Monday, September 08, 2008

New Case "Scholarship"

The latest academic publication on the case has appeared, courtesy of Barbara Barnett, who earned her M.A. degree from Duke’s Group of 88-topheavy English Department. The University of Kansas professor produced an article in Communication, Culture & Critique, in which she advances the all-but-incredible thesis that Duke’s official response to the case was overly concerned with such issues as due process and right to a fair trial. Oblivious to how much of the media, most Duke faculty, and the Brodhead administration itself initially approached the case, Barnett contends that the University’s actions insufficiently employed the race/class/gender framework.

Barnett identifies herself as a true believer almost from the start of her article. “20%–25% of college students report that they have experienced a rape or attempted rape,” declares she—thereby suggesting that college campuses have a rate of sexual assault around 2.5 times higher than the rate of sexual assault, murder, armed robbery, and assault combined in Detroit, the U.S. city with the highest murder rate. For those in the reality-based community, FBI figures provide a counterweight to Barnett’s theories: not 20%-25% but instead around .03% of students are victims of rape while in college. Duke’s 2000-2006 figures, which use a much broader reporting standard than the FBI database, indicate that .2% of Duke students “report that they have experienced a rape or attempted rape.”

Having portrayed the Duke campus as a veritable Wild West, Barnett identifies the context through which the University should have approached the case: the “ongoing discussions about rape and rape myths, masculinity and violence, sports and brotherhood, and the role mass media play in shaping norms of female and male behaviors. Central to these discussions were [sic] notions of power and privilege and the role that sex, race, and class play in shaping contemporary society’s views of authority and entitlement.” Barnett also devotes considerable attention to feminist legal theory regarding the boundary between consent and rape (including date rape). The relevance of these questions in this particular case is unclear, since not only did the players never raise a consensual-sex defense, their attorneys, from their first press conference, explicitly ruled out such a defense.

While critical of what she terms Duke’s “victimization strategy”—the University’s alleged focus on the anguish of the falsely accused players and the harm to its reputation—Barnett argues that Duke did need to show sympathy for one person: the false accuser.

University “materials,” writes Barnett, “failed to acknowledge that [Crystal Mangum] might be going through some anguish.” Why should Duke have done more for Mangum? Because “Duke was being bombarded by challenges that it may not have protected the safety of an [sic] North Carolina Central student.” That these “challenges” were based on a false premise seems of little concern to Barnett. The Kansas professor criticizes Brodhead’s April 2007 post-exoneration statement for not having “considered whether the lacrosse players and the woman who leveled the accusations of attack were both victims of a zealous prosecutor.” In the world according to Barbara Barnett, it seems, Mangum deserved sympathy from Duke because Nifong was unethical enough to believe her lies. This standard is quite extraordinary.

In researching her article, Barnett analyzed each of the (88, believe it or not) statements by Brodhead or a member of his administration through the announcement of a settlement with the three falsely accused players. Barnett does find a few things in Duke’s conduct worthy of praise. The University, she writes, used the episode to commit itself to additional “recruitment of women and minority faculty,” for instance. (Of course, it was already so committed, and aggressively so.) But overall, she laments, while “Duke public relations materials stressed that rape was indefensible, they also explained that the university had an interest in protecting(!!) the accused students.”

How did she reach this startling conclusion? According to Barnett, 27 percent of Duke’s statements addressed the evils of rape, but a comparable 21 percent stressed the importance of due process. To get a sense of the meaningless nature of these statistics, consider three key statements in Barnett’s data set: Brodhead’s first (March 25, 2006) remarks on the case; his April 5, 2006 letter to the Duke community; and his summer 2006 response to Friends of Duke University.

Brodhead’s March 25 and April 5 statements would count as documents that both mentioned the evils of rape and mentioned due process. Yet regarding the former: the N&O and AP ignored the President’s pro forma reminder of the presumption of innocence, and quoted his condemnation of rape; the Herald-Sun also quoted the rape section, while summarizing the due process material. And the April 5 statement? It opened with five paragraphs on the evils of rape—and mentioned due process only in its sentence asking people to avoid making up their minds until the authorities acted.

As for Brodhead’s response to Friends of Duke, that document seems to count as among the 21 percent of statements explaining “that the university had an interest in protecting the accused students,” while not among the 27 percent stressing “that rape was indefensible.” In fact, far from “protecting the accused students,” the Brodhead response explicitly undermined them—stating, as it did, that the University would not publicly demand that Durham authorities treat Duke students with the same due process rights as those granted to all other Durham residents.

Only through such manipulation of the data can Barnett sustain her central thesis. I have omitted the internal citations but otherwise quoted in full, to provide the feel of Barnett’s argument:

Duke’s rhetoric mirrored the discourse of Enlightenment philosophers—there is an objective and universal foundation of knowledge, knowledge acquired from the right use of reason will be “true,” and grounding arguments in reason will abate conflicts among knowledge, truth, and power. Duke’s frame of reason encouraged its publics to be thoughtful and careful in their judgments; to believe in the integrity of authorities—the university, the police, and the legal system; and to assume that justice would prevail. Underlying Duke’s arguments was the incorrect assumption that justice will necessarily emerge from a police investigation and courtroom trial; it is an ideal but not always a reality. Additionally, Duke’s framing of its response as calm and logical could be read as a reinforcement of Western patriarchal norms, which equate reason with the disciplined male mind and emotion with illogical female thinking. From the perspective of Duke’s administrators, an emotional response was an undesirable one; however, this point of view ignores the fact that it can be difficult to talk about rape and violence against women in a sterile, dispassionate way.

This thesis leads to a remarkable interpretation of how Duke handled the case. “The University,” she writes, “failed to speak in depth about the larger issues in the case, including sexual objectification of women, the risks of sexual violence on college campuses, and the perceptions of privilege in U.S. college athletics. In a case that involved allegations of rape, there was surprising little discussion on the issue of rape itself . . . Rape seemed to be a secondary issue in Duke’s public relations materials. Information about Sexual Assault Prevention Week and campus services for victims of sexual assault came from a statement by Student Government leaders, not university administrators . . . Duke did not suggest education about rape and sexual assault . . . The university might have moved beyond defending itself and tried to educate its staff and its publics about sexual violence, including the notion of rape cultures, the relationship between alcohol abuse and sexual coercion, and the effects of hypermasculine cultures that privilege violence and abuse of women . . . Sexual violence is a serious matter, and organizations that find themselves confronting such charges, even charges they suspect may not be true, need to speak clearly and strongly to the issue of rape itself.”

