tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post9148155344788900331..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Group Profile: Below-the-Radar Memberskcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-54332433887069713402007-08-17T12:28:00.000-04:002007-08-17T12:28:00.000-04:00Ralph Phelan 10:14am --Bingo.Complaining about stu...Ralph Phelan 10:14am --<BR/><BR/>Bingo.<BR/><BR/>Complaining about students' tawdry entertainment makes you a fuddy-duddy.<BR/><BR/>Some of the far-left Duke faculty have even written paens to the liberating aspects of transgressing the bounds of bourgeois sexual codes in this way (sorry, no link). <BR/><BR/>But complaining about <I>privileged white males</I> exploiting a <I>poor black mother</I>--ah! As <A HREF="http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/04/does-tom-wolfe-script-news.html" REL="nofollow">Steve Sailer wrote</A>,<BR/><BR/>"<I>Once again we see from the media’s frenzied hunt for the Great White Defendant… that what white Americans really like is sticking it to other white Americans... White Americans find the transgressions of African Americans and Hispanics to be depressing and boring, in large part because whites see themselves (condescendingly) not as being in status competition with minorities, just with other whites. This is not because white people hate white people as a whole, just other white people they are competing with for status. The Duke lacrosse team, a bunch of rich preppie jerks, makes a wonderful target for other whites wishing to parade their moral superiority."</I><BR/><BR/>The Dog That Didn't Bark: For all the folks for whom "something happened" has now come to mean "a raunchy stripper party with underage drinking," where's the outrage about the <I>other</I> stripper parties, with white and black and male and female patrons, and with white as well as black entertainers? Why the absence of potbanging at the Gentlemen's Clubs in Durham's outskirts?<BR/><BR/>That hypothetically outraged Left would find plenty of supporters among the prudish, the old-fashioned, and the churchgoing. Maybe it's the thought of these Unlikely Allies that has kept the Group of 88 so keenly focused on 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., and so uninterested in the issue of the campus 'party scene' as a whole.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-35607541217515101582007-08-17T10:14:00.000-04:002007-08-17T10:14:00.000-04:00"1. The fact that other groups have hired stripper..."1. The fact that other groups have hired strippers does not excuse the actions of the lacrosse team."<BR/>But it does make it unfair to complain about them while ignoring all the others who were lucky enough not to have the agancy send them CGM. They've learned their lesson by now. Anyone who wants to do something about the problem of campus parties hiring strippers should start naming all the <B>other</B> groups who do it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-20595813903521791012007-08-16T21:51:00.000-04:002007-08-16T21:51:00.000-04:00There are whackos in every group and I am ashamed ...There are whackos in every group and I am ashamed about our education system. There are folks that study the details that only the very few care about, while missing the whole forest of other issues our country's academics need to study, (and I am not taking sides on these) such as why immigration was OK in the early 20th century, but not now. Or in-depth analysis of the MIddle East's problems versus Western views and how humans make the same mistakes over and over.<BR/><BR/>They should have no time left to sign petitions that float through their departments!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-43572574714671563012007-08-16T14:06:00.000-04:002007-08-16T14:06:00.000-04:00Duke '92 Grad 8/16/07 11:39am --You make sensible ...Duke '92 Grad 8/16/07 11:39am --<BR/><BR/>You make sensible points. Some I agree with, others not. For background, here are some <A HREF="http://patterico.com/2006/12/23/thank-you-mr-nifong-you-motherthanker/" REL="nofollow">comments I made in December 2006</A> that address some of the (mistaken, IMO) perspectives you appear to offer.<BR/><BR/>The meta-narrative I offer below has held up well in the ensuing eight months, I think. In contrast, the meta-narrative that Lubiano and her 87 co-singers subscribed to had already shattered when these remarks were penned--and has collapsed further since then (if such is possible). Yet logic and facts hold no sway against the powers of pride, the <A HREF="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4c610569be.htm" REL="nofollow">Gramscian Long March</A>, and now, presumably, the fear of legal exposure. The Group of 88 and their enablers continue on, as if the Something That Happened was other than the Social Disaster that they helped to midwife. <BR/><BR/>From December:<BR/><BR/><B>Comment #12:</B> The behavior of some Duke students, some Duke lacrosse players, and at least one of the three indicted players was <I>ungentlemanly</I>. But that phrase is not a euphemism for <I>illegal</I>. There’s no credible evidence that the lacrosse team’s party resulted in any criminal conduct other than underage drinking.<BR/><BR/>88 of Duke’s hard-left faculty paid to have a “Listening Statement” published that implicitly declared their indifference to evidence in a high-spririted rush to condemn the lacrosse team, and urge the harshest of punishments be bestowed on them. In the ensuing nine months, these faculty members and the prosecution’s other enablers have been just as indifferent to the massive and continuing violations of Due Process by D.A. Nifong and the Durham Police Department that are at the heart of this hoax.