tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post791483421704614772..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Review: Race to Injusticekcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-55672528801970536792009-01-29T23:24:00.000-05:002009-01-29T23:24:00.000-05:00I am not a big fan of the grand jury system, altho...I am not a big fan of the grand jury system, although I'm staunch supporter of trial by jury. I prefer the system where the prosecutor files a criminal complaint; then the defendant has the option to have a probable cause hearing, also called a preliminary hearing. The victim would be called to the stand and then it could be determined if there is probable cause to continue to trial. Perhaps Mangan could have satisfied a judge for probable cause, but maybe not. A dismissal at the probable cause hearing saves a lot of judicial and legal resources, not to mention the stress and strain on the defendant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-27304074059623457932009-01-29T18:29:00.000-05:002009-01-29T18:29:00.000-05:00Another day, another mind jammer.Today the Jan/Feb...Another day, another mind jammer.<BR/><BR/>Today the Jan/Feb Duke Magazine arrived.<BR/><BR/>Four alumni trustees were nominated by the executive committee of the board of directors of the Duke Alumni Association. One, Paula Crown, has been a trustee since 2001 and is being nominated for a second term.<BR/><BR/>Of interest is the in 1988 she was "instrumental in establishing the Lester Crown Endowment for Lectures in Ethics."<BR/><BR/>Duke board of trustees and ethics seem a bit incongruous to me. One might surmise that the Lectures aren't well attended. At least not by the administration, Klan of 88 or others in Durham.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41590862335697917342009-01-29T02:00:00.000-05:002009-01-29T02:00:00.000-05:00One Spook, you are correct. I would read the book ...One Spook, you are correct. I would read the book if I did not have to subsidize certain of the authors. In that we certainly agree! MOO! Gregory<BR/><BR/>P.S. I very much enjoy reading all of your fantastic posts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-77800697353622151162009-01-28T17:59:00.000-05:002009-01-28T17:59:00.000-05:00Bad as it is, the original “listening” statement m...Bad as it is, the original “listening” statement might, at the time, be very charitably ascribed to overzealous faculty who merely got caught up in the heat of the moment. The “clarifying” statement and the way Steve Baldwin was treated leave no doubt as to the bad intentions of the G88. Steve gave a departmental seminar here a year ago. The contents were good organic chemistry, but it was also presented in a way that undergraduates could take something away from the talk. Steve also interacted with a number of the faculty here. Based on his visit among other things, I can say unequivocally that he is collegial, and he is a good citizen of academic chemistry. He must be a fine departmental colleague. Steve is also a self-described liberal and is politically correct in the old-fashioned, honorable use of the term—meaning someone who avoids language that demeans minorities, etc.<BR/><BR/>Even someone without independent knowledge of what Steve is like can find fault with O’Neil’s analysis. Faculty should not criticize their own students in public. My philosophy instructor, Dr. Placher, implied that it would have been better to defend them publically (at least over procedural improprieties) and rake them over the coals privately, and that is as good a formulation as any that I have heard. Duke would have done itself proud if it had acted in loco parentis, as Steve indicated. By attacking him on grounds she must have known were specious, Robyn Wiegman avoided the more pertinent discussion about the right and wrong ways to treat the Duke three.<BR/><BR/>Attorney and cofounder of FIRE Harvey Silverglate described the faculty who pilloried the three players as “feckless.” He went on to say, “it is unbearably sad that Professor Baldwin, having used a perfectly apt metaphor for how the unapologetic faculty members should be treated, then saw fit to kneel down at the altar of political correctness and issue the ritual apology.” About the faculty allied with Professor Wiegman, Mr. Silverglate said “they kept silent about their outrageous conduct toward three students, and instead proceeded to torment the professor who showed the moral courage to seek to call them on it.”