Monday, March 23, 2009

From Burch to the Bohemian Lubiano

Last week, Durham resident Michael Burch pled guilty to two counts of attempted rape, for which he received a sentence of between 48 and 67 months in prison. The Burch case provided an unusually clear illustration of the hypocrisy of the Duke administration and faculty “activists.” In the lacrosse case, President Brodhead’s second public statement was an apology to Kim Roberts and Crystal Mangum (“the woman and her friend”); in the Burch case, where his own institution’s student was the alleged victim, Brodhead was silent. The only Duke administrator to publicly comment was Larry Moneta, who appeared to blame the accuser, former Duke student Katie Rouse.

Meanwhile, the “activist” faculty who were so confident of Mangum’s allegations that they issued a statement thanking protesters who had, among other things, urged castration of the lacrosse captains remained as silent as the grave about Rouse’s ordeal. I am unaware of any member of the Group of 88 or the clarifying faculty ever publicly commenting on the charges against Burch.

Surely, the fact that Rouse is white and Burch is African-American couldn’t account for such disparate reactions?

After the plea agreement, Newsday ran a powerful interview with Rouse, who openly discussed her experiences. (She transferred to Hofstra after the attack, so she could be closer to her home on Long Island.) Rouse spoke of her frustration with the Durham “justice” system, noting that Burch was charged with a second rape after being released on bail. (He was released on bail after the second alleged rape, as well.) She said that she was glad the affair was now over, and looked forward to moving on with her life: “I think for a while it changed how I acted, how I was always sad, afraid to be by myself. But it didn't change me permanently, no.”

Newsday’s article mentioned that Rouse received considerable abuse on some North Carolina blogs, and that she “felt her case was always in the shadow of the more notorious rape accusations of the year before, in which a stripper falsely accused three Duke students, one from Long Island, of raping her. The charges were later all dropped and the students exonerated.” The article didn’t mention that much of that abuse came from the very same people who had presumed guilt in the lacrosse case, nor did the article mention the widely disparate reactions to the two cases from the Duke administration and faculty.

A brief follow-up piece from Newsday’s Ellis Henican appropriately praised Rouse’s courage and character, but likewise left an incomplete portrayal of the toxic Durham atmosphere: of the crime, he wrote only that Rouse said “she was attacked in a bathroom at a fraternity party in an off-campus house.”

Relatively few Newsday readers follow Durham events closely—and so, unfortunately, I suspect that few Newsday readers would come away from the Henican article knowing that Rouse's attacker was not a Duke student, and that the only Duke administrator to comment publicly on the crime effectively blamed Rouse.

By the way, a final irony: Rouse’s case was handled by assistant district attorney Jan Paul—the same Jan Paul who showed her commitment to truth and justice by weeping openly as her onetime boss, Mike Nifong, was convicted of criminal contempt for lying to the court.

---------

Wahneema Lubiano was a no-show at the Group of 88-dominated “race in America” conference this past weekend at Duke. (Her panel, “Race, Gender and Sexuality: Intersections on Multiple Dimensions,” went on with a substitute moderator; according to an e-mail Lubiano sent to one DIW reader after the event, she is “currently in Prague(!),” where she will remain until fall 2009.) But those who think that this episode suggests Lubiano hasn’t been tending to her work should think again.

Lubiano still hasn’t managed to complete either Like Being Mugged by a Metaphor or Messing with the Machine, both of which have now been listed as “forthcoming” books (a designation that refers to completed manuscripts under contract) for at least twelve years. But, according to her Duke website, Lubiano has produced a new scholarly publication: “Black Studies, Multiculturalism, and Airport Bookshops: An Interview with Wahneema Lubiano.”

This piece of “scholarship,” which totals all of three pages, appeared in an obscure journal called e3w Review of Books. The journal’s website was last updated in 2007, the year before Lubiano’s latest “scholarship” appeared, and the journal, published by the Ethnic and Third World Literatures specialization at the University of Texas, does not appear in any major scholarly database. So no copy of the Lubiano publication is available on-line.

Lubiano’s five most recent “publications” provide a glimpse into her scholarly productivity. Three of the five “publications” are “interviews”—“Airport Bookshops,” which her Duke website mysteriously lists as two separate publications, and “Interview with Wahneema Lubiano,” in The Chicano Cultural Studies Forum. A fourth is her co-authored apologia for the Group of 88, which she penned with Group/clarifying colleagues Michael Hardt and Robyn Weigman. And the fifth is a reprint of “Race, Class, and the Politics of Death,” a short article that was originally published in 2006.

According to her Duke CV, the above list contains all the “scholarship” produced by this tenured professor at one of the nation’s leading universities in the last decade.

For the record, I have never encountered another professor who lists “interviews” as scholarly publications. But then, as we all learned from the lacrosse case, Lubiano operates according to her own rules.

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

At last weekend’s Group of 88 conference, a DIW regular asked Group member Sally Deutsch about the advertisement. According to the comment posted in this thread, Deutsch “maintains that the ‘Listening Statement’ did not refer to the rape accusation and Buchanan Blvd.”

Signatures for the ad in question, of course, were solicited through an e-mail penned by Wahneema Lubiano, whose first sentence was, “African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle about the lacrosse team incident.” [emphasis added] The ad, moreover, unequivocally asserted that something “happened” to Mangum; thanked protesters who had among other things urged castration of the lacrosse captains; and contained several quotes from alleged Duke students discussing Mangum’s allegations.

And yet, in Deutsch’s world, the ad “did not refer to the rape accusation and Buchanan Blvd.”

Deutsch is the same Duke dean who, after the issuance of the AG’s report, refused to admit that there was no rape in the case. Perhaps she remains emotionally or intellectually unable to confront any facts about the case. Another possibility? Duke attorneys have instructed Group members to issue such denials, since the settlement with the three falsely accused players does not cover contemporary faculty utterances.

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

Finally, a reader informs me that she recently received a ballot for the Wells Fargo board of directors--and incumbent director Bob Steel is standing for re-election. After his Duke and Wachovia performances, some might argue that a "no" vote would be in order.