To reiterate: no rape occurred in this case. Overwhelming evidence appeared in the public domain almost from the start to suggest that no rape occurred in this case. But, again, guilt or innocence appears not to matter to Barnett: the fact that a mentally disturbed woman made a false allegation against a University’s students was enough, in and of itself, for the University to try to reprogram its students’ behavior according to an extremist agenda championed by the fringe of the academy. And parents could get all this for only $50,000 a year in tuition and fees.

Apply Barnett’s standard to the mirror image of 2006-7 events in Durham—the Scottsboro Boys case. In the Barnett framework, institutions of higher learning should focus not on the dangers of race-based injustice, or the need for due process, or the importance of facts, and not passion, dictating judgments. Instead, when universities recall the Scottsboro Boys case, they should speak about the “sexual objectification of women”; ensure that rape is not “a secondary issue”; increase “education about rape and sexual assault” and “sexual violence, including the notion of rape cultures, the relationship between alcohol abuse and sexual coercion, and the effects of hypermasculine cultures that privilege violence and abuse of women,” so as “to speak clearly and strongly to the issue of rape itself.” After all, the Scottsboro Boys case accusers made a claim of rape.

For Barnett, intellectual analysis starts and ends with the race/class/gender paradigm. In a version of events that few who followed the case would recognize, she writes that “Duke seemed oblivious to its position of power in the community. In American culture, whiteness and wealth guarantee privilege, a fact Duke also did not publicly recognize. Duke’s public relations efforts might have acknowledged racial and economic discrepancies between the accused and the accuser and considered how those differences might have been perceived rather than pretending they did not exist.” In other words: Brodhead should have officially endorsed the Group of 88’s statement.

What more should Duke have done? Echoing an earlier complaint of Wahneema Lubiano, Barnett chastises Duke for not seeking out additional guidance from “feminist scholars on its faculty or staff.” Of course.

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is Barnett a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Considering that Barnett considers Zimbabwe to be "the Garden of Eden" its its easy to discern her mindset and perspective.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes I feel mildly embarrassed to read KC's vivisections of these "scholarly" arguments and their authors. It's sort of like watching a high school kid pummeling a bunch of third graders on an elementary school playground -- a decisive and total victory, but one without challenge or honor for the victor.
But it is important to remember how the campus Left thinks. They argue not by reason, but by dint of volume and by stubborn endurance. They come with some assertion or other that is ludicrous on its face; someone in the "reality-based community" shoots it down with a couple of inconvenient facts and considers the matter closed, but its author continues to make bolder and bolder assertions as the representatives of the "reality-based community" find something better to do. Then it is only their original voice that remains, strident with nonsense and self-righteousness, and the impressionable students entrusted to their care hear only their side of the argument. Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it. Repeat it even more and you'll get tenure.
Reading the Barnett quote makes it clear that she would consider KC's "reality-based community" a pejorative she would hurl in his face. It's feelings that matter, after all, not facts. And no one can out-debate you when you're arguing about subjective feelings to which you and only you have access.
As distasteful as it is, we need to continue this debate or surrender the field to a world in which reality is subordinated to the whims and fancies of Wahneema Lubiano and her ilk.
If the third-graders are going to keep trying to blow up the school if they are not stopped, the beatings must continue, though the high schooler takes no joy in it.

-JackWebb
Trinity '93

One Spook said...

I think most of you will find this article interesting.

The Campus Rape Myth

It is an opposing view to people of Barnett's persuasion who pander to the "rape industry" and worship at the three-headed sacred cow of race, class, and gender in describing everything that one encounters in life.

One Spook

Archivist said...

I've not read Barnett's piece (and will spare myself of it, thanks to you, Professor), but her ilk have one, and only one, overriding objective: jack up rape convictions even if it means treating innocent men and boys falsely accused of rape as collateral damage in the imaginary war on rape they've concocted. They justify their hysteria by manufacturing phony statistics and relying on "under-reporting," which, of course, can never be objectively verified, of Biblical proportions.

So what's a few more innocent males imprisoned for decades so long as their sacrifice services the radical feminist sexual assault metanarrative?

One of their rallying cries to increase rape convictions -- due process be damned -- is to call for engorging the legal definition of "consent" in rape cases. They would allow women to deny that they objectively manifested their assent to have intercourse based on some false and belated, after-the-fact, ex post facto, hissy fits of regret.

Not even the witch hunts in Salem were backed by persons masquerading as scholars the way THIS witch hunt is.

Keep up your invaluable work.

Anonymous said...

I guess this "academic turd" from "Prof." Barnett passes as scholarship in the "journalism and mass communication" fields. Clearly, more rubbish for the academic cesspools.

W. R. Chambers said...

Some "scholarship" makes reality t.v. seem high quality by comparison.

Debrah said...

This is such an outrageous woman.

It really depresses me to read something like this, although knowing people like her contaminate universities across the country, it's still a downer to see this.

But just look at her background. She's not distinguished in any way.

She's mesmerized by a group of people who distort realities of our society, turning some into automatic "noble heroes" simply because they exist.

Barnett is basically a simpleton who apparently went nuts after having had an opportunity to travel to a foreign land.

She must imagine herself a "savior" like so many of her ilk.

She's an embarrassment.

Debrah said...

TO Jack Webb--

A very entertaining post.....

......and all true about KC!

Anonymous said...

I think some of these "experts" seriously need to up their dosage of their anti-psychotic drugs. They are completely out of touch with reality.

Just my opinion, of course. At least I don't state it as fact, based on my dubious PhD! Oh, yeah, I only have a practical MBA. Sorry about that!

skwilli said...

Sometimes I feel mildly embarrassed to read KC's vivisections of these "scholarly" arguments and their authors.

Thanks 2:50 AM commenter, I've been trying to express that thought for awhile, but alas, did not have the proper words. Go KC, keep it up.

Anonymous said...

