Monday, February 11, 2008

Taylor on "Sex Workers'" Show

As a private university, Duke can set any standard of behavior for its student body that it desires. If it wishes to follow the advice of Group of 88 stalwart William Chafe and imitate BYU and Liberty by becoming a dry university, it has every right to do so.

What it does not have the right to do, however, is apply one standard of behavior to politically correct students and another standard of behavior to all other students. In the aftermath of the lacrosse case, Duke adopted a new rule, which stated, "Strippers may not be invited or paid to perform at events sponsored by individual students, residential living groups, or cohesive units." Note that the rule was an absolute prohibition: it did not exempt strippers invited for politically correct purposes or by politically correct groups.

My colleague Stuart Taylor explored the issue in his column this week for National Journal, and Kristin Butler critiques the regulatory doublethink behind Duke's actions.

65 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting,

The only negative things we have heard about the Duke Lacrosse players was boorish behavior by hiring stripers.

Now we hear that the university pays for strippers to perform vulgar acts on campus.

I wonder how this will fair in the case against Duke?

Can coach Pressler now unequivocally state that the Lacrosse players did absolutely nothing wrong, not even boorish behavior?

Does the Duke Lacrosse Team now have much more ammunition in their pouches?

Tom E.

jamil hussein said...

I haven't checked in for a while. Duke University still makes me sick.

W. R. Chambers said...

As reported in Taylor's excellent article, Duke Provost Peter Lange responding to KC's email asking about the conflict between Duke's new absolute ban strippers at Duke and the recent Sex Worker's Art Show:

"There is an obvious difference," Lange responded, "between strippers performing at a private party and a group of artists touring university campuses across the country to present a show with political discussion, musical theater, and displays of sexuality."

Indeed. Here are descriptions from Taylor's article of some of the performances at the show:

"The performers did not just take their clothes off -- and the actual nudity part of the show was rather tame. But mere nudity could hardly compare with a show that began with the Art Show's founder and director, Annie Oakley, imploring the audience to stand up and shout 'I take it up the butt!'...

"A transvestite, naked except for some strategically placed tape, with the words 'F___ Bush' painted on his chest, kneeled on all fours and lit a sparkler protruding out of his rectum with 'America the Beautiful' playing...

"A stripper, in the guise of a U.S. flag-draped Lady Justice, ... yanked a string of dollar bills out of her posterior as the sound system played Dolly Parton's version of 'God Bless the U.S.A.' She ended her act by saluting and holding up her middle finger to the crowd. The announcer referred to the performance as her 'Infamous Patriot Act.' Her most private area was kept covered by a small American flag...

"A dominatrix donned a large 'strap-on' male sex organ, and pretended to masturbate while the crowd was urged to shout 'faster, faster,' in Chinese.


Here's the rule that Lange finds inapplicable:

"Strippers may not be invited or paid to perform at events sponsored by individual students, residential living groups, or cohesive units."

Makes perfect sense .... at Duke.

Anonymous said...

I'll post this again for those who missed Larry Moneta's reasoning as to why it's OK for the angry womens studies, student health center and the other various women's rape prevention groups to sponsor a sex workers show, but not allow the Lax players to hire a stripper:

"Larry Moneta, Duke's vice president for student affairs, said the performance "raised issues for discussion." Asked about the difference between the art show and the lacrosse team's hosting strippers, he said, "one served the purpose of personal gratification and the other had educational value."

The show, according to Shalin and Larrey's description, and clips posted on YouTube, was well received by the audience. The head of the show, who goes by the name Annie Oakley, said most of the performances were readings that described performers' experiences in the sex industry. The performances also included a male stripper who crouched on his hands and knees in a kiddie pool and appeared to put a lit sparkler in his rear end. "

Moneta's comment defies logic as the whole reason for these people's work is for personal gratification. Not sure there is a whole lot of educational value in watching a guy with a lit sparkler in his butt, but hey what do I know about education at an elite university like Duke. Maybe it's really a metaphorical narrative about the "Assclowns" in the Administration and the Angry studies departments ?

don t. said...

It makes a lot of us OLD alums more than sick. What is hard to believe is that we have a BOT that apparently sees nothing abhorent in all this. Why brodhead, maneta(sp), and their ilk are still around mystifies me...and a lot of others. I live in a small college town (university of about 15,000) and associate with many professors and employees of the school. People try to be nice but I can tell you they think Duke is a joke.

And then we get a nice little rah rah letter today from brodhead telling us about the great things going on at Duke. The man has no conscience. Talks about how many applicants we have had this year...set records. Hell, everybody is applying because they figure they can get in now.

Gotta go take my blood pressure pill.

trinity60

Gary Packwood said...

