tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post8579372608618400621..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Law School Panelkcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76468648592939856202007-05-12T19:35:00.000-04:002007-05-12T19:35:00.000-04:00I am a graduate of Duke Law. I am extremely disap...I am a graduate of Duke Law. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of response by any of the law faculty -- with the notable and honorable exception of Prof. Coleman (who came after my time) -- to the politically-correct, lynch-mob mentality exhibited by their "88" colleagues and Brodhead.<BR/><BR/>I know and like Tom Metzloff. He's been quoted several times in the press, sagely commenting on he aftermath. But where the hell was he when his colleague Prof. Coleman was taking a stand for due process and against race baiting? Where was Beale? Dellinger? Rowe? (Perhaps I missed an article--in that case, I apologize.) I also recall a nasty little sanctimonious quote by Paul Haagen about atheletes, which only reinforced the orgasm of bias againt these innocent young men. <BR/><BR/>I've requested to be dropped from all Duke mailing lists. Let someone else subsidize the behavior of the "88" and the administration and the fecklessness of their law school enablers.<BR/><BR/>I would encourage other "Law Devils" to do the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41354147197507791522007-05-09T22:01:00.000-04:002007-05-09T22:01:00.000-04:004:20"Land orca" might be the wrong cetacean: perh...4:20<BR/><BR/>"Land orca" might be the wrong <BR/>cetacean: perhaps the manatee,<BR/>indigenous to Florida and <BR/>doing fairly well in fresh<BR/>water, a grazer upon vegetation,<BR/>is the appropriate mammalian<BR/>species. Though temperamentally,<BR/>one could make quite a good<BR/>case for an orca. The dentician<BR/>tend to lean one in that direction,<BR/>certainly.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I would describe the <BR/>flailing gesticulations and poorly<BR/>conceived dance steps as something<BR/>more resembling a fat deranged<BR/>mink.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it is time to bring in<BR/>the Zoologists for confirmation.<BR/>They might, in turn, refer<BR/>us to Gary Larson.<BR/><BR/>Whatever it was, flopping about <BR/>on that sidewalk, it had something<BR/>resembling flippers or fins,<BR/>and it had a wrinkly overfleshed<BR/>abdomen.<BR/><BR/>MacAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-19039469218911653252007-05-09T21:27:00.000-04:002007-05-09T21:27:00.000-04:00To anon 4:56:Carolyn is correct. To her troll lis...To anon 4:56:<BR/><BR/>Carolyn is correct. To her troll list, you can comfortably add 1:44, 11:17, and 12:06 ... sooo transparent that all these comments are by a single poster!E-mail:https://www.blogger.com/profile/05104865182873148411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-24990927884071151112007-05-09T16:56:00.000-04:002007-05-09T16:56:00.000-04:00Thanks, Carolyn. It took me a while, and I wanted ...Thanks, Carolyn. It took me a while, and I wanted to give him/her the benefit of the doubt. But, you're right--a troll revealed itself. Shame on me for indulging it as long as I did.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>8:45, 10:29, 11:09, 12:10, 1:24, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-65254545237284682822007-05-09T16:20:00.000-04:002007-05-09T16:20:00.000-04:00Carolyn says:To the Anonymous Ivy League (and Stan...Carolyn says:<BR/><BR/>To the Anonymous Ivy League (and Stanford alumni) professor at 8:45, 10:29, 11:09, 12:10, 1:24, etc. who's been patiently trying to respond to the troll - forget it. You can no more explain logic to a troll than you can explain stupid to the 'land Orca' flopping to the concrete on the Ubuntu video. <BR/><BR/>___________<BR/><BR/>PS - I confess. I stole the 'land orca' phrase from Anon at 8:11 commenting on Serena Sebring. Couldn't resist. It's priceless!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-79398187601069076552007-05-09T13:24:00.000-04:002007-05-09T13:24:00.000-04:00To: 1:01:You wrote: "I apologize if you consider t...To: 1:01:<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "I apologize if you consider these ad hominem attacks. They strike me as reasonable responses to issues you raised."<BR/><BR/><BR/>"My friend" you (Brodhead?) have now transitioned from "beginning to waste bandwidth" to wasting bandwidth. As to whether your "responses" are reasonable, I'm comfortable leaving that for others to decide. That is, if anyone is interested enough and has energy, time, and patience to burn. I do not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-62863654343331330792007-05-09T13:01:00.000-04:002007-05-09T13:01:00.000-04:00My friend, I didn't make the claim that "it's palp...My friend, I didn't make the claim that "it's palpably clear that Duke 'is falling-in real time,' and the only open question is how far it will plummet." You did, and the burden rests with you to demonstrate this. Beyond anecdotes and the honest admission that we won't know if it's falling at all until more data comes in, you've provided nothing.