The pitiful thing is these people believe this garbage. It doesn't matter what the percentage rates are . . . whatever the crime if I have not done the crime I don't deserve the time . . . sorry. How does this individual argue to the dismissal . . . with the objective sense that there was no crime. If there was no crime what was driving the fiasco that was the Duke response? Why did these "know nothings" behave in the bigoted, asinine, life threatening way that they did. Why did the majority of the Duke stuent body understand and know that this was a hoax? Why does this obiviosly biased person find intent that only facilitated her degree . . . it might have been more courageous of her to be more objective. Lastly, this biased tome becomes testement to the SANE nurse's bigotry and inability to objectively examine someone. This is in someways nothing new . . . people are not unaware that certain women are more than capable of falsely accusing someone of rape contrary to the academic horse manure that passes for truth . . . read To Kill A Mockingbird or find out something about a woman named Susan Smith from Union, South Carolina who murdered her two sons and, of course, pointed the finger of terror elsewhere or as Gomer Pyle might say, "Gollyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!" or any right thinking person might say, "My God!"

xutag77 said...

Another target hs been created for the Lacrosse players lawyers.

Heartsurgeon said...

"“If you can tell a good story, you can be a good journalist.” — Barbara Barnett"

YIKES!!!

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Off topic, but:

If Kristin Butler and Ed Rickards were to be running a 'weekly column' in the Duke Chronicle, where are the sequels to their August 25 effort?

Anonymous said...

I despair that people like Barnett can be hired, promoted and tenured at any University in the civilized world.

She is no anomoly: Ward Churchill, the group of 88, and Barnett may have been hired to pander to "unrepresented groups," (morons? anti-intellectuals? Mystics?)but its been an unmitigated disaster.

Spreading like a fungus, Barbett and her false-feminist allies exploited the decency (or shallow understanding of western culture) by college administrators and hiring committees: they've hired more of the same: people who defy constitutional rights and are the real "anti-intellectuals" in American life.

Public oversight of how universities spend public money is a must.

The legal profession coralled its own; punished Nifong. Its about to entertain the lawsutis against the other abusers. But how to fix the bigger problem?

The one abuser in this story that has carried on as before is the University culture that allows Barnet and ilk to "teach."

How to rid universities of thes people that aren't fit to shine the shoes of my old history professor?

Debrah said...

"Reharmonizer" is really freaking out!


The nasty "reharmonizer":

“…..though I am saying that based on DIW he’s a miserable excuse for a history professor.”

“It’s my opinion that the bar Johnson fails to clear is that of the educated man on the street, or that of a competent journalist.”


Diva reply:

How can I say this?…..ummm………..

From your insanely inaccurate statements, I’d have to ask someone, “Is he really a music teacher?”

“Then why does he play that flute through his sphincter muscle.”


~ ~ ~

"reharmonizer":

The rhetoric from over yonder in Wonderland gets more and more pathetic as the horizons there shrink from narrow to microscopic. Now we’re talking about sphincters. Clever. Mostly you’re best ignored, but this one is hard to resist…

That he quietly airbrushed his overripe post about the struggle of memory against forgetting on GoDuke.com is proof of what a hypocritical little weasal he’s become. That one made my day–maybe you can thank him for me? I don’t know why he felt like he had to–the collection of groupthink cheerleaders over there have all checked their brains at the door.

And I see he’s crushed another fearsome enemy in the latest post. Bully that he is, he never picks a fight unless the odds are wildly in his favor. I’m sure he’d trash my recent posts if he could figure out the right way to spin it. If only there was a way to do it without directing anyone to my site, huh? As it is, when he wants to lash out at me he avoids mentioning my name or linking to my site. What a chicken shit! gutless wonder

He really ought to get with all the right-wing jabberers who are getting high and mighty about the terrible hypocrisy and sexism being showered on poor Sarah Palin. It’s the perfect setting to freshen up the tired old DIW routine.



The Diva reply:

September 8, 2008 at 3:58 pm

You are the only one who’s been talking about the elimination process, my dear little musician.

Can’t believe the title of your most recent posts.

We have to dip to your level to get to the place where you reside.

Funny that when I post something positive….showing KC in all his brilliance and luster and hunkiness, you erase it.

From some of your posts, I can’t believe that you are in the academy—anywhere!

You need a good swift kick for the comments you’ve been making about KC.

My, how you fit into the Gang of 88 mold!

Mr. Bad said...

Oh man, Barnett's "scholarship" isn't even as good as what one can get via the Postmodern Bullsh!t Generator.

Seriously, if this is an example of the best that 'feminist scholars' can do then I believe this is rock-solid proof that women's studies and other G88-type departments need to be dismantled. Not only do they not further the academic mission, they're antithetical to it.

What a loon.

Anonymous said...

The answer: "Professor"

The question: What do you call the dumbest liberal arts student ten years after graduation?

Debrah said...

The Diva:


And further proof of your insane jealousy is that the “pedantic dreams” video that I left here was erased; however, through my YouTube account, I can see that you have watched it many, many times.

LIS!

Lots of hits from the “Re: Harmonizer” blog!

LOL!!!

KC Johnson said...

Re: "Reharmonizer":

It's fascinating to see his assumption that I'm somehow sympathetic to Palin; despite his alleged extensive reading of the blog, he seems unaware that I'm supporting Obama.

As for the rest, it's always been my sense that extensive use of ad hominem attacks, of the type "reharmonizer" sadly has been all too willing to employ, indicates a weakness of argument.

Gary Packwood said...

-Jack Webb, Trinity '93::09/08/08::2:50 AM

...As distasteful as it is, we need to continue this debate or surrender the field to a world in which reality is subordinated to the whims and fancies of Wahneema Lubiano and her ilk.
If the third-graders are going to keep trying to blow up the school if they are not stopped, the beatings must continue, though the high schooler takes no joy in it.
::
I most certainly agree but I seriously doubt that we are in the middle of any debate. It is much more than that.

Barbara Barnett and her ilk are seeking the overthrow of an imagined monarchy that created race/class/gender privilege. We are talking about a new world order with their own university SELF CONTAINED disciplinary system paid for by the Duke endowment along with scholarships for new faculty and students to be recruited from those who have been victimized by the monarchy...and the monarchy of course, just happens to be Duke alums.

Can you imagine the avalanche of publications about the new and improved Duke with the tag line of 'sweet irony' if this overthrowing had actually worked?

