors you have discussed on your blog and others with whose opinions they disagree. Now, because you have spoken, they'll perhaps understand the difficulties of using evaluations from ratemyprofessor.com to help their children make course decisions.

To be fair to that site, I think that some students describe their classes rather than use their correct names. I'm sure you are not suggesting that all of the good evaluations of you come from real and different students, while the bad evaluations are from non-students of yours.

KC Johnson said...

To the 4.21:

I am suggesting that all evaluations that claim I teach courses called "political science" (a department in which I never taught) and "Core 9" (a course I never taught) did not come from students of mine.

I have no idea if comments listing actual course titles or numbers came from students in those courses. I did note the striking difference in evaluations between comments that listed actual course titles and comments that listed just a department name or courses that I didn't teach.

That said, I take student evaluations very seriously--dating from my receipt of the Levenson Teaching Award as outstanding TF when I was at Harvard as a graduate student, to my being ranked in the top quintile each of the six semesters I was at Williams, to my receiving repeated class evaluations above 4.5 at Brooklyn; to the receipt of a perfect CUE guide rating in one of the courses I taught as a visiting professor at Harvard in 2005. Each of those evaluations, however, were vetted ones, done by the institution, with students filling out anonymous evaluations at the end of the semester.

In more than 90,000 comments on this blog, I cannot recall "plenty" of comments dealing with ratemyprofessor. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "plenty." I can say that in the more than 900,000 words I have written, I have not used it.

Ralph Phelan said...

In more than 90,000 comments on this blog, I cannot recall "plenty" of comments dealing with ratemyprofessor. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "plenty."

Hard to tell due to the anonymity but he's probably the same guy who thinks one otherwise perfectly sensible blog comment with the word "black" in it disproves the statement virtually no one was defending the lacrosse team on the 'campus quad,' much less using racist rhetoric to do so.

Debrah said...

TO 3:29 AM--

And you continue the discord that was begun by political allusion and analogy.

We all have an opinion and a pie hole from which to spew.

I personally was not very passionate about this administration or any other administration, for that matter, until I began to see the seething hatred and the incessant, irrational piling on one man.

It's in my nature to defend someone who is being bludgeoned by sideline irrational bullies.

If you and others want to continue opening this door, the Diva is anxious to walk through it....however....

.......don't start whining when the facts and the reality of those whom you support are illuminated for all to see.

In the beginning, no one wanted to admit openly that the Lacrosse Hoax got its legs off the need to cater and pander to the Ultra-Left---out of fear or a warped ideology.

It took months for many to admit this was about race and the strange fruit it bears for both political parties.

I'm just tired of catering to the madness....and as someone who is still a registered Democrat with a whole history of dealing with such issues, I did not come to view this case with the eyes of a cultural virgin or as a wimp.

If some of you guys want ideology.....you will get it.

As I said yesterday, KC can post what he wishes.

There have been people who have used this blog to post their rabid hatred for the president. A few hail from other countries and want to tell some of us how bad things are.

I have to spit on this parasitic and rude kind of person. Every time I have lived in another country, I have gone out of my way to be respectful of those people and their leaders. It was not my business to take their hospitality and trash it.

I do not accept the behavior of such people. If our president and this country are so unattractive to their sensibilities, there are planes leaving from countless airports this very minute.

Leftist Liberal ideology is what got us into this Lacrosse Hoax in the beginning. It is what sustained it.

Only relentless illumination of this fact turned things around.

So don't tell me about anyone else's rabid agenda.

Debrah said...

TO 3:10 AM--That you would find Zimmerman's views and his comments more rational than KC Johnson's provides reason enough for anyone who is knowledgeable about this case to dismiss you.

Your only objective is to support the Gang of 88 indirectly by praising Zimmerman.

If you could make a better argument instead of mere personal and tedious attacks one might take you seriously.

I am always flattered by the attention, however.

Anonymous said...

"I've read & reread Zimmerman's blog comments. I find his arguments more reasonable than many KC Johnson has made here."

You do?! Astonishing.

Anonymous said...

