Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Mosteller on the Case

A few months ago, I posted on the disappointing early coverage of the case from law reviews. The most recent Fordham Law Review corrects the problem, in a lengthy article by Duke Law professor Robert Mosteller. He astutely argues that the lacrosse case shows the insufficiency of ethical rules requiring prosecutors to do justice and to not prosecute cases without probable cause, and concludes with some sensible recommendations to make ethics rules more likely to protect the innocent.

Mosteller opens bluntly: “Often a full examination of the facts of a notorious case reveals that events were ambiguous and the reality is not as bad as early reports suggested. This case does not fit that pattern; it gets worse on inspection.” Indeed, he contends, “The Duke lacrosse case is extraordinary both in the clarity of its facts and in the violation of the prosecutor’s fundamental duty to do justice.”

The Duke Law professor also has no doubt as to the identity of those responsible for the fiasco: Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum. He writes,

Mangum’s story of rape and kidnapping was a total fabrication—either a hoax or a false allegation based on delusion. Mangum’s separate conduct does not diminish Nifong’s responsibility as the public prosecutor controlling the case, and, indeed, it made his ethical duty to do justice even more important. Instead, Nifong either vitally aided a hoax or caused an unfortunate delusion to have serious societal and legal ramifications.

Mosteller summarizes the case, Nifong’s withholding of DNA evidence, the DA’s ethically improper statements, and the Bar’s prosecution of Nifong. But he focuses his article on the most disturbing element of Nifong’s conduct—the DA’s decision to prosecute without probable cause, to attempt to try people who were demonstrably innocent. Mosteller notes that the Bar—correctly—did not charge Nifong with violating Rule 3.8(a), which states that “[t]he prosecutor in a criminal case [shall] . . . refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.”

The language of that rule, Mosteller suggests, makes a violation almost impossible to prove. How, in effect, could the Bar prove that the prosecutor “knew” that the case lacked probable cause—especially in a state like North Carolina, where the prosecutor could argue that a grand jury indictment proved that probable cause existed?

Mosteller reasons that if Nifong couldn’t have been prosecuted under the rule’s provisions, it’s hard to imagine a more egregious case anytime soon. (“The attorney general’s lengthy list of reasons to question the accuser’s version of events,” he writes, “makes objectively based belief in guilt quite difficult. Indeed, it appears that the attorney general’s report makes an effort to avoid overstatement and thus may be modest in its presentation. When one examines the mass of questions regarding the accuser’s reliability presented by the defendants’ motions to suppress identification, objective belief in guilt becomes even less supportable.”) Therefore, he concludes, the current ethical rules requiring prosecutors to “do justice” are “completely inadequate,” and the Bar needs to find ways to address the issue in other ways.

Mosteller is particularly penetrating in his discussion of Nifong’s March 31, 2006 to order the police to run a third lineup—only this time, to be confined to lacrosse players. Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, who presided over the affair, went out of his way to tell Mangum that she would be shown photos only of people the police believed attended the party. He ridicules as “weak” the various excuses that the DPD leadership, Gottlieb, Det. Himan, and Nifong offered for the “outrageous” April 4 procedure.

According to Mosteller, “A prosecutor with ‘a mindset of the true skeptic, the inquisitive neutral’ would not have organized the procedure that was utilized. Regardless of whether it was suggestive, it provided the investigation with no real test of the accuracy of the accuser’s identification. Furthermore, it did nothing to rule out a hoax or delusion.” Indeed, by creating a lineup with no real fillers, “it enabled the hoax or delusion to proceed.”

Mosteller engages in a long and interesting discussion about the unreliability of current legal doctrines to guard against witnesses who are either delusional or intent on perpetrating a fraud. Courts, he notes, are extremely reluctant to suppress in-court ID’s, even if they came from outrageously suggestive procedures.

The lacrosse case, in this respect, is yet again an exception—he argues that the “masterful” defense motion to suppress the lineup, by concentrating “on the shifting versions given by the accuser of the events and the strong reasons to doubt a rape took place at all,” powerfully suggested “that the story, which includes the identification, is simply not reliable.” As Lane Williamson did at the Nifong ethics hearing, Mosteller argues that Judge Smith would have suppressed the lineup at the never-held February hearing, which would have ended the case.

Mosteller concludes his discussion of the lineup with a powerful point:

Regardless of its aberrant facts, the Duke lacrosse case teaches an important lesson regarding identification procedures: more than just actions that relate to the due process standard can deny justice. I assume that prosecutors generally do not violate their most basic duty to “do justice” and accusers do not often attempt to perpetuate frauds or suffer from a total and persistent delusion, and it should be rare that both happen simultaneously in the same case. But here we have one such case.

He praises the legislature’s decision to impose uniform lineup standards throughout the state, and to give judges authority to instruct juries on the potential unreliability of identifications when police or prosecutors violate the procedures. But Mosteller adds that judges and legislators should seriously consider how suppressing any identification, including in-court ID’s, might be the only way to “do justice” when identification processes are sufficiently flawed.

All in all, the article is a fascinating read, and I recommend it highly.

86 comments:

Wramblin' Wreck said...

No matter what laws and regulations exist, a dishonest, immoral prosecutor will find a way to accomplish what they want. It is sad but true.

Our own personal integrity is the key. Fortunately I believe in a higher law, as immutable as gravity, that can be stated as "what comes around goes around." Everyone gets their just reward eventually. Good for good, bad for bad, tit for tat.

Anonymous said...

Bob was my crim pro and trial advocacy professor when I was at the Law School. He is a dynamic, thoughtful, and ethical attorney, who in a previous life ran the public defender operation in DC. His insights are dead on target.

Chicago Dukie

Anonymous said...

The lead story, above-the-fold article at the Duke Chronicle website today was NOT "Karl Rove to Speak at Duke."

Instead, it was "Protesters Prepare for Rove." I kid you not.

Anonymous said...

Interesting read, but what about the judges who had to know procedures were being violated. It truly appears they aided the prosecution in the hoax with full knowledge Nifong was lying. What can be done about prosecution biased judges. Are there no sanctions for their near criminal behavior ?

Michael in NH said...

That was quite the read. Contrast it to Cassidy's little document and there's no contest. I hope Cassidy gets a chance to read it.

Mosteller also thanks several people for help in putting this together and I assume that they are either students or staff in the School of Law.

Perhaps KC will put a link to it on his sidebar. This is quite the piece of work.

W. R. Chambers said...

The Mosteller article in the Fordham Law Review can be found here

http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub9770.pdf

mac said...

I haven't read the link, but just from what KC has provided, Mosteller has provided a cogent reason why the false accuser should be tried in a court of law: she is either deluded or has engaged in criminal behavior. If the former, she should be treated as the criminally insane; if the latter, she should be treated as a defendant in a criminal trial.