Barbara, bless her heart, must feel that she is positively slumming out there in Kansas! Suppose their is a corn monarchy throughout the university system in Kansas that need overthrowing?

In addition to needing a laxative on many levels, Barbara Barnett and her friends need to be hauled in front of a alumni oversight committee and then criminal court if they have wasted resources of the university in their zeal to create a new world order based on falsehoods.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Let's grant the (absurd) premise that "Duke’s framing of its response [was] . . . calm and logical."

What we see in Barnett is the naked essence of the postmodern agenda: jettison facts, evidence, logical arguments -- and with them the centuries-long philosophical battle to establish reason as "the only oracle of man." Replace the Aristotelian world view with a blind reliance on emotions -- and not even with pleasant emotions, but with the hostile emotions of an angry feminist/ethnic mob.

How are we supposed to settle disputes peacefully if individuals abandon reason? We're not. In the postmodern world, it's "might makes right."

If this country degenerates into an ethnic civil war (ala much of Africa), we can blame feminists/postmodernists like Barnett.

Duke Prof

One Spook said...

KC writes @ 5:08 PM:

Re: "Reharmonizer":

It's fascinating to see his assumption that I'm somehow sympathetic to Palin; despite his alleged extensive reading of the blog, he seems unaware that I'm supporting Obama."


That is indeed fascinating and Reharmonizer shows what a lousy analyst he is when he writes: He [KC Johnson] really ought to get with all the right-wing jabberers who are getting high and mighty about the terrible hypocrisy and sexism being showered on poor Sarah Palin.

The group most upset about the treatment of Palin are female middle of the road/independent voters who typically vote for democrats, and they are moving to the McCain-Palin camp in droves. The left wing nut jobs at Daily Kos who have led the assault on Palin have secured more votes for McCain than the "right wing jabberers" could ever hope to achieve.

Also, KC was most prescient when he last week correctly noted the over the top on-air bias shown by MSNBC. Today, MSNBC's parent, NBC, announced it has "reassigned" its two top political anchors, citing among other things, their bias in reporting. If that is any indication that the media can potentially heal itself, perhaps the academy can be next.

But, what you realy need to do, Debrah, is get over to the Reharmonizer Blog and tell that clown that he's out of tune. Explain to him the truth; that you, KC, the entire Group of 88 and him, are ALL Obama supporters. That way, you and he can kiss and makeup!

Politics makes strange bedfellows ... fascinating indeed!

One Spook

Anonymous said...

I must say that as a KC supporter and longtime reader of this blog, it is disheartening that as logical as he is, he is also an Obama supporter. His economic agenda and class warfare agenda will do more to destroy this country than the G88 and their ilk.

One Spook said...

To Duke Prof @ 7:21 PM:

You comment was IMHO, one of the best seen on this Blog in a long, long time.

Thank you.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

The last paragraphof KC's posting says it all. Lubiano, Barnett, and the rest of their ilk just want to make sure that they will continue to have jobs and that their will be jobs for their band of followers in the future....hence the call for additional guidance and courses from the feminist scholars (KC how could you even type what she said without choking?) and staff at Duke.
What another posted states is so true - if one repeats something often enough (even if it is untrue - an example would be the scurrilous accusation that Trig Palin is actually Willow Palin's son) then it will come to be accepted by the masses as truth. I teach at a high school - we have faculty members who NEVER read a paper and who fervently believe that George Bush had a hand in the events of 9/11. Their hatred of Bush is so great that they will believe anything. So too is that principle at work still in Durham - the belief that Crystal Mangum is a victim and that her suffering was the only real suffering - the fact that three men and their families were put through a living hell by being accused of a crime that never happened is meaningless.
This is the frighteneing world in which we live.
cks

Anonymous said...

Since the full text of the Barnett article appears not to be in the public domain, an additional concern is the way the journal's publisher has "framed" its press release about the article -- to say nothing of the number of online media outlets that reprinted the release verbatim, without comment.

Note how the press release takes the article's assertions and conclusions as fact, rather like some previous reports that neglected the critical qualifier, "alleged" in front of "victim." Here's the release:

"Framing Technique Can Be Used As a Public Relations Strategy in Cases of Sexual Assault
Lawrence, KS – August 27, 2008 – In Spring 2006, when three White Duke University lacrosse players were charged with raping a Black female student from nearby North Carolina Central University, Duke University officials framed the crisis in terms of institutional reputation rather than the rape issue at hand.

"In a new study published in the journal Communication, Culture & Critique, Barbara Barnett of Kansas University reports on her qualitative textual analysis of public relations materials published by Duke from March 24, 2006 through June 18, 2007.

"Allowing for the examination of emphasis and meaning, Barnett’s analysis revealed that the University carefully crafted its response to allegations of rape, presenting itself as a voice of reason in an emotionally charged atmosphere, and as a victim of a rogue prosecutor, whose case relied on rumor rather than solid evidence. In a case that involved allegations of rape, there was surprisingly little discussion on the issue of rape itself.

"Duke University proved adept at speaking about its own image and integrity, but failed to address the larger issues in the case, including sexual objectification of women, the risks of sexual violence on college campuses, and the perceptions of privilege in U.S. college athletics.

“'In the end, the charges against the Duke athletes turned out not to be true, but for nearly nine months, Duke lived with allegations that three student athletes might have raped a student at a nearby university. Duke focused on its own reputation but missed an opportunity to talk about the larger issue of rape' Barnett notes. 'Sexual violence is a serious matter, and organizations that find themselves confronting such charges, even charges they suspect may not be true, need to speak clearly and strongly to the issue of rape itself.'”


This study is published in the June 2008 issue of Communication, Culture & Critique. Media wishing to receive a PDF of this article may contact journalnews@bos.blackwellpublishing.net.


To view the abstract for this article, please click here.

Barbara Barnett is affiliated with Kansas University and can be reached for questions at barnettb@ku.edu.

Communication, Culture & Critique (CCC) is the International Communication Association's (ICA) latest publication and the first new journal to emerge from the Association for more than a decade. CCC will provide an international forum for critical, interpretive, and qualitative research examining the role of communication and cultural criticism in today's world.

Media Contact
Amy Molnar
Publicity Associate
111 River St.