<BR/><BR/>I didn't make the self-serving claim that you were a "serious" academic at an Ivy institution, you did. Why? What makes you a "serious" academic?? What are you implying about academics at other institutions? <BR/><BR/>I didn't claim that faculty would not want to work at Duke because of its location, you did. And then replied to my query about the Triangle with the unresponsive comment that you live in a very nice area.<BR/><BR/>I apologize if you consider these ad hominem attacks. They strike me as reasonable responses to issues you raised.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-64883307670082224312007-05-09T12:23:00.000-04:002007-05-09T12:23:00.000-04:00Don't blame the anony prof for the Stanford refere...Don't blame the anony prof for the Stanford reference. I put that in the mix because it is a top tier university which also has very nice neighborhoods around it. And I gather the public schools there are quite good. I could have mentioned Princeton just as well. Those aspects are less desirable at many other top tier universities, including Yale, Columbia, Penn.<BR/><BR/>Some quality faculty might choose a "lesser" university than Duke because the factors of neighborhood and public schools are better, say Emory as an example. C'est la vie.<BR/><BR/>There is no doubt that Durham is a significant negative for Duke and has been for awhile. I'm not real familiar with the surrounding towns, but a half hour commute could put one easily outside the confines of Durham wihtout having to spend a lot of money on housing. <BR/><BR/>I was worried about safety of my Duke student when he chose to apply there early. Despite my prejudice against the preppy image (and reality) of Princeton, I was hoping he would like it enough to send it an application or to send one to Yale which has its own town/gown problems. And, he he was a virtual lock for admission to the University of Virginia for a fine education in a safer city. But, despite the worries of Durham of which he was aware, he plainly liked Duke better. An early application to Duke made sense for him and so far neither he nor I regret it. (I still worry, though.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-27550882217265053772007-05-09T12:10:00.000-04:002007-05-09T12:10:00.000-04:0011:48 (and, presumably, 11:53) writes:"I would thi...11:48 (and, presumably, 11:53) writes:<BR/><BR/>"I would think you'd have a little more sense than to claim the Triangle is an undesirable place to live."<BR/><BR/>Compared to where I live, it is. Again, everything's comparative.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I'll stand by my analysis (which hasn't a whit to do w/ my CV, etc.). Do you stand by your ad hominems? I do not see much by way of fact or logic in your rebuttals. Unlike perhaps you (whomever you may be), I truly have no dog in this fight. Just a bemused observer and and outraged citizen at the effort to railroad the lax 3.<BR/><BR/>Your statement: "Either your claim about Duke plummeting is valid or not." Thus, as you astutely note, the answer is either "yes" or "no." Wow, now that conveys real insight. You're beginning to waste bandwidth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-15984629233886686192007-05-09T11:59:00.000-04:002007-05-09T11:59:00.000-04:008:33, my heart goes out to you and your family for...8:33, my heart goes out to you and your family for the pain and terror you had to endure. Duke betrayed you at a time when your son was barely indoctrinated into college life. <BR/><BR/>I hope counseling has helped. Please post again ... I'm sincerely interested in how he's doing and if he's back in school.E-mail:https://www.blogger.com/profile/05104865182873148411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-4641056408488433742007-05-09T11:53:00.000-04:002007-05-09T11:53:00.000-04:00p.s. And why all the name dropping (Ivy League...p.s. And why all the name dropping (Ivy League, Stanford)? Are we supposed to be impressed?? Either your claim about Duke plummeting is valid or not. Yuor supposed CV doesn't change the facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-59012628641152512632007-05-09T11:48:00.000-04:002007-05-09T11:48:00.000-04:00If you really are who you say you are, which I dou...If you really are who you say you are, which I doubt, I would think you'd have a little more sense than to claim the Triangle is an undesirable place to live. Given your unsubstantiated hyperbole in the original post about Duke plummeting to mediocrity and then backtracking on what you really meant to say, though, somehow I'm not surprised.