I'm certainly no fan of the Sex Workers Art Show but Stuart, KC and Ken Larrey are so far to the political right on this issue that Hucklbee wouldn't own up to 'nowing ya'll.

You can't surgically remove an 'art show' from the body Duke and expect to see the fever and infection disappear.

The infection was inadvertently introduced by President Nan Keohane and the BOT a decade or so ago when they hired about one hundred staff professionals to provide 'programming' for the undergraduate students at Duke and the community at large.

In 2001 they tried 'hate crimes.
http://www.duke.edu/~dbc4/resonance/literature/assignments/duke/presltr.htm

In 2006 they tried sexual assault which we all know about.

Now, in 2008 they are attempting to move their 'programming' under the 'Community Health' tent at Duke and re-package hate crimes, sexual assault and sex workers as community health problems with the new and improved 'Healthy Devil' label on the package. The Sex Workers Art Show was 'framed' as a Community Health and Health Promotion event.

http://healthydevil.studentaffairs.duke.edu/forms_policies/peer_education/hd_app/index.html

Apparently it makes no difference that Duke has no problem with hate crimes, sexual assault or students who do not have access to a TV or computer to know about Sex Workers and PORN.

Its not about the truth. It is about holding on to that Duke paycheck.

These campus 'programmers' had nothing to do a decade ago and they still have nothing to do. They make stuff up, for goodness sake...and we get to watch 'community health' and 'health promotion' as the 'set your hair on fire' issue for the next several years. Smoking dope will probably be introduced later this year.

http://www2.medicine.duke.edu/home.asp?divisionID=86

http://healthydevil.studentaffairs.duke.edu/about_us/staff/health_promo/index.html

President Nan, bless her heart, tried to introduce these politically left programs under the assumption that the community around Duke was New York City or Chicago, LA or San Francisco with hundreds of thousands of citizens who would resonate or perhaps vibrate with all of these left leaning programming.

It didn't happen and It. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Durham is not large enough for this type of programming and the undergraduate students at Duke are far far more sophisticated than the ordinary young person who is the target market for these programs.

These campus Dog and Pony shows need to be taken out into Durham to help the truly poor and the truly troubled citizen or Duke need to cut bait instead of re-packaging these programs every two years or so and harassing the study body at Duke...and creating a hostile work environment for the kids.

In My Opinion.
::
GP

jamil hussein said...

Yes, I think this should be used in lawsuits against Duke. (I believe other players sued Duke and it hasn't been settled yet).

bill anderson said...

Somehow, I do not think that the behavior by the lax players was anywhere near as boorish as what I saw on the video of this latest Duke escapade. Simply unbelievable. The arrogance is something that one has to see to believe.

Anonymous said...

A Duke University freshman claimed he raped her in the bathroom at a house party on February 11, hosted by Duke students and members of the black fraternity Phi Beta Sigma. As you can see, the suspect is black. The alleged victim is white.

This happened right after the so call Duke rape. No one had marches, no one called for the students to be expelled for raping a white student. Dual standards. Duke and its activists will be trying to explain to a jury why he closed a Lax team down, but not a black frat.

Debrah said...

Love this column by Stuart.

I wonder if the members of the 2006 lacrosse team have heard about Duke's Super Bowl stripper show.

It's just amazing how this particular show was so acceptable to Brodhead and his administration.

One has to wonder if this kind of repulsive sexual expression rings their bells on a personal level.

Do women have to be as grotesque as those in this show to be approved?

IMO, not enough has been made of the fact that the lacrosse captains who hired the strippers asked for Hispanic or white strippers. They were not looking to "abuse and exploit" a black woman.

Quite the contrary.

If the team had been racist they would not have allowed Mangum and Roberts inside the house even though they were far from what was expected for such a large amount of money.

It's criminal how these lies were perpetuated in the media.

Debrah said...

A replacement for Burness.

In the comment section after this article, a reader advised Schoenfeld to read UPI.



Duke alumnus to replace Burness

BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun
Feb 12, 2008

DURHAM -- Duke University is hiring one of its own alumni away from another leading private university to replace departing Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations John Burness.

The school announced Monday that Michael Schoenfeld, a 1984 Duke graduate who holds a comparable post at Vanderbilt University, will take over for Burness on July 1.

Schoenfeld, 45, was a leading candidate for the job from early on in the hiring process. Duke officials announced Burness' retirement plans in October and launched the search the following month.

Vanderbilt officials say in the decade he's led it, Schoenfeld made their school's public affairs effort one "of the most creative and innovative" at any of the county's universities thanks in part to its use of the Internet and television.

Duke's leaders are clearly hoping to capitalize on that expertise.

"From the first, we heard of Michael Schoenfeld as one of the most outstanding communications people in all of higher education," Duke President Richard Brodhead said. "We looked at lots of terrific candidates, but he just emerged head and shoulders above any other."