Unlike history revisionists, those with clear memory remember that the information provided to President Bush - and all the Democrats and Republicans in Congrees who saw the same information - led them to believe that Iraq had WMD's, and they voted accordingly (does KC bash those in Congress? No.). No one knows the existence and/or disposition of WMD's in Iraq; however, there is NO EVIDENCE that President Bush (or Congres) contrived the information. For what does one apologize? For there being no WMD's, or not finding any WMD's in a completely contaminated crime scene? Or does he say, "whatever tortures/rapes/mass murder happened there is bad enough?" KC, you have a blind spot that makes somewhat inane an otherwise logical approach.

Ed

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 3:10 made an argument meant to discredit Professor Johnson using "ratemyprofessors." K.C. Johnson squashed the argument like Scrooge squashed Tiny Tim's Christmas dreams.

3:10 comes back at 4:21, using "ratemyprofessors" in an entirely new way (which happens to be mutually exclusive to the way used at 3:10), showing an ability to flip-flop and change arguments like Li'l Kim changes outfits during a rap show.

Sorry, 3:10 and 4:21. You cannot argue the Earh is flat, then, an hour and eleven minutes later, argue it is not.
__________

This post is dedicated to ONE-SPOOK and MAC, the guardians of analogies, puns, witticisms, similies, metaphors, etc.... MOO! Gregory

Ralph Phelan said...

Now, because you have spoken, they'll [KC's "poster-fans"] perhaps understand the difficulties of using evaluations from ratemyprofessor.com to help their children make course decisions.

Interesting how many of your anonymous detractors assume that those of us engaged in continued discussion here share the same views and/or are "followers" of KC. It certainly can't be be based on actual observation of this noisy, argumentative place.

So I must wonder if the assumption that a professor would naturally be surrounded by an ideologically uniform group of sycophants rather than an argumentative group of peers is reflective of their own academic milieu.

Anonymous said...

"I'm sure you are not suggesting that all of the good evaluations of you come from real and different students, while the bad evaluations are from non-students of yours."

Why not? Professor Johnson is widely - and I mean, WIDELY - acknowledged as a first-rate teacher, as well as a first-rate scholar (quite apart from UPI, by the way).

Anonymous said...

"Claire Potter is now not only removing posts critical of her, but also any post that doesn't completely agree with her."

Welcome to 'Claire's World'.

Anonymous said...

"Too many of those who comment here chase off voices of dissent by ridicule and misrepresentation."

Too bad they weren't as easily chased off when they were causing innocent people pain during the LAX hoax.

wayne fontes said...

To 3:10

KC has responded to the criticism he received on rate my professor at least two other times in the comments of this blog (one in response to my comment). He could have cut and pasted the first response. Thanks for providing yet another chance for KC to show that some of his opponents are dishonest.

Zimmerman knew he would be the subject of unreasonable ad hominen attacks when he started the series and I applaud him for having the courage to post his thoughts. To date on his blog he has received one barely intelligable rant that helped Zimmerman more than it hurt him (like your rate my professor comment). While I agree that ad hominem attacks have impeded serious discussion of the aftermath of the Duke Lax hoax I'm amused you indulged in an ad hominem attack in the very same post.

Anonymous said...

"KC Johnson's head cheerleader, [Debrah] has produced numerous juvenile, vile attacks on those with whom she disagrees."

Yes, and many of them are hilarious (not to mention right on the money). 'Juvenile' and 'vile' are adjectives perhaps more appropriately applied to the bilious gasbags constituting the Gang of 88 (and their untenured flunkies).

haskell said...

Zimmerman: "The scathing critique of members of the Duke faculty on DIW trades on Johnson’s credibility as a professor and gives an impression of offended rationality but the core of it is both irrational and anti-academic."

It seems to me there is a disconnect between academic and anti-academic behavior.

Zimmerman and the G88 seem to have a sense of entitlement, that the Fancy Title from a Prestigious University somehow confers a superior status upon them. Once they get the title, they have arrived, believing they are above criticism. On the other hand, most of us recognize that the title, or academic rank, has to be earned and is, in the non-PC world, meaningful and deserving of respect. Zimmerman and the G88 have not understood this, since they have not lived through it and it has never been modeled for them. When the academic tools of accurate quotations, documented facts, civilized discourse, logic, and rationality (all of which seem to be alien concepts to the G88 -- 'Let's take off our shirts and shout him down') are brought to bear on their absurdities, they perceive this to be anti-academic behavior. In fact they have no idea what the Academy is truly about. The good ship Academy, however, is taking on water fast, and the good guys had better start bailing soon.

