Friday, April 10, 2009

Weekend Reading

Last week, I noted that Wahneema Lubiano had published virtually nothing since arriving as a tenured professor at Duke more than a decade ago.

Her latest "publication"--a 3-page interview in an obscure journal called e3w--isn't available in any scholarly databases to my knowledge, isn't available at the Columbia, NYU, or CUNY libraries, and has a website that was last updated in 2007. But below is a taste of what the Group of 88 leader has published.

These excerpts come from an essay Lubiano prepared around 15 years ago, ruminating on the topic of political correctness. To reiterate a theme often raised in the blog, this sort of "scholarship" is exactly what many humanities and some social science departments--and not just at Duke-- look for when hiring new professors and tenuring those on staff. The excerpts also provide a glimpse at the kind of teaching that occurs in Prof. Lubiano's classroom:

. . . Perhaps, however, some of us could do something else as part of a multifaceted project of left theorizing and strategizing around aesthetics and reconstructing political common sense.

Why is popular culture so vexed for much of the Left? Could we begin to answer the questions of this symposium by acknowledging that we (as intellectuals, cultural workers, and activists) have something to learn from taking seriously the enemy of our enemy: namely, the Right's fear and loathing of popular culture-including the desire that resides therein?

Certain elements of the Left have been so distrustful of desire that they are often disempowered from even considering desire as a ground on which to do politics. Can popular culture be politically correct? Correct for whom? Under what circumstances? To what end? Are we referring to "politically correct" as a finished process? Are we trying to account for politics (in or from popular culture) from the point of view of the producer(s)? The consumer(s)? By virtue of popular culture's politics' effects on larger discourses?

. . . At the same time, perhaps we could consider why it is that popular culture is one of the easiest objects of political critique given the pervasiveness of racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism throughout our social formation.

. . . Popular culture is important because it is at least a potential threat to the manageability that a corporate capitalist culture desires; it falls outside of "orderly" categorizing-it refuses to behave appropriately. Of course, transgression does not guarantee-in and of itself-an oppositional narrative to the status quo of global capitalism; but it doesn't necessarily militate against forming opposition either. Further, while reams of paper and trillions of words of left criticism and analyses of capitalism's production and management of popular culture have made it clear that there are no mass distributed forms of culture that are shaped outside of corporate management and influence, it is precisely because we know those things that we can take up the task of learning something else: what might being cognizant of pleasure in the consumption of, and participation in, popular culture teach us about politics?

. . . As Cora Kaplan tells us, we haven't progressed much beyond the late eighteenth century's inability to generate a "positive account of fantasy for women, the lower classes, or colonial people.” [emphasis added]

. . . To make a stab at beginning the work of answering-in however small a part-some of the questions I've raised, I've been talking with my students about some instances of popular culture productions in order to try to account for what politics might be available in those places, for whom, and under what circumstances such things might fit into some kind of politics. We looked recently at two-"frivolous" (as far as my students were concerned)-examples: one a song (popular about two years ago) and the other an ad for a recent Hollywood movie-examples that my politically engaged feminist and/or vaguely left students thought were either sexist and heterosexist, or culturally "inauthentic" (the latter charge being an accusation of "sin" against identity politics, which they saw as the last bulwark against racial cultural imperialism).

The song was Soul II Soul's "Back to Life," a song subjected to extensive criticism by students who disliked what they saw as the dilution of funk and house music with "inappropriate" use of strings . . . some students explained that "inappropriateness" as the "bombastic" or "pompous" use of strings for music that might otherwise have a claim to being "harder,"4 to being more "authentic." I asked them whether they thought that the use of violins in this cut meant that the song was pop that hungered after musical respectability? Was it simply a question of the arranger or composer's ignorance about the "appropriate" use of strings, or desire for the increased popularity of (and profits to be generated from) a possibly "softer" sound? Or could it be a self-conscious de-elevation of "classical" (or "high culture") musical instruments?

. . . The appropriation of European instruments and musical forms "means" something within the discourse of black music's relation to European or Euro-American music, but how do we tease out the political implications of that meaning? We can begin by reminding ourselves that historically the black liberatory project has explained cultural production as counterhegemonic resistance.

. . . The second example we considered in class was an ad for the movie The Bodyguard, starring Whitney Houston and Kevin Costner. The ad shows Houston somewhat scantily clad in a leather-trimmed outfit and thigh-high black leather boots; Costner is carrying her and her face is buried in his neck. Black and white women students in my class who saw that ad generally responded with condemnation of its inscription of a heterosexist fantasy of dependent female romance.

. . . For some of my black women students, this ad had the effect of seeing "Swan Lake" integrated even while another student's impulse was to question whether or not black people want to see everything (including "trash") integrated.

. . . One of my students, an "out" black lesbian from Guyana and the one who said, "he [Costner/hero/generic white male person] ought to carry us," talked about her own consumption of interracial, heterosexual mythologizing. "Besides," she said (having read something of mine about two salient public narratives about black women), "at least here's one of us being something other than a welfare queen or Anita Hill. Plus, you see those boots of hers? Maybe she's a top." [emphasis in original]

. . . Can disrespect for authority engendered by popular culture be turned to more "directly" political ends? In other words, how do we learn from, and continue to engage ourselves in, the channeling of some kind of desire into political agency?

To quote from a recent essay by Gary Kamiya (who is basically sympathetic to the Group's pedagogical approach), "The rise of advocacy scholarship was understandable and has generated much legitimate research and worthy polemics. But it also opened the door to hacks and ideologues. Ethnic studies and gender studies departments are always in danger of falling into breast-beating advocacy and identity-group solidarity. It is the responsibility of universities to make sure they don't."


Anonymous said...

It's better to publish virtually nothing and appear a fool, then to have what you've published remove all doubt.
North of Detroit

reharmonizer said...

The best 13 paragraphs I've seen in DIW for a long time. Any chance of a citation?

One Spook said...

KC used a quote from the Kamiya essay that read in part, "Ethnic studies and gender studies departments are always in danger of falling into breast-beating advocacy and identity-group solidarity. It is the responsibility of universities to make sure they don't."

I believe it is the responsibility of universities to make sure they don't have ANY departments of "Ethnic Studies" or "Gender Studies."

Universities should have never granted those minor subjects "departmental status" in the first place. Those minor subjects should be and could be taught by legitimate scholars with legitimate credentials who do not view "advocacy" or the mythology of viewing everything in the world solely in terms of race, class, and gender as their primary pedagogical goal.

One Spook

Danvers said...

Perhaps Wahneema needs a proverbial "kick in the AAAS" to get her publishing capabilities up to speed!

Anonymous said...


Can you please "make a stab at beginning the work of answering"?

What the h...are you talking about?

Duke Grad

Anonymous said...

Is Lubiano a Communist?

Anonymous said...

The lesson here is simple: If you are a fireman, let the militant Guyanese lesbian walk down the burning stairs her own damn self!


Further, I would like to lodge a complaint with the nearest identity politician. I have been "othered" as a member of a large, homogeneous group known simply as the "Right," which has a fear of "desires." Perhaps, I'm more "Middle," and I have a desire to rescue a beautiful black pop superstar?


I succumbed to momentary weakness there by arguing with Lubiano in the mud. That is giving her "scholarship" -- which appears to be more an anthology of the few clear sentences her students blurt out -- weight that it doesn't deserve. Please forgive an old man his weakness.


Gary Kamiya claims it is the "responsibility" of universities to check the potentially dangerous tendencies of identity scholarship. But with "Diversity Officers," identity scholars in abundance, "Centers for Race Relations" and scared-straight administrators, they have become their own perpetual motion machines.

The good news is that I have inventoried a great deal of this scholarship and reviewed their conferences, and they remind me of a national Trade Association meeting of the Glass Packaging Industry in the 1960s or a seminar for newspaper editors in 2000, loudly proclaiming how they are needed now more than ever. So loud, in fact, they've almost convinced themselves.

Additionally, the number of individuals willing to challenge the excesses of identity politics has grown. It used to be that David Horowitz was an easy and lone target, but now there is FIRE, Campus Watch, "One Duke" and similar organizations, even Fox News (which is otherwise a most disagreeable entity).

Finally, and I think most importantly, more people will begin to realize the anti-intellectualism necessary to maintain the identity masthead. At its very roots, identity scholarship divides students and people based on skin color and sexual organs -- and not based on their intelligence or ability to produce for others. MOO! Gregory (P.S. One Spook, You're Wrong! -- Consider that a preemptive or "first strike" "You're Wrong," if you will). ;)

Debrah said...

Lubiano's "scholarship" is beyond sickening.

She reminds me of the strange man who used to sit on the sidewalk benches around town near the campus.

He was there constantly trying to pick up college girls.

He was a runner and always had a sports car.

The story was that when a girl relented and went out with him he'd take them up in his plane.

Then he'd tell them they could either have sex with him or jump.

His nickname was "Mile High".

A real creep.

However, at least he didn't use a university classroom for his perversions.

And at least he funded his own disgusting lifestyle.

Wahneema and company seem to be using Duke University as a haven for exploration and exploitation under the guise of "scholarship".

What you read from Lubiano's work could just as easily be discussed between two lesbians in a bar.

Or in a laundramat while waiting for the rinse cycle.

That's a title for her new book!

"Lesbians Doing Laundry"



Brilliantly insightful and provocative!

Anonymous said...

"hacks and ideologues"? Thy name is Duke.

Debrah said...

This page includes the following about Wahneema:

Her current research interests include African-American literature, African-American popular culture and film, womens' studies, black intellectual history, and nationalism.

"Her current research interests"?

Doesn't this sound more like a teen talking about hobbies or the information used under their photo in a high school yearbook?

This woman is basically on a self-indulgent and subsidized ride at Duke.....and doing little but citing excerpts from People be discussed and explored by not-so-unsuspecting students of like mind.

Anonymous said...

I believe the above web page could be the source of the of essay you attribute to Wahneema Lubiano.
Note that at the bottom of the page many similiar essays can be created by the Postmodernism Generator link or you can bookmark favorites.

Is there really a Wahneema Lubiano or is she the prank creation of Harvard school children?

North of Detroit

Anonymous said...

“Sexual identity is part of the failure of sexuality,” says Derrida. The main theme of the works of Eco is the futility, and hence the collapse, of postcultural culture. Thus, Lyotard’s essay on rationalism states that narrativity is used to reinforce hierarchy, given that the premise of subdialectic capitalist theory is valid.

In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the concept of semiotic reality. The subject is contextualised into a that includes sexuality as a totality. However, Baudrillard suggests the use of rationalism to attack and analyse sexual identity.

If submaterialist cultural theory holds, we have to choose between subdialectic capitalist theory and the cultural paradigm of expression. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a that includes consciousness as a paradox.

Bataille uses the term ’subdialectic capitalist theory’ to denote a self-sufficient totality. Thus, Lacan promotes the use of submaterialist cultural theory to deconstruct the status quo.

The example of rationalism which is a central theme of Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum emerges again in The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics). Therefore, Werther[8] implies that we have to choose between the subdialectic paradigm of reality and modern narrative.

Any number of appropriations concerning subdialectic capitalist theory may be found. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a that includes art as a paradox.

North of Detroit

KC Johnson said...

To N.o.D.:

No--the Lubiano essay appeared in Social Text 36, 11.3 (Fall 1993).