The new vice president's impending move from Nashville, Tenn., to Durham is a homecoming not just for him, but his wife Elizabeth, a fellow Duke graduate. The Schoenfelds met as students and were married in Duke Gardens.

"This is really probably the most desirable job of its kind in higher education," Michael Schoenfeld said on Monday. "It is really the only job in higher education for which I'd leave Vanderbilt, and I've had opportunities."

Burness is stepping down after a 17-year stint as Duke's public-affairs point man.

The school is splitting his current responsibilities, allocating the media affairs office and federal and state relations to Schoenfeld and giving another administrator, Vice President for Durham and Regional Affairs Phail Wynn, the lead role in talking to local government.

Schoenfeld joined the staff at Vanderbilt in 1997. He now runs that school's media relations office, is its chief lobbyist at the local, state and federal levels, and runs Vanderbilt's charitable contributions program.

Before going to work for Vanderbilt, he was senior vice president for policy and public affairs at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in Washington, D.C.

"For a pretty young man, he has an extraordinary record of accomplishment," Brodhead said.

Schoenfeld said Duke officials made the first move in contacting him about the opening.

After that, "the more time I spent with President Brodhead and his team and the more I looked at all the exciting things happening at Duke in academics, community service and elsewhere, it quickly became the irresistible opportunity in this profession," he said.

He acknowledged that the school's image took a hit last year thanks to the controversy surrounding a stripper's false alleged that she'd been raped by three members of Duke's men's lacrosse team.

In assessing the incident's fallout, "the first thing I think I need to do is listen and listen very carefully to what people are saying at Duke and in the community about that," Schoenfeld said. "I wasn't there and don't pretend to understand the nuances. But any university can go through periods of tremendous public stress. Duke been under microscope probably in a way no other university has in the past quarter century. There will be residue and aftermath from that."

Nonetheless, Brodhead, faculty members and students have all voiced "a strong desire to move on and deal with the issues at hand and the great strengths the university has," Schoenfeld said.

Anonymous said...

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Anonymous said...

The cure for the anti-intellecutalism on campus is *not* going "dry" or requiring students to live all four years on campus -- as suggested in the Chafe post. The cure is to hire professors who teach important ideas and who can inspire in students intellectual curiosity -- i.e., stop hiring anit-intellectual professors.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

Good questions, Tom E. I hope the plaintiffs' attorneys are watching and reading. Duke has provided a heaping spoon full of fodder. It's really difficult to believe that these people have doctorates. Brodhead and company never disappoint.

Anonymous said...

Where are the shrill voices of the Gang of 88 with regard to all this? WE'RE LISTENING!

In one hand said...

The statements by Peter Lange (someone I respect) and Larry Moneta (someone I do not respect) were downright silly. I watched the show without reading criticisms of it first. As a man and Duke alum who actually enjoys porn to a degree, I found the entire show lacking in every measure as described by Annie Oakley, LMo, and Lange. It had no value whatsoever. Political, free speech, educational. AND, the performers were just as disgusting as Crystal. It made so sense to host it. It made no sense to allow it. It makes no sense to defend it. It makes no sense to differentiate from hiring private strippers. Duke is a fantastic University in spite of its leadership and their decisions. Fortunately, but sadly, that proves why Dick Brodhead remains president and Robert Steel remains Chairman. Not enough people care.

traveler said...

Tom E. said………..
Can coach Pressler now unequivocally state that the Lacrosse players did absolutely nothing wrong, not even boorish behavior?
---------------
Speaking of Mike Pressler, Lucianne.com, has a good article about him today.
---------------
Convicted Without Trial
Men's Health, by Bill Stump

.......but there's one character in this uniquely American passion play about whom you still know very little: Mike Pressler, the former head coach of the Duke University lacrosse team and the only university employee to lose a job...
http://www.lucianne.com/

Anonymous said...

After reading Stuart Taylor's article, all I could think of is where's your Group of 88 now, Duke?

What a morally corrupt and two-faced administration.

nike mifong said...

I love this blog - I haven't been read it in a while but I love that your work has not stopped.

I heard that you are writing or wrote a book. Is this true?

Debrah said...

Return of the Stripper by Kristen Butler.

duke09parent said...

The SWAS at Duke is certainly another "Wonderland" moment.

I did note in reading the link to your earlier essay on Chafe that you agreed with his suggestion to prohibit students from hiring strippers.

I wish fewer college students drank to get drunk, too. In my view the current 21 and over state laws on drinking promote that culture. I support the lowering of the drinking age to 18 in combination with stronger educational programs on the issue. See the "Choose Responsibility" site here: http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/

Anonymous said...

It has been suggested that the Duke Board of Trustees won't fire Broadhead for his role in the lacrosse case, because to do so would implicitly admit guilt.