72 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not only did Larry Moneta make a statement blaming Rouse for what happened, but President Richard Brodhead refused to meet with Rouse's father after he had requested a meeting.

Rouse was not an ordinary student. Duke had heavily recruited her to attend and even flew her down to Durham while she was in high school, not as a recruited athlete (as she was not playing sports at Duke), but as someone outstanding in the classroom.

Yes, here is someone who supposedly fit the bill of what Peter Wood was demanding be the kind of student Duke would admit (instead of athletes who did well in the classroom). Yet, Wood never tried to contact Katie nor anyone else in her family.

In fact, Katie's father contacted Karla Holloway and Wahneema Lubiano and neither person responded to him.

Duke's left-wing faculty and administration literally threw Katie out with the trash. This administration showed more deference to Jermaine Burch than it showed to her, and we already know how these people treated their own students falsely accused of a crime. All of this is on the record; it is not the figment of someone's imagination.

Kilgore said...

Simply amazing. Thank you KC for pointing out this hypocrisy. Rape is only fuel for their ideology with the right perp and victim. How have we gotten to this point?

bill anderson said...

Duke has left itself with a huge problem in Lubiano's case. The university tenured her despite a CV that could not pass muster at any "research" university.

I can assure you that the vast majority of faculty members at Duke must publish in top-rated journals or they are not tenured. The pressure on them to publish is huge, and it is not unusual to see junior faculty members working 70-hour weeks, including being in their offices on weekends doing research.

Then we have Wahneema Lubiano being tenured off a joke of a CV. I would not be surprised if a future faculty member denied tenure were to sue the university on the basis of its tenuring Lubiano.

What Duke has done has to set a standard for certain members of its faculty that is so low that it tells the rest of the world that the university accepts junior college standards for some faculty, but expects top-flight standards for others, all for racial/political reasons.

Debrah said...

Oh wow.

Wahneema's in Prague?

She will surely get another forthcoming book idea out of this excursion.

The conference could have at least had her beamed in on the wide screens for just a few comments.

Too bad they didn't think of that.

As I said earlier, Wahneema is really busy!

Anonymous said...

The LAX case is about an supposedly underprivileged black woman who accused a group of supposedly privileged white men of rape. 88 college professors, the local prosecutor, police and officials agreed with her and called for vigilante justice.

In the John Murtha case, we have a privileged white Senator accusing US Marines (Presumably many underprivileged individuals) of atrocities for which there has been no validation.
I comment only in the interest of your inclusion of this link:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?usmc2009&1

North of Detroit

Anonymous said...

I simply do not understand the leadership styles of Chairman Steele and President Brodhead. Their silence regarding former student Katie Rouse's rape is so dramatically inconsistent with their "outcries" regarding the false allegations in the LAX case. How simple and easy it would be for Brodhead and/or Steele to express regret about the harmful events that caused emotional and physical trauma to a student recruited by Duke for her academic abilities. The cae is closed. THe accused has pled guilt, and Duke has lost not only another bright student, but , also, more of what is left of its reputation.

Expressions of regret are neither time consuming nor statements of political correctness. They are human to human emotional exchanges.

The ongoing silence of Brodhead and STeele gives the impression that emotional and physical damage to a Duke student is not important to the institution's administration unless, of course, a large goup of the "Feel Good" sciences march with banners and buckets.

Shamefulon you President Brodhead and CHairman Steele. Congratulations on your strength to move on with your life Katie Rouse.

Anonymous said...

Is Moneta a Communist?

Anonymous said...

How did Burch manage to get bail at all for a SECOND allegation of rape after he was out on bail for the first allegation?

How did he (a gang-banger) manage to meet that second bail of $1.8 million?

How did he manage to end up with a sentence of maybe 2 years (1 year for each rape?)?

Does he have connections no one knows about?

Maybe Tracey Cline (she of the Leon Brown case) could explain. (she has been unavailable for comment).

Can we count on the Indy to do an expose?


Or (since the Indy endorsed Cline) will another pall of silence just descend over Durham?

maltesse3 said...

BTW just how many of the Group of 88 along with President Brodhead jumped in with Bob Steel on
this investment? I can see them all, Steel on the back of a Wells Fargo truck stacking the dough.Tim Tyson fanning the flames cooking the "Q" and mopping it with the lying sauce to cover up the truth. And President Brodhead standing there with his eyes wide open, silent with his mouth stuffed with the other white meat.

Anonymous said...

This was linked from Minding The Campus

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/03/postmodernism-unpeeled.html

David Thompson interviews Dr. Stephen Hicks, whose book is entitled 'Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault'.

Hicks says: "So one of my four theses about postmodernism is that it develops from a double crisis - a crisis within philosophy about knowledge and a crisis within left politics about socialism."

Anonymous said...

Very well analyzed.

A large part of the problem experienced in the Newsday articles was the same problem but on a greater scale with the Duke Lacrosse situation.

The problem is that we should be able to count on the free press to report facts and seek the truth.

Instead they now exploit situations to advance their personal beliefs at the expense of what their profession is trained to do: inform.

skwilli said...

I long for a settlement that would allow the three falsely accused to own both Duke and Durham. It would be the only way to rid them of the scum on top of the pond. We can always dream, can't we?

Anonymous said...

This story contiues to become one of fear and ego and privilege as it concerns the so called Duke elites and acacemics. What a sorry low life bunch of people these groups have become. At the bottom of their behavior, they have an assumption of race that is no less tolerant than the Klan. An institution they purport to dispise. They really do have their own racist agenda.

They have created injustice in the name of justice to essentially terrorize people. The power of racial division is the coin of the realm to this group. It has become power and privilege to them no matter the facts.

The fear that they generate in the very instituion that employs them gives them the power to influence even the application of law. It is a power that keeps people suspicious of one another, and creates a concept of inequality that is contemptious of others. It assumes accusation of people's motives or the motives of others which is, of course, based on race. It is done whether there is cause or reason for their most basic assuptions which are not centered. They always have correct knowledge. They are always right in their assumptions, and in this way, they behave in the way no university should behave. Their behavior is dispicable. They are both frauds to the law and to education.