Hoboken, NJ 07030
USA
201-748-8844 (phone)
201-748-6088 (fax)
amolnar@wiley.com

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/press/pressitem.asp?ref=1865

Jonathan Cohen said...

It is distressing that someone could write a book that essentially legitimizes the notion that it is fine to send innocent people to jail because preserving the narratives of gender/race/class is more important than the facts of the case.

More appalling is that so many professors share the views of Ms. Barnett, particularly among those teaching writing.

Most frightening of all is contemplating the long term impact on our country from having so many of our students spending their college years marinating in such wholesale distortions of truth and decency.

Mr. Bad said...

One thing in the article particularly struck me. Barnett wrote: "Sexual violence is a serious matter, and organizations that find themselves confronting such charges, even charges they suspect may not be true, need to speak clearly and strongly to the issue of rape itself.”

I don't what planet the Kansas she teaches at is located on, but here on Earth the issue of rape is addressed constantly, ad nauseum, throughout the school year. Indeed, there are numerous offices, seminars, courses, etc., addressing rape.

However, the real issue with the Duke LAX case is not rape, it's false allegations of rape. And that's a topic that's almost never addressed in a valid, scientific, unbiased manner on college campuses, especially those that are infested with G88 types. When/if false rape allegations are addressed, it's done so in highly-politicized, blatantly feminist and dishonest, unscientific, and unsupportable manner. Go figure.

Debrah said...

Here's a post left on the "Reharmonizer" blog that explains it all quite succinctly:



Ralph DuBose | September 8, 2008 at 11:17 pm

"Mr. TP Squirrel must have been in a coma the last two years. What about the criminal case needs to be omitted when the Lax guys were innocent? It was never the Defense Attorneys who were trying to hide information and stifle investigation, it was only the DA and his cronies who did that. Likewise, when the State Att. Generals office took over the case, the defense lawyers voluntarily opened their case files - and the Lax guys were declared innocent. Nifong was forced to open his case files and then he was disbarred and sent to jail on the basis of what was found there."




For those like Barnett, the Gang of 88, lapdog "reharmonizer", and all the rest of the onlookers and observers who claim, with a straight face, that there's anything about the Lacrosse Hoax that is amorphous or filled with gray areas.....read the facts.

And if you wish to continue with your insanity, stop pretending that anyone should show you even an ounce of respect.

Some want to pretend that KC somehow omits information to bolster the posts in Wonderland.

Ralph's post quickly explains the absurdity of this desperate attempt to keep alleging that "something happened".

Debrah said...

In this link you will find the G. D. Gearino website.

This man used to work for the N&O.

He's similar to someone like KC in that he doesn't allow politics get in the way of his work. Gearino has always upheld the highest journalistic standards and he's also quite funny.

He has provided a copy of an email that was allegedly sent to the N&O staff by managing editor John Drescher......giving a critique of that day's edition.

It's extremely offensive and provides a look inside the mindset of those who provide us with daily news.

It's not difficult to see what, no doubt, was going on among them as soon as the Lacrosse Hoax was concocted.

A very one-sided ideology and view.

I still think that this email was written by an associate editor instead of Drescher. I could certainly imagine Linda Williams sending out something like this.

Since it is impossible to avoid partisan politics during this hotly contested season, I will say that this kind of behavior is exactly what Obama has urged his supporters not to engage in.

Personally, Palin's views are too conservative for me; however, I want her to participate in this process and be allowed the same standards that a male candidate would enjoy.

Rational Obama supporters have not gone after the Palin daughter.

Two things I intend to do:

1) Find out if John Drescher was really the one who sent the memo Gearino cites.

2) Make sure that a few rabid and destructive partisans understand that the most people don't care if teenagers get pregnant......if the public isn't forced to subsidize the child after it's born.

This is what the knee-jerks like Barry Saunders and other rabid race-baiters want to overlook.

The Palin daughter's pregnancy doesn't mitigate the 70% out-of-wedlock births in the black community.

Unfortunately.

Archivist said...

Mr. Bad is correct. The crime of making a false rape report has become so embroiled in the radical feminist sexual assault milieu that it has been largely and improperly removed from the public discourse about rape. Sexual assault counselors often disingenuously refer to false rape accusations as a "myth" because they simply don't fit into the radical feminist sexual assault metanarrative. Even the whiff of a discussion about false claims is sometimes regarded as misogynistic hate speech -- because, you see, in their twisted world one can't legitimately seek to stomp out both rape and false rape claims.

Denigrating the experience of the falsely accused by dismissing their victimization as a "myth" is not merely dishonest but morally grotesque.

No justice, no peace said...

FNMA is currently trading at $0.91 per share down roughly $79 from it's peak when Jamie Gorelick was a part of the senior management team. This failure has redefined capital markets and placed extraordinary duress on our economy. Yet one of those involved is representing Duke University.

Byron York's most recent explains a root cause of the FNMA failure - a culture of corruption. Does that sound familiar?

Jamie Gorelick Duke Legal Counsel and FNMA

It is no wonder Gorelick was hired to represent Duke, she has deep expertise in driving institutions into the ground.

Who made the decision to hire Gorelick?

The failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac abetted by Gorelick and Raines will make people forget about Enron and Worldcom.

"...Fannie Mae is the biggest single source of money for mortgages in the United States. From 1998 to 2004, the years covered by the OFHEO investigation, it was headed by former Clinton budget director Franklin Raines, whose top management team included former Clinton Justice Department official Jamie Gorelick, sometimes mentioned as a future attorney general in a Democratic administration. During that period, the report says, Raines and his team grossly overstated Fannie Mae’s earnings — to the tune of $10.6 billion — for the purpose of paying themselves big bonuses..."

"...Investigators found that of the $90.12 million Raines was paid in that six-year period, more than $52 million came from EPS bonuses.

Gorelick’s situation was similar. OFHEO found that she took home $26.46 million in the period from 1998 to 2002 (she left in that year, so she wasn’t there for the entire period under investigation). Of that figure, nearly $15 million came from EPS bonuses..."

“Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter,” the OFHEO report says. “Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by [Fannie Mae’s] senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management.”


"...when regulators began to catch on to what was happening, Raines and his team then “sought to interfere”..."

"...The company is now under criminal investigation by the Justice Department, and will likely be in trouble with the Securities and Exchange Commission, too..."