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-53830326698429099172007-05-09T11:09:00.000-04:002007-05-09T11:09:00.000-04:00duke09parent (at 10:54) wrote:"One wouldn't have t...duke09parent (at 10:54) wrote:<BR/><BR/>"One wouldn't have to live in Durham to work at Duke, anymore than Alex Rodriguez or Roger Clemens have to live in the Bronx to play at Yankee Stadium."<BR/><BR/>Ok, but, back in the real world, even as a tenured prof. I don't make a "Clemens"-like salary. Thus, exotic commutes would hurt my pocketbook. Second, I've got kids to help raise and a significant commute degrades that (just my opinion, folks, others may disagree).<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: When picking where to join a faculty and move my lab I look for a university that allows me to live *somewhere* in the general vicinity that does not put my legal rights into unnecessary jeopardy. Also, I want a university led by someone other than a morally bankrupt idiot who cowers to the AA crowd. Again, call me silly....<BR/><BR/>As a Duke parent (I assume), I understand your anguish at the meltdown in Durham and at Duke. Candidly, however, there are plenty of universities besides Stanford (one of my alma maters) that pose a consequential threat to faculty quality at Duke in the short- to mid-term. At least for faculty candidates with options. And presumably schools like Duke need to be able to attract those with other options to remain competitive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-28449574228788506172007-05-09T10:54:00.000-04:002007-05-09T10:54:00.000-04:008:45 AM said:"For me, however, the money question ...8:45 AM said:<BR/>"For me, however, the money question is this: Would I consider an invitation to join the Duke faculty with tenure and live in wonderful Durham?"<BR/><BR/>One wouldn't have to live in Durham to work at Duke, anymore than Alex Rodriguez or Roger Clemens have to live in the Bronx to play at Yankee Stadium. The Washington Nationals new stadium is being built in Anacostia. I venture to say that none of the players or management of the team will live in that neighborhood. <BR/><BR/>Many great universities are located in less than desirable cities or neighborhoods and have their own versions of the Group of 88. There is not enough room at Stanford for all the good faculty folk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-52279019437357243332007-05-09T10:27:00.000-04:002007-05-09T10:27:00.000-04:00The 8:45AM post is a most excellent one.DebrahThe 8:45AM post is a most excellent one.<BR/><BR/>DebrahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-24839073152872451802007-05-09T08:45:00.000-04:002007-05-09T08:45:00.000-04:00To: "Another Serious Academic" (at 7:04):You wrote...To: "Another Serious Academic" (at 7:04):<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "We can argue about how to interpret Duke's fundraising and admissions relative to its peer schools -- in particular, whether holding steady while others rise is "falling" or not."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Well, you're right in that we can argue (or quibble), but what's the point? Sure, as you note (that I noted) proof positive won't emerge for years. But you're just "waiting for Godot" if you can't extrapolate from existing trends and data, however (admittedly, but necessarily) incomplete. And if you don't understand how Duke can be flat in absolute terms but "falling" in relative terms, well then you just don't fully understand the competitive market forces that drive selective universities. For Duke (and others), how well your competitors fare is just as important as how Duke fares.<BR/><BR/>I will grant you this: reasonable minds can (and, evidently, do) differ on whether "falling" or "plummeting" is the more apt descriptor. Such a discussion, however, verges on the arcane and amounts to little more than selecting one's deck chair on the good ship Titanic. (Are some views better than others? Sure, but everyone's going to get wet.)<BR/><BR/>For me, however, the money question is this: Would I consider an invitation to join the Duke faculty with tenure and live in wonderful Durham? After what the Hoax uncovered, not on your life. Moreover, I've already declined just such an invitation. More importantly, I ain't alone. Of course, maybe Duke will have better luck recruiting for their AA depts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-78118597881038495412007-05-09T07:04:00.000-04:002007-05-09T07:04:00.000-04:00To the Serious Academic: We can argue about...To the Serious Academic: We can argue about how to interpret Duke's fundraising and admissions relative to its peer schools -- in particular, whether holding steady while others rise is "falling" or not. As you noted, we won't know for sure until more data comes out (including hires and US News). At best, then, your argument for a "fall" is based on loose extrapolation and your proof of a "plummet" is non-existent. I don't want to put words in your mouth, though, and perhaps I wasn't reading carefully enough. Please help clear up my confusion. <BR/><BR/>- Another Serious AcademicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-9642477768815433362007-05-08T23:57:00.000-04:002007-05-08T23:57:00.000-04:00Who are the stupidest and ugliest members of the G...Who are the stupidest and ugliest members of the Gang?