Jim in San Diego said...

I have made this comment before, and will apparently make it many more times in the future:

There are thousands of Duke alumni who are successful, effective people. They have the education and life experience to accurately evaluate the Brodhead "Locust Years" at Duke.

They know how to push the buttons of life to get things done. Where, then, are the Duke alumni?

They appear to be AWOL. Like, the Law School was absent during the rape hoax.

The bad people win when the good people stand aside.

Jim Peterson

Duke 1965 said...

To Jim @ 3:37:

I will attempt a serious answer to your question of why the Duke alumni are largely standing aside.... I think they are focused on different goals than many at DIW. They primarily want their sons/daughters to have "social capital".... that is, to get into quality graduate schools, get upwardly-mobile jobs, gain helpful contacts for the post-college world, and so on...... as far as I can tell, Duke is still meeting those goals, despite the protests from groups such as DIW. Viewed from that perspective, DIW is a threat to the alumni, not a helpful influence..... I'm not saying it's right, just that I suspect this is what's really going on.... if you had a son or daughter in Pratt who was largely unaffected by the lacrosse case, would you want to get involved in a war with the irrelevant (from your perspective) AAS Department? Or would you rather the problem would just go away so as not to further tarnish Duke's reputation? It's a interesting question, I think.

K FRANCOIS said...

I THINK THE GROUP OF 88 SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES THE LEAST THEY COULD HAVE DONE IS ISSUE A PUBLIC APOLOGY TO KATIE. DUKE WAS SO EAGER TO GET HER TO DURAHM TO ATTEND THIER UNIVERSITY BUT SHOWED NO COMPASION TO HER OR HER FAMILY WHEN SHE WENT THROUGH THIS HORRIBLE ORDEAL TRANSFERED OUT. THE GROUP OF 88 DID NOT PROTEST BURCH'S HOME EVEN THOUGH HE WAS CONVICTED WHEN THEY PUBLICLY MURDERED THE LACROSS TEAM AND THIER CHARGES WERE DROPPED ARE THEY MAKING THIS A RACE ISSUE BECAUSE KATIE IS WHITE AND BURCH IS BLACK BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER WOMAN HE RAPPED WHO WAS ALSO BLACK? THIS IS NOT A RACE THING ITS A RIGHT OR WRONG THING AND IN THIS CASE THEY WERE 100% WRONG.

bill anderson said...

Duke 1965 has made a correct analysis of the situation. Generally, people are not going to jump into a fight that either they will lose or will cost them without giving them any benefits.

We can decry the faculty members at Duke who were silent during the reign of terror by the G88, but one must understand the real price they would have had to pay. If a junior faculty member were to have spoken out, you can bet that someone like Karla Holloway would have retaliated and that person would never be tenured at Duke, no matter how good his or her cv.

(Keep in mind that G88'ers are permitted to have subpar academic records and be tenured at Duke. However, that privilege does not extend to others at the university.)

Not one of the G88 faced even a second of discomfort for what was done, and some of them have become deans. That means the university leadership gave tacit approval to their antics.

Now, when the 17 economics department members wrote their open letter, it was 10 months after the affair began, and they were attacked by the G88ers. However, people like Tom Nechyba (department chair) and others who signed have excellent records and had accumulated some political capital. Thus, they could pull off what they did.

But they were the exception at Duke, and certainly not the rule.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that if the roles had been reversed between Michael Burch and a duke lacrosse player the sentence would have been far more!!!

Duke 1965 said...

Bill Anderson @ 6:04 pm:

Exactly, and even with significant political capital, those economics professors had steel balls to sign that letter..... it would be unrealistic, I think, to expect everyone to put themselves into that line of fire with no significant payback...........

Anonymous said...

Moneta is an embarrassment. His entire career is riddled with politically correct stupidity, going back to his Penn days. For that matter, Brodhead ruthlessly throws people under the bus, going back to his Yale days. Both are the quintessential corporate yes men. Neither one of them have the leadership skills or strength of character to tell nutjobs on the faculty to pound sand.

As an alum, it is apparent Duke will never really be past the lacrosse debacle until Brodhead, Moneta, Steel, Alleva and the rest of the sorry lot are gone. This is how out of control it is: A Duke student is violently raped, and their instinct is to attack the student for taking a risk. Breathtaking in its arrogance and cruelty. The only solace we can take is that Burness is gone, or he too would have given us choice quotes.

I guarantee that to this day the only regret of the Duke Adminstration and faculty is that they got caught. No reflection, no rethinking of what happened, no reassessment of poor decision making, nothing. They forgot nothing and learned nothing. Adult supervision is desperately needed.

Sigh.

Debrah said...

"Exactly, and even with significant political capital, those economics professors had steel balls to sign that letter..... it would be unrealistic, I think, to expect everyone to put themselves into that line of fire with no significant payback..........."


Maybe that's just a fact of life that I can't understand.

Why did it take "steel balls"?

Is this what happens to everyone when they marry, have children, and take on a mortgage?

Those people at Duke are not impenetrable. If enough of the faculty had made a move against the Gang of 88, the administration would have been forced to take a different approach.

I understand the reluctance of many to cause friction; however, what must it be like walking the campus of a place where your ideas and your speech were muzzled?

More people need to put themselves on the line.

Does anyone recall the scene in Scent of a Woman when Al Pacino's character spoke before the school's administrators and students in an auditorium in defense of another student who did the right thing and was going to be made to take the fall?

When he said....."I'm just gettin' started!"

That's how Duke's administrators and radical faculty need to be confronted.

Nothing changes because no one, or not enough, will provide the push-back.

And be willing to do whatever it takes.

Anonymous said...

K.C. et al.:

It would be interesting to know just what Larry Moneta said that implied blame of the rape victim. Does anybody have a copy (in any form) of what he said?