Either way, both Nifong and the false accuser should face consequences that make a repeat of the hoax less likely in other venues - (and even in the City of Duhh, where it is most likely to recur, since so many have learned nothing.)

Anonymous said...

OK, sorry I was lazy...

The 76-page pdf can be downloaded from:

http://law.fordham.edu/ihtml/page3.ihtml?imac=1137&pubID=500&articleid=2594

-RD

Anonymous said...

The Duke Professor states "the cause of the fiasco was Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum." Just as I, for one, have been writing all along. The others were bit players - hounded and crucified. Not the axis of evil.

GPrestonian said...

Did you have a link to the article, KC, or did I miss it?

The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, and False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure to “Do Justice” Robert P. Mosteller (pdf 76 pages)

Anonymous said...

Until people who make the false accusations that throw someone into the cesspool of the system are pursued and punished nothing will change.

When a woman can use the legal system for revenge against a man with impunity, and this case is far from an exception, nothing will change.

The next Crystal will have learned that between her and Justice there are several layers of protection if she plays her cards right. We( well at least the Group of 88 and warped radicals with tenured) are enabling Entitled Victims to manipulate the system for revenge.

Lady Justice is not blind in gender cases today. Her shades are pulled down on the side of her sisters.

KC Johnson said...

To the 9.00:

I'd urge you to read the full article--I provided only a summary as it related to his point on legal ethics.

Mosteller singles out SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy and Sgt. Mark Gottlieb as enablers of the hoax. He doesn't use the phrase "bit players" or anything resembling that in describing them.

bella said...

Fantastic article. It's good to know there are at least few Duke professors grounded in reality.

Anonymous said...

I concur with the 6:27. Mosteller is a fine, intelligent, and thoughtful scholar with a solid backgroud in (practical) criminal law. He is "no BS". I much prefer the thorough analysis he presents in the Fordham LR article to what has been offered up thus far by other Duke Law faculty. I am familiar with the Duke Law faculty, and was surprised that Prof. Mosteller wasn't front and center in all of the "aftermath" forums and conferences that the Law School hosted. Kudos to Prof. Mosteller on an important article!

mac said...

From Mosteller's report, this is what ties Nifong and the 88 (and Claire Potter) together:

"Nifong came to believe what he hoped the facts were."

The 88 and Claire Potter still apparently hope that the facts are what Nifong hoped they were. I believe that could be called "hope-a-dope."

Michael in NH 7:07 did a nice job comparing Cassidy's trivial exercise in "hope-a-dope" to Mosteller's comprehensive review.

IMO, Mosteller's review should be sold as an addendum to UPI. (And Cassidy should go bang some pots somewhere where Wendy Murphy displays her adjunct.)

Anonymous said...

Haven't read the 76-page opus yet, but earnestly hope the Professor addresses the issue of non-recorded grand jury proceedings in North Carolina. Were it not for that fact, the record could be reviewed to determine exactly what Himan and Gottlieb told the panel in order to obtain the indictments. Since there was absolutely no probable cause, just what was the panel told? If there were perjured testimony by the police, it should be a simple matter of charging and prosecuting them.

wright said...

Unfortunately, in this case, a pretrial dismissal based on an unreliable witness, a fixed lineup or any of the many procedural errors would not have brought closure. Many would always believe the lie that these rich white boys were able to lawyer up and buy an acquittal - witness all those who still believe that "something happened" despite the final finding of 'innocent'. As sad as it is, this sorry case had to go all the way to its unequivocal conclusion in order for the victims to have any measure of vindication.

Search for Meaning said...

One of the points that I found interesting was Nifong attempt to hide the DNA almost worked. The case would have been thrown out because of the lineup problems and the DNA at that time would have become moot and not examined further.

My belief is that Nifong wanted the case to be dismissed due to lineup flaws so that he could claim that a technicality let the Duke defendants go free and keep his good standing with the Black voters. However the case was to weak to even make it that far and Nifong could not continue due to his ethics problems.

As previously mentioned I would have been interested in Mosteller’s opinion as to whether the judges in the case lived up to the standards of professionalism.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

The lead story, above-the-fold article at the Duke Chronicle website today was NOT "Karl Rove to Speak at Duke."

Instead, it was "Protesters Prepare for Rove." I kid you not.

12/3/07 6:33 PM

That's because The Chronicle had already published articles telling its readership that Rove was to speak at Duke. The earliest article was Nov 15, which was titled "Karl Rove to Speak in Page Dec. 3." Does that appease you? There is no point to have the same article again and again. The Chronicle had yet to publish an article talking about protestors. You people need to do some research before making comments sometimes.

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/11/15/News/Karl-Rove.To.Speak.In.Page.Dec.3-3104033.shtml?refsource=collegeheadlines

Debrah said...

Kudos to Mosteller!

It was so refreshing to read what he had to say about Nifong and Mangum.

Nifong will be forever identified with Crystal Gail Mangum.

Two mentally disturbed people.

Debrah said...

H-S:

(BTW, the H-S now has a section set up to comment online after every article. They're progressing! I suppose they waited until after the lacrosse case to do this.)


Rove's critics let loose with loud, colorful protests

BY WILLIAM F. WEST : The Herald-Sun
bwest@heraldsun.com
Dec 4, 2007

DURHAM -- Karl Rove encountered hecklers and protesters at Duke University Monday night, some accusing him of being a fraud, a traitor and even a killer.

President Bush's former White House deputy chief of staff and senior adviser appeared in Page Auditorium for a "conversation" with Duke political science professor Peter Feaver.

But the situation intensified when the floor was opened to questions.

The first questioner, a woman, set the tone by sarcastically telling Rove, "Thank you for spinning such a fictional narrative" in his talk. Rove foes applauded and cheered.

The questioner then zeroed in on accusations that Rove "outed" then-CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003 in retaliation for The New York Times op-ed article by her husband, Iraq war critic Joe Wilson.

Given that Bush had said he would not tolerate leaks, the questioner asked, "When does your trial for treason start?" to a thunderous roar.

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted on federal obstruction and perjury charges related to the Plame case. Bush commuted Libby's prison term and Rove has never been charged.

Rove, in responding to the "treason" accusation, said, "I don't mind being slandered" and praised Bush as a friend and supporter.

"You're a murderer!" another opponent shouted at Rove.

Rove continued his previous response: "If anything that you had to say had a bit of truth in it, I wouldn't be sitting on this stage." Rove's backers applauded and cheered.

Rove praised Bush's domestic agenda, in particular the "No Child Left Behind" law. He also said Republicans must do more to gain support of blacks.