Now it has the perfect opportunity to fire Broadhead, along with Moneta, Bryan, and others, for a completely unrelated reason: their egregious violation of Duke rules against having strippers perform on campus. If the Board has any sense at all (doubtful), it will seize this opportunity.

Anonymous said...

William & Mary President just resigned upon learning his contract would not be renewed. The preciopitating event appears to have been the very same "Sex Workers Art Show" which he permitted as an exercise of free speech.

Anonymous said...

Just read that William & Mary's President has not had his contract renewed, and one of the reasons was that he allowed a sex show on campus--the description of which sounded EXACTLY like what was described here! Is there any hope Brodhead will meet a similar fate?

Speaking of Brodhead, I just got my first alum letter from him in ages yesterday. I tossed it.

T. Randall Taylor said...

Apparently, the President of William and Mary has been forced out, in part at least because he allowed the (supposedly) same stripper show on campus. His defense? He would have violated the First Amendment by banning them.

??????

Does one suppose that stripping is protected free speech, and that Duke's prohibition is unconstitutional? I think not, but I am no constitutional scholar. It does seem to me, however, that claiming that stripping onstage vs. stripping at a party is a distinction without a difference. Either act could justifiably assert artistic merit.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPMOPpzQ0m3QwT7VoT3MnI46-RawD8UP03GG1

becket03 said...

The Board of Trustees at William and Mary forced the president of the university to resign today. Among other factors blamed for his ouster was his allowance of a performance on campus by this same group of trendily transgressive strippers and sex freaks.

Would that Brodhead, who's committed far worse offenses than the sap at W&M, be similarly dispatched by the BOT at Duke.

Fat chance.

beckett

TaterCon said...

Hmmmm..... is it "Nekkid dancin' for me, but not for thee..."?

TaterCon

Anonymous said...

Not that it is forbidden by the rule, but it still seems like the time is ripe for someone with a camera and some free time to catch a few of the self-righteous Duke administrators and faculty staggering out of the local strip clubs at closing.

Debrah said...

Ken Larrey's letter in the N&O:

Vulgarity as art

There is a very good reason that Duke Students for an Ethical Duke posted video of the Sex Workers Art Show on our blog, ethicalduke.blogspot.com.
The main reason is so that people like Larry Moneta, vice president for Student Affairs at Duke, cannot possibly pass off the event as either "education" or "art" ("Freedom at Duke," letter to the editor, Feb. 8). The kind of vulgarity that was on display in the show cannot even be politely described in print.

While on target, Ruth Sheehan's Feb. 6 column actually included an extraordinarily mild account of what was a night of epic bacchanalia. For that, Moneta and other Duke administrators should be thankful.

Ken Larrey

Durham

Debrah said...

Watch this be swept under the rug:

Audit: NCCU official stole thousands

The Herald-Sun
Feb 13, 2008

DURHAM -- A high-ranking administrator at N.C. Central University stole thousands of dollars in federal research grant money, possibly to pay off personal items bought with his university credit card, a state audit has concluded.

The official, NCCU assistant provost Franklin Carvter, also concealed a romantic relationship with a female student from 2003 until late 2006 in violation of NCCU policy, state Auditor Les Merritt said in the report, released Tuesday.

The probe began after a complaint to the auditor's hot line and involved money from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for minority biomedical research and health disparities grants at the historically black institution.

The student received a one-month research grant from the assistant provost worth nearly $3,000, although she never worked at NCCU. Another NCCU official blocked a one-year, $18,700 contract for the student.

The intimate administrator-student link "represents a very serious offense and the punishment should reflect this," the audit said.

The audit did not identify the assistant provost by name, but NCCU's Web site listed him as Franklin Carver.

NCCU said the assistant provost has been dismissed from the administration, but remains on the university faculty. Carver couldn't be reached for comment.

Merritt said the assistant provost improperly authorized $36,041 in graduate assistant contracts or other payments in 2003 and 2004 to several people, including a nephew and the nephew's girlfriend. Checks totaling $15,341 were actually cashed.

One student told investigators the assistant provost needed money so he could make payments on his credit card. Investigators also found delinquent charges and a notice to assign his university-issued card account to a collection agency.

The report, which included an August NCCU internal review, said auditors found that documents related to the improper payments contained phony information. And the report said it appears that a financial aid official's signature was falsified.

Merritt said federal and state prosecutors will be given his findings.

The assistant provost is NCCU's second-highest administrator for academic leadership, behind Beverly Washington Jones.

Jones and NCCU Chancellor Charlie Nelms were unavailable for comment Tuesday.

NCCU issued a statement saying that "we are now in the process of reviewing all associated policies and procedures to ensure compliance with state law and best financial practices. Where changes are appropriate, they will be made immediately."