As I noted in the post, it's a bit on the old side--in large part because she appears to have all but stopped publishing once she received tenure.

No justice, no peace said...

When one considers the mythology and meta-narratives created by Lubiano and others like her in the Humanities one is reminded of the greatness of “Don Quixote”. Of course the fundamental difference is that chivalry lives yet widespread race, class and gender non-sense are manufactured mythology. Deconstructing classic works and studying pap about pop culture is much more than a relativist effort to equalize outcomes. It is indeed a proactive push to deconstruct our culture and eliminate all that has stood the test of the ages – our best efforts.. Like others before them they have no solutions and are to inept to realize that in spite of our flaws we are indeed the best alternative and ironically as the best alternative provide them the forum to spew their nonsense.

I found these top ten quotes from Cervantes “Don Quixote” and immediately thought of Duke, the Klan of 88 and their abettors.

1) Cervantes describes Quixote's growing obsession with knight-errantry, saying, "he so immersed himself in those romances that he spent whole days and nights over his books; and thus with little sleeping and much reading his brains dried up to such a degree that he lost the use of his reason" (Book 1, Part 1).

The self-fulfilling “inquiry” into the race, gender, and class studies coupled with the totalitarian efforts to repress any dissenting opinion, in the class, at conferences, within publishing houses, etc. has indeed dried-up their brains. They are on a crowded elevator passing gas and affirming to each other how fresh the air is remains.

2) Cervantes explains the Don's desire to leave his village and take up the profession of knighthood: "he was spurred on by the conviction that the world needed his immediate presence." (Book 1, Part 2).

Were it not for academia the Klan of 88 would understand the crushing reality that none need their immediate presence. How far down the list would these people be on a Rolodex used to identify those who can solve any problem?

3) Quixote explains the Golden Age of men, saying, "Neither fraud, nor deceit, nor malice had yet interfered with truth and plain dealing" (Book 1, Part 8).

Fraud, deceit and malice are at the core of creating chaos, lying and obfuscating plain language – it is the modus operandi of those who intentionally work in the relativist realm of manufactured meta-narratives. How many minorities have been lynched in the past thirty years? How many people were murdered in Chicago this past year?

4) Because the world is no longer in such a state, however, "the order of knight-errantry was instituted to defend maidens, to protect widows, and to rescue orphans and distressed persons," the knight continues (Book 1, Part 8).

A huge difference…race, gender, class studies are instituted to deconstruct those institutions that defend maidens, protect widows, rescue orphans and distressed persons unlike any the world have ever witnessed.

5) Quixote explains to Sancho the sacrifice that knights-errant and their squires must give to their higher calling, saying, "But all this must be suffered by those who profess the stern order of chivalry" (Book 1, Part 11).

All this suffering? It is the manufactured and imagined suffering through supposed racist emails, rape hoaxes, nooses on door knobs, etc. The Klan’s purpose is to instruct their students to the stern and fraudulent order of race, class, and gender grievances.

6) Continuing, he explains how God will provide for them: ".God, Who provides for all, will not desert us; especially being engaged, as we are, in His service" (Book 1, Part 11).

Progressivism or the hard left is indeed a religion, is it not? The passion of the meta-narratives…His service becomes service to the state.

7) Sancho, the realist, tells his master, "I sometimes think that all you tell me of knighthood, kingdoms, empires and islands is all windy blather and lies" (Book 1, Part 15).

Disparaging class, race, and gender mythology as “windy blather and lies” would earn you a failing grade in Klan of 88 classes at Duke.

8) Quixote, lamenting over the fact that his Lady Dulcinea is enchanted: "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed" (Book 2, Part 3).

Can there be a better quote on victimhood? They think they have lived a full and fruitful life by manufacturing misfortune, banging pots and pans to bring attention to their misfortune, printing wanted posters that falsely defame innocent people, and then lament that others who must be enchanted shine light on their malicious intentions. The delicious irony is the meta-narrative framework comes from the work of a Western giant who they wish to deconstruct.

9) The Don, strict in his Catholicism and its doctrine of free will, rejoices over his freedom, telling his squire, "Liberty, Sancho, my friend, is one of the most precious gifts that Heaven has bestowed on mankind" (Book 2, Part 14).

The Klan of 88 and those like them are the poster children of collectivism. The product of their work is to deconstruct individualism and free-will and presented in the great Western tradition. We’ve seen how they deal with freedom of speech within the fraudulently portrayed bastions of freedom – the U.S. universities. Ironically at Duke some of the most egregious deconstruction was in the Chapel that is the Duke brand.

10) The knight, after rejecting his stories of chivalry, tells his family, shamefully, "My judgement is now clear and unfettered, and that dark cloud of ignorance has disappeared, which the continual reading of those detestable books of knight-errantry had cast over my understanding" (Book 2, Part 16).

The “dark cloud of ignorance” is being espoused at $50,000 per year. Duke must actively find incoming students whose judgment the Klan can cloud and fetter. When those incoming student refuse to enroll in their classes then efforts are made to make them a core requirement – in the name of diversity and understanding.

Anonymous said...

KC: What really puzzles me as a retired academic is the fact that she has not been yet promoted to (Full) Professor at Duke. I must ask, tongue in cheek, how many more forthcoming books will she need to be promoted? from a retired professor

Anonymous said...

KC wrote:

" . . . she appears to have all but stopped publishing . . ."

And that's a bad thing?

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

Compare that inanity and gibberish to the high-minded fare that used to be standard in American universities:

Glaucon and the rest entreated me by all means not to let the question drop, but to proceed in the investigation. They wanted to arrive at the truth, first, about the nature of justice and injustice, and secondly, about their relative advantages. I told them, what I --really thought, that the enquiry would be of a serious nature, and would require very good eyes. Seeing then, I said, that we are no great wits, I think that we had better adopt a method which I may illustrate thus; suppose that a short-sighted person had been asked by some one to read small letters from a distance; and it occurred to some one else that they might be found in another place which was larger and in which the letters were larger --if they were the same and he could read the larger letters first, and then proceed to the lesser --this would have been thought a rare piece of good fortune.

Very true, said Adeimantus; but how does the illustration apply to our enquiry?

I will tell you, I replied; justice, which is the subject of our enquiry, is, as you know, sometimes spoken of as the virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of a State.

(An excerpt from Plato's Republic on the nature of justice)

Duke Prof

Gary Packwood said...


Not publishing could become a form of publishing if we can get our minds around the notion of abstraction existing along a continuum.

If elephants can create art with their trunks and worms with their bodies on canvas why not linguistic art with the air in the environment and the ears of listeners as the canvas?

Not unlike listening to recordings of Lady Bird Johnson telling LBJ to be nice and behave himself.

I doubt LBJ had a clue what she was talking about most of the time.

Why not give Wahneema Lubiano and her peers a PC with a microphone on a headset and let them talk...forever if necessary and wait for the computer to generate prose and verse in the form of scholarly publications?

But please don't use my tax dollars and donated dollars to support that effort.

That's why it is raining money now via the stimulus package ...searching for those who need 'bailed-out' as it were.

Hopefully soon, Duke and Durham will both need 'bailed out' and Lubiano can record the remainder of that story including her own 'abstract' a publication be.

Anonymous said...

The discourse from WL (I'd love to find out what her birth name was) copied here for us blog readers without editorial comment is a brilliant understatement. It speaks for itself and to call it polysyllabic drivel would simply detract from its mind-numbing impact (IMHO).

Having said that, I'd give $100 (really) for a copy of it sent to me from KC graded by him as if it had been submitted by a student as a class assignment. On second thought, I'd make it $1,000. You need the money KC? I would insist on a red marker and grammar does count......

RL alum 75

Anonymous said...

To no justice, no peace:

Thank you. That was very well done and quite enjoyable! As the poster who undoubtedly knows the least about Cervantes, I appreciated your lesson plan today and especially enjoyed the fact that you used a classic of Western Literature to teach it.

As for your comparison between Political Correctness and Religion, I certainly agree. I did a satirical comparison between PC and Scientology some time ago, and I remember a cold shiver running down my back.


My apologies, One Spook. I was itching for a fight, but can only agree with everything you wrote. Thanks for making me look like a jerk. MOO! Gregory

bill anderson said...

The appearance of the "identity studies" at major universities (and minor ones, too) has had a deadening effect upon scholarship. At one level, I welcome the questions that Marxists, Historicists, and others like them bring to the table.

There is nothing wrong with asking good questions, and as an academic, I always welcome the dialogue. I am on the editorial board of an interdisciplinary journal and more than once I have recommended (as a referee) publication of a paper with which I disagreed both in ideology and in content.

If that were what Lubiano and others at Duke were doing, I would cheer them on. The last thing I want is a Greek Chorus behind me, and I welcome criticism of anything I think or believe.

However, Lubiano and company are NOT honest brokers. They demand complete dominance over all of the academic process and anyone who tries to resist or engage them on their terms is labeled an "ist" and viciously attacked.

I have likened them to the Snopes family in Faulkner's The Hamlet. In retrospect, I think that insults the Snopeses. Think of these faculty members as a pack of bluejays.

The last thing they want is dialogue. Instead, they want to turn academics into a form of crude propaganda complete with mind-numbing language, dense prose, and absurd meanings.

They are NOT into ideas; they are into power, period. And anyone who stands in their way is going to be crushed.

It must drive them crazy to see people like K.C. thrive, but K.C. is a scholar and a person who does not mind working many hours a week instead of frittering away his time like so many others in academe.

mb said...

KC wrote: "To N.o.D.:

No--the Lubiano essay appeared in Social Text 36, 11.3 (Fall 1993)."

Could have fooled me - I thought it was from the Postmodern BS Generator.

Her writing is some of the most tedious, long-winded navel-gazing I've ever encountered. Doesn't she know what a period is? Call me a simpleton, but I think that somebody should give her break and tell her about subject-verb-object sentence structure.

This woman is a tenured professor at Duke? Dang, how do I get a gig like that?

bill anderson said...

One more point. After the published letter signed by 17 economics professors was made public, they began to receive nasty emails from the G88 crowd.

These are people who don't like anyone to stand up to their bullying, yet, according to their public statements, they are the poor, oppressed faculty members who are being forced to kowtow to these "Eurocentric" and "sexist, homophobic, whateveric" academic establishment.

In truth, they are people getting six-figure salaries for writing crap in crappy journals and for threatening real scholars.

On most college campuses, you will find people clustered into two groups, scholars and schemers.

Which one fits the econ profs and which one fits the G88?

Anonymous said...

I agree with "Duke Prof." (@ 11.06)--that Wahneema has *not* published anything is her greatest contribution to the Academy and, indeed, mankind (or is it "personkind"?)

Anonymous said...

And despite all of these issues argued to death by our professors of Humanities-----PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BE HAPPY!
These people should be forced into re-education camps where they all have to learn math and science and how to write a declarative sentence

One Spook said...

"You people" annoy me to no end!

Just when I think it's safe to not read these Blog comments everyday, you then post some of the most interesting, thought-provoking comments ever! It's no wonder I'm addicted to this Blog!