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Comment #83:</B> As the father of a son at college, <I>integrity</I> rather than <I>non-illegality</I> is the standard of conduct I hope he aspires to (and he does).<BR/><BR/>If he should receive a summons for public urination, drunkenness, violating noise ordinances, or behaving obnoxiously towards neighbors–the accusations that have been leveled against lacrosse team members and Duke athletes generally–there would be a major reckoning to take place around the kitchen table.<BR/><BR/>If he were to do all that, and then throw a stripper party, and face 30 years in jail for a felony rape that obviously did not happen and that he clearly could not have committed, would I say, “payback’s a bitch!”? No. I’d do what the families of these students have done, and remortgage, and empty my retirement account.<BR/><BR/>The proper role of the criminal justice system is not to translate disdain into some variation of collective punishment. This is what D.A. Nifong has done, with the connivance of the Durham Police Department, the Duke Faculty Group of 88, the Durham branch of the NAACP, and others. I don’t think the other two accused men have the choir-boy attributes of Reade Seligmann, but the same principle applies. <BR/><BR/>It is quite wrong to suppose that there is some decent motive behind Nifong’s actions. A timeline of the case does not support that idea. Nifong decided that he needed certain things, among them victories in hotly contested primary and general elections, and he handled this case in such a way as to get them. What Nifong Wants For Himself continues to drive the proceedings.<BR/><BR/>The “perfect storm” was not about stripper parties. The baseball team had them (confirmed, newspaper account). The basketball team, too (personal communication to blogger Bill Anderson). Other campus organizations, including sororities, have been credibly suggested to have done the same.<BR/><BR/>Instead, it was about the Elephant In The Room of America Today: race relations. 46 of 47 lacrosse players were white out-of-towners, and the false accuser was a local black woman. D.A. Nifong calculated he could build on pre-existing resentments in majority-black [sic--actually ~40%] Durham (surely exacerbated by the off-campus behavior of some Duke athletes). He calculated that he could so inflame local opinion that he could ride its wave to victory. He was right.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-steele23dec23,0,1574047.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail" REL="nofollow">Shelby Steele’s outline</A> of the country’s racial challenge provides the proper context to the rape hoax case, I think:<BR/><BR/><I>"… a belief in the ongoing power of [white] racism is, today, an article of faith for “good” whites and “truth-telling” blacks. It is heresy for any white or black to say openly that, today, underdevelopment and broken families are vastly greater problems for blacks than racism, even though this is obviously true…<BR/><BR/>… [Belief in the continued potency of white supremacy is] a source of power because it portrays blacks as victims. And wherever there are victims, there is justification for seeking power in their name. Thus the specter of black difficulty has been an enormous source of power for the left since the 1960s. To say racism is not the first cause of black problems is to put yourself at odds with the post-’60s left’s most enduring fount of power.<BR/><BR/>This of course means that racism in the United States has parallel lives. In one life, it is the actual instances of racism on the ground. But, in its parallel life, it is a time-honored currency of power that still trades well in the United States. Here, racism lives as faith rather than fact."</I><BR/><BR/>My nomination for the most important “perfect storm” ingredient was Michael Nifong’s correct perception that he had the opportunity to promote a black accuser’s false charges against white customers. <I>That</I> was the element that energized the rogue prosecuter’s enablers among the radical faculty and students at Duke and NCCU, black and white. <I>That</I> is why <I>this stripper</I> party rather than those of the baseball team or basketball team has been in the news for the past nine months.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-15030507012647768642007-08-16T13:56:00.000-04:002007-08-16T13:56:00.000-04:00Thanks to the posters of the last 20 or so message...Thanks to the posters of the last 20 or so messages; this has been one of the more insightful and critically reflective angles of the entire incident.<BR/><BR/>One comment KC mentioned earlier that bears repeating is that this was a party during Spring Break. I think that cuts both ways, though. While behavior that's completely out-of-bounds on a college campus is "condoned" (or ignored) during SB, part of this bargain is that it happens miles away from campus. For better or for worse, it's a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"/"Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas" policy.<BR/><BR/>Bringing Cancun-style debauchery openly to the Duke campus would never be tolerated, though. This policy isn't open and honest, but it's an unstated trust between the students and administration. And one I expect the administration feels was violated by having this event take place so close to campus. The school really can't be seen as allowing Spring Break in Durham.