He blamed the GOP's loss of Congress in 2006 elections on sleaze, citing then-Congressman Mark Foley's dealings with underage male pages and then-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's corruption convictions.

On foreign affairs, Rove argued the U.S. was justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and in deposing Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile, a demonstrator walked around the ground floor of Page Auditorium toting a pink-and-black banner reading, "LIAR."

A group in the upper deck, clad in orange prison-like jumpsuits, stood with their heads covered with black hoods to protest the "water boarding" of accused terrorists as torture.

Rove received a burst of applause from his supporters when he argued the U.S. is a nation of laws and has nothing to apologize for regarding its conduct worldwide.

To which one protester countered, "How about the Native Americans?" drawing laughter from the opposition.

Toward the end of the session, one man shouted: "9/11 was an inside job!"

"And you are a lunatic, sir," Rove said.

Stephen Miller, former leader of the Duke Conservative Union, said he was concerned about the safety of Rove, a man who, he said, receives death threats every day.

"And of course there's no metal detector here," Miller added. "[People approaching the stage] could have a gun. They could have a knife.

"When you get into this group-think mentality that you have among the extreme left, eventually it's not just going to be waving a bloody hand, someone's going to hurt somebody," he said.

David Bitner, current leader of the Duke Conservative Union, said the protesters were "absolutely undignified."

"They don't have manners," Bitner said. "They're not civilized. And they're indicative of everything that's wrong with things these days."

One of the protesters, Jonathan Davis, said what happened represents what America stands for: "The right to protest, the right to be loud."

Davis said he did not agree with the interruptions.

"But," Davis said of Rove, "people are p----d. They're upset -- and he's a poster child for that."

Debrah said...

Here is a Duke Law School site which lists Mosteller.

The list is alphabetical.

On another Duke law site, Karla Holloway was listed with a photo.

This one seems to be updated, however, and only the "real professors" are listed with their photos.

Below them is just a list called "extended faculty".

Wonder what prompted the change?

Anonymous said...

Those hoping to distance Duke from culpability want to believe that Nifong and Mangum were solely responsible for this travesty of justice.

The FACT is, that Nifong could never have gained traction, if not for the FALSE report from Levicy that the medical evidence supported a conclusion of sexual assault. Duke knew that this report was FALSE, but once Nifong claimed Levicy's report as his legitimacy, and the case was politicized among the G88 and other radical members of the Duke faculty and administration, Duke remained silent.

No... Duke, through its employee, Levicy, is unquestionably culpable.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that Mangum fabricated the lie initially to (successfully) avoid incarceration. She then (successfully) used it to obtain prescription drugs. Her next plan was to use it to "make the white boys pay". Sounds like very rational, premeditated planning to me. She should be prosecuted and held acountable.

Debrah said...

"The FACT is, that Nifong could never have gained traction, if not for the FALSE report from Levicy that the medical evidence supported a conclusion of sexual assault."

True.

And KC has underscored this fact.

Jim in San Diego said...

Professor Mosteller is correct that Mr. Nifong and Ms. Mangum have prime responsibility for the injustices done to Duke students.

However, the injustices had several layers. One layer, which Prof Mosteller does not discuss, is the response of the Duke faculty and administration. That may not have been within the scope of his paper.

However, it catches the eye that Prof Mosteller ran the D.C. public defenders program at one point. He therefore has had first hand experience with the sordid end of the justice system.

So, where was Professor Mosteller last March and April? Did he, or did he not, speak out at that time?
Just asking.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

I am sure the Duke Chronicle will not lead with a story, on the day that Amada Fishwrinkle gives the Commencement Address, with an article dealing with plans to protest her address.

Note how the H-S details the protests and not what Rove had to say. In fact, the only reason to quote Rove is to highlight what the protesters did or said.

Orin Starn was one of the goobers in the orange jumpsuits according to the Chronicle. At least, that was the plan. I wonder if, at the after-party, he was still wearing his jumpsuit drinking an apple-tini?

The people at Duke have conceded to the professional protesters. Any organized debate is now a circus unless it deals with the correct ideology.

Anonymous said...

"My READING of the Sexual Assualt Nurse's Report indicates there was a rape." Mike Nifong

Anonymous said...

I have never believed the "make the white boys pay" remark. That is right out of a bad movie script. I am sure there are drug dealers in Durham and Crystal knows how to score without the need of a presciption. I doubt Crystal preplans what she is doing in the next hour. The law for false claims does not involve jail time but a five hundred dollar fine.

Anonymous said...

When will we be reading Duke "Professor of Law" Karla Holloway's Law Review article on the case, or any case for that matter? Has she ever written any article in any Law Review?

Professor Holloway received a MLS from Duke Law in 2005 but I would like to know how many other recipients of a similar degree in 2005 are now "Professors of Law"? Maybe she also watches "Boston Legal."

Anonymous said...

The "make the white boys pay" quote was in a statement given to police by Kim Roberts. I believe it - and - any drug user prefers legal prescription drugs to illegal street stuff. Even if the sentence for false accusations is only a fine, it might help mute the "something happened" crowd.

Anonymous said...

"The 88 and Claire Potter still apparently hope that the facts are what Nifong hoped they were."

The 88 and [aging hipster] Claire Potter - among the finest minds of the century...the 16th century...

Anonymous said...

"When will we be reading Duke "Professor of Law" Karla Holloway's Law Review article on the case, or any case for that matter?"

I don't know. But I hear that Wahmeena (or Wahneema or whatever her name is) Lubiano has one 'forthcoming'.

Duke Law 72 said...

I have to go with Jim from San Diego. I have sat here in horror watching this attempted lynching and wondering where the hell is the Law School?. Prof. Mosteller writes an excellent and important article but did he stand up for the kids when they were being railroaded by the Duke Administration and entirely too many of the faculty? Nifong is being dealt with by the Bar and the legal process. Perhaps that end of it will be improved. Well and good for Nifong and the system, but what is Duke going to to the next time the racemongers attack ? Any new safeguards in place? Anybody have any reason to think their cushy little agenda job may end if they try this again? Any Deans or Presidents learned a thing? Will the Dean of the Law School go to the President of the University and say "hold your horses pal these are real people you are screwing?" Any of the Law School faculty grown a set? Any parent resting easier knowing their child is safer at Duke than before all this? I haven't seen any progress to date has anybody else?

Anonymous said...

"The 88 and Claire Potter still apparently hope that the facts are what Nifong hoped they were."

Perhaps the 88 and [not terribly clever] Claire simply are (still) having trouble processing the facts. I suppose one has to exercise patience when dealing with the learning disabled (that is their problem, isn't it? I mean, what else could it be?)

Anonymous said...