To review:

reharmonizer @ 12:57 AM ... good to see you troll in here for yet another ass-whuppin'! Your praise of Lubiano's 13 paragraphs (intriguing if you're into numerology) in your field would be sort of like watching and listening to a musician attempt to play 13 different musical instruments on which he/she is not trained and calling the resulting cacophony a "concert."

njnp @ 9:45 AM ... absolutely brilliant, and a "Hall of Fame" comment here! No doubt Cervantes (one of my favorites) is not taught in Humanities today given that his writing reveals some terribly inconvenient truths for those who worship at the altar of race, class and gender.

Bill Anderson @ 12:54 PM: "The last thing they [Lubiano & Company] want is dialogue. Instead, they want to turn academics into a form of crude propaganda complete with mind-numbing language, dense prose, and absurd meanings.

They are NOT into ideas; they are into power, period. And anyone who stands in their way is going to be crushed."

Precisely on target, double Bingo, and a wonderful, succinct analysis, Bill!

And finally, MOO Gregory @ 12:01 PM: Your early parsing of the "Listening Statement" is the number one Hall of Fame comment and you have retired the trophy. But, I was confused; where was I wrong and why are you now thanking me?

I stumbled reading your analogy about the Glass Packaging folks and the Newspaper Editors (a brilliant analogy I plan to steal) because you had used the very same analogy a few comments ago. I reasoned that you had failed to update the usage tracker in your "Analogies, Similes and Metaphors" folder, which has to be a first-rate folder I'd love to steal as well.

Gregory, e-mail me (name [no space] at aol dot com) and we'll have it out in bromide-driven exchanges that would qualify us as crashing bores if we did it here.

Thank you all ... I do not watch television and this is far more entertaining and useful!

One Spook

Jim in San Diego said...

North of Detroit, 8:55

Good grief. My mind is turning into jello.

I actually read half way into the second paragraph before realizing this was not yet another Wahneema literary effort, but a big put on.

Fiction cannot keep up with reality here. Nothing whatsoever could be written so tendentiously, turgidly, nonsensically, that it could not be attributed to her and her kindred.

Jim Peterson

Anonymous said...

It is deeply embarrassing and humiliating for Duke University to have professors like this on its faculty. Do the trustees care?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7:55pm

The trustees will have to start caring soon. Most of the subjects which the group of 88 dominate tend to drain money from a schools endowment rather than grow it. The Trustees at Duke should focus on Science, Engineering, and Business now that the group of 88 has demonstrated that investing in the humanities would just create more risk.

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote:

"It is deeply embarrassing and humiliating for Duke University to have professors like this on its faculty. Do the trustees care?"

Of course not. But the deeper issue is that they don't have the knowledge necessary to care. They do not understand what education should be, and therefore have no ability to see its degradation.

That said, this blog -- which I know is read by some trustees -- is opening eyes. The real power of trustees, and of alumni, to fix this mess is the power of the purse strings.

Duke Prof

miramar said...

Re Lubiano's comment: ". . . Popular culture is important because it is at least a potential threat to the manageability that a corporate capitalist culture desires; it falls outside of "orderly" categorizing-it refuses to behave appropriately."

Oh, so that's why the stock market is I get it!

Anonymous said...

Wahneema writes pure utter non-sense, Her and the reharmonizer (he really like this crap!) must be total morons... Did their mothers drop them on their heads when they were young? What other explanation could there be for such putrid nonsense - it is NOT in any way scholarship!

Anonymous said...

K.C., Bill Anderson, Debrah (Diva), and all you bloggers here: Now I, too, know why I can't stop returning and returning to this blog.

It's wickedly FUN! There's better intellectual content (not to mention rollicking humor) than probably the entire Identity Studies faculty has produced in their entire collective time at Duke U.

I, too, don't watch television. I find K.C.'s blog vastly more entertaining.

By the way, Reharmonizer: Could you be a sport and tell me -- in plain English -- What Wahneema's 13 paragraphs, as quoted by K.C., actually mean? Maybe I'm not very bright, but I cannot figure out what she's talking about.

Gus W.

Anonymous said...

"That said, this blog -- which I know is read by some trustees -- is opening eyes. The real power of trustees, and of alumni, to fix this mess is the power of the purse strings."

Any Duke Trustee that has even a passing knowledge of this blog--and its contents--that has not affirmatively done something about this fiasco and the G88 should be sued for breach of fiduciary duty. Duke Univ. has been driven off a cliff while the "leaders" simply stood by and watched. Some of the "leaders" (e.g., Steele) were either passengers or, perhaps, helped drive. The damage to Duke is irreversible.

Debrah said...

Part of today's column by John McCann in the H-S.


The only healing that needs to take place is for most of Durham's residents to take a class in due process.

But instead, another "ministry".


Trying to heal old wounds

Apr 11, 2009

The Easter bunny will do the colored-eggs thing along with free haircuts Monday during Changing a Generation Outreach Ministries' annual cookout at Hillside Park, 1301 S. Roxboro St. Everything is scheduled to get going at 4 p.m.

Changing a Generation this year is getting a boost from The Congregation at Duke University Chapel. The congregation is the main supporter of the cookout, said the Rev. Rodney Green, the executive director of Changing a Generation.

Green said his organization's partnership with the congregation will further mend the rift caused by the Duke lacrosse situation -- you know, getting black people and white people to come together and reason.

The Rev. McKennon Shea is the Congregation's assistant pastor. He said the whole thing about the Duke-lacrosse affair wasn't at the fore of group members' minds when deciding to support Changing a Generation. But he understands where Green is coming from with his talk about the peace accord.

"I hope that it does heal some of the wounds," Shea said about the partnership.

But what members of the congregation absolutely dig about Green is that he in their view is somebody who both understands and reaches out to his community in a personal way with tremendous energy.

And I can attest to that having seen Green stand behind a stove in a building on Main Street and serve grits and toast to homeless people after preaching the word of God to them.

"He's somebody who knows his community," Shea said.

Learn more about Green's ministry at, or call him at (919) 519-6678.

Oh, did I tell you that you're invited to the cookout -- the free cookout? The Durham Senior Divas 'N Dude are expected to be there to lead some cheers......

Debrah said...

WRAL keeps a comprehensive timeline for Nifong as well as other aspects of the case.

By the way, has anyone heard anything lately about Mangum's book?

Seems her publishing exploits have been almost as successful as Lubiano's.

Lubiano's bas bleu sista.

Mysterious, that.

Debrah said...

Contemplating reality......

We talk a lot about the Gang of 88 and for very good reason; however, it's important to mention that basically everyone in the academy operates inside what is essentially a sensibility vacuum.

Not because they are super intelligent---at all!

That's their fantasy.

Rather, they have developed a mechanical approach to life and those like Lubiano and her colleagues who possess no high degree of intelligence spend their careers formulating strange and nonsensical ways of writing and speaking.

It doesn't matter to them that the nice polysyllabic words they crowd together don't fit.

They feel secure when they are able to simply repeat them out loud.

I get scared knowing that these people have positions teaching anywhere.

However, almost everyone inside the academy takes themselves too seriously.

That stilted framework needs to be shattered and discarded.

bill anderson said...

As for this kind of "scholarship" leading the BOT to do anything, you have to understand exactly why the board members will do nothing to upset these faculty members.

First, Duke's leadership years ago decided to redo the image of the university to make it more "national" in scope, and that means trying to kowtow to the Ivies and be JUST LIKE THEM. That meant emphasizing "contemporary scholarship" that is profoundly anti-western and anti-classical.

Second, Stanley Fish and those who followed him were not aberrations. They were what Duke's leadership wanted the university to become. Fish brought Duke huge amounts of publicity and PRAISE FROM THE RIGHT PEOPLE.

Third, the faculty members of whom we speak (G88) were brought to campus with a huge amount of fanfare. You see how Vanderbilt gushes over a thug like Houston Baker, and Duke has done the same kind of gushing over people like Karla Holloway and Wahneema "I Have An Empty CV" Lubiano. To admit the damage that these people have done to the university would be a repudiation of everything Duke has done in the last two decades to become "relevant," and the leadership is not going to be doing anything like that.

The university is making a statement when it does these things, and the last thing that Duke's leadership wants to do is to "turn back the clock," a phrase that you know is popular with "Progressives" who see whatever they are doing as progress, no matter how destructive it might be. The leadership is giving this message to the rest of the faculty: We think you are stuck back in the stone age; the future is to be found in the Bakers, the Holloways, the Tysons, and the Lubianos.

Fourth, these "identity studies" faculty have become the BMOC crowd. They go around in packs, engage in group identity behavior, and use the usual buzzwords ("racism, homophobia, sexism") to to attack anyone who might disagree. One might remember how Professor Baldwin was tagged a "racist" after he said that the G88 should be "tarred and feathered."

It is ironic that the very thing the G88 hated about the lacrosse players -- that they are close-knit and stay together -- can be attributed to these faculty members. They engage in groupthink and demand that everyone else do it, too.

As for board members doing anything, forget about it. Most Duke board members see their being on the board as a social privilege. If they were to raise even a peep against the G88, they immediately would be threatened and tagged as "racist" or worse. Any board member who does want to deal with the huge problems caused by the G88 could expect to be ostracized and the subject of invective and nasty criticism.

Don't forget that Duke's leadership long ago decided Duke was going to try to be the "Harvard of the South" (every place in the South wants to be the "Harvard of the South," whatever the heck that means). To be the HOTS means that the university has to be dominated by political radicals, and it must hate everything western. It must hate Christianity, the United States, and anything that might smack of the old Confederacy.

Most of all, it must hate "white privilege." I'm not sure what we mean by "white privilege," except that it is supposed to mean that all whites are racist beyond hope and that the only road to Redemption is to bow to the G88 and confess one's "whiteness" and "privilege."

This is a religion, and it is an imperialistic religion at that. For all of the talk of "diversity," what they really want is a university where everyone looks different but thinks alike.

Thus, something like lacrosse is going to strike at the very heart of what the G88 is all about. These are kids who don't apologize for living, and kids who (silly them) actually believe that one is supposed to be at college for an education. They are not students who easily are indoctrinated, and that infuriates people like Holloway, Baker, and Lubiano to no end.

Believe me, these people were bitterly disappointed when Cooper made his "innocent" announcement. Don't kid yourselves, people. They did not care whether there was a rape. Houston Baker said as much in his "farm animals" email to Tricia Dowd.

They wanted these young men to go to prison, period. Their very existence was enough for people like Karla Holloway to want them in prison or even dead. You have to understand the visceral hatred that people like Lubiano and Holloway have for people like Reade and Collin and David, and for most of us.

You and I cannot imagine hating someone else simply because of their race or their background, but that is how many of these faculty members operate. They are full of hate, period, and Duke's leadership wants to celebrate this.

So, don't expect the BOT or anyone else to do anything. The G88 is the present and the future of Duke University and nothing is going to change that very sad fact.

Anonymous said...

Samuel Delany published a sci fi about 40 years ago,("Slow Tuesday Night") that instructed readers in the minutia of writing pseudo scholarly works.I'm happy to see tohers have read it.

Debrah said...

For a trip down memory lane, check out Lubiano's offering in the N&O just weeks after the Hoax began.

Wow, she and Timothy Tyson were gearing up.

Ominous and foreboding!

And as I read this I realized that Lubiano's silly diatribe pales in comparison to what people like Allan Gurganus, Tyson, and others were---and continue to be===allowed to publish in that paper.

And please, read this fun entry!