<BR/><BR/>So while I can understand party defenders say "Hey, it's Spring Break. WTF?", I can also appreciate people wondering just what the hell these guys were thinking.<BR/><BR/>(That all said, none of the behavior justified the retaliation for it. Obviously.)<BR/><BR/>At any rate, I hope this latest discussion continues. It's been edifying.<BR/><BR/>- Duke '94Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-69173179842188446652007-08-16T12:16:00.000-04:002007-08-16T12:16:00.000-04:00To the 11.39:A few quick replies:I agree with most...To the 11.39:<BR/><BR/>A few quick replies:<BR/><BR/>I agree with most of what you say. On Light's attendance at the Horowitz talk--the Chronicle article suggested she was there, and part of the hecklers. (She never responded to requests from me for clarification.) In an interview with the Daily Tar Heel after the talk, she praised the hecklers.<BR/><BR/>This isn't unprecedented behavior--a group of students at Columbia did a similar thing when an anti-immigrant speaker gave a talk on campus earlier this year. But it's juvenile behavior--we should expect more from faculty.<BR/><BR/>This point: "There is a common misperception about the lacrosse team's apology. One would have thought that in the harsh cold light of morning, the team would have seen fit to apologize, if not act just a bit contrite for the disaster of the prior evening. They did not. Instead, the team gathered at a local bar to drink and chant "Duke Lacrosse". Only after parents and lawyers became deeply involved did the team apologize. Few here would forgive Nifong, despite his eventual and belated apology (again, once lawyers were engaged). I, and many other alumni, refuse to forgive the team for engaging in behavior that brought great shame to Duke."<BR/><BR/>I don't believe this statement is accurate. The captains apologized immediately--to Coach Pressler on March 15, to their parents on March 17, to senior administrators on March 24, and then in their public statement on March 28. The March 28 apology was not initiated by the attorneys. In fact, the Evanses were just in the process of hiring Joe Cheshire on the 28th.<BR/><BR/>It's also worth remembering that the non-captains had no role in organizing the party, so a "team" apology would have been inappropriate. [Why for instance, should Brad Ross--who was never there--have apologized? or Bo Carrington, who left early? Or Reade Seligmann, who came, didn't like what he saw, and left?]<BR/><BR/>The night after the party, the team did not gather "at a local bar to drink and chant "Duke Lacrosse"." The night after the party, there was a team event (with Pressler in attendance) at a local bowling alley.<BR/><BR/>The "Duke lacrosse" chant story, which allegedly occurred on the 25th or 26th, is vehemently disputed. The person who made the claim, Jill Hopman, stood by her story to me and seemed credible; an equally credible (non-lacrosse player) source who was in the bar that night strongly denied it. I wasn't there, so I've never either used the story or challenged Hopman.<BR/><BR/>But even assuming Hopman's story to be true, this wasn't a "team" event. There were only three Duke lacrosse players (all 21 or over) at the bar that night.<BR/><BR/>One final point: I hope that nothing in my comments earlier suggested I condoned the behavior. I didn't and don't.<BR/><BR/>My points on this issue have been two-fold:<BR/>(1) Ideologically, the fact that the Group of 88 never (to my knowledge) condemned spring break partying for other students, never said anything about other stripper parties, remained silent about the party last spring that resulted in a rape allegation, etc., calls into grave doubts their intentions in criticizing this and only this party.<BR/><BR/>(2) From a pragmatic angle: here I might be too pessimistic, but I think a college's power to control partying is limited, unless we're talking about religious-right schools, where those who don't conform to the religion can be expelled.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-5344659491710126352007-08-16T11:39:00.000-04:002007-08-16T11:39:00.000-04:00AMac raises some very good points in his 8:59 post...AMac raises some very good points in his 8:59 post, and identifies the reason why many of my fellow alumni have called upon the Group of 88 to apologize for their conduct. Let me take them one at a time.<BR/><BR/>1. You highlight some of the more egregious quotes from the advert, and rightly so. Comments such as "what happened to this young woman" clearly presume guilt. While private citizens have no legal obligation to respect due process (just look at the popular opinion of OJ Simpson, and he was acquitted!), it is troubling that a significant percentage of Duke's faculty refused to give their own students the benefit of doubt at this early stage. While this is fodder for another conversation, it is more troubling to me that the Administration, which had been told on Day 1 of Magnum's conflicting stories as well as Durham PD's initial take that the complaint was not credible, chose to remain silent at first and enable to wrongful prosecution later. But as the Group of 88 no doubt teaches in their classes on racism and sexism, just because people in power (Nifong, Broadhead etc) have taken the wrong path, that does not excuse your complicit conduct. I believe that the Group of 88 prolonged the students' ordeal by lending academic credibility to Nifong's crusade. Whether or not that was intentional, certainly it deserves an apology.