Gus W.

KC Johnson said...

Moneta's statement: the situation was “part of the reality of collegiate life and of experimentation and some of the consequences of students not necessarily always being in the right place at the right time."

Anonymous said...

"By the way, a final irony: Rouse’s case was handled by assistant district attorney Jan Paul—the same Jan Paul who showed her commitment to truth and justice by weeping openly as her onetime boss, Mike Nifong, was convicted of criminal contempt for lying to the court."

To play devil's advocate...

The enthymeme here is "people who weep openly at a conviction are all people who think the accused should not have been convicted (and thus betray their commitment to truth and justice.)" As someone with a close relative who was convicted of a crime that he did indeed commit, I can testify that that premise is false: one can fully acknowledge that a conviction is justified and yet -- if one cares about the convicted individual -- deeply regret that the crime itself was not averted, for the sake of the victims and of the perpetrator.

Perhaps Jan Paul has done something more than was described here, something which would make it clear that her tears indeed represented an allegiance to Nifong above justice, rather than simply human emotion towards Nifong. If such is the case, I do wonder why that "something" was omitted.

KC Johnson said...

To the 9.35:

Alas, your more generous interpretation is not the case. Paul also was nodding vigorously during the closing address, as Nifong's defense attorney asserted that his client had either never misled the court or his misleading the court didn't constitute criminal contempt.

Gary Packwood said...

After you go on record as thanking protesters who urged castration of the lacrosse captains and then state with certainty that something happened to Mangum, what mountain is left to conquer except Prague or perhaps the operas of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?

Lets appreciate the silence.
::
GP

One Spook said...

I recognize that this posting contained multiple subjects but unfortunately, in my view, the comments have tended to focus on the bad apples in the Duke faculty, a subject we’ve commented on many, many times.

Lost in the shuffle is the story of Katie Rouse, a very brave young woman who was a victim of rape. The Anonymous commentator at 8:08 AM provides critical new information and everyone should read that comment again. This commentator is likely someone who is very familiar with the victim and her family.

Since KC Johnson’s voluminous files on this case are the definitive record of this event, and the Burch case is an important part of that record, I would urge that commentator to contact KC Johnson via e-mail (His e-mail address can be found by following the link at the top right of the main page at “VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE”) and to provide Professor Johnson with the records that back up the assertions that:

(1) President Richard Brodhead refused to meet with Rouse's father after he [Mr. Rouse] had requested a meeting.
(2) Duke had heavily recruited Ms Rouse to attend Duke and even flew her down to Durham while she was in high school, as someone outstanding in the classroom.
(3) Ms Rouse’s father contacted Karla Holloway who did not responded to him.
(4) Ms Rouse’s father contacted Wahneema Lubiano who did not responded to him.
(5) All of this is a matter of record.

And, even having been virtually ignored by those who purport to “listen” to student” at Duke, Ms Rouse has bravely and constructively moved on with her life, telling a reporter according to the links provided in the post, "I think for a while it changed how I acted, how I was always sad, afraid to be by myself," she said. "But it didn't change me permanently, no." And, she added, "I didn't ask for any of this. I'm not the one who should feel ashamed."

Hers is the attitude of a winner.

Ms Rouse deserves our greatest attention and support.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

On April 19, 2006 Ellis Henican , referred to in KC'S post, wrote a Newsday article entitled " Big men on campus, cut to size." While he stopped just short of convicting Reade and Collin, who had just been indicted, his biased and irresponsible commentary clearly contributed to the continued rush to judgment. Here's some quotes from the article.

Henican referred to the lacrosse players as " hollow examples of modern manhood " and " coddled sports stars ". I suspect Mr. Henican did not know any of the lacrosse players and did not take the time to confirm his statements with some independent research.

Without knowing the facts, he described Collin's DC incident as a " sidewalk assault accompanied by anti-gay slurs." Collin never assaulted his accuser, who was not gay.

Henican described Collin and Reade as both being from " high income suburban zip codes " implying that this somehow makes them bad kids.

He included the standard CYA language that being indicted is not the same as being guilty but immediately followed this with " But still. " as a dramatic stand alone non sentence which, in my opinion, clearly implied guilt.

Henican referred to the boys as follows. " If this is what athletic prowess and stellar SAT scores buy today, how can any parent sleep at night ? ". Selena Roberts , writing for the NYT, also contended that a successful college athlete with high SAT scores is somehow a bad thing.

He criticized the headmaster at the Delbarton School ( Rev. Travers ) who , unlike Henican, knew Reade well and who " unreservedly " stated that he believed Reade was innocent. Henican wrote that Travers was " refusing to face the ugly facts as they are now emerging..." Henican went on to say that Rev. Travers , and all of us, " need to confront this dreadful and unfolding story before it gets too far beyond us and all of us are subsumed in a kind of home team defensiveness. " This sure sounded like Henican thought the lacrosse players did something really bad.

He described the accuser as black, " a single mom , working her way through a third tier Southern state college, however unconventionally. ". He contrasted this with his description of the players as white and " from the privilege of tony New York suburbs." Henican was fanning the flames of racism and classism.

Henican's prejudiced, lazily researched and irresponsibly written article contributed to the lynch mob environment which existed in the Spring of 2006.

BN




'

Anonymous said...

"Burch must report to jail next week."

Amazing. Did he show up?

Anonymous said...

No discussion of the hypocrisy in the Burch case would be complete without a "shout out" to Ted Vaden, former Public Editor for the Raleigh News and Observer. At the time of Burch's first rape (that we know about) Vaden employed some of his best casuistry for explaining why the N&O (like Duke and Durham) treated the lacrosse allegations and the Burch issue very differently.

This blog might have covered Vaden's bizarre and dishonest defense of the way the N&O racialized the lacrosse (non)rape yet took considerable pains to avoid the topic of race in the Burch allegations.

Like many of the actors in this (lack of) morality play, Vaden has skated away to bigger and better things. After getting paid to pee on critics of the ever shrinking N&O, he now has a six figure job with state government.