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-36746236736755231732007-05-08T23:54:00.000-04:002007-05-08T23:54:00.000-04:00Carolyn,I wish someone knew something about real-w...Carolyn,<BR/><BR/>I wish someone knew something about real-world solutions to punishing the Gang.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-43145333375816598902007-05-08T23:49:00.000-04:002007-05-08T23:49:00.000-04:00Carolyn says:Anon. at 10:17. I agree with you.Ano...Carolyn says:<BR/><BR/>Anon. at 10:17. I agree with you.<BR/><BR/>Anon. at 10:29: Wooo, awesome post. I hope you're right! The thought of Brodhead and the Gang suffering no damage for what they put Reade, Collin and Dave through gives me the willies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-61363968500992868762007-05-08T22:38:00.000-04:002007-05-08T22:38:00.000-04:0010:29I think you're correct about Duke's slide int...10:29<BR/><BR/>I think you're correct about Duke's slide into the mire. The journal Blacks in Higher Education reports that black application to Duke are way up post-Pressler firing. This fact does not bode well for Duke. IMO, it's going to start to be perceived as a "minority friendly" institution. Just look at how Duke has coddled the Gang of 88.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-26326682962030232652007-05-08T22:29:00.000-04:002007-05-08T22:29:00.000-04:00To: "Another serious academic":You wrote, in perti...To: "Another serious academic":<BR/><BR/>You wrote, in pertinent part, "... please show me some evidence that Duke is 'falling' in real time, much less 'plummeting.'"<BR/><BR/><BR/>First, you need to take a deep breath and, while you're at it, resist putting words (or implications) into my mouth. Like most others, I have nothing but high praise for KC and would welcome him as a colleague.<BR/><BR/>Now, to your more serious points. Let's begin with admissions. First, Duke's Early Action pool was down by, if memory serves, 25%. At the same time, Duke jacked up its EA admit rate to something in excess of 40%. Think about for one-half a second--Duke admitted a higher rate of a diminished pool. Second, Duke's regular admit pool was, I believe, flat numerically. That stands in stark contrast to the high-single and double-digit increases for schools that Duke likes to compare itself with. Third, I actually asked the undergraduate admissions office here about their sense of the market this year and the impact for Duke. To be sure, they were tentative and won't know for certain until final "overlap" data emerge. That said, they're having a wonderfully easy time this year "cherry-picking" desirable Duke admitees. It remains a logical possibility that Duke's diminished EA and flat regular admit pools may nonetheless still be as nunmerically strong as past years. Such a result defies probability as well as common sense, however. In any event, once US News data emerge for this cycle we'll know for certain.<BR/><BR/>Fundraising. I'll defer to others with a firmer sense of Duke's fundraising facts. I've heard stories in both directions which tentatively suggests something close to flat fundraising for the Dukies. If so, in this market if your fundraising is flat in absolute terms it's falling in relative terms. Major schools are raising "mad" money during this past year, especially given the record Dow. What I will say, though, is that I would only take with a serious grain of salt anything Duke development officers report. They are obviously incented to lie. Given Duke's administrative "leadership," I simply assume as much and discount accordingly.<BR/><BR/>Faculty recruiting. My information is limited to my fields (chem and chem engineering), but I know the markets in my fields exceedingly well. What you're going to soon see is entry-level candidates with multiple offers pass on Duke. Second, lateral candidates will look elsewhere as well. Obviously, Duke benefitted tremendously from Houston Baker's departure. But Duke can't bank on such wondeful luck ("addition by subtraction") over time. What will emerge in corrosive-like fashion is a slow but steady degration of faculty quality that will not become visible for a few years. You can trust me or not on this one (candidly, I don't care). But, again, I know what I see in my fields (yes, in "real-time," indeed, as real as it gets).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-12384627351914826312007-05-08T22:17:00.000-04:002007-05-08T22:17:00.000-04:00This report is very enlightening, not least becaus...This report is very enlightening, not least because it helps to explain why Professor Johnson has been so easy on Brodhead. I have long wondered why. Obviously, he takes the same line as Professor Coleman. It is the only substantial point on which I think both profs are wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-55452316625525071462007-05-08T21:06:00.000-04:002007-05-08T21:06:00.000-04:00Apologizing in advance for the length of this post...