Anonymous said...

Haskell, I hadn't put that particular 2 + 2 together before, but you are probably right: Certain of the academics using the "anti-intellectual defense" are probably the same ones who enjoy disrupting speeches. Now, can we find an anthropologist to do the actual research on your theory? MOO! Gregory

P.S. In the instances I have seen dealing with the Duke Lacrosse Hoax, it seems that "anti-intellectualism" too frequently means that a tenured professor shouldn't have to face criticism or be forced to witness logic in action.

Anonymous said...

"Hi, Claire! [snip]

What [KC] has rightly objected to, however, is the interjection of false allegations and irresponsible innuendo into otherwise factual posts."

I would argue that asserting with no factual evidence whatsoever that the above poster was Claire constitutes irresponsible innuendo.

And KC does quite a bit of censoring of what goes into the comments section. Here's a fact: I've submitted 4 replies to this post, all offering factual counter-evidence to it, and yet he has only posted 2. Will this make it through? And if not, why not?

KC Johnson said...

To the 4.18:

"And KC does quite a bit of censoring of what goes into the comments section. Here's a fact: I've submitted 4 replies to this post, all offering factual counter-evidence to it, and yet he has only posted 2."

This statement, to be blunt, is untrue, unless the comments to which you refer are about Bush & WMD--several of which I have not cleared, on grounds they were off topic. I have cleared every other comment submitted for this thread.

Quickly checking through the 132 comments, it's unclear to which two comments you refer: while a few commenters offered gratuitous personal insults--which, as part of my general commitment to allowing speech, I cleared, I see no "factual counter-evidence" to the post in any of the comments.

mac said...

MOO Gregory and Haskell,

Ever notice that the "anti-intellectual" strategy has a strong resemblence to the strategy of those who quickly declare "apostacy" at any sign of disagreement?

The 88 Klan Priests and Priestesses of Kommunist Korrectology have made repeated attempts to keep their 88 kinsfolk from abandoning the faith. Their desire for Nifong's lies to be true are evidence of that faith. The "apostacy" of their new creed is presently called "anti-intellectualism."

I see anti-intellectualism as a real thing, something that they are practicing themselves, as illustrated by Dr. "Luv" and his belief that Kommunism (sp. intentional) could work if it was made concomitant with "luv." (Perhaps he never heard of Jonestown, or was away on vacation when the refreshments were served?)

Similarly, witness the faith of Grant Farred, whose "vernacular intellectualism" supposes a natural-born communism in tribal communities. That's true in some cases. But vernacular intellectualism is seriously at odds with academic intellectualism, and would qualify as "anti-intellectualism" in its own right.

So are the 88 real, genuine intellectuals?

I keep seeing signs of the development of a new faith, not evidence of advanced intellectual development.

Anonymous said...

"Too many of those who comment here chase off voices of dissent by ridicule and misrepresentation."

If the "voices of dissent" (presumably the Gang of 88, et al.) wish not to be ridiculed, then I would suggest that they should stop saying and doing ridiculous things.

Anonymous said...

TO FIRST POSTER ON THIS BOARD
CHRIS DAVIS HARVARD '73

re: BUSH & FALSE WMD CLAIMS

Humbly suggest, before you take a dive on MSM "Bush lied, people died" take on no WMD in Iraq ever, pick up a copy of "Sabotage" at your local Barnes and Noble.
Since, we, the "West" supplied Saddham with WMD inputs as a matter of state policy to aid in the extermination of nasty Iranians, I'm always amused by knee-jerk Bush haters who insist Bush was crazy because Saddham never had any.
Sorry, but Saddham was our guy & we gave him whatever he wanted.

Anonymous said...

4:18PM Here is another "fact." I have been posting since April,06 KC has kept out about 4 posts - usually in connection with Debroah and Mac.

Anonymous said...

"This statement, to be blunt, is untrue, unless the comments to which you refer are about Bush & WMD--several of which I have not cleared, on grounds they were off topic. I have cleared every other comment submitted for this thread."

The 2 that didn't appear:

- one containing the same content from dukeobsrvr that I reposted above. That comment also contained speculation about the WMD inclusion, though that was at the end, but perhaps you refused it on that ground? I resubmitted w/o the WMD speculation on that supposition.