Anonymous said...

I would agree with Debrah's statement "...more people need to put themselves on the line". Unfortunately, there are many in academe (elementary, secondary, and colegiate level) who choose not to speak out when they see evil because they feel that the consequences of speaking out will be dire for them and change nothing about the evil that surrounds them. Having been in academe, I know all to well what the consequences can be professionally and personally for speaking out about inequality or presenting a view that runs contary to the mindset of those in control. It is not pretty. One has to be a very strong individual personally to withstand the slings and arrows. One also needs to have a back-up plan financially if the powers that be have the wherewithal to ruin one's career. Unfortunately, for those who do not have tenure or the political capital (in the lacrosse instance the economics profs) to protest raises the very likelihood that one's academic career could be grounded before it is even much begun. Given the competition (especially in the social sciences) for academic positions
one can understand why there might be the reluctance to speak out. However, understanding does not imply that such a reluctance is morally excusable - because it is not. Nifong acted cravenly - that is bad enough. Those who stood by and allowed evil to occur deserve the lowest depths of the inferno.
cks

Debrah said...

Some of us have mentioned Ted Vaden many times; however, I didn't know until it was printed in the N&O that he had been getting paid by Duke all along to teach a class there at the same time he was parading as the "public editor" at the paper.

How interested was he in having Duke criticized for their handling of the rape accusations in 2006?

Vaden paid his bills by pretending to assume a critical perch; however, like the N&O editorial staff, he always knew what publisher Quarles likes, he knew the old party line in reference to anything written about the black community, and he knew not to publicly go against Brodhead in order to keep his professional fires burning at Duke.

Vaden seemed flustered when I contacted him because the N&O editorial staff would not print my op-ed criticizing a previous op-ed written by someone from Duke praising Brodhead and the way the administration had handled the lacrosse case.

I also went into a detailed rant about some of the Gang of 88. My op-ed was too long and needed to be fine-tuned; however, all they had to do was tell me to edit some things and they'd print it.

But they wouldn't even touch it.

Vaden asked me if I had called Quarles about the matter.

Can you believe that?

The "public editor" who is paid to be objective told me to talk to the publisher.

That's how it went in 2006......and to this very day.

I have always enjoyed talking with Quarles and have avoided saying things that I could have easily brought to the argument.

I also don't enjoy kicking them when the paper is hanging by a thread and a few people who still work there are good people; however, when I think back over the years---even before the Hoax---how they behaved, I really should have no hesitation in discussing things that are true.

Ted Vaden was never critical of the N&O to any significant degree.

And he has been well-rewarded.

Anonymous said...

I saw Ellis Henican on the Fox News Channel back in 2007. Michelle Malkin was discussing the Christian-Newsom rape-murders in Knoxville TN. the topic was why the case wasn't a national story, with the subtext being that the MSM didn't want to cover a horrific black-on-white crime. Henican was arguing that it was "not a big story," and that race had nothing to do with the lack of coverage. Henican also claimed that if the Knoxville murders had been white suspects and black victims, there would have been no coverage. I believe Henican also said that the MSM was right in giving the Duke affair massive coverage.

DN

Anonymous said...

cks said at 11:00 AM...

I would agree with Debrah's statement "...more people need to put themselves on the line". Unfortunately, there are many in academe (elementary, secondary, and colegiate level) who choose not to speak out when they see evil because they feel that the consequences of speaking out will be dire for them...

Having watched some of the non-PC professors twist and turn as they try to explain their inaction, I think I have come to the conclusion that they are like beaten and cowed spouses and that the threat of being called "racist!" today is exactly as frightening to them as being called "heretic!" was in the days of Galileo and Copernicus.

Anonymous said...

Linked from Minding The Campus:

"Grade inflation gone wild"
By Stuart Rojstaczer

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0324/p09s02-coop.html

The author has numbers.

Also, some schools are attmpting to buck the trend.

Gary Packwood said...

Duke 1965::3/23/09::5:37 PM said...
...I think they (Duke Alumni)are focused on different goals than many at DIW. They primarily want their sons/daughters to have "social capital".... that is, to get into quality graduate schools, get upwardly-mobile jobs, gain helpful contacts for the post-college world, and so on...... as far as I can tell, Duke is still meeting those goals, despite the protests from groups such as DIW.
::
It appears that you are correct.

Protecting and searching for the truth is not a priority and that ethic is now very much apart of the new social capital that is emerging as a result of the Duke lacrosse rape hoax.

The Duke Alums are writing their own history.
::
GP

Debrah said...

Someone just sent this to me.

Seems the Gang of 88 mascot Timothy Tyson will be leading a conference of his own this weekend.

Tyson is forever a major player in "the struggle".

But why is he listed as being with the University of Wisconsin?

Debrah said...

Has anyone seen this from Gaynor?

Debrah said...

Interesting interview

Does Houston Baker really make $300,000/yr. at Vanderbilt?

This can't be real.

Debrah said...

It's been so long since I've visited the other blogs; however, this one from yesterday is interesting.

Anonymous said...

Katie was raped at an off-campus Duke fraternity party. Illegal narcotics were found on the premises. Was the fraternity disciplined by Duke? Were the student renters disciplined?

unbekannte said...

The hoax enablers have asked on more than one occasion, would the Lacrosse case have have become such an issue if the accuser had been white and the accused black. The Burch case answers the question with a resounding NO!

Professor Johnson has pointed out several months ago the question is a moot question. Nifong needed an issue which would attract the support of Durham's black voters. Prosecuting black men for raping a white woman would not have done that. if the accuser had been white and the accused black, Nifong would never have prosecuted them, let alone make an issue of them.

One Spook said...

unbekannte writes @ 1:44 PM

"if the accuser had been white and the accused black, Nifong would never have prosecuted them, let alone make an issue of them."

Bingo!

And that is why the Burch case provides important context in understanding the lacrosse case.

Contrary to the wild and intellectually dishonest assertion of Duke Professor William Chafe (who I believe is senile), the Emmett Till case provides NO context whatsoever with the lacrosse hoax.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Debrah said...