"It seems to me that Mangum fabricated the lie initially to (successfully) avoid incarceration. She then (successfully) used it to obtain prescription drugs. Her next plan was to use it to "make the white boys pay". Sounds like very rational, premeditated planning to me. She should be prosecuted and held acountable."

While some mentally ill people lack both the ability to construct plans based on what they think is reality, and the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, this is not always true. A paranoid schizophrenic, for example, may construct very complex plans for how to market and profit from his amazing medical invention that cures every disease -- in reality, the invention is worthless, but he believes that it is the salvation of mankind and plans accordingly.

"I have never believed the "make the white boys pay" remark. That is right out of a bad movie script."

Many things which we know for undisputed fact happened in the Duke case are right out of a bad movie script. Roberts initiating an exchange of racial insults and then making a 911 call falsely claiming to have been an innocent bystander targeted by unprovoked racial insults, for example, or district attorney Nifong making public statements suggesting that employing one's Constitutional right to legal representation in itself implies guilt.

"I doubt Crystal preplans what she is doing in the next hour."

I don't think it really takes that much in the way of combined intelligence and sanity to come up with the "plan" of "someone did something to me; I can sue them." The impression I got of Mangum based on the special prosecutors' account of interviewing her is that she could be consistent with what she said five or ten minutes ago, even if being consistent with what she had said or observed days or months ago was beyond her. (Take, for example, her claim to the special prosecutors that she and Kim had been dancing in the bedroom, not in the living room. If she met our definitions of full sanity, why on earth would she have made a claim she must have known would be recognized by the special prosecutors to be untrue? Even if she had been believed, what would have been the advantage to her?)

I believe that Mangum first asserted that she had been raped when someone at Durham Access unprofessionally made the suggestion to her that she had. She could not construct at that time a coherent account of the supposed rape, which is why her early accounts vary so much in number of attackers, et cetera. However, because few people dealing with her at that time had an interest in testing the truthfulness of her story, they probably wittingly or unwittingly prompted her to repeat the claims that they already believed (the "Clever Hans" effect, perhaps.) Over time, even though her grasp of "what had happened" was shaky, she was able to retain the central idea of the alleged rape (whether she had come to believe it had happened, or remembered that it was her own invention) and was able to progress from that to "I can make money from this." I would not be the least surprised if she had family members like "Cousin Jakki" and other "advisors" helping her construct that train of thought, either.

Anonymous said...

re: Nifong and 'knowingly prosecuted'

I think its obvious the lengths Nifong went to to stay on the right side of that line.

-never interviewed the accuser
-never researched Reade's alibi
-indicted directly rather than arrested the three

there are probably other examples but the effort by Nifong to avoid too much knowledge was obvious.

mac said...

How would we compile a list of those who hoped Nifong was right? Who would be first on the list?

Start with Tara Levity...
And Nancy Grace...
Wendy Murphy...
And the 88...
Denizens of Duhh...
ABC News Terry Moron...
The NY Times...
NCNAACP...
Potbangers...
The list goes on...

Now the question is: why would these people prefer to believe that a rape occured, rather than to believe that one hadn't?

Do these people wish for tornadoes and droughts and other disasters?

Anonymous said...

To Duke Law '72: I hear you, and I feel your pain. However, you are off the mark re Mosteller. He is not one to rush to the nearest camera, microphone, or reporter's notepad. Should he have spoken up sooner? Perhaps, but he would then have had the same CNN, MSNBC, and NPR "I want my 15 minutes of fame" aura that Coleman, Haagen, and to a lesser extent, Metzloff had. Mosteller held his fire and chose to utilize a scholarly venue that will have lasting power and credibility. I doubt very seriously that in 15 years, serious academicians and journalists will quote Coleman's asinine letter to the Duke Chronicle, Haagen's "helmet sport" smear, or Metzloff's miquetoast "ethics" analyses. Instead, thay will cite Mosteller. And rightfully so.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: "Something happened...". Absolutely something happened... an alarming number of fraudulent faux intellectuals were, and continued to be, exposed for what they are - fools.

"* The accusing witness’s testimony regarding the alleged assault would have been contradicted by other evidence in the case from numerous sources;

• The accusing witness’s testimony regarding the alleged assault and the events leading up to and following the allegations would have been contradicted by significantly different versions of events she told over the past year;

• No testimony or physical evidence would have corroborated her testimony;

• The accused individuals were identified through questionable photographic procedures;

• Credible and verifiable evidence demonstrated that the accused individuals could not have participated in an attack during the time it was alleged to have occurred;

• The accusing witness’s credibility would have been suspect based on previous encounters with law enforcement, her medical history and inconsistencies within her statements"

no justice, no peace said...

An interesting twist...

"I would like to think that somebody who was not in the bathroom has the human decency to call up and say, “What am I doing covering up for a bunch of hooligans?” . . . I’d like to be able to think that there were some people in that house that were not involved in this and were as horrified by it as the rest of us are." - Mike Nifong

"I would like to think that somebody IN THE DUKE FACULTY OR ADMINISTRATION has the human decency to call up and say, “What am I doing covering up for a bunch of FAUX INTELLECTUAL, FRAUDULENT ACADEMICS?” . . . I’d like to be able to think that there were some people in that FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION that were not involved in this and were as horrified by it as the rest of us are." - No justice, no peace

Debrah said...

This is so excellent!

KC's up for another blog or "blawg" award.

When you go over to the website to vote, it's a bit confusing. At first you might think you have to go down the entire list of 100 blogs; however, to get to Wonderland to vote......click on the "Lawyers Behaving Badly" category.

KC is already waaaaaaay ahead.

He's so thrilling!

Anonymous said...

2:59 No, the statement was from one of her stripper cohorts from the Platnium Club. Kim's statement was "put marks on me" whick also sounds like a bad movie script. We also prefer to be rich but sometimes it does not work that way. My point was Crystal did not need to go to the ED to score drugs.

Anonymous said...

I have never believed the "make the white boys pay" remark. That is right out of a bad movie script.

Actually it was straight out of Crystal's mouth. She told her fellow 'dancers' at a strip club that she was going to do just that.

river rat said...

Before I jump on the bandwagon praising Duke Law professor Robert Mosteller, I'd like to know what he was saying or doing while the CRIME was being committed against the targeted players and his actions while his fellow faculty members were behaving like the Duke Mau Mau movement?

It is of course commendable to come piss on the ashes of a dead fire - but more heroic to fight the fire while it is still a burning threat.

There still appears to have been too few faculty "heroes" on the Duke campus.

Keeping in mind - the faculty makes the University.....I fail to see justification for the tuition to attend Duke.

88 KNOWN miscreants on faculty is difficult to overcome......

Anonymous said...