"In addition, we will vigorously pursue financial restitution and will fully cooperate with the district attorney regarding any further legal review," NCCU said.

However, NCCU said that a tenured faculty member cannot be dismissed "until due process has been followed to its conclusion" and that personnel exemptions to the state open records law "prevent us from discussing proceedings" involving faculty.

Merritt spokesman Chris Mears said while state law does not prevent his boss from providing the name of an individual who was the subject of an audit, "it is just our standard policy" not to do so.

"We look at facts and we measure those facts and look at control measures and all the things that auditors look at. And therefore, it's really unneeded to mention the private names," Mears said.

Amanda Martin, an N.C. Press Association attorney, disagreed, saying the assistant provost's name "should be part of the public record."

Debrah said...

LOL!!!

Hillary's Dukakis-in-the-tank moment

Too funny.

Check out the links. They have tried to copy Obama and do a video, but it's so pathetic.

Search for Meaning said...

If the stakes weren’t so high, Duke’s hypocrisy would be humorous instead of alarming.

miramar said...

It's unfortunate that Peter Lange is forced to defend this show because I am sure that he knows full well how ridiculous it is and how poorly it reflects on the university. After all, this is the same Provost Lange who answered Houston Baker's racist screed and who had to confront the potbangers right in front of this house. And speaking of Baker, it seems that Duke made a good trade with Vanderbilt by getting Schoenfeld in return. I guess he was the player to be named later.

traveler said...

Re: Stuart’s column
National Review Online -
George Leef - Phi Beta Cons.

Another View on the "Sex Workers Art Show" at Duke Stuart Taylor, Jr. (co-author of Until Proven Innocent with K. C. Johnson) has a delectable column on the decision to bring to campus and pay for the gutter schtick that is the "Sex Workers Art Show."

It's delectable if you enjoy seeing craven hypocrisy called out. If, on the other hand, you think that college administrators should never be criticized for pandering to leftist mores, Taylor will make you cringe.

http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/

Anonymous said...

Just some good news to report about someone who has done a lot to fight out of control PC campus totalitarians. Kors was co-author of the book Shadow University. FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) is a great organization.

Hope KC does not mind.

SAVANT

"On Friday evening, FIRE co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Alan Charles Kors was awarded the Jeane Jordan Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award. The award—sponsored by The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and presented at the Conservative Political Action Conference's (CPAC's) Ronald Reagan Banquet—recognized Professor Kors's tireless work defending individual liberties on campus, including the founding of FIRE. In his acceptance speech, Professor Kors addressed the critical importance of fighting censorship and repression on campus."

Kors and FIRE clearly have a lot to keep them busy.

AF said...

Sadly, the university (and I use that term loosely) approved the dominatrix who had the audience chant "faster, faster" in Chinese while she stroked a large strap-on (we're talking at least 12 inches here, people) and whipped a dog collar-clad "slave" kneeling beside her.
Now it's time to see if alums and supporters have the complementary body parts for this "performer's prop" and clean house--both on the BOT and in teh ad building. With every action of these clowns, what little is left of Duke's reputation is now sullied. Coach K is even being affected since his silence indicated support for this group of hypocritical perverts.
As for the anger studies profs, can we say "true colors shining through?" How can you possible cry out against student who hire strippers for performance and paying a crowd of pathetic, weirdos to perform on stage using lewd and denigrating props?
If this is art, then it's time for college campuses to teach only math, English, science and history. This is as much art as Nifong is ethical or Boardhead is a leader.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee or start putting up for sale signs on that property in Durham.

Anonymous said...

would not chanting faster, faster in Chinese be offensive to some in the Asian community? that's not very PC

Anonymous said...

Most if not all of the SWAS were white as I understand it, so why must the Chinese language be made part of this absurd performance? Why not Latvian? Or Swedish? Is Chinese funny? Something to be mocked? Given the brutal history of the Chinese people in this country it seems to me the sponsors of this exibition could have more sensitive, and the Duke admin provide some oversight if they're going to encourage this sort of crap.

Mobile said...

I don't know for you but for me Holloway's comment on Liestoppers condeming "bodies available for taunt and tirade, whim and whisper" sounds about as right a condemnation of this as it could be. Maybe she got it right for once. Maybe somebody wrote it for her; but as an 88er, she seems to have some sense of moral judgement.

traveler said...

Sam Wells: Moral Sermonizing Part II:

Remembering how indignant the ‘VERY’ Rev. Sam Wells was concerning the ‘GUILTY’ lacrosse team, it seems only natural that he will offer a scathing sermon about the ‘Sex Workers Art Show.”

The pulpit in the Duke Chapel is just the place to win back the hearts and souls of sex workers, as well as errant young white men.