<B>Apologizing in advance for the length of this post, I think it apropos to the topic because I had the following colloquy with someone calling himself "Law Prof" on the <I>Duke Chronicle</I>. See if y'all don't think this sounds like Coleman.<BR/><BR/>First, my comment that triggered "Law Prof's" Response:</B><BR/><BR/>Prof. Coleman seems to be ignorant of the most important point: Duke wasn't "neutral" in the case -- it was decidedly pro-Nifong and anti-Lax. For instance, in addition to the facts already made here, it's my understanding that an attorney employed by Duke urged the players NOT ONLY not to tell their parents(!) but also not to seek lawyers(!) She also apparently told the players that they could "confess" to her and that their statements would be protected by "student-faculty privilege". There is no such thing as "student-faculty privilege in American law, and I think both Duke and this Duke attorney should have to answer for their unethical actions against the Lax players.<BR/><BR/>The bottomline, Prof. Coleman, is that if Nifong knew that Duke was going to stand by its students -- instead of condemning them -- would he have felt like he had the greenlight necessary to railroad these boys? By acting like the boys were guilty, Duke chose to push those boys off a cliff. Now that they have clawed their way back up, Duke has much to answer for.<BR/><BR/><B>Law Prof's Response</B><BR/><BR/>Response: It is naive, at best, to suggest that Nifong cared what Duke university thought about what he was doing. Duke more visibly standing by the students would not have changed anything he did. One must understand that Nifong initially thought that a racially motivated rape had occurred and that Duke students were the perpetrators. Nothing that Duke said would have made any difference. To the contrary, anything the university said to suggest the students were innocent while the case was under investigation likely would have been used politically agaiinst the students and the University. It also would have made it more politically risky for the state bar and the Attorney General to take the unprecedented actions they took: intervening in the middle of a criminal case with a complaint against Nifong and declaring the students innocent, not just that the evidence was insufficient to go forward. Even with the low profile the University had, some still argue that influence and not the facts best accounts for what the Attorney General did. <BR/><BR/>Several people have suggested that the University might (would) have acted differently if the basketball team had been involved. I doubt it, at least to this extent: If the allegation was that at a team party with strippers three unidentified basketball players ganged raped a woman, it is inconceivable to me that the team would have been permitted to play, at least until the alleged perpetrators were identified. <BR/><BR/>There is a significant difference between a case in which an identified member of a team is charged with a serious crime and a case in which several unidentified members of the team are alleged to be the perpetrators. Letting the team play in the latter case inevitably would result in the perpetrators of the alleged crime being permitted to play. I doubt that the University or the coach of the team would have permitted that. In hindsight, we know that none of the members of the LAX team committed the alleged crimes, but at the time the LAX team's season was canceled, we did not know that the allegations were false and we did not know who the alleged perpetrators were. The University could not act with the certainty of parents and friends that the prosecutor was lying. <BR/><BR/>Bottom line: in the midst of an ugly hoax, we are likely to make decisions that after the fact we regret, not because we acted dishonorably but because we also were used by those responsible for the hoax and those responsible for prolonging it. We should judge Duke in the context in which it acted, not with the perfect vision of hindsight. We all wish that this had never happened, but striking out against the University, as if it could have prevented the miscarriage of justice, seems unfair to me. The University made mistakes, and many of us rushed to judgment, but I don't think the University could have prevented the hoax or could have ended it sooner or more unambiguously than it ended.