- the second, however, was a response to mac's rewriting of the dukeobsrvr comment. I wanted to point out that he hadn't simply "cleaned up" the language of the original post, he'd erased the central racist claim -- that for the original poster, being black was evidence of lying (to wit: "Why would anyone believe a fucking prostitute? She's black.")

Again ... will this post appear?

Apologies on the anon posting -- I'm no one of significance to the issues under discussion, in case someone is speculating. But it is true that while 99% of the readers of this blog are probably reputable people, there's the 1% who have harassed others, so for the moment I keep it quiet. KC, I'm happy to tell you who I am (if you haven't guessed -- we've exchange a few messages) if you want to know.

KC Johnson said...

To the 4.19:

As can be seen by my clearing of the statement above, I do not non-clear on the basis of content.

This blog has had more than 3.5 million unique visitors. I doubt very strongly that 1% of them (which would be, after all, 35,000 people) have committed "harassment" of any type.

As with the apparent assumption that the one quoted comment from a blog came from a Duke student--even though absolutely no evidence exists that it did--the assumption that anyone who has sent a vile e-mail to a Group member is a reader of this blog appears to be without foundation.

That said, I remain perplexed by the "harassing e-mail" claims. I fully support the prosecution of anyone who sends harassing e-mails, and I have been assured by someone whose judgment on the case I respect that at least a few Group members did receive vile e-mails. Internet technology is such that--unless the harasser very well planned his/her harassment, which most harassers, I suspect, don't do--anonymous e-mails can normally be tracked by law enforcement. Why there have been no prosecutions in this matter, when Group members have implied they have been bombarded with threatening e-mails and in which at least one Group member (Chafe) months ago said authorities were involved, is very puzzling to me.

When I began to be known for my comments on the case, I received some nasty e-mails from "people" I did not know--that did not in any way rise to the level of harassment. Such behavior is, unfortunately, common in the internet era. I adjusted my spam filter accordingly. Why Group members have been unable or unwilling to do so is another item that puzzles me.

Dutch said...

"Harrassment is when somebody gets the better of you in an argument, reasoned discourse is when you do it."

I think the group of 88 is discovering that they don't have the loudest megaphone anymore. Now a powerful new wind in the form of obsessive bloggers has blown the crap they spew back in their faces and they don't understand it, or think it tastes very good.

I think a little self criticism might be in order for the gang of 88, something like Mao had the intellectuals in China do during the cultural revolution before he had them all shot.

The above was meant as a joke, to leaven the serious comments. Unfortunately people like the 88 are perfectly capable of taking my suggestion and acting on it.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Apologies on the anon posting -- I'm no one of significance to the issues under discussion, in case someone is speculating."

I fully understand, and have no problem with it. But you could do like I have and choose a nickname, so people could at least know which posts were by the same anonymous author.

"- one containing the same content from dukeobsrvr that I reposted above. That comment also contained speculation about the WMD inclusion, though that was at the end, but perhaps you refused it on that ground? I resubmitted w/o the WMD speculation on that supposition."
It would appear that you tested your hypothesis, found evidence in favor of it, and found a workaround to get your point across, so I don't see what your complaint is here.

mac said...

4:19
The post that included "she's black and cracked out" is probably on a par with the effluence of comments from the 88 about "white privilege" and Grant Farred's comment "privileged white boys." Since so many (including NCCU students) have concluded that the whiteness of the accused equates with guilt - (regardless of whether or not they committed any crime) - the post you copied looks sort of tame.

Then one might also consider Farred's comments about "secret racism," among the many other very interesting things he's said, and you tell me: which is most "racist?" The offending post looked like it was written by a high school junior - (and probably was) - while Farred's racist rants were spoken by someone (who was) in a position of authority, from someone who is supposed to be mature, responsible and intelligent. (Ha!)

I don't care for the "she was black and cracked up," but those words indicate something more than racism: they're inacurrate. CGM was likely not using illegal drugs, as she allegedly preferred prescription meds.

Since Nifong interjected race - (how many times?) - I don't think it's unfair for the commenter to have included race. Nifong did. (And people like you and everyone else rode the same shark he'd jumped.) The false accuser got Nifong's attention primarily because she was black. He only was able to use her because she was black.