I think we should offer him a few ideas for his next foray into his mindless blather mode.

Sermon notes:
1. Discuss the size of the obscene “strap-on” male sex organ; causing anyone to feel less endowed is sexist. (Just think how the man in the dog collar must have suffered? Well, he may have felt less of a woman, so to speak.)

2. Discuss the use of sparklers as energy saving light features. Alternate sparkler ‘holder’ ideas to be placed in suggestion box.

3. Clean up the sullied reputation of Saint Bridget of Ireland.. One of the noble ‘pros’ used lyrics mocking the act of ascension as she climbed to the top of a stripper’s pole. (Sam is an Episcopal pastor from England, so he may know something about Saint Bridget we don’t.)

4. Discuss innovative ways to collect ‘Chapel’ money from the saved sex workers. People having money pouring out of their butt, explores new collection plate
[w]horizons. (Money laundering will take on a new meaning.)

5. Discuss the masturbation of strapped on objects, as a safe sex practice. The public viewing of said practice, as optional, as well as learning to speak Chinese.

Anonymous said...

While the Duke administration does indeed look hypocritical when the SWAS is referenced against the Duke "no strippers" policy, what's the solution? The SWAS was a student sponsored campus event, just as were appearances by Carl Rove, KC Johnson, David Horowitz, and others. If the Duke administration steps in to prohibit silly programs like SWAS, that could be a very dangerous precedent. We need to be careful to retain some perspective, or the cure might well be worse than the disease.

Anonymous said...

Remember, Nifong's behavior did not hatch full blown from some nether region. Niforng created his narrative of events in and with and among whole groups of people who think like his presented "facts," and in fact, Nifong and his ilk like the DukeGroup88 did not need "facts" for their politically correct point of view to be true nor were they required to know the "truth" as they knew the truth no matter what the facts were. It is why the term is referred to as "politically correct." They control the narrative or think they do. It was a narrative Nifong, consciously or unconsciously chose to expoit along with Duke's faculty of Yahoos and silent fence stratlers trying to survive in an increasingly intolerent academic environment of race and gender, and academia still doesn't get it . . . many things have made their "truth," dare I say it, academic. No drinking, no raping, not drugs (as if there are no laws for these things already) and no one even speaks of the young woman raped at an off campus party where such drugs and guns were found if I remember correctly, and for goodness sakes, well, we really did deserved 9-11, but what do academia know about anything except protected ignorance. They are too busy being politically correct. They must be more dangerous than militant Islam.

jamil hussein said...

"The probe began after a complaint to the auditor's hot line and involved money from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for minority biomedical research and"

Minority biomedical research??
Uh..

KC Johnson said...

To the 1.34:

The solution, it seems to me, is for Duke to enforce its own rules. If Duke believes it's OK for a politically correct student group to hire strippers, that's fine--but then the University has to repeal the rule prohibiting students or student groups from hiring strippers.

As it stands now, the University's position appears to be that it will enforce its rule against students or student groups whose motives administrators find distasteful, but will not enforce the rule against students or student groups whose motives are politically correct. That's an untenable position.

Debrah said...

I sent an email to Barry Saunders with a CC of it to N&O publisher Orage Quarles (as I always do).....asking him to take a look at the various blogs covering the Sex Workers Show at Duke.

Since he was all over the lacrosse story early on, I thought he should take a look at these particular strippers who were welcomed with open arms by the same Duke faculty who eviscerated the lacrosse players for something much less crude and lewd.

I haven't heard back and do not expect to.

This whole thing is really freakish in nature.

I'm happy to know that Gene Nichol--former dean of the UNC-CH law school--was fired from William & Mary for approving the Sex Workers Show among other missteps.

He's trying to make himself a martyr now.

No surprise.

Anonymous said...

KC at 2:17,

I don't disagree that Duke should not hold inconsistent positions, but I'm concerned about a different aspect of this. What if Duke had stepped in and banned SWAS? If that had occurred, the Duke administration would have been substituting its own judgement for that of the student groups who requested the program, and that, in my view, raises a very serious issue regarding speech rights, particularly in the context of academia. If the Duke administration can ban SWAS, who's next? Carl Rove? David Horowitz?

Debrah said...

"......just as were appearances by Carl (Karl) Rove, KC Johnson, David Horowitz, and others."

Amusing how this commenter uses lightning rod examples from the right and includes KC with them.

There is no comparison between a speaker at a podium of an auditorium and a group of malformed women gyrating on a stage with porno props......lecturing students about life.

Duke's Gang of 88 created a form of outrageous Kabuki theatre in the Spring of 2006 and are sticking by their opinions still.

Everything they invented and mouthed to the press in the quest to harm the lacrosse players is illustrated to a much higher degree by the Sex Worker Show.

Yet that freakish display is celebrated.