Interesting interview

Does Houston Baker really make $300,000/yr. at Vanderbilt?

This can't be real.

3/24/09 9:01 PM



I notice that at the same site, there is an interview with Ann Coulter. The interview is 10 minutes, and she discusses the Lacrosse Hoax beginning near the 6:30 mark.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 3/24/09 :: 11:57 PM said...

...Katie was raped at an off-campus Duke fraternity party. Illegal narcotics were found on the premises. Was the fraternity disciplined by Duke? Were the student renters disciplined?
::
This entire issue of off-campus parties has been a thorn in the side of universities since fire chiefs determined correctly, that most off campus fraternity and sororities 'houses' were old tired fire traps.
Thus a modern day off-campus fraternity or sorority house meets fire and safety standards that one would associate with hotels...such as a Holiday Inn, for example.

The 'frat house' you are referencing is/was owned by a Duke alumnus (who lives in Oklahoma) and the house was rented to several students who are not members of any fraternity recognized by Duke. These students apparently had a party replete with illegal narcotics and as you mentioned sadly, Katie was raped at this party.

At one time many universities owned the property occupied by these old tired fire trap houses and during the 1970's universities evicted the students and domolished the houses with a sigh of relief from the fire chiefs...and neighbors.

Greek housing was provided for students on-campus that met all of the housing and safety codes and then in the USA...we bumped the drinking age up to age 21.

Beer drinking was driven off campus for about 75% of the undergraduate students who drink beer.

And that brings up up-to-date with one little fact missing.

Personnel associated with the Office of Student Affairs believe fiercely that the source of all evil for fraternities are alums (Brothers) who come back to campus and tell their stories about how it used-to-be when everyone could drink beer and fifteen people lived in a house...which was their ...fraternity house...even if it was a fire-trap.

Universities now work with the local authorities to pass ordinances limiting the number of unrelated people who live in a house and then turn the entire problem of off-campus frat houses and alumni with their stories of `ole ... over to the local police chief.

Universities always assume that the ranks of their alums are not populated with the developmentally delayed; the older brothers are somewhat familiar with modern day beer drinking rules along with fire and safety regulations since they work someplace and ...if the wealthy brothers want to finance and build a new fraternity house that meets 'code' ...have at it! Just Do IT!

I have always believed that it was one of these off campus 'fraternity parties' that was the target to be 'taken down' WITH ALUMNI PRESENT...and not the house rented by the three lacrosse captains.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Nifong needed an issue which would attract the support of Durham's black voters. Prosecuting black men for raping a white woman would not have done that. if the accuser had been white and the accused black, Nifong would never have prosecuted them, let alone make an issue of them.



That is the meme you've pushed from the start. It is a flat out blatant lie.


KC Johnson should stop being dishonest.He has been dishonest from the beginning. God has knowledge of all of his dishonesty.

Debrah said...

TO 2:14 AM--

If you can tap on a keyboard with a straight face and say that KC's post isn't true, then you do not know Durham and many similar places like it in this country.

People like Mike Nifong know what the large and brazenly tendentious black community, who virtually run Durham, expect.

Don't question me on such things.

I might be forced to give very personal examples.

And we don't want to get into all that.

Just look back how silent the late John Hope Franklin was throughout the Lacrosse Hoax.

This is someone whose life was built around "equality and justice for all".

Was it, really?

What KC has stated is an unadulterated reality.

A Duke Dad said...

Anonymous 2:14 AM attributes her/his quoted remarks to KC.
This is wrong; the words were posted by unbekannte 1:44 AM.

A half hour apart.

But, we can take comfort in knowledge that 2:14 AM speaks with God directly,

"KC Johnson should stop being dishonest.He has been dishonest from the beginning. God has knowledge of all of his dishonesty."

Clearly, there is a severe lack of coherence in the Klan of 88 and their minions. Apparently, even conversations with the Almighty cannot help.

A Duke Dad said...

Just noticed the dates are a day apart in my previous citation of the two comments. Sorry about that.

RighteousThug said...

A nifong supporter wrote:

That is the meme you've pushed from the start. It is a flat out blatant lie.

There must be some other reason that nifong gave approx 70 media interviews, many on national TV.

If not for the upcoming primary, why would nifong do that? Other than for the '$1,000,000 of free publicity'?

Anonymous said...

There must be some other reason that nifong gave approx 70 media interviews, many on national TV.

If not for the upcoming primary, why would nifong do that? Other than for the '$1,000,000 of free publicity'?



There is no other reason than Michael Nifong believed in the case. The people of North Carolina elected him because they wanted him.


KC Johnson IS dishonest.

KC Johnson said...

To the 3.09:

Many thanks for your kind words. I've always found, however, that pointing to specific pieces of evidence--rather than simply making ad hominem attacks--is a more effective line of persuasion.

A quick correction to your comment: district attorneys in North Carolina are not elected statewide.

And I should note that every day, all around the country, prosecutors who "believe[] in the case" do not violate ethical canons by giving dozens of interviews that demonize the suspects--even if doing so might serve their short-term political interest.

I would urge you to take a glimpse, therefore, at the ethics rules of the Bar, which do not provide an exception for prosecutors who allegedly "believed in the case."

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson,

Allow me to make myself clear. The people of Durham, North Carolina elected Michael Nifong because they wanted HIM.


Some prosecutors have done far worse than Michael Nifong. You do know that, don't you? You could have shown your followers what it is to be honest. I hope your conscience give you no rest until you do what is right and honorable.

RighteousThug said...

3:09 said:

There is no other reason than Michael Nifong believed in the case.

As KC pointed out, there is no exception for 'believing in the case'. It should also be noted that nifong's statements to the press violated the canons of his profession even if there had been any truth to the allegations. His goose was cooked no matter what the results of the underlying case.

Anonymous said...

KC,

Is there an exception to the ethics rules if the prosecutor has "a flat out and blatant" belief in the case AND if one knows that God knows it, too?