And frankly, if I were in the black community and had been used and misused in the many ways Mike Nifong did in order to secure the nomination, I wouldn't be comparing him to Jesus - (as one delusional editorial writer did) - I'd be thinking about getting a civil rights charge against him, pointing to Nifong's behavior as the worst kind of racism. He played the AA community for fools - (and some are still being played.)

Nifong didn't practice a secret racism: he raped almost the entire the black community and made it look foolish. While you're out buggering about a stupid post, Nifong was buggering an entire community.

Ralph Phelan said...

"I adjusted my spam filter accordingly. Why Group members have been unable or unwilling to do so is another item that puzzles me."

I'd speculate "unable", though I won't be rude enough to come right out and say why. Let us merely remember that Claire Potter thinks her blog's url is "tenured-radical@blogspot.com."

Anonymous said...

""Hi, Claire! [snip]

What [KC] has rightly objected to, however, is the interjection of false allegations and irresponsible innuendo into otherwise factual posts."

I would argue that asserting with no factual evidence whatsoever that the above poster was Claire constitutes irresponsible innuendo."

And I would argue that it was a joke, since obviously the poster who "identified" the threatening writer he/she replied to as Claire Potter had no evidence beyond the style (self-righteous and sophomoric) and the content (inaccurate and threatening), which of course hardly serves to identify Claire Potter from out of a much larger population.

On the subject of Professor Potter, however, go back and read her April post. Are you asserting that her claim that it was "clear" that the lacrosse players had physically assaulted the dancers was a joke? If so, please explain how it qualifies.

Orson Buggeigh said...

KC,Thanks for your 5:28 commentary. To follow up, I think this seems to fit a common methodology among the Klan of 88 and similarly minded people. Accusations of harrassment are made, but there is no police follow up. I agree, it is certainly possible, if not probable that someone in the wide open world of the internet made statements in a private e-mail to one of them that would qualify - legally qualify m I might add - as harassment. But the fact that no legal action has followed suggests that it is more probable that what the 88 pseudo intellectuals are receiving is strongly worded statements taking them to task,and not something that is legally harassing. This is much like Michael Bellesiles' claims of harassment, including claims of vandalism by fire, which were proven to be nonexistent when a thorough researcher asked the police to verify that Bellesiles had reported receiving death threats and had his office door set afire. So what we have to date is complaints from academics who claim harassment, but no corroborating evidence from law enforcement or other verifiable sources to indicate a real crime has taken place. There is much more evidence ,in the form of your postings of their own words, showing that many of these academics have, in fact, made claims which they cannot substantiate, that they have been unwilling to apologize or correct their errors when these have been made public.

Duke is following the same pattern as an institution modeled by their worst faculty. Shut down complaints, ignore differing view points, and pretend that everything is just fine. No wonder these professors feel threatened when honest people point out that the behavior which created the lacrosse hoax continues unabated. Like the French aristocracy, Duke's administration and Klan of 88 have forgotten nothing. They have, alas, learned nothing.

Anonymous said...

"So are the 88 real, genuine intellectuals?"

Not where I hail from.

Anonymous said...

"KC Johnson said...
To the 4.19:
As can be seen by my clearing of the statement above, I do not non-clear on the basis of content."

Rather the contrary. As I mentioned, my reply to mac was not cleared. It's good of you to clear it the second time around, but why did it (and the one about the dukeobsrvr post) take two attempts?

"This blog has had more than 3.5 million unique visitors. I doubt very strongly that 1% of them (which would be, after all, 35,000 people) have committed "harassment" of any type."

Fair enough, my use of 99% was rhetorical. I meant to say that the vast vast majority are reasonable. Maybe it's 99.9999%. That still leaves 3 people I'd rather not have looking up my home phone number and reaching my wife.

"As with the apparent assumption that the one quoted comment from a blog came from a Duke student--even though absolutely no evidence exists that it did ..."

Again, you haven't responded to the "we" at the end of the dukeobsrvr post. Is it your contention that it is fabricated? If you follow dukeobsrvr, it's clear that by a few weeks later, several "outsiders" had joined the discussions. But at this point, it was generally known only to Duke students. It might take a Duke student (such as I was at the time) to realize this. As you read through that blog, at some point, the references stop being to Duke places/people/events and are about outside things, or things in the media coverage.