"... Democrats (Congressional) allied themselves with Raines and said they worried that reform might harm Fannie Mae’s ability to provide mortgages to low- and middle-income homebuyers..."

Summary of the Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae

"Fannie Mae senior management promoted an image of the Enterprise as one of the lowest-risk financial institutions in the world and as “best in class” in terms of risk management...that the image was false."

"Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and hit announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter. Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by the Enterprise’s senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management."

"A large number of Fannie Mae’s accounting policies and practices did not comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)."

"By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets, senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received,"

"Fannie Mae consistently took a significant amount of interest rate risk"

"Fannie Mae senior management sought to interfere with OFHEO’s special examination"

God help us. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are on deck and in the hole...

Gary Packwood said...

Archivist 09/09/08::12:16 PM said...

...Even the whiff of a discussion about false claims is sometimes regarded as misogynistic hate speech -- because, you see, in their twisted world one can't legitimately seek to stomp out both rape and false rape claims.
::
I agree but there is hope. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (The CDC) now studies Sexual Assault in the most mind numbing detail imaginable because of...noise made by activists.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/SV/default.htm

We now know that most rapes (NOT ALL) happen to poor young women under the age of eighteen in their poor neighborhoods by young men who are poor. Many of the young women are children under the age of fifteen. Horrible problem that has NOTHING to do with Duke University.

The activists on university campus' need to get over into the poor communities and help out as the Social Workers need the assistance.

If the 2006 Sexual Assault numbers thrown about on the campus of Duke University were even partially true, the CDC would have moved heaven and earth to establish a mobile hospital in the middle of campus replete with teams of epidemiologists and investigators.

Barbara Barnett and her friends don't realize that their numbers are being tracked by the federal government, bloggers and defense attorneys. Some day soon...Babs and her friends are going to be under the spotlight that they turned on.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

I am a fundamentally kind person, who tries not to be contemptuous of modern academic feminists. But when I read stuff like "calm and logical could be read as a reinforcement of Western patriarchal norms, which equate reason with the disciplined male mind and emotion with illogical female thinking," I cannot help but feel contempt. It is not I who equate the capacity to reason with males. Based on her own so-called reasoning, I fear it is Dr. Barnett who has adopted illogic as an ornament to her sex. Admittedly, I do consider that the capacity to reason is not equally shared among humans, but the differential is not sexual. I view Dr. Barnett as a fool not because she is clefted rather than crested, to use the expression of the first Queen Elizabeth, but because Dr. Barnett utters nonsense.

Whatever the merits of modern epistemology, particularly in the hands of those French who had much to excuse for their passivity against the Nazis, it is certainly a dangerous tool to impart to the mentally challenged. Ms. Barnett would be far better to stay close to Ranke; "wie es eigentlich gewesen," as it actually was, is undoubtedly an ever unattainable goal, but the effort to achieve it precludes appearing to be an ass of either sex.

JeffM

Anonymous said...

Good grief. My initial reaction is that perhaps Ms. Barnett has produced this piece of "scholarship" to help take some of the pressure off her buddies back at Duke. When parents and alums complain about the University's brushing off of due process, the University can truthfully state that in fact they have been "criticized" in a "study" for being overly concerned about due process during the Duke LAX case fiasco.

Whatever Ms. Barnett's motivation, however, publication of this nonsense should be deeply embarrassing to the academic community. It would behoove legitimate scholars, particularly those in the field of Women's Studies, to step forward and at least suggest that Ms. Barnett's lessons about race, gender, class, and "rape" would perhaps be better absorbed in the context of an actual rape.

Furthermore, the historically significant lesson of class, race, and gender in the Duke case
is just the opposite of what Ms. Barnett wishes to impart. Sadly for her, the case completely undermines her arguments, standing on its head the widely embraced class, race, gender narrative. The aggressor was the not one of the rich, white, males, of course, but the poor, black, female. Really, it would have been much better for Ms. Barnett had she simply pretended the case did not exist at all and continued on with her other work.

I happened to follow the "diary" on Daily Kos a few days ago with the anonymous assertions and ridiculous proofs of the Palin pregnancy "cover up." The thinking there was almost as astute as what Ms. Barnett seems to have shared with the world in this latest example of her work, but at least at Daily Kos the authors of the rumor could remain unknown and the moderator was able to delete the diary. Unlucky Ms. Barnett is not anonymous, nor can anyone delete her foolishness. Even worse, the article has been published in a purportedly scholarly publication. AAAACH!

Happy to see KC discuss how Ms. Barnett's scholarly analysis could be applied to Scottsboro.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." --Mark Twain

Observer

No justice, no peace said...

Inre; the mythology of meta-narratives...UC Irvine's J. Hillis Miller said, "...the story is the unveiling of the possibility of the impossibility of the unveiling..." referring to Nathaniel Hawthorne's, "The Ministers Black Veil". This is on page 27 of the very, very sobering book, "Tenured Radicals" by Roger Kimball.

When one deconstructs a deconstructionist and applys the new language to the Duke hoax, we end up with the following:

"The story is the veiling of the impossibility of the possibility of the veiling." Or put another way, numerous parties intentionally hiding the truth despite the overwheliming evidence to the contrary. History suggests that this type of "Black Swan" event is impossible to predict. Duke and Durham have proven otherwise.

We've come to the point where we must take whatever comes from these progressive's mouths and use the exact opposite as a basis in finding the truth. Predicting their behavior becomes quite simple.

Debrah said...

Dank professors weblog tears Barnett to shreads.

Jamie said...

I think I get it: stubborn assertions like No rape occurred in this case rely on sterile, fact-ridden notions like “overwhelming evidence”, or ideas of objective truth and falsity.

These flimsy concepts reinforce Western patriarchal norms that equate reason with the disciplined male mind and emotion with illogical female thinking, and insistence on such outmoded standards is a telltale sign of hypermasculinity.

Many of those interested in this case keep trying to focus discussion on whether or not the rape charges were accurate, whether the accuser was reliable, and whether the various installments of her story could, in any conceivable way, be true. How convenient! How outrageous!

Such critics should have been shamed into silence from the very outset by the fact that the charges were about rape, race and privilege. These charges were, therefore, true – except by some intolerable standard that uses only physical possibility, or “evidence”, as its yardstick.