-RD

Duke 1965 said...

Anonymous @ 3:09:

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that Nifong truly believed in the case.... the real question is not whether he believed in the case, but whether that belief was rational, or to put it another way, did he have any basis whatsover to believe there was probable cause? Initially, one could argue that "he said, she said" was enough; however, within just a few weeks, Mangum's story completely fell apart, with contradictory evidence, obvious inability to identify her attackers, even in a rigged lineup, lack of DNA, and so on..... the real question is why were Nifong's perceptions so distorted as to allow him to press on long after it was obvious that no attack of any kind occured. His rigidity in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charge was false is indeed something that should be examined.

KC Johnson said...

To R.D.:

Alas, there is no such exception in such a case. Perhaps the Bar should take up the issue at its next meeting :)

To the 5.03:

I agree completely with your statement that "The people of Durham, North Carolina [or at least 49% of them] elected Michael Nifong because they wanted HIM." That result, of course, is one of the strongest arguments against elected DA's that I could imagine.


"Some prosecutors have done far worse than Michael Nifong."

Indeed they have. That doesn't excuse anything that Nifong did. Also, I don't recall recent occasions in which other "prosecutors [did] far worse than Michael Nifong" in which the local faculty effectively endorsed the corrupt prosecutor's case, or the New York Times slanted coverage in the corrupt prosecutor's favor, or the local NAACP published an 82-point "memorandum of law" designed to bolster the corrupt prosecutor's case.

unbekannte said...

Anonymous 3/26/09 5:03 PM

"KC Johnson,

Allow me to make myself clear. The people of Durham, North Carolina elected Michael Nifong because they wanted HIM.


Some prosecutors have done far worse than Michael Nifong. You do know that, don't you? You could have shown your followers what it is to be honest. I hope your conscience give you no rest until you do what is right and honorable."

I believe after all his posts on DIW Professor Johnson sleeps very soundly.

Anonymous said...

Mangum's story completely fell apart, with contradictory evidence, obvious inability to identify her attackers, even in a rigged lineup, lack of DNA, and so on.....



No. It was the defense having a dog & pony show swaying public opinion in their favor by demonizing a poor young black woman because she dared to point a finger at the arrogant rich white guys.

There are people fighting for this young woman. It won't stop until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson,

Ha. So in your world, everyone is lying on the poor arrogant rich ones? Crystal Mangum, Michael Nifong, The Durham Police, Duke Medical, Duke Professors, & Levicy?(Sarcasm) Boo hoo, no one is telling the truth but the dukies.

GMAB.

Anonymous said...

Nifong refused to consider or even look at any exculpatory evidence that was presented on behalf of the defendants. Nifong not only knowingly withheld evidence that should have been turned over to the defense but then lied about said evidence not only to the judge but also to reporters who in turn reported that "they had seen documents which bolstered Nifong's claims as to the culpablility of the accused" - this was in the infamous NY Times article of August 2006. Nifong did not meet with the perpetrator of the hoax - Crystal Mangum yet demonstrated for all and assundry how she calimed that she had been grabbed by the lax players (this was demonstrated by him in a news interview that was played over and over on national television and pictures were shown in a Newsweek (I believe it was either that publication or Time). Nifong used the media while at the same time accusing the defendants' lawyers of manipulating the press. Why did Nifong go to such great lengths? Was he really interested at all in justice? If he was, then he would have wanted to get all the facts (good and bad) so as to see that justice was done. Instead, Nifong was interested in one thing - getting elected so that he could secure a bigger pension - so in the end, it was about feathering the Nifong nest.
His supporters can make whatever claims that they want, but they cannot dispute the fact that Nifong did not have the administration of justice as his first and only goal. If he had, he would have looked at the exculpatory evidence presented by teh defense attorneys and submitted it to rigorous checking to see if it held up instead of suggesting that it was manufactured (this was the subject of speculation for over a week in the press as a result of suggestions from Nifong's office). He would have met with the accused (instead of sending his bumbling sidekick Linwood Wilson) and demanded a rigorous accounting of her actions (and then checked her background out and her timeline of the days' events). He would not have felt the need to comment publicly at every given moment about the case. He would not have ordered the arrest of Elmo to threaten him with deportation to change his story (Elmo is a hero of the first magnitude - a real man of courage). Finally, he would have gone public with the Meehan report (after first properly informing the defense lawyers) that there were real problems with Mangum's story. But then, to have done any of the above would have threatened his chances of gaining the black electorate's vote - which brings one back to the beginning point that Nifong saw and attempted to use this case for his won personal gain. It is for this reason that the lowest circle of Dante's Inferno is reserved for him.
cks

af said...

Alas, Prague has been hit by the Plague. Maybe they'll keep her.

KC Johnson said...

To the 7.15:

Many thanks for your inspiring rhetoric.

While I prefer to live in the reality-based community, you appear not to have followed the case. I'd urge you to consult the Attorney General's report, the transcript of ex-DA Nifong's ethics hearing, and the transcript of the 12-15-06 court hearing.

Debrah said...

"There are people fighting for this young woman. It won't stop until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."


Two possibilities.

Two nuts.

Take your pick.

Polanski putting on a show or Victoria Peterson putting on a different kind of show.

One which she might even believe.

unbekannte said...

Anonymous 3/26/09 7:15 PM

Anonymous 3/26/09 7:01 PM

Anonymous 3/26/09 5:03 PM

You are all examples of common psychopathology.

During the Papacy of Paul VI, a Papal commission advised him to ease the RC Church's position on contraception. Paul VI did not do this. He was advised if he did so the RC Church would admit it had been "wrong". The RC Chyrch could not be wrong. That comes from a book called PAPAL SIN by Garry Wills published in 2001.

All you anonymouses(sp?) can not admit you are wrong.

I first put this on the Justice4nifonggangof3 blog. Either you are all "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "distinguished"(???) "minister of justice"(????) Nifong or you are all channeling the same evil nifong spirit. Like nifong you charge people with wrongdoing without cause or evidence. You then vilify and disparage the people you accuse. You talk about evidence which you fail to present. Then you declare the people you accuse guilty.