())))))))))) "Wahneema Lubiano's rich cultural criticism insists on reading African-American literature and Black popular cultural production not just as a series of 'texts', but as living instances of Black expressive techniques forged in African diasporic, post-slavery cultures. Her attention to and interrogation of Black Studies and cultural studies as fields of knowledge results in a criticism that explores the tension between 'strategic essentialism' and its foes. In maintaining what bell hooks has called 'a touch of essentialism', Prof. Lubiano's work demands a politics of representation, spectatorship, and audience formation that remains attached to the material experience of Black spectators and readers.

Prof. Lubiano has kindly permitted us to post her bibliography, to which regular additions will be made. Pending permission , a number of her essays will be reproduced at this site."

The Diva has been tossing and turning for the last few nights trying to shake all the gnawing feelings and the tension brought about by my own strategic essentialism.

This is hard!

Gary Packwood said...

Debrah 4/11/09 :: 7:53 AM said...

...By the way, has anyone heard anything lately about Mangum's book?
I get the impression that people don't understand that Mangum's book was published by a Vanity Press.

There is really nothing to know about or hear about until someone or some group decides to spend a boatload of money to publish multiple copies for the purpose of embarrassing Duke.

Anonymous said...

I remember readin an article in Slate written by Gary Kamiya during the early days of the Iraq War. Kamiya expressed his desire for the utmost chaos and carnage possible to take place--in short, he hoped for catastrophic failure. To his credit, he admitted to a degree of shame, but he also underscored this was how he truly felt and that a humiliating defeat for Bush policy justified itself. I've always wanted to give him credit for having the courage to say what I know many of the left thought but dared not say. Of course, whatever you do, don't lump him in with traitors like Limbaugh.

Apologies for the off-topic post. Love your blog and, yes, what a sorry state of affairs for our universities.

S.A. Smith

Anonymous said...

Correction: That should read Salon not Slate (same crap, different package).

S.A. Smith

bill anderson said...

In re-reading Lubiano's prose, one realizes that Lubiano is someone who believes that all, of life needs to be politicized, including one's personal relationships, ones work, what one eats, everything.

This is a creepy and horrible way by which to view life. We know from experience what happens in societies where politicized life rules. Stalin's gulags existed precisely because Stalin and his henchmen had the same worldview as does Lubiano. The massacres that defined China's Great Leap Forward existed because Mao and his followers governed with the same worldview as does Wahneema Lubiano.

The killing fields of Cambodia under Pol Pot existed precisely because the Khmer Rouge believed that all of life was to be lived politically. What Lubiano wants is a world that is very different from the one we inhabit now. It is a world where one's politics are the key to one's very survival. If one thinks differently than Lubiano, then that person has no right whatsoever to live.

I am not exaggerating. Every society of the 20th Century that engaged in full-blown genocide was politicized to the core. Don't forget that "Nazi" stood for "National Socialism," and like the Marxists who ruled the communist world, the Nazis believed that all of life had to be directed to a "national purpose." In other words, politics was one's life.

Don't forget that the main killers and exterminators of the totalitarian world were intellectuals. The leader of Peru's "Shining Path," which went on a rampage of murder, was led by a former college professor whose worldview pretty much was akin to what we have seen from Lubiano and from the G88 elements of the Duke faculty.

Do you think I exaggerate? Then why were these people so hellbent on railroading the lacrosse players into prison? Houston Baker knew early on that the charges were bogus and pretty well admitted to such.

However, you have to remember, as I posted before, that the hatred that people like Lubiano and Holloway and others have for people who do not think the way they do is the kind of hatred in which they would like to see those people dead or imprisoned. That is where this kind of thinking leads; it can lead in no other direction.

Don't forget that the Khmer Rouge leaders formulated their views while studying in France. They mingled with the intellectual Marxists in France, and their ideas were given sustenance there.

I know that it seems that I am making extreme comments, but I would just remind people to look at the history of Marxist "intellectuals," and you will see what I mean. Lubiano is not someone who is willing to tolerate thought that is not like hers. Right now, she and her friends do not have the kind of control at Duke that the radicals had at places like the late (may it NOT RIP) Antioch College.

But don't think for a second that she would not like to be able to muzzle or control everyone else at Duke. Now, the rest of us would say this is awful, but apparently the administration and BOT at Duke both are comfortable with this state of affairs.

bill anderson said...

I re-read Jason Trumpbour's post from August 6 on the FODU site, and I realize that Peter Wood really is a greater villain than I had previously thought. (He is not mentioned in that post, but nonetheless he figures into the theme of the article.)

After Reade Seligmann was indicted, Wood told a publication (I believe it was Indy Week, but I am not sure) that he had some lacrosse players in class, and that they were "hostile" and generally were bad actors. Reade was one of those students, and Wood might as well have declared: "Reade Seligmann is guilty as charged!"

The damage that Wood did with his statements was incalculable. It told the community that Nifong was correct in his indictment of Reade and the others, and that these lacrosse players were horrible human beings.

(He later would claim that the lacrosse players endorsed genocide of Native Americans -- with no proof of course, but who needs proof when one is a radical faculty member at Duke? The utterings of such a person always must be true on their face.)

In retrospect, we can see just what calumny such a statement represented. He was saying that these students were rapists and would-be murderers, and he had the proof! They had been students in his class, and from that he knew what horrible people all of them really were. Of course they were guilty!

Yet, what did Brodhead and the others at Duke do when faced with this inexcusable behavior from a professor? They endorsed it with their overt actions and even more so with their silence.

There are many wonderful professors at Duke University who rightfully were horrified by what happened, yet they were shunted aside, threatened and intimidated. Now that the same faculty members who helped enable America's most dishonest and corrupt prosecutor are even more entrenched at Duke and have been given huge amounts of authority.

So, we know that Duke University was and is willing to endorse the kinds of comments from professors that are lies, and big lies at that. Peter Wood should not be permitted to be on any college faculty, period. He has demonstrated without a doubt that he is unfit to be around young people who might have a different worldview than his.

In fact, he was willing to see one of his students go to prison, where he likely would have been murdered or beaten beyond recognition. It was not because Reade was a rapist; even Wood knew the charges were a lie.

Instead, it was because he did not think that Reade Seligmann was a radical Marxist like himself. That was enough in Wood's World for someone to be thrown into prison and maybe even killed.

I, for one, would never want any professor with such a murderous and evil worldview to be propagandizing my children.

A Duke Dad said...

Bill Anderson's 12:50 PM comment is utterly chilling: Megalomaniacal totalitarians comprise the Group of 88, and indeed many of the radical cabals on college campuses (and presumably in government agencies, unions, et al).

This is a completely different perception: We are not dealing with wacked-out lunatics, but rather a tightly focused group looking to establish their dictatorial rule. said...

Professor Johnson,

I hope you don't mind me responding on your blog. I think it is only right to let the other members who participate on the blog to know that we have had civilized conversations between us in private. I had hoped to keep it that way, however, I feel compelled to answer as it relates to Crystal's book.

So thanks GP for answering on my behalf but I think I can take it from here. The book was not published by a "vanity press". We had been working on a number of titles prior to working with Crystal and we have a few more in the works. We started a publishing company because we were running into interesting people who had stories. Our original plan was to publish books on self-help, motivation and organizational development. Meeting Crystal made us put those plans on hold.

What we did do was not preprint a lot of copies because our promotional efforts were constantly being interfered with. Everyone we had commitments from backed out. None of the reasons given would have been okay with anyone else on here. We gave our word, participated in the projects with no strings attached and that’s the way it is. I won't make your eyes glaze over with the details. I am still trying to decide whether or not we have any legal recourse against certain people. Of course, you can sue about anything.

Beyond that, we have stressed from the beginning that Crystal’s book was not about trying to pick a fight with anyone over the merits of the legal case. We deliberated long and hard and consulted with folks on all sides to come up with something that would attempt to facilitate closing the case once and for all. Then, we were hoping to talk about domestic abuse, mental health and a host of other issues the media completely missed in covering the case.

From my vantage point, I view this a lot differently then most of the people who participate here on both sides. My stance from the beginning is that all of the young people involved in this case should be allowed to move on. The AG made his decision and that is the way it goes.

However, that doesn't preclude or exclude Crystal from telling her story. A lot of folks have gone out of the way to stop Crystal from appearing in any forum. People have tried to deny her children medical treatment that resulted in a serious medical emergency for her infant daughter. People have harassed her parents to the point that her mother had a stroke. I could go on but that won't satisfy some folks. In every interview either Crystal or I have given, we have been clear that we were trying to make something good come out of this.

Of course, I'm not going to make GP or the Diva happy with anything I say. I do ask that you refrain from talking about me and what I do. You don’t know me or my motivations.

Debrah said...

Vince, my man.

You are a professional person. You've been around the block a few times.

And you certainly know Durham.

Personally, my regret is that Crystal Mangum is not a white woman so that she would be sitting in jail---where a serial and destructive criminal should be.

No one is against any individual engaging in a business contract. Your "product", however, is quite ridiculous.

Cease the act.

Coy doesn't cut it at this point.

If you want to "help" people who were irreparably harmed you might start by insisting that Mangum make a public apology for all the millions of dollars and a lifetime of reputations battered by her drugged-induced lies.

Let the world know what kind of person it takes to live such a self-indulgent existence and then have the nerve to put on a show of being a "victim".

The only battered women her "book" should be speaking to are the mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and countless family members of the falsely accused men whose lives were upended.

Mangum and other men and women like her always get a free pass from the sick environment that exists and thrives in places like Durham.

Try negotiating a contract from the starting point of reality.

That one might sell.

Many of your ilk get off on talking up the past.

Let's think back to a horrible occurrence in Boston years ago where Charles Stuart deliberately lied and told authorities that some black men had robbed him and shot his wife while in their car one night.

Police were searching the black community and disrupting innocent lives all because of a big lie---one with the racial element because, like Mangum, Stuart knew that one would work like a charm.

As some time went by, Stuart committed suicide by jumping off a bridge. He knew he'd never be able to move past the damage and the fact that he had been the shooter.

In Mangum's particular case, I think most people would simply prefer that she disappear and go on about her life.

It's clear that such a pathological liar has no conscience and will never apologize.

Move on?


Anonymous said...

Maybe Vince should start "Ten Foot Pole Press" and go about getting people to tell their story about their life as they saw it. There have to be lots of folks whose stories are not heard because of squeamish publishers. What would we read if not for Vince?

bill anderson said...

Vince has forgotten something, and that is that the book he published is filled with lies. Lies.

I am sorry that Crystal's mother had a stroke. Are people aware of the severe health problems suffered by Kathy Seligmann and Rae Evans during this sorry affair. Are people aware that David Evans' grandfather died during the summer of 2006, and the stress that came from the charges against his grandson most likely were the reason for his premature death?

Crystal brought this whole thing on by lying. By the way, if Vince was so convinced that Crystal was telling the truth, why didn't he name names? After all, if Crystal was telling a "consistent and true" story all along, then she could not have made wrong identifications of Reade, Collin, and David.

No, it was about three things. First, Crystal used it to keep from being committed into psychiatric care. Second, she used the lies in order to get prescription drugs to which she was addicted.