The only people who still believe that something must have happened are either blind to or not familiar with the facts of the case especially the legal improprieties and the forensic evidence. But I still must congratulate CM. Out of the 45 or so players from what was essentially a flawed lineup procedure with no fillers, she managed to pick out two players with perfect alibis. LOL! No doubt she can ID with similar accuracy the men whose DNA were found on/in her.

Anonymous said...

Re duke law 72's comment (at 3:49)that "I have to go with Jim in San Diego. I have sat here in horror watching this attempted lynching and wondering where the hell is the Law School?"

I agree. While it is possible that some of the law professors were working behind the scenes to derail the hoax, I don't see a whole lot of evidence for that. Rather, it seems like they were looking at this whole tragedy as if it were something happening five states away instead of in their own back yards, to students at their own school.

That said, ALL of us in Durham, myself included, could have done more to fight this injustice. Hopefully, we will at least continue to push the legislature to enact some changes, such as grand jury reform, to reduce the chance of this happening again.

Ken Duke
Attorney at Law
Durham, NC

rrhamilton said...

First, I noticed this article from the Jerusalem Post. It looks like KC should feel like he's back home in New York City when he reads that Jews are being urged to fight global warming by burning one less Hanukah candle.

Meanwhile,
anonymous said...

The lead story, above-the-fold article at the Duke Chronicle website today was NOT "Karl Rove to Speak at Duke."

Instead, it was "Protesters Prepare for Rove." I kid you not.

12/3/07 6:33 PM


I have a way to stop what our former vice-president might call "the extra-chromosome Leftwingers", like Prof. Diane Nelson and her stripper crew, from disrupting speeches by their betters. Make all attendees turn over their student ID and/or their drivers licenses as a condition of attendance. Turn on the cameras, and if people want to misbehave, they'll have to leave without their IDs.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

I too much concur with Jim in SD and duke law 72. This is all fine and good, but the Duke law faculty including Mosteller were awol during the crisis.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the off-topic comment, but readers might be interested in a piece on the New York Times executive editor Bill Keller appearing at timeswatch.org. Keller states: "...we are agnostic as to where a story may lead; we do not go into a story with an agenda or a pre-conceived notion. We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda."

I guess Duff Wilson didn't get the memo.

Jim in San Diego said...

to anon at 5:40

Professor Mosteller has done a wonderful service to the scholarship of the hoax.

Professor Coleman contributed courage at a time courage was in short supply. Professor Mosteller is a scholar of the hoax. Professor Coleman is a hero of the hoax.

It has taken a while for those of us who are distant from Duke to appreciate just how surprisingly rare moral courage is at Duke. "Where was the law school?" is just the start. Where was everyone else?

It is not necessary to belittle one or the other. Both have their respected place in the continuing story.

Jim Peterson

mac said...

For those who would criticize Professor Mosteller as being "late": he's obviously someone who does his research, ponders the evidence and writes with integrity. He's not someone who does handstands for the crowd nor gets his exercise jumping to conclusions.

Doing some research and pondering evidence might have preserved some of the integrity (should there have been any integrity in any visible quantity) of the 88, who rushed to judge and opined with alacrity. Incredibly, they formed their opinions just days before the DNA came back negative, and then complained that things were "going backwards" when the evidence didn't suit their desired results.

no justice, no peace said...

Consumers of education speak...

This is why AAAs and Gender Studies MUST have a CCI mandate to ensure participation.

"Cancelling Black Studies Course Prompts Protest

San Antonio - The University of Texas at San Antonio's cancellation of an upcoming course within the African-American Studies Program has prompted the resignation of a professor and drawn criticism from some students. The university pulled "Africn-America Political Thought" from the spring semester because of a lack of student interest, officials said. Professor Frederick Williams, who resigned last week, said the canceled class had 27 students last spring. University spokesman David Gabler said that the university will continue to offer the black studies programs and that any canceled classes could be put back on the schedule in future semesters if demand increases."

traveler said...

Re: Clair Potter: Big Turkey Trots

Checking in with Claire, I noted she did not speak against the protesters suppressing the freedom of speech rights of others, just the fodder the speech protesters were providing the right wing attacks on academia.

Watching her linked video documenting the loons protesting David Horowitz, is a good illustration of how deep the liberal rot in academia really is. They have no honest conception of what freedom of speech really means.

Claire says, “Go protest the war….” Remember Diane Nelson marshalling her little dears to strip to the waist in protest of Horowitz speaking at Duke?

Diane and Claire(G½) are such fine examples of the Gang of 88's true discrimination policies. who would think it of college professors?

What must the faculty handbook say about this kind of behavior? Suppressing free speech, promoting political protests.. ..You don’t suppose Claire knows Diane? Shudder!
---------------------------------
Radical Thanksgiving: the Top Ten Turkeys

“2. The Turkey for Unnecessary Incivility Towards a Person Who Does Not Matter goes to students who thought an appropriate response to David Horowitz speaking on their campus was to attempt to restrict his speech by booing, throwing things, and childishly turning their backs on him. For the unnecessary fodder this provided for right-wing attacks on academia, click here. Please.

Go protest the war, as opposed to protesting people who say dumb things about the war.”
http://tenured-radical.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

As the professor stated, Nifong and Crystal both were the main players in this hoax. Crystal began the hoax, she fed it as it grew and she should be prosecuted. Criminally insane or not she should be prosecuted for her crimes. The imense pain, financial burden and harm she caused the three young men and their families was purposeful, malisious and with intent. She knew exactly what she was doing. There are witnesses that would testify that she did make comments about getting money from the rich white kids.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps the 88 and [not terribly clever] Claire simply are (still) having trouble processing the facts. I suppose one has to exercise patience when dealing with the learning disabled (that is their problem, isn't it? I mean, what else could it be?)"

That's a stupid and ignorant comment. I am learning disabled and I have studied learning disabilities extensively. There's no plausible way that learning disabilities could account for the behavior witnessed in the lacrosse Hoax. "What else could it be?" Well, let's try confirmation bias; people are likely to see things which fit their world view and filter out the rest. Then let's try cognitive dissonance, when people resist evidence that shows what they think they know might not be true, and rather than re-evaluating the evidence from scratch, they try to modify their previous hypothesis in as small ways as possible. Learning disabilities? You might as well try to blame it on left-handedness.

Debrah said...

TO 5:12 AM--

"Professor Coleman is a hero of the hoax."

Why must you continue with this?

There are many good points you've made on various subjects until you coat your comments with layer upon layer of emotional overkill.......as with the Innocence Project subject matter.

I will not sit back anytime the exaggeration above is applied. Even Coleman was uncomfortable with it....because he knew he was only stating the obvious.