Kilgore said...

Many thanks to you KC for continuing to expose the insanity that now passes for scholarship. Your voice is an important one. It is mind boggling how something so hateful and bigoted can be accepted as "knowledge."

With respect and admiration, thank you.

Anonymous said...

Duke was prevented as were numerous others who buy into the thesis that Barnett proposes. How can supporting all of these presented notions help find out the "truth"? It seems there was a well noted statement early said by a "reasoned" Duke official to the effect that "it is not about the truth...." It certainly wasn't . . . and then it began . . . finding the truth on the street and in the main stream media, but Duke settled because Duke broke the law. Many in this motley crowd broke the law. As it turned out perhaps the only ones who did not break the law were the members of the lacrosse team. The Duke faculty with few exceptions were either out for blood or quiescent and in their passive quiet . . . were guilty participants in the clamor for revenge. Make no mistake about it . . . these people were out for revenge "reasoned" by imagined wrongs and hoped for profit. They were like the harpies at the priosn waiting for Hester to emerge. It is just so very difficult to write about the behavior of these so called "intellectuals." They know who they are, and they belong to Nazi Germany or attached to some Communist army cell . . . always making sure all are "correct" in their behavior . . . perhaps they should be somewhere in North Korea . . . and not Duke. In retrospect the only "normal" people in this whole affair were the lacrosse team and its coach. That Barnett would write about "reason" and seek "reason" in such a group of people who participated in their school and community's being taken to the cleaners because of the behavior of someone whom they refuse to "know" or even attempt to "understand" as to behavior or culture would seem unreasonable on the face of it. That goes for the entire Duke community of privilege and "intelligence" and what do Barnett and the feminist know about anything? These people are bigots who, by definition, are ignorant. Barnett is a case in point. . . their fingers never point back toward themselves. To put it more succinctly . . . as a great man once said you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. Barnett has attempted to put her lipstick somewhere . . . who knows

Anonymous said...

In Barnett's bio, she says (speaking of Zimbabwe): "... she could have lived there forever." Probably not. Mugabe's thugs would likely have driven her out of the country, like they've done with most of the white Zimbabweans.

Anonymous said...

When did journalism start being about telling stories? I always thought it had something to do with telling the truth.

Debrah said...

How did that happen?

My link above went to Camille Paglia's page.

This is the one discussing Barbara Barnett.

There really isn't that much on her work, actually.

haskell said...

I would like to remind you of the academic watch-dog website,

mindingthecampus.com

Very interesting to follow the antics, pecadillos and excursions of left-wing faculties across the country.

Anonymous said...

Great comment by JackWebb! Also, the anonymous at 12:48 seems to be on the right track if you ask me: Now we know who the real anti-intellectuals are! Barnett's piece is a roadmap of anti-intellectualism.

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

Of course, what made all of the enjoyable comments possible was the absolute fisking by K.C. Johnson. I also had to peek through my fingers while reading.

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

Yes, the Duke case was about false accusations of rape and due process -- and not what Barnett ignorantly claims -- but it was also about prejudice against the rich, the athletic and the white, police corruption, political malaise, journalistic integrity, the ascension of the internet, and the power of facts over agenda.

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

Reharmonizer has become pathetic. Full Stop.

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

If I were to follow any of the religious prophets -- you know, the guys who predict the actual day of Armageddon, or K.C. Johnson, I think I’d follow Yisrayl Hawkins. As far as I can tell, K.C. Johnson has been silent on this all-important issue. Hawkins, on the other hand, has predicted the end of the world many times. Since he was the last one to predict the end of the world, in a "Let's Make a Deal" sort of way, he wins. He got closest without going over. MOO! Gregory

Debrah said...

Well, now.

Anonymous said...

“20%–25% of college students report that they have experienced a rape or attempted rape,”

Maybe she's including false reports, the wrongly accused, and college women (and college men) who have rape or attempted rape fantasies...or maybe she is including the leftist Duke professor-average Duke student relationships...

No justice, no peace said...

Where is the "Truth in Advertising?"

The Duke Homecoming 2008 Schedule arrived yesterday and is largely void of Race/Gender/Class Warfare.

There is one panel session title, "Is the U.S. Ready for a Black President?" that includes Klan of 88 faculty members Paula McClain and Kerry Haynie. One wonders if their expertise extends to conservative white women running for Vice-President...or "leftist/socialists" running for President?

It appears neither Bob Steel and Richard Brodhead (the mailer is silent on their attendance), nor any of the other Klan of 88 for that matter are headliners at any events.

Most every other session is noticably absent of the progessive faculty organizers for which Duke is now well known.

The schedule is filled with Step shows, Jazz concerts, a football game and even a Dodgeball event. One may be led to believe that Durham and Duke are the land of milk and honey.

One session that is quite ironic is "Conversations: Stasio and Ariely on "Predicatably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions."

Wouldn't it be fantastic if the discussion centered around the insane and irrational decision-making coming out of the administration or the Franklin Center?

It appears that having a crazy faculty running the show doesn't sell so they've locked them all in the attic.

Debrah said...

Pressler news!

Debrah said...

Hey chief, better get a handle on the existing "terrorism" in your own town first.

LIS!



Chief Lopez visits Israel

From staff reports : Sep 12, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Durham police Chief Jose Lopez is participating this week in an Israel-based program on advanced counterterrorism strategies.

A delegation of more than a dozen chiefs of police from major U.S. cities is visiting Israel as part of a mission organized by the Anti-Defamation League. The program brings the U.S. law enforcement officers into contact with Israeli law enforcement and security officers and terrorism experts to learn about Israel's strategies to prevent terror attacks.

One Spook said...

Debrah writes @ 9:42 AM

How did that happen?

My link above went to Camille Paglia's page.



Well, that's an easy one Debrah.

A quick look at the source code for the comments on this blog reveals that you inserted the link to the Paglia article rather then the link you intended to use.

Easy.

But, it's understandable that you would ask "how did that happen?" since you obviously do not know how to access and interpret source code.

Because, if you knew that, you would not falsely accuse me and others who have commented on your Blog of making comments that we did not make.

Or, to paraphrase one of your favorite oft-used finger-wagging comments here, "if there's one thing you should have learned by reading the DIW Blog, it's that false accusations are both dangerous and wrong."