<BR/><BR/><B> My Reply to Law Prof's Response:</B><BR/><BR/>A response to "Law Prof's" 5:26 PM response to my 12:17 PM comment:<BR/><BR/>I'm going to concede, only for the sake of argument, the point you make in your first paragraph. If I can sum it up, it's basically that, "For Duke to support our students when they proclaimed their innocence would have caused political problems both for the university and indeed for the students themselves. In other words, "We did the wrong things for the right reasons". The reason I am going to concede this point is that I do not know the political landscape of North Carolina and so I will not attempt to gainsay your analysis of it. <BR/><BR/>Your second paragraph, which brings in the basketball team and the canceling of the lacrosse season, is a puzzlement, since my original comment addressed neither issue. Alright, I'll concede everything in that paragraph, too.<BR/><BR/>Your final paragraph seems to contradict your first one. Instead of Duke making a calculated decision based on the "politics of the situation", in this paragraph you posit the Duke leaders as mere dupes of the evil machinations of ... unnamed "others". But then you say, "We should judge Duke in the context in which it acted, not with the perfect vision of hindsight." <BR/><BR/>Fine. I'm not going to argue with you, Law Prof. I'm going to concede every point and agree with your conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Law Prof, based on YOUR OWN analysis and conclusion, Duke has a problem. What you have is a group of at least 88 and probably more than 100 professors that effectively silenced (or worse, coerced them to join an academic lynch mob) nearly every decent person in the employ of Duke.<BR/><BR/>Now, I did not become particularly interested in this case until December, and I am not now going to go back and research all the twists and turns. But it is my understanding that the group of Duke professors that did the most to support The Hoax are currently unrepentant (save one). I understand that Duke created a "Campus Culture Initiative" in which members of this group dominated the leadership positions. I understand that a member of this group was elected to something called the "Academic Council" or some such prestigious post. I understand that one of the ... I don't recall all the names of the departments that "signed on" to the group, but I think "Angry Studies" is probably the most benign name for them -- that one of these departments or sections or whatever is now to be promoted to a higher status.<BR/><BR/>Now, let me return to YOUR conclusion: "We should judge Duke in the context in which it acted." OK, maybe a year ago Duke "had" to do the wrong thing for the right reason. Maybe with the boys under indictment, Duke "had" to pass out leadership posts of its Campus Culture Initiative to Group members; maybe Duke "had" to elected a Group member to a very prestigious faculty post; maybe Duke "had" to announce that it was elevating one of the Group's Angry Studies departments. <BR/><BR/>But, Law Prof, the boys aren't under indictment now, are they? So what is the context NOW under which we should you? I have read that one of the Group said of the context that "white innocence equals black guilt". Of course, this is too far; but certainly the boys' innocence (they were declared innocent by the man charged with convicting them, weren't they?) equals Group guilt.<BR/><BR/>Now Duke doesn't have to "do the wrong things" out of a justifiable concern for protecting the university or the falsely accused players from unseen "political forces" in North Carolina. Duke is free to do the right thing. Duke is free to move against the supporters of The Hoax on its own campus, isn't it? Will it? <BR/><BR/>So, Law Prof, if and when you respond to this, tell me what actions Duke will take against the Guilty -- they are guilty by their own admission. Your contentions (which I accepted for the sake of argument) about how Duke "had" to act in a ... less-that-heroic way a year ago will be proved completely false if Duke does not take immediate steps to punish the Guilty in its ranks.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to your reply.<BR/><BR/>R.R. Hamilton<BR/><BR/><B>Whoever "Law Prof" is, he ignored this reply. His next attempt to deflect blame from his client was to tell us the Lax boys were "lucky" compared with others who were "wrongly convicted", like Darryl Hunt. I eviserated his argument on Hunt, and I haven't seen the "Law Prof" <I>nom de plume</I> since then.</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-46741879239114139152007-05-08T21:05:00.000-04:002007-05-08T21:05:00.000-04:00To the 8:42 post by a "serious academic (I am a te...To the 8:42 post by a "serious academic (I am a tenured professor of chemistry at an Ivy League university)": <BR/><BR/>Don't make me laugh... Beyond your self-important title (does this mean KC is not a serious academic because he teaches in the CUNY system?), please show me some evidence that Duke is "falling" in real time, much less "plummeting." Fundraising has not been affected; admissions appears to be fine, as well. As a "serious academic," much less a natural scientist, where's your data?<BR/><BR/>- Another serious academicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com