<BR/><BR/>ChrisChris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-38309019938015485722009-01-28T10:15:00.000-05:002009-01-28T10:15:00.000-05:00Moo Gregory does make a good point - there is only...Moo Gregory does make a good point - there is only so much time that one has regarding reading. Just reading DIW, Liestoppers, and JinC and then formulating responses takes an enormous amount of time (well worth-while) - and then one also has other papers, magazines, journals, books, television programs to watch and, oh yes, a job and family to occupy one's time. <BR/>I too feel a certain reluctance to put money in the pockets (and thereby confer a certain legitimacy) to books that perpetuate the false charges or infer that there were good reasons for the actions of the police, prosecutor, Duke faculty and administration. While I do not particularly want said books featured in the local public library, if push comes to shove and I feel that reading beyond the summaries and critiques posted are necessary (there is the point that one should always be thoroughly grounded in the positions and views of all involved) then I will avail myself of that resource.<BR/>cksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-66698363010566245882009-01-27T21:59:00.000-05:002009-01-27T21:59:00.000-05:00MOO Gregory:I agree with your comments about the a...MOO Gregory:<BR/><BR/>I agree with your comments about the availability of eye and magnifying glasses at the University of Virginia.<BR/><BR/>You also made a good argument for not <B>buying</B> the subject book.<BR/><BR/>My comment was directed toward <B>reading</B> what others write, not buying books that they write.<BR/><BR/>But, I still admire your "MOO comments" and wish that you'd edit your most brilliant analysis of the "Listening Statement" and post it.<BR/><BR/>I had it on my Blog for over a year, but I deleted the Blog.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.<BR/><BR/>One SpookOne Spookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592774438681904368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-32154021139258440952009-01-27T17:03:00.000-05:002009-01-27T17:03:00.000-05:00Dearest One Spook, The author also had an editor. ...Dearest One Spook, <BR/><BR/>The author also had an editor. Did they both need glasses? Was the former President of the University of Virginia without adequate resources to purchase a magnifying glass? Could he not have asked for assistance?<BR/><BR/>I do agree that it is strange in that the evidence of his omission is right before our 20/20 vision. Only Nifong or an 88er would try something like that, I suspect. Yet, it is curious because he was obviously looking for it -- based on how he wrote the paragraph -- but not hard enough to actually find it. <BR/><BR/>********************<BR/><BR/>On another note, I have to side with the "I don't need to read the book" or Diva side of that argument. I understand the aphorism about books and their covers, but that was never meant to apply to books, or their covers, and in any event, I appreciate aphorisms as much as I need a hole in my bucket in the bottom of the sea. Here are my reasons:<BR/><BR/>1. I do not want to put one cent into the pocket of anyone who has written the following about the Duke Lying Hooker case:<BR/><BR/>"The Duke lacrosse rape case is a story that is crucially centered on our inability to address and undo our longstanding assumptions about women of color’s bodies."<BR/><BR/>2. I don't want to add to a trend of respectable writers and thinkers collaborating with "critical" (read: uncritical) thinkers. It gives the uncritical writers credence and a market. <BR/><BR/>3. Books are subject to the sharp wit of the New York Times Book Review, just as films are subject to the whims of the film critic, and restaurantuers tremble under Zagat's gaze. This is commonplace for books, films and lunch because, unlike human beings, books, films and lunch do not have due process rights. I can easily discern whether I'm dealing with a book, a film, a human being or lunch.<BR/><BR/>4. Necessary time triage. <BR/><BR/>5. I agree with Debrah that, "Until Proven Innocent is the definitive account of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax." And that book was written by authors who actually lived and sweated the words. <BR/><BR/>6. If I thought an "essay" was required on the needed reforms to the Durham Grand Jury system, I would rather write it myself.<BR/><BR/>These are my arguments for now, as I am faced with some time triage issues. Take care, One Spook and all! MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39781424530972319812009-01-27T12:56:00.000-05:002009-01-27T12:56:00.000-05:00MOO Gregory writes @ 7:10 AM:"How could he [Robert...MOO Gregory writes @ 7:10 AM:<BR/><BR/><I>"How could he</I> [Robert O'Neil]<I> have missed that giant plug for all those Duke departments and programs? I did a word count on the plug, and it came out to 92 words that O'Neil completely whiffed on."</I><BR/><BR/>I wondered about that too. The most common extant version of the "Listening Statement" seems to be a .jpg file image of the ad. The subject 92 words appear at the bottom of the ad in very, very <I>fine</I> tiny print.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Mr. O'Neil, who began his teaching career in 1963, needs stronger glasses ...<BR/><BR/>"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."