No doubt, he is now trying to shed that appellation as fast as he can.

He has more self-serving endeavors to manage at Duke at this time.

BTW, I do wish you had been at Duke the night Stuart Taylor spoke on this subject.

Debrah said...

"....ALL of us in Durham, myself included, could have done more to fight this injustice."

You can say that again.

And.....it was more than a year ago I was asking where the Duke law school professors were.

No one would ever give a substantive reply.

We do know that Erwin Chemerinsky--who has now mercifully taken a position 3,000 miles away.....(where, no doubt, a cushy spot has been designed for the Chem's wife as well)--did spend his time going after the Abu Graib and the Att'y General Gonzales matters.

All of his and the others' concerns were safely miles away from Duke and the Lacrosse Hoax.

Michael in NH said...

re: 10:34

Actually she picked out three. The player that was with his girlfriend in another county.

mac said...

9:45

So many of the AA community in the City of Duhh have stated their desire for Crystal Gayle Mangum to have her day in court. Certainly she should have her day in court: as a defendant. That way, she can defend herself of the charges that she's:

1) not liable for making false charges by reason of mental incompetence.
2) liable for filing false charges and making false statements to police.

Yup. You're right. And so are the folks who think she should have her day in court.

I would also like to see the AA community, particularly in Duhh and at NCCU, begin to recognize that three white men used a black woman for their own sick, sorded, twisted and vile purposes.

The three?
Nifong
Gottlieb
Linwood Wilson

Add to that one white woman, Tara Levity, who manipulated a black woman's statements in order to promote her anti-male, every-woman's-a-rape-victim agenda.

The AA community of Duhh looks easily maneuvered, hoaxed, manipulated and duped; David Duke couldn't have done a more thorough job than Nifong and his collaborators. The AA community should be the ones calling for Nifong to be investigated by the feds, and for the prosecution of Nifong and his cronies.

The false accuser, Crystal Gayle Mangum, seems no better than those captive women who supposedly conspired with their owners during slavery. She went along with Nifong. She allowed herself to be used by him.

In this case, Nifong ran the plantation, but was aided by Cpl. Addison. We know what that analogy implies, don't we?

It seems that the outrage has been misapplied.

Debrah said...

H-S:

(Just for the record--the Jim Protzman character mentioned below is one of the biggest fools ever to walk around and breathe fresh air.)

**********************************************

Duke: Rove heckling didn't risk free speech

BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun
gronberg@heraldsun.com
Dec 5, 2007

DURHAM -- Duke University officials say they're not planning to discipline any students in connection with the heckling that occurred during former presidential adviser Karl Rove's appearance on campus Monday night.

Administrators didn't think the heckling ran afoul of Duke's community standard, which allows protest but forbids behavior amounting to "disruptive action or disorderly conduct."

Despite the heckling, "the conversation went on," Provost Peter Lange said. "There was no attempt to silence Mr. Rove."

Lange added that the hecklers' shouts never "rose to a level where they endangered the free-speech character of the event."

Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Larry Moneta agreed. "There were protest activities, but they were relatively small relative to the entire event," he said. "Freedom of expression was maintained."

Rove's appearance on the Duke campus had been expected to draw protests thanks to his ties to President Bush. Rove was until recently the president's top political adviser and is widely regarded as the architect of Bush's winning election campaigns.

Accounts of Monday's Page Auditorium event in The Herald-Sun and other media outlets agreed that the heckling occurred after organizers opened the floor to questions.

Rove was confronted by one particularly hostile questioner who accused him of being a traitor, and interrupted at a couple other junctures by shouts of "You're a murderer" and "9/11 was an inside job."

There also was at least one placard-bearing demonstrator inside the hall, and a group of people in the balcony dressed in orange jumpsuits and black hoods to protest the treatment of accused terrorists.

Duke officials had expected protests, but the presence of the demonstrators "walking around the [inside of the] auditorium" was a surprise, Lange said.

The provost added that he regarded the display as "completely legitimate" because the bearers "didn't block anybody's view."

Students active in conservative and Republican causes decried the protests. The leader of the Duke Conservative Union, David Bitner, said the protesters "didn't have manners."

Duke's community standard -- its version of a code of conduct -- doesn't specifically bar heckling but says the university will "protect the exercise" of free-speech rights "from disruption or interference."

The document says "the substitution of noise for speech and force for reason is a rejection and not an application of academic freedom."

It also addresses picketing, but in a qualified way by saying that "disruptive picketing, protesting or demonstrating on Duke University property or at any place in use for an authorized university purpose is prohibited."

Monday's event definitely qualified as "authorized university purpose," as it was co-sponsored by Lange's office, school President Richard Brodhead's office, the Duke political science department and two other groups.

Political science department Chairman Michael Munger tried to discourage Democratic Party activists from disrupting the event, posting on the BlueNC Web site a reminder that Duke is private property and an offer to help secure Duke facilities for anyone wishing to stage an alternative event.

It was not clear whether any activists took Munger up on his offer.

One activist, former Chapel Hill Town Councilman Jim Protzman, responded to the department chairman's posting with one of his own, under the pen name "Anglico," that requested "a 100-yard perp walk for Rove" to force the Bush aide to walk past protestors on his way into the auditorium.

Munger couldn't be reached Tuesday for comment.

Debrah said...

H-S:


Duke law school's Web site attacked

Duke University News Service
The Herald-Sun
Dec 5, 2007

DURHAM -- The Duke University School of Law has alerted some 1,400 people whose Social Security numbers were stored on a school Web site that the site was illegally accessed.

Officials have been contacting those affected as a precaution and do not know whether the intruders actually gained access to the information. The site stored data from prospective applicants who requested information from the school's admissions office. About 1,400 of those requesting information provided Social Security numbers.

The intrusion was discovered on Thursday by school officials who quickly took the site offline as a precaution, said William Hoye, the law school's associate dean of admissions. During ensuing security evaluations of the Web site and server, Duke computer experts found the database containing the Social Security numbers and determined that it was exposed during the attack.

"We have no evidence that the intruders actually downloaded or acquired any of this information," Hoye said in an e-mail to the prospective applicants Tuesday. "Nonetheless, we know they had the opportunity and the tools to do so."

The law school urged those whose Social Security numbers may have been at risk to take steps to monitor their credit and protect against identity theft. The e-mail provided information for accessing credit reports and activating fraud alerts, as well as contact information for school officials who could respond to questions.

School officials also said other databases at the law school, including those containing the e-mail addresses or personal information of students, employees and alumni, were unaffected by the incident.

Anonymous said...

no justice, no peace said...

An interesting twist...