Third, after Mark Simeon began to "advise" her, she and her family saw dollars and lots of them. If Crystal had such a strong case, as Vince wants us to believe, then why did Willie Gary decide to take a powder? After all, here is an attorney who takes no prisoners, and had there been any truth to Crystal's story (or stories, to be more accurate), Gary would have been able to get a nice big payday for Crystal and her family, not to mention for himself.

So, if we want to talk "truth," lets talk some truth. However, from Al McSurely to Cash Michaels to Crystal to Vince, truth has been a rather scarce commodity. Instead, we continue to hear lies, lies, and more lies.

Vince, I need to tell you that the people who write on this blog are more circumspect than the Trinity Park listserve or Our Hearts World. We were not standing up for Reade, Collin, and David because they are well-off white boys. Had they raped and beaten Crystal, to a person all of us would have urged punishment to the full extent of the law.

But, the case was a lie, and you have seen fit to continue the Big Lie for whatever reasons, and I don't claim to know them. However, I do know that you are promoting lies, and I also think that you are intelligent to know that had a white woman made the same charges against black males, and the DNA information and all of the other evidence were exactly the same, you would have no problem with seeing that the story was a lie. And, correctly so, I would add.

I have made the statements I have made because of the evidence of the case and for no other reason. I have no ties to Duke University, am not wealthy, and have little in common with wealthy people and their lifestyles. We don't go on cruises or trips to Europe.

But, I have been called many things because I stood up for these families, and people from Durham made threats against my family and me. So, you tell me who are the real racists in this sorry affair. Who are the liars?

I think you know.

No justice, no peace said...

"...have been clear that we were trying to make something good come out of this."

Would you consider justice as "something good"?

Anonymous said...

I tried reading Lubiano's piece - I really tried but (perhaps because I have been spending my vacation baking in the sun and global warming has fried my brain)I am hard pressed to figure out what exactly she is saying. She does need to go back to third grade English class and learn how to construct a simple declarative sentence.
On another note, Bill Anderson is correct. Had Crystal's claims been truthful, there is not a single person who would not have been behind the full extent of the law being used to bring anyone accused to justice. But that was not the case. Crystal not only fabricated a story she continued and still continues to lie about that night. People like Vince who "want everyone to move on with their lives" fail to comprehend that "moving on" cannot occur until those who allowed the travesty to occur have been forced (monetarily because that is what really talks and forces change to occur)to make the changes that will insure that people like Nifong, the Duke PD, The DUMC, and The Duke administration, BOT, and gutless faculty who threw their students under the bus never again have the occasion to harm others like they did RCD and their families.


bill anderson said...

Vince also knows that if Crystal were telling the truth, she could have Willie Gary up here in a second ginning up a lawsuit against Duke University and the lacrosse families. If Vince were so certain that Crystal is telling the truth, then I guarantee you that a lawsuit against Duke in Durham County would be a huge financial winner, as a Durham jury would be quite glad to stick it to the families and to "the Plantation."

That he and Crystal don't pursue a lawsuit is telling. That Vince did not name Reade Seligmann, David Evans, or Collin Finnerty in the book also is telling.

The reason that they did not name names was to keep from being sued by those families. In a lawsuit, the sealed files would have been opened, and people would have found out about Crystal and her medical and mental health history.

Furthermore, the families would have taken Vince to the cleaners. (Although his claim to have lost $100 grand tells me that maybe Crystal took him to the cleaners as well. Crystal has a knack for doing that.)

Maybe Crystal can get a position in the Identity Studies programs at Duke. Since she is still considered credible to Karla Holloway, I am sure that Holloway can use her influence to get Crystal a job.

Holloway is quite good at using her influence to get people off the hook. Houston Baker can tell you how she took care of him when he found himself in some legal difficulty.

Vincent Clark said...

Thanks for everyone's interest in what I had to say. I have had a very good experience trying to help Crystal move forward and become a better person. I will not apologize for trying to make something bad turn out good.

I was raised to do whatever I could to help the person who had little to nothing end up with something. Our family has always taken in kids without parents, visited the elderly who were hunger and alone and provided comfort to folks who were shunned.

I have watched my mom work in the same church kitchen for as long as I can remember. My father was the kind of pharmacist who went into his own pocket to pay for prescriptions of little old ladies who didn't have the money. Everyone I saw him do it for was white.

You folks can continue to talk out who is a racist and the 88 or whatever makes you happy. I will make sure that when I go to sleep tonight, I have done something to try and elevate the suffering of someone who needs help. I do it everyday. I am not perfect and will certainly disappoint more people before I die. The one thing I will never do is say that working with Crystal was not worthwhile.

Beyond that, I can't tell you anything that will make you change your mind. I know things about the case that some of you don't know. I am sure KC knows things I don't know. That doesn't change the fact that some folks have done some very awful things in the name of seeking justice. For those who have done wrong, the only thing they can do is apologize. Whatever divine power there is will sort out the rest.

One last thing, the people who think it is funny to spam my email and attack my site you aren't funny. We have a pretty good firewall and filter. It is a bit more work to collect the information and find out who is doing it but I do know who you are.

Kindest Regards,

Anonymous said...

CKS 5:38
Google the word "Buzzword"
In Wikipedia you will find the statement:
Although meant to impress the listener with the speaker's pretense to knowledge, buzzwords render sentences opaque, difficult to understand and questionable, because the buzzword does not mean what it denominates, yet does mean other things it ought not mean.

The article further discusses "Jargon".
What happens when jargon is merely a collection of buzzwords?

By trying to understand you only play her game with her rules.

North of Detroit

Anonymous said...

North OF Detroit:

How right you are!
As I said, the Carolina sun must be attecting my brain.

Anonymous said...

Vince - are you out of your mind?

You were raised to help people? You haven't helped Ms. Mangum - you have enabled her.

Contrast your allegedly "helpful" behavior with that of Sister Helen Prejean, the nun who has counseled death penalty defendants during the period of incarceration prior to their deaths. She doesn't just offer "comfort" to the accused; rather, she knows that real assistance involves getting them to come to grips with their evil acts and their criminality. And her charges, however imperfect they may do so, apologize to the families of the victim and take accountability for their actions. Honesty is imperative to her and to her "clients". It is the reason that even the families have a grudging respect for her, likewise with death penalty advocates.

So I really must disagree that you have elevated the suffering of someone that needs help. You have done the opposite by enabling her, and further, you have given those in society inclined to be racist to confirm their narrow and myopic views and stereotypes - frankly a real harm to those that care about civil rights.

One thing I do not "get" about Mangum supporters. Nothing sets back further the cause of preventing sexual assault than false rape claims like Mangum's. And nothing inhibits the proper functioning of the criminal justice system than a frame-up, perpetrated, as so often happened in Jim Crow days, for racial reasons. The best thing for the Durham community would be for Mangum to be honest about her actions. As a black woman in Durham, she indeed has practical immunity from prosecution. I would hope at some point she does so.

Gary Packwood said...


If nothing else you can write a book about why anyone would start a traditional publishing company in this the beginning of the 21st Century where anything published on paper is in serious trouble. Even with a plan to be bought-out...there is extreme risk.

If you are waiting for the professors at universities to create an audience in African American churches (any church, actually) where your books are studied by church members who want to hear about modern victims "with interesting stories" may be abit ahead of the curve by a decade or so.

Perhaps not.

You never know, victims from the old testament don't fill the bill for the post-modern agenda and churches need to modernize and make it real if they are going to attract young members.

And who has access to tens-of-thousands of potential young church members? Why church affiliated universities of course.

There are many.

bill anderson said...

Well, Vince, if you are going to bring "Divine Power" into this discussion, you might want to consult the Bible to see what it says about lying and promoting lies.

You might also recall that the three families asked that Crystal not be prosecuted, as they wanted to "move on" themselves. And you might also recall that Crystal fraudulently took thousands of dollars from the state "victims' fund" that also has some of its funding from the federal government.

The penalty for fraud, and especially financial fraud, is quite severe, and the only reason that the government did not move against her in that area was because of political considerations, and because the families did not want to make things any worse than they already had been. The Seligmanns, the Evanses, and the Finnertys were quite generous.

And, then, you come along. You get Crystal to repeat the lies and you promote them as well. And they are lies. Combined with Sydney Harr and Nifong and Cy, it seems that lies are the staple of what comes out of Durham these days.

The one thing that truly has been disgusting in this whole sorry affair has been how people in Durham from the police to the people in the DA's office to the mayor and his assistants to the people at Duke have told one lie after another. While there are people in Durham who are capable of telling the truth, nonetheless the people who have political and social power there find that truth is not a companion. Thus, I can tell that you and Crystal fit in well with that crowd.

By the way, can you tell us why Crystal was wearing the vanity contact lenses at her press conference? Since she has "turned around her life," I'm sure those contact lenses were trying to hide anything.

Anonymous said...

To all those dissing Vince.
Hey, the man is just trying to make a buck.
That's the American way.
Leave him alone.
North of Detroit.

Vincent Clark said...

I'm not sure how you make the leap to you conclusions about church affiliated universities and the plans we had for a publishing company. The other books we were looking at had to do with the real story behind Balco, an inspirational book about Olympic hurdler Lolo Jones, a memoir about growing up first generation Italian in Upstate New York, the story of two mentally retarded boys in Wake County who were convicted of rape and are most certainly innocent and a book about the civil strife in Kenya.

There is already a thriving market for books that speak to African American churches. I'm not trying to fill that niche. You have me pegged wrong.

Again, I know I have helped Crystal because her kids have been able to eat, have decent Christmas celebrations and do some things that other kids get to do. Plus, Crystal has had an opportunity to finish college and continue her counseling.

I defy anyone who would criticize me here to find where I have not sought fair treatment. Just so you know, Sister Helen has been a guest on my radio show when I did a series on the death penalty. I have been to my share of People of Faith against the Death Penalty meetings as well.

I have also been in the death chamber at Central Prison. That experience solidified my desire to make sure people were not put on death row do not get put there due to bungled criminal prosecutions. What might help that not happen is to go after prosecutors who have put people on death row with the same vigor as some sought to punish Nifong. There are plenty of cases in North Carolina that would qualify.

For the people who are so angry and can't ever seem to forgive, I hope you can learn not to hold grudges. I read this every morning when I get up. I have been doing it for at least 20 years. It is my affirmation. I suppose I do have a thing for the Old Testament. Even when I have my doubts about God and think the world is crappy, I get my strength to try again. In the spirit of Passover and Easter, maybe we can all try it together...

Psalm 73

The Fate of the Wicked
A Psalm of Asaph.