<BR/><BR/>One SpookOne Spookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592774438681904368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-61104856685312826542009-01-27T07:51:00.000-05:002009-01-27T07:51:00.000-05:00K.C. Johnson wrote:"The trio adds that beyond all ...K.C. Johnson wrote:<BR/><BR/>"The trio adds that beyond all the other Durham improprieties, 'the repeated presentation of certain suspects’ photos is particularly egregious'—36 lacrosse players were shown to Crystal Mangum twice, over a two week-span. That this issue received relatively little condemnation, the authors speculate, is 'precisely because [condemnation] seems so obvious.'”<BR/><BR/>I disagree with the authors' speculative answer. It is not "obvious" to a layperson that showing a photograph a number of times to an eyewitness would be dangerous. In fact, it would probably seem an appropriate thing to do for most people. "Here, take another look. It might jog your memory." <BR/><BR/>The problem, of course, is that memory doens't get better, and the repetitive nature of the viewings might trigger a false memory (i.e. the eyewitness might remember the previous picture and not the culprit), or the witness will begin to feel pressured into making an identification. <BR/><BR/>My speculation is that most of the people in Durham, Duke and North Carolina who might have "condemned" the procedure were conspirators in spirit with the framing of the innocent students. Or they were afraid of PC repercussions. Early on, only a brave few, such as Joe Neff and Professor Johnson, actually condemned these "obvious" procedural defects. <BR/><BR/>*******************<BR/><BR/>Did Professor Seigel mention the possibility of requiring a transcript -- or at least a recording -- of the grand jury proceedings? That is a simple, cost-effective way to put liars on notice that they will be found out. Most courthouses are now completely wired for sound, and they keep tons of recordings in the event a transcript is requested. In other words, the machinery is already in place. In smaller NC counties, they can use a little Sony taperecorder. <BR/><BR/>Something has to be done about the Durham Grand Jury system. I seem to recall about 83 True Bills (and 0 No Bills) issued during the afternoon that Collin and Reade were indicted. That came out to about an indictment every 5 minutes assuming the usual cigarette and coffee breaks.<BR/><BR/>A Constitutional safeguard should require a little more time and effort than an ATM transaction. <BR/><BR/>In Illinois, every alleged felon has the right to demand a preliminary hearing. This right is not over-used because defense attorneys know that a request for a preliminary hearing is likely to piss off the prosecutor -- thereby reducing the likelihood of a sweet negotiated plea. <BR/><BR/>Both of these simple protections, I believe, would have derailed the Duke frame. MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-2373926200954218172009-01-27T07:10:00.000-05:002009-01-27T07:10:00.000-05:00Because O'Neil wrote the following ..."nothing in ...Because O'Neil wrote the following ...<BR/><BR/>"nothing in the ad expressly claimed or even strongly implied departmental (much less university) endorsement. Even a casual reading of the text would have belied such nexus, given the critical tenor of the statements."<BR/><BR/>... I have to believe that he didn't even attempt a casual reading of the text. That's like saying the Constitution is silent about Legislative powers. O'Neil must not be a strict constructionist! It is also counter-intuitive. <BR/><BR/>Why would O'Neil even mention that the "Listening Ad" implicated entire Duke departments unless he had heard it from somewhere? In that event, he should have been looking for it, and that makes his having missed it completely inexplicable. <BR/><BR/>How could he have missed that giant plug for all those Duke departments and programs? I did a word count on the plug, and it came out to 92 words that O'Neil completely whiffed on. <BR/><BR/>********************<BR/><BR/>Q: What did the civically-engaged Philantropist ask the Good Samaritan? <BR/><BR/>A: You boon too? <BR/><BR/>********************<BR/><BR/>One aspect of the Duke Hooker Hoax is neatly encapsulated in the Baldwin/Weigman episode. Because of political correctness, Baldwin was forced to apologize for being right, and Weigman was able to bask in being wrong. <BR/> <BR/>********************<BR/><BR/>MOO! (Meaning these are my opinions only) GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-33588267826445283432009-01-27T07:04:00.000-05:002009-01-27T07:04:00.000-05:00I enjoyed your review of the various essays in thi...I enjoyed your review of the various essays in this book. The review however, misses the point of the book as a whole. <BR/> Seigel: "I expect that the reader will agree with some of the chapters in this volume and disagree—perhaps vehemently—with others. That, at least, is my intention,because that is the nature of the academic enterprise."