"I would like to think that somebody who was not in the bathroom has the human decency to call up and say, “What am I doing covering up for a bunch of hooligans?” . . . I’d like to be able to think that there were some people in that house that were not involved in this and were as horrified by it as the rest of us are." - Mike Nifong

"I would like to think that somebody IN THE DUKE FACULTY OR ADMINISTRATION has the human decency to call up and say, “What am I doing covering up for a bunch of FAUX INTELLECTUAL, FRAUDULENT ACADEMICS?” . . . I’d like to be able to think that there were some people in that FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION that were not involved in this and were as horrified by it as the rest of us are." - No justice, no peace

12/4/07 6:02 PM


Outstanding analogy!

Anonymous said...

As massive as the Duke Hoax was, the outcry from the law school on campus was minimal. In fact, it was about equally divided:

FOR LYNCHING:

Ralph B. Everett - Wrote the article in the local newspaper stating that Mike Nifong had every right to hide the exculpatory evidence.

Karla Holloway - Original Gang of 88er, wrote articles, quit Campus Culture Initiative to make anti-lax point and turned over defamatory quadruple hearsay to hurt the students.

NOT FOR LYNCHING:

James Coleman - Argued that Nifong was out of control during the Hoax in newspapers and "60 Minutes."

Robert Mosteller - Wrote a law review article after the criminal hoax had been put to bed.

Can the Law School's legacy in the Hoax be explained by the fact that the school publishes the "Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy"? Did all the professors see what Coleman was doing and think to themselves, "I can't add anything to that"? Did any "chilling effect" on speech (or on confronting the Hoax) affect the professors? Did the professors not watch or read local and national news and newspapers? MOO! Gregory

Debrah said...

As a tiny Diva sidebar: The results of my last poll was compelling.

Although only about half the participants I had wanted actually voted, the results were interestingly similar.

That means the participants inside Wonderland have gleaned similar impressions of and have gotten similar vibes from KC.

I have left a comment on the results under the Venetian Mask.....and the new poll is a generally provocative question that should be of interest to anyone.

For the record: The Diva does not "believe" in astrology. It's only a most curious topic which often holds too many coincidences to be coincidences.

If some of you believe in heaven and hell, that's just as much of a potentially ridiculous belief, IMO.

Both heaven and hell are right here on earth. If you haven't experienced that fact, then you've been indoors too long.

Let go and have fun!

Jim in San Diego said...

To: Debra, re: Professor Coleman

Debra,

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

My experience is moral courage is very rare. Professor Coleman sttod up when it counted.

We now know, as we did not suspect then, the ferocious pressures within Duke to conform. This magnifies, in retrospect, Professor Coleman's role.

Subsequently, he has made some puzzling and unworthy statements. Clearly from his point of view, if not ours, the hoax is over and he is no longer willing to fight the Duke Groupthink, at least not publicly. So be it.

My admiration remains for what he did when no one else wanted the job of speaking for due process.

Jim Peterson

dave in l.a. said...

If, per debrah's 12/5 10:34 AM, the Herald-Sun and "Duke university officials" are to be believed-- ingesting mass quantities of NaCl here-- the disruption of Karl Rove's appearance at Duke turned out to be No Big Deal, certainly not on the order of what happened to Jim Gilchrist at Colulmbia University, or to David Horowitz and Anne Coulter on campi routinely.

rrhamilton @ 12/4 11:58 PM said:

I have a way to stop what our former vice-president might call "the extra-chromosome Leftwingers", like Prof. Diane Nelson and her stripper crew, from disrupting speeches by their betters. Make all attendees turn over their student ID and/or their drivers licenses as a condition of attendance. Turn on the cameras, and if people want to misbehave, they'll have to leave without their IDs.

Turn on the cameras. That's exactly what they did at my university after about the umpteenth disruption of a speaker by radical left "protesters. And then, following the "disciplinary hearings" (at which no one was ever disciplined, of course), the names of the protesters were included in the "disciplinary hearing committee" report. The names were picked up and republished by the campus organs, and before long the key disrupters at event after event 1) were known by everyone; 2) were derided by everyone; and 3) became bywords for "intolerant," "trouble," and "fool." The routine disruptions of campus speakers dropped to nothing within a couple of years.

Photograph, label, and publish. Although mobs prefer anonymity (which is why they are mobs), attendance at a public event is a waiver of privacy rights, which can even be noted in event announcements. Who actually instigates or participates in "protests" and disruptions is manifestly in the public interest to know.

Who are the clowns holding the "CASTRATE" banner in that well-known photo? Everyone ought to know. Or what about the pot-bangers march? A YouTube release of that video with sub-titled i.d.s of the participants as they appear onscreen would be a fitting memorial to all those jolly marchers. And, again, useful to know.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know the penalty for filing a false police report in NC?

I know that it's minimal..up to a $500 fine..or something.

That needs to be changed and the penalty should somehow relate to the severity of the false crime that was alleged. I realize that it could get murky but, the law could be written (maybe not in NC) so that the standard of evidence for a "false" report was sufficiently high.

A $500 fine ( or whatever) for all of the damage that CGM inflicted is just ridiculous and I suspect that it was at least a factor in the decision not to bring charges against CGM.

Anonymous said...

That would be Robinson Everett

mac said...

12:31
The social cost of doing nothing with regard to CGM may be worth much more than $500, $5000 or $50,000. The Something Happened crowd (Victoria Peterson) need to be shut out of any future conversations on the subject.

Most of all, a public decimation of the false charges might make it less likely that someone will repeat the performance.

Anonymous said...

"I am sure the Duke Chronicle will not lead with a story, on the day that Amada Fishwrinkle gives the Commencement Address, with an article dealing with plans to protest her address."

Is Claire Potter (nee Amanda Fishwrinkle) a communist?

Anonymous said...

To "dave in l.a." at 12:12 PM:

Thanks for your input on ways to stop the leftist thugees from interfering with the free speech rights of others. I do have an additional concern: If and when the leftists are shamed from their thuggish conduct, will they turn to more extreme violence? I mean, would you really be surprised to hear, in the future, that an Ann Coulter speech had been targeted by a homicide bomber?

RRH

Anonymous said...

river rat and others - here is what I think is so significant about Mosteller - he related his views in a scholarly publication, and did so thoroughly and exhaustively and persuasively. And more to the point, he did was true liberals or progressives are supposed to do - champion individual rights and explore ways to appropriately limit the abuses, or potential for the same, of state power. This is something that the radical hard core left, such as the Gang of 88, is scarcely interested in any longer, unless it luckily coincides with a collateral agenda.

So what I wait with anticipation as to whether any professor, but most particularly a Duke professor, will attempt to rebut Mosteller's work. I doubt it. It would only invite ridicule.

no justice, no peace said...