1 Truly God is good to Israel,
even to such as are of a clean heart.
2 But as for me, my feet were almost gone;
my steps had well-nigh slipped.
3 For I was envious at the foolish,
when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
4 For there are no bands in their death:
but their strength is firm.
5 They are not in trouble as other men;
neither are they plagued like other men.
6 Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain;
violence covereth them as a garment.
7 Their eyes stand out with fatness:
they have more than heart could wish.
8 They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression:

they speak loftily.
9 They set their mouth against the heavens,
and their tongue walketh through the earth.
10 Therefore his people return hither:
and waters of a full cup are wrung out to them.
11 And they say, How doth God know?
And is there knowledge in the Most High?
12 Behold, these are the ungodly,
who prosper in the world;
they increase in riches.
13 Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain,
and washed my hands in innocency.
14 For all the day long have I been plagued,
and chastened every morning.
15 If I say, I will speak thus;
behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children.
16 When I thought to know this,
it was too painful for me;
17 until I went into the sanctuary of God;
then understood I their end.
18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places:
thou castedst them down into destruction.
19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment!
They are utterly consumed with terrors.
20 As a dream when one awaketh;
so, O Lord, when thou awakest,
thou shalt despise their image.
21 Thus my heart was grieved,
and I was pricked in my reins.
22 So foolish was I, and ignorant:
I was as a beast before thee.
23 Nevertheless I am continually with thee:
thou hast holden me by my right hand.
24 Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel,
and afterward receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but thee?
And there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee.
26 My flesh and my heart faileth:
but God is the strength of my heart,
and my portion for ever.
27 For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish:
thou hast destroyed all them that go a whoring from thee.
28 But it is good for me to draw near to God:
I have put my trust in the Lord GOD,
that I may declare all thy works.

Debrah said...

"Again, I know I have helped Crystal because her kids have been able to eat, have decent Christmas celebrations and do some things that other kids get to do. Plus, Crystal has had an opportunity to finish college and continue her counseling."

You must understand that before you even get to this level, most women like myself are perplexed by the mindset of someone who would feel free to keep having children she cannot support and whose fathers (plural!) do not stick around.

Help women like me understand such an irresponsible mindset.

Mangum has always expected and accepted that society would come through and provide a balm for her grotesque irresponsibility.

No one has abused her children more than she.

"Sister Helen has been a guest on my radio show when I did a series on the death penalty. I have been to my share of People of Faith against the Death Penalty meetings as well."

Too bad Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn couldn't have shown up.

Talk is talk is talk.

Besides, in many cases the death penalty is warranted.

No heroes on either side.

"What might help that not happen is to go after prosecutors who have put people on death row with the same vigor as some sought to punish Nifong."

Let's dismiss with the antimacassar niceties.

The main problem and the only problem which ignited the Lacrosse Hoax and sustained it......then later brought out people like you who have tried to put perfume on the stench of Mangum's high the strange fruit that the issue of RACE always bears inside the black community.

I know it's an inside rule never to criticize another person who is black in the public arena. Especially never criticize them in front of white people......which is an insane mindset to begin with.

Yeah, the Diva is privy to many, many dark secrets.

The never-ending attempt to extort and make excuses for every bad behavior simply doesn't play anymore.

As if society should bestow medals of exemption from the 21st century.

Sorry, Vince.

I will not suspend reality just to get along with anyone. I know the black community far too well.

It is they who must evolve and change with the new day.

"For the people who are so angry and can't ever seem to forgive, I hope you can learn not to hold grudges. I read this every morning when I get up. I have been doing it for at least 20 years. It is my affirmation. I suppose I do have a thing for the Old Testament. Even when I have my doubts about God and think the world is crappy, I get my strength to try again. In the spirit of Passover and Easter, maybe we can all try it together...

Psalm 73

You're killing me with this religious stuff.

So many people have been irreparably harmed by those who quote the Bible with abandon.


I think I hear the thunderous sound of joy!

Why, it's Timmy Tyson and his traveling songbird, Mary Lou.

They'd like to give a shout out to Crystal.

"Can ya say 'Amen' !"

"Tell it, brotha!"

"I think I feel the power of the Lord right now! Right in this very room!"

"Give it up!"

"Sing it, Mary Lou!"

A Duke Dad said...


1) The Ten Commandments deal directly with the issue:

. . . "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor"

2) Despite your tangents and red herrings, the fact remains that Mangum was responsible for three young men being very close to serving sentences of up to 30 years for something that never happened.

bill anderson said...

Uh, Vince, let's try again. You used your book to claim that Crystal was raped at the party. Your book made false accusations against Reade Seligmann, David Evans, and Collin Finnerty, and anyone else who was at the party.

Yeah, it was clever claiming the guy "ejaculated on the floor." Yeah, right.

And, if you are going to use the Psalms, please remember that nowhere in the Psalms does it say that lies are of God. And, Vince, that is what you have done.

I have nothing against you personally, but I am going to stand up for people when others try to spread vicious lies against them. Over the years, I have written about many things. I have defended wrongfully-convicted and charged African-Americans, and I have defended wrongfully-charges whites. It doesn't matter; my battle is against those people who use the power of government to falsely imprison others, and who use the apparatus of the state to lie and defraud.

For more than a year, Crystal's lies held the very future of three families in limbo. Obviously, she is incapable of admitting what she did, and apparently there is a whole host of people in Durham such as you, William Barber, Al McSurely, and a number of Duke faculty members and administrators (such as Larry Moneta) who prefer the lies.

So, as long as you lie, and as long as you get on this forum to lie, I am going to call you on it. You can tag me as a racist all you want, but I am going to call you out whenever you tell lies here.

Somehow, I doubt you would put up with someone falsely accusing you of rape and worse. So, I will not put up with you when you falsely accuse others. It is that simple.

Vincent Clark said...

I am sorry if you don't get my point. You have never heard me say a word about you or anyone being a racist. You have also never heard me accuse anyone of anything and you know it.

What would your resolution to this case? What about the other exonerations in North Carolina of people who actually served time. Should the woman who accused James Cotton pay for misidentifying him? What about the prosecutors in the Gell case? Is the proportionality for retribution based on how much freedom was lost or how much hell you can raise? What is right?

Go ask Joe Cheshire why he said it was wrong to pursue the law license of the prosecution in the Gell case. Better yet, read the letter he wrote to the bar where he talks about why punishing those lawyer were against his nature and better instincts to forgive and move on.

Maybe we just cut the baby in half. Oh, it will die and nobody will be happy with the outcome but we reach a conclusion. Let's not be so blinded by hate that we back ourselves into a corner. Hating Crystal everyday doesn't free you to live the kind of life you want. I don't hate anyone. It takes too much energy to hate.

I am not looking for anyone to like me. I am just looking for someone to tell me what will satisfy the people who would prefer to kill the fly with a machine gun. Fly swatters would cause less collateral damage.

As for Reverend Barber, you do realize the results in the Duke case were a plus in the James Johnson case. It forced the AG to appoint a special prosecutor. Do you suppose Johnson gets out if the Duke case ended differently? No, he would not have been released or tried by now.

Calling me a liar won't make my mother happy either. I told you about myself, my rationale for what I did and what I hope to do. I am just telling the story of what I know based on the vantage point from which I could see things. I have been as honest as I can be. I have never attempted to be sensational or engaged in calling names. However, if I am a liar, then what are any of you who make up things about what I have said.

If people had not blocked every attempt we made to discuss the book or anything else, perhaps you would actually know what I have said. I have done everything I can to tell a particular story. Not the one you want to hear but the one I experienced. That's all there is to it.

I am done. I promise.

A Duke Dad said...


Following on your stated empathy with the Old Testament, ["I do have a thing for the Old Testament." 8:58 PM] perhaps you will find salvation in these verses:

Genesis 18:19
For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.

Exodus 18:21
But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—

Exodus. 20:16
You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Exodus 23:1
Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.

Exodus 23:7
Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

Deuteronomy 16:19-20
Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. Follow justice and justice alone, so that you may live and possess the land the LORD your God is giving you.

Deuteronomy 25:15-16
You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. For the LORD your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.

Leviticus 19:11
Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.

Leviticus 19:35
Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity.

Leviticus 25:14
If you sell land to one of your countrymen or buy any from him, do not take advantage of each other.

Job 27:4
My lips will not speak wickedness, and my tongue will utter no deceit.

Psalm 15
LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill? He whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from his heart and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellowman, who despises a vile man but honors those who fear the LORD, who keeps his oath even when it hurts, who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.

Psalm 24:3-5
Who may ascend the hill of the LORD? Who may stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to an idol or swear by what is false. He will receive blessing from the LORD and vindication from God his Savior.

Psalm 51:6
Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.

Proverbs 4:23-27
Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life. Put away perversity from your mouth; keep corrupt talk far from your lips. Let your eyes look straight ahead, fix your gaze directly before you. Make level paths for your feet and take only ways that are firm Do not swerve to the right or the left; keep your foot from evil.

Proverbs 6:12-15
A scoundrel and villain, who goes about with a corrupt mouth,who winks with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers,who plots evil with deceit in his heart— he always stirs up dissension. Therefore disaster will overtake him in an instant; he will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy.

Proverbs 6:16-20
There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes,a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

Proverbs 10:9
The man of integrity walks securely, but he who takes crooked paths will be found out.

Proverbs 11:1,3
The LORD abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight. The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.

Proverbs 12:17
A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies.

Proverbs 12:22
The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful.

Proverbs 13:5
The righteous hate what is false, but the wicked bring shame and disgrace.

Proverbs 14:5
A truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.

Proverbs 16:8
Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice.

Proverbs 19:1
Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a fool whose lips are perverse.

Proverbs 19:5
A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will not go free.

Proverbs 21:3
To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Proverbs 21:15
When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.

Proverbs 25:18
Like a club or a sword or a sharp arrow is the man who gives false testimony against his neighbor.

Isaiah 33:15-16
He who walks righteously and speaks what is right, who rejects gain from extortion and keeps his hand from accepting bribes, who stops his ears against plots of murder and shuts his eyes against contemplating evil-this is the man who will dwell on the heights, whose refuge will be the mountain fortress. His bread will be supplied, and water will not fail him.

Isaiah 56:1
This is what the LORD says: "Maintain justice and do what is right, for my salvation is close at hand and my righteousness will soon be revealed."

Micah 6:8
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Anonymous said...

I have been reading this blog for some time and understand the damage of lies. Where do morally dishonest people like Vincent come from? They attempt to speak eloquently but are nothing more than low life a-holes in a transparent quest to perpetuate and make money off of the misery of others ...or perhaps Crystal is providing some of her professional "services" for Vincent's magnanimous support? In any case, Vincent you are truly pathetic!

Debrah said...

Wow, it's a good thing Vince showed up this weekend.

I haven't had this much exposure to the Bible in quite some time.

Very interesting.

This has been a clear lesson to all how religion can be twisted into any shape to fit an agenda.

And why everyone should approach religion critically.

Debrah said...

Just checking the local news and in a comment section of the Herald Sun, Durham's race wars still rage...... on Easter Sunday!

There was a brief report about a 70 year-old woman whose own son had her arrested for taking about $2,000 worth of coins from him.

Apparently this woman is an outspoken "activist" and people around the town know her.

One commenter rightly criticized a man who would have his own mother arrested for such a relatively small matter and wondered why he would allow her to be in such a position to need to steal.

The following commenter seemed happy about the arrest letting readers know that many black senior citizens are arrested for much less of an offense all the time.


In Durham, race is a part of every dialogue.

Even the issue of where people are buried.

They like to know what color the people are beside them when they're pushing up daisies.

Anonymous said...

I would like to thank Mr. Clark for joining the conversation. His insight is much appreciated by me.

Some have touched on the point I'm about to make a bit, particular Prof. Anderson with his jaw dropping observations and comparisons of the G88 crowd and the Marxist tyrants of recent history.

What's most disappointing to me in this whole sorry affair was the missed opportunity of those who worship at the MLK altar to legitimize themselves as true justice seekers. Anyone who lived through or studied the early civil rights movement could not have been unaffected by the common sense truths that Dr. King spoke. Those in that same group would also have known that the civil rights movement could not have been as successful as quickly without the participation of a significant number of white folks, including white men.