<BR/><BR/> It seems to me that Seigel has accomplished exactly what he intended for this book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-856377101977316512009-01-27T04:22:00.000-05:002009-01-27T04:22:00.000-05:00No essay included on nursing ethics?No essay included on nursing ethics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-6435848619528137632009-01-26T23:43:00.000-05:002009-01-26T23:43:00.000-05:00There's another obvious "reform" that would help: ...<I>There's another obvious "reform" that would help: When district attorneys, police officers, city officials, etc. are found to have broken the law during a conspiracy to frame the innocent, hold them accountable. Nifong, Gottlieb and several others should be looking at serious jail time for their misdeeds. This would be right both to punish criminal abuse of power and to deter others who might be tempted to try the same thing.</I><BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, in the system of justice today, the foxes eternally guard the hen houses. Gottlieb, Himan, Nifong, Levicy, and others belong in prison, but no one is going to prosecute them. That is the the reality of "justice" today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-87376067098922683302009-01-26T23:08:00.000-05:002009-01-26T23:08:00.000-05:00Why aren't members of the duke lacrosse team bring...Why aren't members of the duke lacrosse team bringing a lawsuit against the duke 88 for slander and defamation? They certainly have an argument for such a lawsuit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-50506789348167489992009-01-26T20:45:00.000-05:002009-01-26T20:45:00.000-05:00One Spook:Thanks for the offer - I enjoy reading y...One Spook:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the offer - I enjoy reading your comments as well! I know all to well that when a small group of pc are able to intimidate their colleagues by playing a race or gender card, there is little that the rest of a faculty can do if they are worried about being able to pay their bills or be certain that they even have another position to go to. (Any hint of racial or gender discrimination can sink someone's career faster than that iceberg sunk the Titanic). Although I am sure that there were those on the faculty who knew that the charges were a crock and that the lacrosse players were no better nor no worse than any other students at Duke, they failed as a group to speak out. This is what Hannah Arendt meant by the banality of evil. When one stands by and does nothing, then one implicitly supports the evil (in this case the framing of three innocent young men)by the police, the prosecutor, a lying woman who saw a chance for a payday, a nurse who chose to push her own agenda, and a faculty and an administration (as well as the BOT). It is never easy to be the lone person crying out that injustice is occurring - but if we have learned anything at all, we should learn from this (as we should also have learned from the actions of the Nazis)that each and every one of us have a responsibility to make certain that such evil cannot and does not happen again. <BR/>cksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-21736145414822483712009-01-26T20:23:00.000-05:002009-01-26T20:23:00.000-05:00From KC's blog:"Seigel wonders whether grand jury ...From KC's blog:<BR/><BR/>"Seigel wonders whether grand jury reforms might prevent such obvious miscarrirages of justice as the lacrosse case...<BR/>That said, Seigel notes that these reforms have their own problems—most notably, they would dramatically increase the workload of the grand jury system..."<BR/><BR/>There's another obvious "reform" that would help: When district attorneys, police officers, city officials, etc. are found to have broken the law during a conspiracy to frame the innocent, hold them accountable. Nifong, Gottlieb and several others should be looking at serious jail time for their misdeeds. This would be right both to punish criminal abuse of power and to deter others who might be tempted to try the same thing.<BR/><BR/>By contrast, those others who might be tempted will look at this case and say "You know, they were pretty much caught red-handed in some of the nastiest subversion of justice anyone's ever seen, and basically got away scot-free. I guess following the law isn't really required."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-87764845475918870422009-01-26T19:50:00.000-05:002009-01-26T19:50:00.000-05:00Wow ... these are some excellent comments by and l...Wow ... these are some excellent comments by and large. CKS ... I'd take you out to dinner in a heartbeat if your husband doesn't object ... I truly enjoy reading your comments.<BR/><BR/>Others are somewhat troubling. One comment states <I>"None of these people have the background in analyzing and writing about major legal cases as does Stuart."</I> and that is woefully uninformed. Michael Seigel is an imminently qualified legal editor and writer and most of the writers involved are similarly qualified and well published.<BR/><BR/>Another comment I find curious is <I>"I have no desire to read the book."