And, like others we have discussed here, you have never once apologized for your false accusations.

"Such diva madness!"

One Spook

Debrah said...

LOL!!!

This is Zane's new video.

Someone please send this over to councilwoman and zealous Mike Nifong supporter Dianne Catotti.

We all remember her telling everyone not to flush in the loo.

This should drive her mad.

Debrah said...

Duke's Kerry Haynie will be "talking politics"

No justice, no peace said...

I saw reference to this quote/comment in a recent Impromtpus (Jay Nordlinger). For some reason it made me think of the faux self-importance of the Klan of 88 and others like them.

Check out Chris Hoy's response...

This article is about Chris Hoy the accomplished cyclist. His response to the question, "'In the last 24 hours everyone has been offering an opinion on Chris Hoy. But what does Chris Hoy think of Chris Hoy?', is priceless.

He respondes, "'Chris Hoy thinks that the day Chris Hoy refers to Chris Hoy in the third person is the day that Chris Hoy disappears up his own arse.'

Perfect.

Why can't we find any humility among the Duke Klan of 88? Hell, they don't have anything to crow about except their keen ability to get things so terribly wrong.

Anonymous said...

It's hard to read about this case and not feel like academics are fatuous snobs, useless for any real world endeavors. They aren't interested in advancing knowledge, they don't believe in the truth and their intellectual powers are too impotent to challenge their students.

Anonymous said...

this is the dankprofessor:

http://dankprofessor.wordpress.com/category/duke-university/

af said...

It is truly amazing to realize that some of the feminist mouthpieces just cannot accept that a rape did not occur. That is, not in the literal sense. I'm not sure exactly how rape is defined for someone who is suspended in the air, clouded by alcohol and possibly other drugs, and with self-esteem that is so non-existent.
To continue this conversation on the "rape" only works for those who believe in crying wolf. The travesty in this situation is that no one bothered to investigate the first false rape allegation before jumping in headfirst to this cauldron.
Ironies--CGM has a degree in Criminal Justice from NCCU. If ever a case could be made for a professor lowering a grade because of a student's statements--ANY CJ professor at NCCU would have been justified.
Women of the 88-Barnett ilk cannot come to grips with the fact that by supporting the CGM hoax, they diminish ALL credibility of the feminist movement. Don't get me wrong--I don't support any movement that presupposes one group to be superior to another. Blind ambition gets you nowhere (except in academia) and radicals are taken with a grain of salt by thinking individuals. Unfortunately, many impressionable young people are swayed to revisionist ideologies by those who have the power of the grade. After spending a minimum of 20% of a young life listening to this hogwash, too many young people become believers. These radicals--the academic versions of Jim Jones--are a large part of the failure of the American educational system to keep pace with the rest of the world. We spend too much time prostituting ourselves on causes that are not central to education.
Never do these academics demand that the circumstances that led CGM to prostitution and "dancing" (the lap variety seems to have been her speciality) are not addressed by the triumverate groups. They should have questioned why a young lady purportedly attending a university to major in criminal justice would be supporting herself (and her child out-of-wedlock) by means of criminal activity. Where is the outrage? Where is the offer of help to her? Obviously if it doesn't fit the left field talking points, it cannot be discussed. Stick it to Palin and her kid, right?
As I have told my students, right is right and wrong is wrong. It really doesn't matter from what group you come. As long as you do what is right, then you can hold your head high. Continuuing the myth about the Duke "rape" case is cause to bow your head in shame. Give up the ghost. Speak to truth, not to what fits in your (misguided) truth.
As to journalism, it has been largely on the decline for the past decade or two. Stories that were reported as truth without any basis in fact. Bending the truth to fit the agenda. Ignoring the truth because it doesn't fit the agenda. Journalism has become a thing of the past. We now have too many talking heads--in ALL areas of journalism. Unfortunately, print and broadcast "journalism" has become too much like the tabloids. Alas, that's a conversation for another day.
Another day in Wonderland. Goodbye yellow brick road!

Debrah said...

More news from the Durham justice system.



Lawyer faces, denies indecent exposure charge

By Gregory Childress : The Herald-Sun
Sep 14, 2008

DURHAM -- A prominent Durham attorney, Robert Thomas Perry, was arrested Friday afternoon and charged with indecent exposure at Duke Park after a male and female reported the alleged incident to police.

Perry, 57, of 8 Caspian Court, is a partner in the law firm of Perry, Perry & Perry, a Durham firm that specializes in bankruptcy, labor and employment law.

When reached at his home Saturday, Perry strongly denied the charge.

Perry said it's routine for him to grab a bite to eat then go to the park to have lunch. He said he doesn't know either of his accusers.

"Your guess is as good as mine," Perry said when asked why someone would falsely accuse him. "I can only tell you what I was doing."

Perry also was charged with second-degree trespassing because, he said, he refused to leave the park after being told to do so by police. He said he wasn't going to be arrested on the indecent exposure charge until he refused to obey the order to leave.

After stating that he would not leave, Perry said, he was handcuffed and taken to jail. He said a corporal in charge told him that he was being arrested because he was being uncooperative. Perry said eight police cars arrived.

"I got arrested for indecent exposure and trespass because I had a bad attitude," Perry said.

Perry said he refused to leave the park because he thought it would be an admission that he was guilty of indecent exposure.

"If this crime was serious enough to send eight police cars to the scene because they had a lunatic running around exposing himself, why didn't they arrest me instead of giving me the option to leave?" Perry said.

Perry said he would vigorously defend himself against the charges.

"I will seek justice, and I will seek to hold these police officers accountable for their actions," he said.

Perry was released on a $1,000 bond.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous said 9/13/2008::4:35 PM...

...It's hard to read about this case and not feel like academics are fatuous snobs, useless for any real world endeavors. They aren't interested in advancing knowledge, they don't believe in the truth and their intellectual powers are too impotent to challenge their students.
::
More likely I suspect that we are looking at a very small group of academics with political agendas who have found themselves employed by an elite wealthy universities ...and can't quite believe their good luck.

And for Duke, we have learned that eight-eight (88) academic looters is the magic number where 'critical mass' is achieved.

Like looters everywhere they are not going to voluntarily stop looting the Duke endowment until Duke alums put a stop to it.
::
GP