But to our disappointment the civil rights leaders and activists which were incepted like labor unions have progressed and morphed as have many of the the larger unions. There was a time when working conditions were so poor that unions were a necessity to protect the workers. Those times are long past and the most unions are now thug groups that threaten the stabilities of the companies that pay them and their workers. The only time the workers actually need the unions nowadays is when the worker has failed to live up to his agreed to job performance. The unions now only protect the poor performers and themselves.

Similarly the civil rights groups formed to insure basic protection for "all" citizens under the constitution and received great acclaim in their early work. IMO great strides have been made in my lifetime to equalize the opportunities for all to attain the American dream, whatever that may be. And what has these strides bought us in terms of race relations?? And at what cost??

But the civil rights groups have become like the labor unions. When the initial battle was won, they refused to be satisfied, the had to serve another purpose.... to keep their power. In order to keep their power they had to create false obstacles to conquer. In doing so they may have, like the unions, done more harm than good.

This case was the ultimate test of the civil rights creed. "We want everyone treated equally"... How many of the so called civil rights groups had to revise their stances on a multitude of established axioms because of skin colors of the accused. I could go down the list from Bowen/Chambers, to Coleman, to all of the G88, to Cash, to Jesse and Al, the Right Rev. Barber, the Innocence Project, ACLU, Justice Department.... on and on.

Special recognition must go to the NC chapter of the NAACP and Irving Joyner. The summersaults and gymnastics they must have had to perform to reverse themselves on previous legal positions must have made them sore for months.

This case could have solidified the unearned precedence of many in the civil rights groups if they'd just taken a principled position on this case. The fact that they did not, exposed them as nothing more than charlatans who like most of the unions, are threatening the throw the baby out with the bath water.

It's a shame too, look how far we had come... now look how much we've lost. I fear the little picnic can't gloss this over.


The Random Rambler said...


You may or may not have your own intentions at heart, I do not know. But, you are defending a woman who claimed rape and was proven wrong. If it was a simple "he-said, she-said" case and you want to defend her position, more power to you. But all she has going for her is her word (and remember, she is a drug addict, has a criminal past which includes trying to run over a police officer and did not even claim she was raped until it was suggested to her) against a mountain of evidence where there is NOT ONE IOTA of evidence that even SUGGESTS the crime occured.

So, excuse us if we think your an opportunist as opposed to someone who truly wants to help her. If you did your research, you would not touch this case with a 10-foot pole. Again, you have a mountain of evidence against a known liar, drug addict and someone with a past record. Why do you think even prominent black lawyers would not even touch this case.

And as an easily identifiable (overweight) white male who enjoys athletics (I work in an athletic department as a GA at a university, not actually participating), this case and everything surrounding it scare me half to death. Luckily, I was in the office many times on a Saturday night rather than partying. With seeing how easily these men were convicted, I could have been at the wrong party at the wrong time and boom, been charged for rape simply because a woman claimed it.

And, expain to us how it was determined CGM was incompetent to stand trial yet competent to get a CRIMINAL JUSTICE degree from NCCU? And what evidence is out there to support the notion she even went to college.

And throwing the "supporting the kids" argument is low. In the name of supporting the kids, we are also helping a woman who enjoys sleeping around and is a known drug addict. I am all for helping the kids. However, the help they need is to get them the hell out of under her care.

bill anderson said...


If you claim to be promoting the truth, then why did you not have Crystal naming names? After all, the DNA from semen found near the toilet (it had been wiped up) belonged to someone who lived in that house. I am sure that Crystal was trying to intimate that the person who fit the DNA profile was one of the rapists. We know that person's name, so it would seem obvious to me that Crystal was telling us he did it.

(Interestingly, she did not point him out in the lineups, so I suspect that she changed her story to make it fit the forensic information we already knew.)

But, since Crystal insists she is telling the truth, and since your publishing outfit is the vehicle by which she is making her public claims, why did you not have her name names? Are you claiming that she had a very precise memory of everything that occurred, yet could not recognize any of the three men who raped and beat her?

Well, we know why you did not name names; it was because you would have been hit by a lawsuit. Al McSurely told you how to avoid being sued, and you followed his instructions, didn't you?

By the way, the late Kirk Osborn offered to show McSurely the entire case file to demonstrate why he believed Reade Seligmann was innocent. McSurely refused. Gee, I wonder why?

Lies, lies, and more lies. That is what we have heard from Durham, and I guess that is not going to change. By the way, Vince, you might remember that Jesus Himself said that Satan was the "father of lies" and a "liar from the beginning."

Do you really wish to be in the company of liars? Do you wish to be the conduit by which people lie?

This case ultimately is not about race, class, sex, or any of the "isms" that float around our society. Instead, it is about lies and the truth, and how certain people for political purposes will lie when they believe it suits them. If you wish to stand up for lies, then be my guest, but don't expect some of us to follow you.

And, please let me know why Crystal was wearing those vanity contact lenses at her presser. She wasn't hiding anything, was she? Oh, no, Crystal is as truthful as, as, as Mike Nifong.

Debrah said...

From Wahneema's CV you get entries like these:

"'She's Gotta Have It' and Womanist Deconstruction," presentation at the Neighborhood Film/Video Project, Inter­
national House of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, 06 May 1991.


I'm assuming "She's Gotta Have It" is referring to Spike Lee's movie which was full of deep intellectualism like when a girl wants to satisfy her sexual urges.

She most likely then will become a "womanist".

Bet Wahneema liked that one a lot!

RESEARCH INTERESTS: Black nationalist discourse; Black intellectual history; Racialized Discourses / Race
Theory; Feminist Theory and Women's Studies; Black American modern and postmodern fiction; Black
American literary history and theory; Black American women writers; Whiteness Studies; Black American
popular culture and film; Queer Theory.


I hadn't previously been aware that there was anything called "Whiteness Studies".

My senses tell me that Wahneema's "research interests" will result in a whiter shade of pale since so many of us have left the tanning days behind, having realized how harmful the sun can be over a long period of time.

But of course, "Whiteness Studies" in Wahneema's world would focus more on cultural differences.

Bet she finds lots of damaging statistics!

Lastly, given her penchant for carnal exploits I think it's time that she team up with the professor of luv Michael Hardt as soon as she gets back from Prague.

I would certainly like to see some research done inside the "Whiteness Studies" realm.

And I would be anxious to know the aerodynamic differences between the "white floating phallus" and the myriad other "colors" floating around out there.

Thanks in advance, Wahneema!

Debrah said...

Speaking of Al McSurely, get a load of this conniving, obsequious, scheming, and retro feed sack twit.

McSurely opines as majestic violins assemble in the background........

"Since I joined the movement, I've always felt much more comfortable in a black setting than in a white setting," he says. "I feel very uncomfortable when I'm in a room with all white people."

What a doughnut.


One Spook said...

First, a Kudo to DM @ 11:38 AM for an outstanding comment. To your list of groups who have outlived their usefulness and exist only to "keep their power," I would add N.O.W. and the ACLU, two groups to whom I used to contribute but never will again.

And now to Vince, for whom I have a great deal of admiration for having entered this discussion. That took guts and frankly, I'm bothered by the way a few of you have responded to Vince. While I can both sympathize and relate to part of your anger here, portions of some of your comments were inappropriate and uncalled for at best.

Vince: I’m not going to call you names or make up things about what you or anyone else said.

I am going to question your judgment.

And, I am going to approach the examination of your judgment from a purely “business” standpoint because I believe that is precisely where you erred. I have been in business my entire adult life and I would add that my years in business exceed the number of years you’ve been on the planet.

I have read everything on your various websites; your biography; and all of the words you have written about your projects, including this book. I watched all of the video in the press conferences you hosted. And, about your projects, you have written here: “Our original plan was to publish books on self-help, motivation and organizational development. Meeting Crystal made us put those plans on hold.”

I recall that you wrote that Crystal Mangum approached you because she heard your commentary on a local radio program. I read your very effusive praise of her on your first meeting --- that she appeared as not at all what you expected based on what you had read about her. Based on your reaction to that first meeting, you were obviously, and by your own admission, quite enthralled by her. You entered into an agency relationship with her. At that point, you were “in business” with Mangum, and I’m reminded of my first boss who told me, “Anything over five dollars is business.”

And, at that point, you have to put your “business hat on” and proceed with a hypercritical approach from then on. You must heed the words of the old reporter who told the young reporter, “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out!”

In approaching a business relationship with anyone, it is prudent to do thorough due diligence about the project as a whole. If you had done that, you should have read reports that asserted Mangum had been diagnosed with a bi-polar disorder. You should have learned that the sole and only legal information about the lacrosse case that was NOT in the public record was over one thousand pages of Mangum’s mental health records which were sealed from public release by an order of the court.

At the least, you should have requested those records from her and examined them. Perhaps you did. If she was not willing to release her records to you, that should have been a huge red flag in your business relationship with her. If you were conversant with those records, prudent judgment would have dictated that marketing the “story” of a person with bi-polar disorder is fraught with danger and a high chance for failure. You should have considered that Ted Bundy told very convincing stories, had an extremely high IQ, and was described by virtually all who had met him as “charming and convincing.” He also possessed a very evil side and was a convicted serial murderer who had brutally killed several young women.

But, you continued to market her story. Of that effort, you wrote, ”What we did do was not preprint a lot of copies because our promotional efforts were constantly being interfered with. Everyone we had commitments from backed out.”

This should have been red flag number two. Regardless of the reasons you were given (and you did not share those with us) for their rejection of Mangum's story, you should have considered this:

Publishers are liable for what they print. Accordingly, they too do their own due diligence. In examination and verification of the facts of the story in the advance copies you submitted to them, they would have learned that Mangum told myriad stories to the police; to health professionals; to law enforcement investigators; and once to the media; that she was unable to correctly identify any of the alleged perpetrators on several occasions until a patently dishonest "photo lineup" wherein error was not possible, was devised.

Potential publishers would also have learned that individuals who had publicly made false statements about the individuals indicted were being sued, and others who were wronged in the episode were similarly being sued.

A prudent publisher examining Mangum's "story" would have concluded that a mountain of factual evidence exists that her story was absolutely untrue; that no fact, evidence, or other witness testimony exists to support Mangum's version of the events.

To a publisher, Mangum's story has "LAWSUIT" written all though it. Similarly, others have mentioned that a prominent black plaintiff's attorney whom the Mangum family had contacted, also "backed out" from "helping" her.

Allow me to digress here. Suppose you and I are planning to enter into a business relationship. In checking your background, I read that you ran track in college.

In time, I meet a delightful, charming, and articulate young woman who was a classmate of yours in college. I mention my plans to do business with you and casually mention "I understand Vince ran track in college," to which she replies, "Vince never ran track; he couldn't run bath water!"

I mention this to you, and you reply, "She's lying!" and I say "Prove it!"

You then show me college yearbook photos of your track team, newspaper clippings of meets naming you as a competitor, and you introduce me to a coach at your college who mentored you in track.

I conclude that the young woman was lying to me.

But, yet you persisted with Mangum's story. At one of the press conferences, Mangum said, "“I want to assert, without equivocation, that I was assaulted."

That is a lie.