</I> This reminds me of the stereotypical little girl who covers her ears and sings when she hears something she doesn't like.<BR/><BR/>How on earth can anyone formulate a viewpoint on a subject without reading that view? I'm reminded of a friend of mine who refused to read anything Marx wrote, arguing, "I'm not a Communist, so I'm not going to read Marx!"<BR/><BR/>Amazing.<BR/><BR/>In UPI, as in this analysis, together with stating his own observations, KC quoted statements; cited writings; and dissected both ideological and pedagogical positions of the major players in the events of the lacrosse hoax. <BR/><BR/>When he was recently pointed to this book, KC stated that he would immediately <B>read it</B> and comment.<BR/><BR/>That action stands in rather stark contrast to the position of some of those who have criticized Johnson's positions while admitting that they've not read either his book or this Blog.<BR/><BR/>Amazing.<BR/><BR/>This review was outstanding and the final sentence is, while quite disturbing, profoundly eloquent and correct.<BR/><BR/>One SpookOne Spookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592774438681904368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-26835565573785920532009-01-26T18:15:00.000-05:002009-01-26T18:15:00.000-05:00Thanks, again, to K.C. for dissecting the latest s...Thanks, again, to K.C. for dissecting the latest supposedly academic publication trying to use the Duke LAX case to promote papers by Professors of Angry Studies. No matter how loud the screams, they cannot justify their pseudo-science by whining about the mistreatment of Crystal Gail Mangum. What a "Poster Child" for the creation of positive dialogue among us all about the issues involving race, gender, society and, especially, rape ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-58715784885171776232009-01-26T17:18:00.000-05:002009-01-26T17:18:00.000-05:00According to Orenstein, the troubling narrative in...According to Orenstein, the troubling narrative in this case was "a tale of a drugged-out, black exotic dancer with a criminal record, class envy, and a chip on her shoulder—one who was lying, delusional, or both."<BR/><BR/>The supporters of the LAX accused supposedly said, okay, let's be very suspicious of her claims because of <I>that</I> stereotype?<BR/><BR/>Hardly. Mangum's stories were wholly illogical, physically impossible. If Mangum's claims had held together at all, neither her blackness, femaleness, occupation, previous drug use, criminal record, nor the state of her panties would have lessened at all the vigor with which the LAX players would have been prosecuted. The players were almost prosecuted even though Mangum's story was manifest nonsense, and the accused would surely have been convicted in "fair Durham". <BR/><BR/>The stereotyping, the fascination with the narrative, was entirely on the other side: no matter how preposterous Mangum's versions became, this event was prized in many quarters as a gripping tale of a band of testosterone-soaked rich white athletes who were to a man lying, and who were ready to use their incredible, nearly limitless white male rich-guy influence to cover up their foul doings, thereby cheating Mangum, certain segments of Durham, and a whole bunch of other narrative-readers, of "justice".Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12954323595317825201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-68665781266123501052009-01-26T16:20:00.000-05:002009-01-26T16:20:00.000-05:00On another note: Business Week just did a story on...On another note: Business Week just did a story on rental rates for homes in major metros across the country. Accompanying the snippets were photos from those metros of cityscapes or representative homes.<BR/>I did a double-take.<BR/>For the Raleigh area, guess which house they picked? <BR/>You got it: an all-too-familiar bungalow on <A HREF="http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/01/0122_rentdrops/4.htm" REL="nofollow"> Buchanon Street</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-56235715569633666322009-01-26T14:17:00.000-05:002009-01-26T14:17:00.000-05:00This nauseating inability of "feminist" law profes...This nauseating inability of "feminist" law professors to acknowledge one legal process for us all is also scary. The legal profession was built around a common understanding of legal principles. Feminist professors want one for womyn.<BR/><BR/>Situations like LAX can be aided and abetted by law professors that really believe the law ought to be different for some people. Whether to right perceived historical wrongs or "balance" something in one group's favor, they don't care about the individuals involved.<BR/><BR/>I can't believe my taxes go to underwrite this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-6450961009278624992009-01-26T11:45:00.000-05:002009-01-26T11:45:00.000-05:00Anonymous said at 10:24 AM ... The 2:02 comment is...