On the anon issue, the main reason I don't log in is that I have a blog for my family members where I post up stories and pictures of my 2 year old. I haven't yet looked into whether Blogger will let me register a second alias.

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.52:

"Fair enough, my use of 99% was rhetorical. I meant to say that the vast vast majority are reasonable. Maybe it's 99.9999%. That still leaves 3 people I'd rather not have looking up my home phone number and reaching my wife."

As I noted before, there seems to be an assumption that readers of the blog have engaged in "harassing" behavior--indeed, that they called people up. The only person to directly make such a claim was William Chafe (who suggested that one of the dozen or so "bloggers critical of the Group of 88" had done so). When I e-mailed him to ask for evidence to corroborate his allegation, he declined to provide it. As I noted at the time, I e-mailed each of the dozen or so bloggers who had published posts critical of the Group; all save Prof. Michael Gustafson denied ever calling any Group member, for any reason. (Gustafson had done so as part of an exchange, which both sides considered collegial, with Anne Allison.)

I strongly support the prosecution of anyone who engages in harassing behavior, either through e-mails or by phone. I remain puzzled as to why authorities have made no progress in this inquiry, which Chafe suggested was begun months ago.

"Again, you haven't responded to the "we" at the end of the dukeobsrvr post. Is it your contention that it is fabricated? If you follow dukeobsrvr, it's clear that by a few weeks later, several "outsiders" had joined the discussions. But at this point, it was generally known only to Duke students. It might take a Duke student (such as I was at the time) to realize this."

I have no idea whether the comment was fabricated--I assume, since it exists, that it was not fabricated--just as I have no idea who made the comment. Anonymous comment are just that: anonymous. It's a shame the dukeobsrvr blogger didn't require commenters to identify themselves; or limit his/her comments to people from duke.edu addresses. But, as far as I know, comments were not limited; and it's naive in the extreme to suggest that in this case--which received enormous national publicity virtually from the start--an anonymous commenter can be identified as a Duke student.

Let's assume, however, for the sake of argument, that this single anonymous commenter, who was quickly rebuked by several others, followed up by a commenter who suggested that the lacrosse players used drugs, was a Duke student. Let's also assume that the Group of 88 spent their time scouring blogs for anonymous comments that would reinforce their apparent belief that (anti-black) racism and (anti-female) sexism are "rampant" on the Duke campus. That leaves the question of where these "rampant" racist comments "on the campus quad" that Davidson cited were--at a time when the overwhelming portrayal of Mangum was, as Butch Williams later quipped, "Polly Purebread," the valiant NCCU honors student who had just started stripping so she could spend more quality time with her kids.

It is, to put it mildly, bizarre to maintain that a stray anonymous comment on a blog--which may or may not have come from a Duke student, with no evidence existing that it did, and would have been read by a small percentage (5 percent?) of the blog's readership--suggested "rampant" racist statements by Duke students about Mangum.

Finally, as I noted above, I stated that I hadn't cleared several comments related to WMD. I do not, to be frank, keep a log of comments that I do not clear. It is particularly difficult, in this case, when the allegedly uncleared comment came from an anonymous commenter.

I have had, since I began comment moderation, several occasions in which regular readers disputed a decision not to clear a comment. They e-mailed me, and in general I urged a small modification, or explained why the comment wasn't cleared. That's not a courtesy I extend to anonymous commenters, because there is no way to distinguish between the various anonymous commenters. I apologize if that policy sounds unfair. That said, many blogs do not allow anonymous comments at all; my approach always has been to do so, to bend over backwards to allow the greatest diversity of opinion.

Stu Daddy said...

To KC @ 4:49 PM...

Professor Johnson, you are a teacher with great patience and integrity. You are a model for educators throughout the land.

I only wish that I had an inspirational instructor like you when I was a student at Duke.

Thanks for the book and the blog... and your recorded spoken remarks on the case!

Stuart McGeady, T '77
Duke Lacrosse 1974-1976

Michael in NH said...

I had a short discussion with Zimmerman and my impression is that he likes to steer the discussion and doesn't like to do much research or analysis in areas that he's interested in or things that he's challenged on.

Perhaps he's severaly time challenged at the moment.

At any rate, I think that he's a latecomer without sufficient background to discuss many aspects of the case that have been discussed here, sometimes in a lot of depth. One can appreciate the quality of research and attention to detail from KC after dealing with some other professors.