"“It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.” —George Washington

This just tells me that the affirmative action hires at Duke are clearly not ambitious.

"...misery on ages yet unborn."

Tis a staggering amount of responsibility to bestow upon so many who are frauds.

Anonymous said...

To the anonymous at 12:54, who wrote:

"That would be Robinson Everett"

undoubtedly referring to my post at 10:49 a.m., in which I castigated some unknown guy named Ralph B. Everett. The anonymous poster at 12:54 p.m. is right, the correct name is Robinson Everett for the Duke Law professor who wrote the letter backing Nifong's view of "exculpatory evidence."

In my defense, I've been smoking a lot of pot lately. MOO! Gregory

William Jockusch said...

The emphasis on procedures is not a bad thing, but it's also not what is really needed. What is really needed is some serious time for Nifong, Gottlieb, Wilson, etc. That, and only that, will give police and prosecutors reason to clean up their acts.

Gary Packwood said...

RRH 1:59 PM said...

If and when the leftists are shamed from their thuggish conduct...
::
That is part of the problem with our response to the extremists. They are not going to be shamed.

Ever!

While we are blogging away trying to shame several of the extremists, they are laughing at us and moving forward.

They enjoy and are amused by our attempts to shame them yet they are intolerant of those who criticize them.

We need to help cut off their source of financial nourishment if we want to see their heartless and violent behavior reduced or eliminated in our universities.

And...not become extremists ourselves.
::
GP

Ralph Phelan said...

"If and when the leftists are shamed from their thuggish conduct, will they turn to more extreme violence?"

I am far more concerned that if they are allowed to get away with it they will continue to escalate.

As to whether it's plausible that things could really go that far - Theo van Gogh and Pym Fortuyn.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"I am sure the Duke Chronicle will not lead with a story, on the day that Amanda Fishwrinkle gives the Commencement Address, with an article dealing with plans to protest her address."

Is Claire Potter (nee Amanda Fishwrinkle) a communist?

12/5/07 1:43 PM
-----------------------------------

Oh dear. You must be new here.

It is Barbara Kingsolver who was recently unmasked as (nee)Amanda Fishwrinkle. Not to be confused with the subject of Moe the barman's unsuspecting shout "I need Amanda Huggenkiss!"

Claire Potter, a proud lesbian (not that there's anything wrong with that), will always be nee Claire Potter.

I believe there was a famous Asian communist called Pol Potter, or something like that anyway, but I don't think they're related.

Anonymous said...

3:29PM May all your sins be so grievious. 12:54PM

dave in l.a. said...

To rrh at 12/5 1:59 PM:

If and when the leftists are shamed from their thuggish conduct, will they turn to more extreme violence?

Ted Kaczynski never carried a placard. Neither did the Weathermen. Serious people who use violence seriously as a medium of protest have their own twisted reasons for it, but shame over being photo-ops at speaker protests and demonstrations probably isn't one of them.

Campus hecklers and potbangers aren't serious people. They are rebels without a clue, and engage in their antics as long as it's modishly fashionable and there's no significant peer disapproval– or too much exposure outside the event. Let them exercise their free speech rights all they want, but put their names and faces on the internet so that everyone on campus knows who they are, friends, family and future employers are able to see what they've been up to at school, and total strangers start leaving snarky comments at their MySpace site, and with a whimpered protest of victimhood, they'll retreat into their hermetic little worlds faster than Professor Potter. They may post more vociferously at moveon.org thereafter, but they won't resort to violence. They lack the conviction and the courage. In addition to having nothing, really, to say.

Anne Coulter has already been attacked at a speaking engagement, I believe. By a pie thrower.

This is way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.

Debrah said...

TO 8:48 PM--

Very good points and accurate.

People who show up in groups to scream and yell and display themselves are the same people you knew in high school who ran down mailboxes in the neighborhoods and rolled yards with tissue paper in the middle of the night.

They aren't--well, most of them--dangerous in a violent way; however, their tactics disrupt proceedings and bully the meek into going their way.

If allowed to operate with abandon, they result in the Gang of 88.

Their harm is slow and insidious and it works on the psyche and the emotions which are ultimately more dangerous to society as a whole.

(BTW, I have a newspaper delivery guy who looks a lot like Ted Kuzynski--an untended, straggly beard and scruffy demeanor--and he's a strange passive-aggressive type.

I complained about the fact that he often neglects to put my paper in a plastic bag and it gets torn when he throws it and it skids on the sidewalk.

The very next day......he didn't say a word but my paper was wrapped in 12 plastic bags! This is the creepy brand of mentality of someone who is angry but they express it on the sly. I don't trust passive-aggressive people or of what they are capable.)

LIS!

Anonymous said...

"While we are blogging away trying to shame several of the extremists, they are laughing at us and moving forward."

Yes, very nervous laughter, I would think.

dave in l.a. said...

Thank you, debrah @ 12/6 10:46 AM.

To GP @ 12/5 4:48PM:

While we are blogging away trying to shame several of the extremists, they are laughing at us and moving forward.

I have to agree with 12/6 10:46 AM:

Yes, very nervous laughter, I would think.

And they're not so much moving forward as crabbing sideways. They don't dare march headlong into this fray again.

And this is how you deal with G88ers on their own turf. (Even if you don't know who Prof. Matory is, he'll seem awfully familiar.)

river rat said...

To all those still wishing to heap praise upon Mosteller's scholarly response to the Duke and Durham Mau Mau attack against the innocent -- all I can say is thank GOD the boy's families didn't wait for Mosteller to come to his conclusions..

The boys would have been hung by now -- waiting for the LAW SCHOOL faculty to come to the defense of the LAW, or the Administration to insure due process for their students.

Thank God these academics have nothing more lethal than their tongues to waggle or books to throw....
A person could get killed waiting for Constitutional protections, amongst a faculty comprised of racists, bigots, cowards and feckless imbeciles...

mac said...

7:33 River Rat,

Did you read Mosteller's work? It was carefully footnoted, thought-out and measured; it was the most coherent analysis of the case since UPI, and provides a safe distance from the events from which to survey the entire scene of battle.

I'd say that Mosteller's timing was best chosen, coming after people like Piot and Cassidy had the opportunity to make themselves look ridiculous.

Not to say that Mosteller shouldn't have spoken up, both early and often, but we should all recognize the differences between the generals, the soldiers and those who assess the battle after-the-fact. Or the differences between the emergency room, critical care units and the rehab center (not speaking of the "rehab tour of the 88, of course.")

No battle is clean; no strategy is perfect; no time is right: the best we can hope for is honor, and with honor, victory.

We should choose to honor the latecomers to the battle, too, as they sometimes sway the battle, and hold territory already taken.