Gary Packwood said...

KC Johnson 2/17/2008 2/14 PM said..

...As it stands now, the University's position appears to be that it will enforce its rule against students or student groups whose motives administrators find distasteful, but will not enforce the rule against students or student groups whose motives are politically correct. That's an untenable position.
::
Perhaps.

It seems to me however that majority of those whose noses got bent of out shape with the lacrosse party dancers were women and the majority of those who are getting their noses bent out of shape with the Sex Workers' Art Show ...are men.

Now that's untenable.

Its called life in the USA.

Happy Valentines Day.
::
GP

Sholuting Thomas said...

"As it stands now, the University's position appears to be that it will enforce its rule against students or student groups whose motives administrators find distasteful, but will not enforce the rule against students or student groups whose motives are politically correct. That's an untenable position."

No, it's not an untenable position.

They can do it... they intend to do it... they will do it.

I wish I had something to say about this, but I'm speechless. Hatred and abuse of white hetero men is codified into law at Duke, and just about every other campus. Apparently, it is a "tenable" position, because those in authority continue to enforce their agenda.

They don't owe you nothing.

KC Johnson said...

To the 2.57:

You ask, "What if Duke had stepped in and banned SWAS? If that had occurred, the Duke administration would have been substituting its own judgement for that of the student groups who requested the program, and that, in my view, raises a very serious issue regarding speech rights, particularly in the context of academia. If the Duke administration can ban SWAS, who's next? Carl Rove? David Horowitz?"

For better or worse, Duke adopted a rule in 2006 banning students or student groups from hiring strippers. That rule didn't contain an exception clause for politically correct groups. No one, as far as I can tell, is denying that the groups that organized this event paid money for strippers.

If the student groups that invited Karl Rove or David Horowitz to campus included strippers as part of the Rove or Horowitz programs, I would assume that the rule would need to be enforced against these groups as well.

A case can be made, of course, that this rule is a silly example of Duke acting en loco parentis, and that that students or student groups should have the right to hire strippers--which is, after all, a legal activity. As a private university, Duke even would be within its rights to change its current rule to say "no students or student groups except for those with whose ideological agenda we sympathize can hire strippers." But the rule as it currently reads doesn't contain such language.

Having adopted the no-strippers rule with great fanfare--Duke made sure the press was informed about the rule change at the time--it seems to me that Duke should either (a) enforce the rule; or (b) eliminate the rule. Either way, I'm not sure what the rule prohibiting student groups from hiring strippers has to do with student groups inviting Karl Rove or David Horowitz to campus.

Anonymous said...

"What if Duke had stepped in and banned SWAS? If that had occurred, the Duke administration would have been substituting its own judgement for that of the student groups who requested the program, and that, in my view, raises a very serious issue regarding speech rights, particularly in the context of academia."
It is one thing to say that the student has a right to say (almost) anything due to free speech rights (you still can't yell fire in a crowded theater), but it is quite another to say the university has to provide a room to do it in and money to pay for it, as was the case with the so called SWAS.

Bill Alexander

Clapton said...

Remember that when David Horowitz did speak at Duke, Professors Diane Nelson, Jocelyn Olcott and Caroline Light (88ers all) tried to persuade the AUDIENCE to strip. What is it with Duke and stripping?

Anonymous said...

"I'm happy to know that Gene Nichol--former dean of the UNC-CH law school--was fired from William & Mary for approving the Sex Workers Show among other missteps.

He's trying to make himself a martyr now."

This is a guy whose campus got a "red light" rating from FIRE and who backed a plan to allow people to anonymously rat out others for speech "offenses".

I would disagree that he deserved to go down for approving the Sex Worker lunacy, but he did deserve to be canned for overseeing the crushing of speech. Good riddance.

SAVANT

Debrah said...

Krauthammer is trying to put a damper on the Diva parade.....

......and I shan't have it!

This is so similar to responses of those in the academy who are envious of KC and who have called his popularity a kind of "cult".

I call it a pedestrian way to explain that which is unexplainable.

It can only be understood inside The Diva World!

Anonymous said...

I can't get off the floor laughing about the guy with the sparkler stuck up his butt. If the lacrosse team had had sparklers instead of a broom, everything would be A-OK! Still laughing, cmf

Gary Packwood said...

Clapton 2/14/08 8:05 PM said...

...Remember that when David Horowitz did speak at Duke, Professors Diane Nelson, Jocelyn Olcott and Caroline Light (88ers all) tried to persuade the AUDIENCE to strip. What is it with Duke and stripping?
::
Angry studies people always work together to decide what act or action will 'freak-out' the conservatives.

Apparently Duke conservatives - including alums - are thought to 'freak' when nudity is used to make a statement.

In the 1960's placing an American flag on the back side of your Levis Jeans did the trick.