In the books, Mangum writes, "the third attacker said, ‘I don’t want to. I love my fiancĂ© and we are going to get married.’ The other two attackers coaxed him into taking his turn. When he finally did, each thrust hurt and it felt like my insiders were being ripped out."

None of that ever happened. Had that happened, DNA evidence of the "attackers" would have been found on her body and it would not be possible for anyone to have "wiped [her] off".

In conclusion, Vince, I sincerely believe that you are a good, honest and decent man. You have trained others and helped others in the past. You had a good library of potential stories to pursue and were sidetracked after meeting Mangum.

I would contend that you too were duped by Mangum; by the very troubled and evil side of her that somehow causes her to concoct fantasy stories and convince others of their truth.

You made a serious mistake. I've made my share in business too; many of us have.

Rebounding from a mistake begins with acknowledging that it in fact, was a mistake. People will not condemn you for having made a mistake. People will condemn you and not do business with you if persist in promoting a lie.

The reasonable commenters here have raised numerous facts and matters of evidence that should be yet another instance of major red flags to you.

It is up to you to admit a very human error and move on, Vince, and I hope you do.

One Spook

river rat said...

I confess to feeling a level of satisfaction that the angry race hating Group of 88 thugs on the Duke campus - will NEVER rid themselves of anger and self hate...

Their hate originates from self loathing and the realization they are truly insignificant, incompetent and yes - unequal in Academia..

All protestations to the contrary are negated by the clear and unbiased observation of their lack of meaningful accomplishments and their insignificant contributions to furthering knowledge.

I despise them for the damage they do to honest race relations - and insulting the memory of the fine black men and women I knew and served with.

bill anderson said...

I don't back off my criticism of Vince by one bit. True, he chose to come onto this blog, but what he tells us, and, more important, what he does is fair game.

The book not only claims that RCD raped her (although this time she did not name names, as Vince already had been advised by Al McSurely not to do that, as the action would lead to lawsuits), but she also claims that Roy Cooper, James Coman, and Mary Winstead deliberately covered up evidence of a rape. So, she not only accuses these young men of serious crimes, but she also accuses the state's attorney general and two special prosecutors also of committing felonies. In other words, she has raised the stakes.

So, she and Vince are on very shaky ground. It is bad enough to make false rape accusations, but then to accuse the state's top prosecutor that he also is covering up the rape really ups the ante.

To make matters worse, Crystal Mangum defrauded the government of thousands of dollars that she received under false pretenses. That is fraud, and had the prosecution in that state (not to mention federal prosecutors) had any guts, they would have charged her with financial fraud.

Vince's remarks about Crystal's children are quite touching. Please do not tell me that the only way a woman in Durham can care for her kids is to engage in prostitution and "exotic dancing." In reality, Crystal's children are wards of the state and have been so for quite a while.

The book was a last-ditch attempt by Crystal to try to squeeze out a bit more money, but I cannot believe this enterprise made anything at all. As I said before, had there been even a smidgen of evidence of a rape, Willie Gary would have been back in Durham in his private jet holding pressers, filing suits, and filling his pockets with money.

You know, Vince, I would have admired you a lot more had you come onto this blog and told the truth. But you are painted into a corner now. If you admit the whole thing is and was a lie, then you set yourself up for legal troubles.

So, your end game, and the end game of William Barber, Cash Michaels, Wendy Murphy, and Al McSurely is to continue to lie, since that is what everyone has done from the start. In the end, you gave us Tawana Brawley II.

Now, you can take pleasure in knowing that Karla Holloway still claims that both Brawley and Crystal were telling the truth. Hey, she teaches at Duke Law School, so she never would say anything that was not true, right?

One Spook said...


Just for the record, I am not troubled by your comments.

At the same time, in reading Vince's comments here, I do not see where he has not "come onto this blog and told the truth."

And, I agree what he [Vince] does is "fair game."

What he has done, in making the mistake of believing Mangum's false story, is help promote lies, and he needs to admit that and end it.

As I wrote, he has the opportunity to redeem himself, and I hope he does.

One Spook

Debrah said...

An example of how some others have responded to this enterprise.

Debrah said...

This must be the website for FireFilmz.

On this gallery page you can flip through various photos that appear to be Mangum.....through the years.

In some of them, she is shown at her "graduation".

Too bad she messed up such an occasion for others.

Anonymous said...

Does Vince actually say he believes what Ms Mangum has in her book? He seems to me to just be publishing her story, flawed as it is.

Debrah said...

Podcasts from Vince.

One Spook said...

Debrah writes @ 10:52 PM:

"This must be the website for FireFilmz."

You're just now discovering a site that has been in existence for several months.

That site shows a part of Mangum that most of us have not seen --- the college graduate with a gold cord on her graduation gown to indicate graduation with honors; Mangum and her adorable children in their "Sunday Best"; and Mangum as a young US Navy enlistee.

That is Crystal Mangum.

Crystal Mangum is also a deeply troubled, pathological liar who likely suffers from bi-polar disorder. She manufactured a false story in every respect about three young men who, along with their families and their colleagues, suffered a great deal.

Those horrific acts by Mangum deserve our derision, but this very ill young woman also deserves our compassion.

At the dismissal of the charges and the declaration of innocence, the defense attorneys spoke of that compassion. The families of the players involved exhibited compassion toward Mangum, as did Attorney General Cooper in not preferring criminal charges against her.

When the announcement of her planned "book" became public, certain attorneys that had been involved and certain family members discussed the potential of lawsuits. Those statements had a chilling effect on any potential publisher and none, except Vince Clark, chose to provide Mangum a forum.

By any measure, Clark erred in entering into an agency agreement with Mangum. As others have suggested, this only enabled the deeply troubled Mangum to have a forum, albeit a minuscule forum that probably does not extend beyond Durham County.

To me, where our efforts are best suited is not with Mangum or her agent Clark, but with the institutions and individuals who violated law and procedure and who should have known better --- Duke University and certain of its professors and employees; the City and County of Durham; the NC NAACP; and the media. Continuing to shed light on their craven behavior and misdeeds, and working to see that they are penalized promotes hope for the future.

The best thing we could do for the very troubled Mangum and the error-prone Clark is to ignore them and let them return to the obscurity from which they came.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

While it is admirable that VInce wanted to help out Crystal Mangum's children, the real question is where are their fathers? Cystal has a degree in criminal justice, why has she not pursued the legal means to get her chidlren's father(s) to contribute to their upbringing. What is Crystal herslef doing (besides hoping that her book will bring in revenue) to support herself and her offspring?
While Vince may be motivated to help others, in Cystal Mangum's case he is nothing more than an enabler - as he gives her the opportunity to continue with her false claims that continue to harm others. That is in no way helping anyone to move on and to put the past behind them. The book is nothing more than a last ditch attempt for Cystal to "cash in" on her claim - a claim that she hoped would result in a shake down for hundreds of thousands of dollars but which, if it had not been for the Christian attitude of RCD and their families and AG Cooper,would have (and I would argue should have) had her seen real jail time.

No justice, no peace said...

Bill Anderson, inre: "..The book was a last-ditch attempt by Crystal to try to squeeze out a bit more money..."

I think it important to split hairs here. There is no evidence to suggest this book will be her last attempt to extract financial gain from the harm she manufactured.

As such what is lacking is any atonement for ones mistakes or reconciliation with the truth.

Well done on your prior and concise use of language to get to the core matter - she lied. Though I much prefer the more precise "fantastic" lies.

af said...

A couple of points:
1) For all those who believe that Wah-Wah Lube-em-up-now has not published recently, her CV (that's corpeus vacuumous in her case) should include the Listening Statement, probably her most scholarly work.
2) Tolerance is something that the left uses to lecture the right on. After all, when a "leftie" is speaking on a college campus, security is heightened and there is no tolerance for questions that don't conform to the leftist agenda. Conversely, when a conservative speaks, the "lefties" believe them to be targets--literally. Throw a pie, whatever, but don't let a conservative speak. The truth hurts so the motivation is to keep it from being conveyed.
3) Money drives the telling of Crystal's story. We need another good science fiction novel out there. Let it be published. Then let the lawsuits begin!
4) Any link to this current group of civil rights activists to the late Martin Luther King is a blemish upon his reputation and ideology. Dr. King believed in fairness and justice. McSurly, reverend Barber, and the others of that ilk would be an spot upon the premises that Dr. King believed.
5) Vince, nice tactic. Quote the Bible. Do you really believe it or did you just google to find some passages?

Debrah said...

"Those horrific acts by Mangum deserve our derision, but this very ill young woman also deserves our compassion."

Total bull sh!t.

W. R. Chambers said...

In describing one of the mistakes that writers often make, Sol Stein writes:

A second matter insinuates itself between the writer and success. All of us, in our daily speech to others, are not only trying to communicate information but to get something off our minds and into the consciousness of the listeners. When we write, we put down on paper what we think, know, or believe we know and pay little attention to the effect on the reader. That is discourteous in life and unsuccessful in writing.

We practice our craft to service the reader, not our psyches.

Stein On Writing, p 8


Sometimes the courteous thing to do is to not publish.

Anonymous said...

To Debrah at 4/13/09, 9:08 AM:

As a Christian (Episcopalian, on the liberal end), I must disagree with you when you write that the contention that Crystal Mangum deserves our compassion is "total bull shit".

We can hate the sin (or crime) and love the sinner (perpetrator) at the same time.

Crystal Mangum is, indeed a very messed-up young woman. Mistakes? She has made some whoppers, and continues to make them worse and worse by repeating the obvious lies. Sadly, Vincent Clark is being her enabler by giving her a forum. It's the worst thing he could have done "for" her.

Sometimes the best sort of compassion is Tough-love. She got off VERY lightly when she made her false rape accusations and changed her story every time she told it. Maybe the State and the young mens' defense attorneys erred when the did not charge her or sue her. (They've taken a lot of heat for showing compassion themselves -- and CGM clearly has shown appalling judgment as a result.)

What CGM needs, I believe, is to be made to bear at least some of the consequences of her actions. That would be the best compassion that anyone could show her.

And her enablers must also bear the consequences of their actions -- perhaps in the form of lawsuits.

Gus W.

Anonymous said...

The most well known pastiche of a research paper is Isaac Asimov's The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline, published in The Journal of Astounding Science Fiction in 1948. On the day he defended his Ph.D. thesis.

AMP said...

Should I be concerned that I could follow all 13 paragraphs? Ah, comparative literature. Then again, real science has taught me to disregard it as nonsense...

No justice, no peace said...

As good a reason as any to explain why the abettors keep abetting...

Andy Taylor: Goob, did anybody ever tell you you've got a big mouth?

Goober Pyle: Yeah, but I don't pay no attention to 'em.

Atonement and reconciliation are two words that are not familiar to those in Durham or on the Duke campus. This is quite shocking given Duke's origins.

Anonymous said...

The first half of this commentary -- until it is derailed by comments about Vince and Crystal -- is a magnum opus of the Sunshine Band. (Please, no puns about the "mangum opus".) I mean, all the quotes from Cervantes and Plato ... I think the case can be made that a new course at Duke, "Durham In Wonderland For Credit", is well-justified.

As for the derailment, let me suggest that focusing on Crystal is like focusing on the half-wit who set fire to the Reichstag in 1934 rather than on the Nazis who took advantage of the incident to destroy German democracy.