Explain this, if you can. Professor Johnson has been invited to discuss the cgm case at major academic sessions, including one at Duke. Have nifong, cgm or any of her sycophants ever been invited to a major academic session to discuss the case?

Duke 1965 said...

Anonymous @ 7:01:

Apparently, your response to facts and evidence is to cast the case in terms of a social parable of a poor black woman against rich white men..... is that really how you want the justice system to work? In the 1950's, there were several cases where a black man was accused of raping a white woman, and in those cases, a black man, any black man, would do as a defendant, all in the name of justice..... is that really what you want? Scary.

Anonymous said...

Why does Lubiano in Prague remind me of that scene from "Animal House" in which Flounder and Pinto are steered firmly to the losers' couch to sit beside Mohammed, Jugdesh, Sydney and Clayton?

Is this Duke's lame attempt to avoid service of a subpoena? I believe that Lubiano and her email cache would provide a lot of evidence against Duke and a lot of just plain good fun. My only wish it that the plaintiffs make sure they are VIDEO depositions!

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

For those people who claim it is anti-intellectual to make fun of the Gang of 88's scholarship, please provide a cogent defense of Lubiano's work product. I mean, this is like Dada scholarship -- as if she is intentionally being inane and useless.

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

Michael Burch made $2mil in bail? I guess this explains why I couldn't find him in the Durham County Jail's database, but it begs the question of how he made bail. The Duke Chronicle needs to look into the whole Burch affair.

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

This was one of your best posts, K.C.! MOO! Gregory

Debrah said...

When I read something like the article below, I'm left with a lot of mixed feelings.

Funny how gross behavior will conjure up gross analogies.

"There is no easy death"---something Mr. Hertzberg said to me when I was choosing one of his mink jackets for my 30th birthday.

(For all PETA members---that was then, this is now.)

I wanted the jacket for a fashion statement because it could be worn with jeans as well as formal wear; however, at the same time, I felt very guilty wearing the skins of animals.

And as gross of an analogy as this seems, I have similar mixed feelings when I read someone like Holloway talking in such glowing terms.

I want to celebrate the long life of someone who contributed to chronicling the history of our country.....

......however, it must be remembered how these same people responded--(or not!) in the case of Franklin---when they didn't feel a closeness to those who could have used a bit of their "justice for all" and "equality" schtick in the Spring of 2006 and beyond.


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

Day meant to celebrate life of Dr. Franklin

By Gregory Childress : The Herald-Sun
Mar 27, 2009

DURHAM -- In honor of his wishes, there will be no funeral for Dr. John Hope Franklin, the respected historian of the black experience in America who died Wednesday at age 94.

"He was a humble person that way," said Duke University spokeswoman Camille Jackson. "He didn't want a lot of fuss around him."

Instead of a funeral, there will be a celebration of Dr. Franklin's life June 11 at 11 a.m. in Duke Chapel. That day was chosen because it would have been the 69th wedding anniversary of Dr. Franklin and his late wife Aurelia Franklin.

"He specifically didn't want that [a funeral]," Jackson said. "The event in June is a celebration of his life."

But while Dr. Franklin didn't want a big deal made upon his death, it became a national news story Wednesday -- one that commanded the attention of President Barack Obama.

"Because of the life John Hope Franklin lived, the public service he rendered, and the scholarship that was the mark of his distinguished career, we all have a richer understanding of who we are as Americans and our journey as a people," Obama said.

Dr. Franklin endorsed Obama in the November presidential election, citing among other things his belief that Obama has the ability to bridge the nation's racial divide.

Karla Holloway, James B. Duke Professor of English and Professor of Law, said Dr. Franklin let it be known to everyone close to him that he did not want a funeral.

"John Hope Franklin told all of us on one occasion or another to 'put me in a box and put me in the ground,' " Holloway said. "He knew we would likely go overboard."

Holloway explained that Dr. Franklin didn't want to be revered by those he befriended and mentored.

"He wanted us to know him as a person," Holloway said. "Anytime we tried to revere him, he would go on the attack."

Still, Holloway said the scholars across multiple disciplines that Dr. Franklin got to know well feel the need to congregate before June 11 to pay homage to a man who meant so much to them.

"I don't know how we're going to satisfy it [the need to congregate]," Holloway said. "We're not going to violate his wishes. We've got to find a way around them."

Holloway's fondest memories of Dr. Franklin are watching him tend to his beloved orchids in his backyard greenhouse.

"You saw the kind of mind he had," Holloway said. "He could go from considering the most critical problems of our nation to nurturing the small bud of a plant in his greenhouse. When I saw the tenderness in the way that he tended to his plants, I understood how he could bring that focused attention to all else that he did."

Historian Lewis Suggs said Dr. Franklin was a humble man who will be remembered as a teacher, researcher and humanitarian.

"They'll be reading his books 200 years from now," Suggs said. "I think Dr. Franklin's greatest contribution is yet to come. He ignited a lot of scholars. He was a candle in the dark."

unbekannte said...

Anonymous 3/26/09 7:01 PM

"There are people fighting for this young woman. It won't stop until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

Those people are doing to get awfully thirsty waiting for their versions of justice and righteousness to roll.

Anonymous said...

Those people are doing to get awfully thirsty waiting for their versions of justice and righteousness to roll.


Not true. The statement was made by Dr. King in his "I Have a Dream Speech" at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. No one would have believed then, but 40 years later, it would produce a black president of USA.



Never under-estimate.

KC Johnson said...

To the 8.24:

Thank you for your insights.

Linking Martin Luther King, Jr.--among other things, a great defender of civil liberties--with Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum is one of the more amusing historical analogies offered in the case.

Perhaps next we can hear about how former Sgt. Gottlieb should be compared to Elliot Ness.

unbekannte said...

The justice4nifonggangof3 believe they are heroes for standing up for cgm.

That is funny, even though it is delusional.