Never be provoked...should be the operational phrase.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

I am STILL laughing about the sparkler up the butt dude. ALSO, I read on the Chronicle website where someone posted that it is against the rule to use pyrotechnics in performances on campus. SO, they broke TWO rules -- assuming a sparkler is a pyrotechnic. cmf

traveler said...

"You will be judged by the company you keep."
No surprises here.
------------
Sex Workers’ College Tour
by: Bethany Stotts, February 15, 2008

In the wake of the departure of the president of the College of William and Mary over his scheduling of a sex workers’ art show, it is useful to know that the Flathats are not alone in their choice of extracurricular activities.

This semester the Sex Workers’ Art Show visited the following colleges:
January:
• UC Davis
• Northern Arizona University
• College of Santa Fe
February:
• Guilford College
• Duke University
• College of William and Mary
• George Mason University
• Bard College
• Harvard
• Rhode Island School of Design
• Wesleyan University—By the way, Wesleyan will have Ted Kennedy as its 2008 commencement speaker.
• University of Michigan
• Kenyon College
• Indiana University
Bethany Stotts is a staff writer at Accuracy in Academia

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=2148

traveler said...

Re: Not Moving On
--------------------
Daily Kos:
THE DUKE - REDUX by KAMuston

…..." Hell, $500 is about what each of the Lacrosse team members paid each of their two crazy ass strippers. I doubt it took those boys 11 months to raise their donations to that little evening. “……

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/13/111850/031/675/455952

Anonymous said...

To Debrah at 9:30: The Schoenfeld hire is a great one. I have been a staunch critic of the University's handling of the larosse fiasco, but its hiring of Scheonfeld is a good step forward. We were classmates at Duke and I believe Mike to be honest, fair, and practical. As Burness once said of Danowski: "he gets it", and so does Mike. I hope this signals a trend towards letting Duke be Duke.

No justice, no peace said...

One wonders if Larry Moneta, Richard Brodhead, and the Klan of 88 consider child and animal porn as art.

Where exactly does the line get drawn and by whom?

It is a Methodist-based institution, so I suppose there are some standards.

no justice, no peace said...

Inre: W&M President's other transgressions.

Isn't he the one who wanted to remove a cross from the chapel on the W&M campus?

mac said...

Didn't the lacross players pay $800
(not $500)?

Compare their pay to the $3500 (from student funds) for the "sex workers," and you can see that the "sex workers" are just a bunch of idiot amateurs. Who would hire them? I doubt that any of the 88 would have even used any of their own personal money for that silly shit.

CGM was the real deal: a real sex worker. Doubt that Duke would have paid her to perform.

Guess it's alright with Duke if you just play a hooker - sparklers and all - but they wouldn't have hired the real deal. (Where's Heidi Fleiss when you need to score a sex worker?)

I'm also wondering how much Dr. "Luv" Hardt committed to the evening's enchantment by way of personal endorsement? Did he give his personal wave to the event, much as he likes to speak with his flippery/flippity hands?

traveler said...

Methodist Church News: The porn radar is down for repairs:

... The Methodist church has long opposed pornography, arguing that it demeans women and does not uphold Christian values. ...
----------------------------------
“The Sex Workers Art Show” flies under the radar at Duke.(And other Methodist affiliated colleges.)

The radar failure is contributed to 88 dingbats flying into the chapel bell tower receiver. Bats in the belfry is a serious problem at Duke.

Duke suffered embarrassment AGAIN, due to the impaired radar system. The radar system routinely scans for smut and vulgarity disguised as freedom of speech.

The Methodist members on the BOT requested a clarifying statement concerning the [second] hiring of strippers to entertain college students, and (Gasp, Gasp,) double standard type faculty members.

The 88 double standard types resent the dreaded Puritans’ intrusion into their den of iniquity territory. Religion is so yesterday!

The Science department at Duke has applied for a federal grant to study alternative radar systems for the red-faced Methodist BOT members.

Meanwhile, the Methodist Church protects the
Amazing Grace-less people who don’t oppose pornography.

Anonymous said...

Here you all you need naydesh
[url=http://ceywokc.hot.lc/map.html]consumer credit anatomy map m[/url]
[url=http://cgeluio.nahezu.de/72/map.html]christian credit counseling map 981[/url]
[url=http://cowpeue.ch2.eu/37/map.html]discover credit card map 716[/url]
[url=http://chewinggum.hostaim.com/34/map.html]child pugh class map 823[/url]
[url=http://stomach.rack111.com/calcium/46/map.html]diabetes be can map w[/url]
[url=http://cowpeue.ch2.eu/71/index.html]credit free online B[/url]
[url=http://cowpeue.ch2.eu/60/map.html]ford account credit x[/url]

Good luck