<B>Anonymous said at 10:24 AM ... </B><BR/><I>The 2:02 comment is about what I would expect from the Duke/Durham crowd. In talking to people from Durham, I have found them to believe that they have the right to play by whatever rules they want, and that anyone who interferes is a "meddling outsider."<BR/><BR/>Interesting. <B>We saw the same thing in the Scottsboro Boys case. Thus, the rules of Durham are the rules of Scottsboro. It is so nice that a couple of places can be known for racism and injustice. </B>Enjoy your status, Durham and Duke University. You earned it.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>It is one of the ironies of history that Scottsboro is located in the region of Alabama that in the Civil War supplied more volunteers to the Union than the Confederate Army. The Scottsboro of 1931 was more than 90% white and had no history of racial animus and unlike Durham in 2006, where whites suspected of being Dukies were assaulted on the streets, there were not in Scottsboro in 1931 any of the racist attacks on innocent passersby. Most or all of the violence spawned by the case was caused by the defendants' supporters in Northern cities and by Communist mobs in Europe.<BR/><BR/>In the Scottsboro Boys case, none of the primary figures were from anywhere close to Scottsboro. Neither the accusers nor the accused were even Alabamians -- the girls were from Tennessee while the boys were from Georgia. The alleged crimes took place on a moving train on its way from Chattanooga, Tenn. to Huntsville, Ala. The train happened to be stopped in Paint Rock, Ala., just inside Jackson County, of which Scottsboro was the county seat. If the train had been stopped two miles further up the line, the case would have been called "the Huntsville Boys". Instead, by this accident of history Scottsboro has become a (undeserved) byword for racism while Huntsville is known as "Rocket City" for the U.S. Space Center there.<BR/><BR/>RRHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-21560419192075440332009-01-26T10:44:00.000-05:002009-01-26T10:44:00.000-05:00After reading this very complete analysis, I have ...After reading this very complete analysis, I have no desire to read the book.<BR/><BR/>No doubt lots of effort and a degree of scholarship have been put into this book, but a whiff of the stench of Duke's Gang of 88 survives.<BR/><BR/>Orenstein is someone who will forever find it impossible to be objective about this subject matter. And few of her colleagues will ever object.<BR/><BR/>None of these people were on the scene as the case was unfolding as was KC.<BR/><BR/>None of these people have the background in analyzing and writing about major legal cases as does Stuart.<BR/><BR/><I>Until Proven Innocent</I> is the definitive account of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax.<BR/><BR/>The Hoax started out as a false rape charge---something that would be difficult enough to combat in the public arena; however, the element that really inflamed the story was "race".<BR/><BR/>So many people <I>loved it</I>.<BR/><BR/>None more than those whose sole existence and livelihood inside the academy depend on pushing these outdated, overblown, embellished, and totally fabricated scenarios.<BR/><BR/>As if I needed a reminder, I recently witnessed a few of those in the academy, firsthand, who will do anything to avoid defending their lousy "scholarship".Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-84401647138733340152009-01-26T10:24:00.000-05:002009-01-26T10:24:00.000-05:00The 2:02 comment is about what I would expect from...The 2:02 comment is about what I would expect from the Duke/Durham crowd. In talking to people from Durham, I have found them to believe that they have the right to play by whatever rules they want, and that anyone who interferes is a "meddling outsider."<BR/><BR/>Interesting. We saw the same thing in the Scottsboro Boys case. Thus, the rules of Durham are the rules of Scottsboro. It is so nice that a couple of places can be known for racism and injustice. Enjoy your status, Durham and Duke University. You earned it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-16172331855551762072009-01-26T10:20:00.000-05:002009-01-26T10:20:00.000-05:00CRITICAL THINKINGAnonymous 1/26/09 8:39 AM said......CRITICAL THINKING<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 1/26/09 8:39 AM said...<BR/>...<BR/>...There is no critical thinking of the LAX case.<BR/>::<BR/>Anger studies professors and extremists are using the phrase 'critical thinking' as their method for viewing all history through the prism of race/class/gender and then using the word metanarrative or 'tall tale' to describes recorded history such as our civil war. <BR/><BR/>Critical thinking becomes a secret phrase used in their coded hierarchy. I have learned when I attend meetings with Anger Studies folk, I am not a member of their coded hierarchy.<BR/><BR/>Which Critical Thinking definition were you referencing with respect to the LAX case?<BR/>::<BR/>GPGary Packwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177986821224068759noreply@blogger.com