<BR/><BR/>2. I am troubled by the account of the protest to Horowitz's speech. However, it appears that Prof. Light was not in attendance it is unclear what degree of prior information she had, if any, about the nature of the protest. But, assuming that she condoned this kind of behavior, it does tend to confirm the worst suspicions about the level of academic integrity at Duke.<BR/><BR/>A few other comments about what was noted above:<BR/><BR/>1. The fact that other groups have hired strippers does not excuse the actions of the lacrosse team. Although the Group of 88 many not condemn the hiring of male strippers by women, they should. Although the same issue of power are not directly implicated by such conduct, the act (as amply demonstrated on this thread) lends credibility to the hiring of female strippers by men.<BR/><BR/>2. I am continually amazed that some of my fellow Americans do not agree that a group of mostly privileged white teenagers should not pay a poor black girl to take her clothes off for them. And that conclusion should not change, even if the girl were white and sober. That anyone would disagree with this point demonstrates, unfortuantely, why the kind of scholarship some of the Group of 88 engage in is still important.<BR/><BR/>3. There is a common misperception about the lacrosse team's apology. One would have thought that in the harsh cold light of morning, the team would have seen fit to apologize, if not act just a bit contrite for the disaster of the prior evening. They did not. Instead, the team gathered at a local bar to drink and chant "Duke Lacrosse". Only after parents and lawyers became deeply involved did the team apologize. Few here would forgive Nifong, despite his eventual and belated apology (again, once lawyers were engaged). I, and many other alumni, refuse to forgive the team for engaging in behavior that brought great shame to Duke.<BR/><BR/>My sincerest hope is that the University takes this opportunity to examine closely every aspect of its business. It is clear that the current Administration has failed Duke at its most critical moment. The reasons for that failure should be examined, and changes instituted so that in a future crisis, the Administration can respond more efficiently and effectively. So too should the University examine its academic faculty. For all of Duke's academic reputation, few Duke professors could be said to be "thought leaders" in their fields. Even the once great English department has been stripped bare by schools with lesser reputations, but perhaps a stronger commitment to academic excellence. Duke may consider itself the equal of the Ivies, but even the most cursory review of its faculty reveals itself to be a poor cousin (at best). Finally, Duke (and other schools) need to reconsider the decision to hide their social problems off campus. The fateful decision to ban alcohol at campus parties (where student parties took place under the watchful eye of the University) has led (as we predicted at the time) to the abandonment of low alcohol beer for high alcohol spirits and drugs. Duke can no longer afford to hide its rowdy culture in back street basements. Its social disaster -- as the Group of 88 said -- must be brought into the light of day and dealt with constructively if Duke is to survive as an elite institution in the coming years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-12084759268043360582007-08-15T13:32:00.000-04:002007-08-15T13:32:00.000-04:00Duke '92 grad said:"Moreover, the kind of passiona...Duke '92 grad said:<BR/>"Moreover, the kind of passionate defense that Prof. Light no doubt engaged in when she confronted a conservative adversary should be encouraged. Knowing Caroline, I seriously doubt that she was booing from the back -- she was likely making a forceful argument in defense of her position. That is precisely the kind of free and open debate colleges should foster."<BR/><BR/>See the link above (11:09 am)<BR/><BR/>"On cue, the group of T-shirted protesters burst into loud orchestrated giggles. These continued at pointed moments throughout the speech..."<BR/><BR/>"When their bouts of artificial derisory giddiness failed to have their desired effect, The Feminist Collective became more vocal, yelling rebukes at him. In a perfect Judo pivot, Horowitz turned the tables on his tenured hecklers and their obedient puppets: “Didn’t your mother teach you manners?” According to one of two front page stories about the speech in the campus newspaper, The Chronicle, “This drew an ovation from the rest of the audience."<BR/><BR/>And yes, she is listed as one of the organizers. Either she has changed since you knew her, or your idea of what constitutes proper academic debate is very different from mine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-74565570680391639372007-08-15T11:09:00.000-04:002007-08-15T11:09:00.000-04:00The discussion here after the blog-caravan moved o...The discussion here after the blog-caravan moved on to newer posts (say, 8/13/07 at noon) is one of the better ones at DiW. Thanks for Duke's Nineties Grads for weighing in, as well as DiW regulars and various anonymouses. <BR/><BR/>As always, gratitude for good Anon comments is tempered by annoyance, since they've made it impossible to follow their thoughts from comment to comment and thread to thread.<BR/><BR/>One common aspect to prolonged and complex controversies is that the original deeds get buried and half-forgotten. Sometimes this is purposeful--it can be very helpful to wrong-doers. Fortunately, blogging and hyperlinks make it easy to recall how things started.<BR/><BR/>In light of Duke grads' comments, it may be worth re-reading <A HREF="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/2862/372/1600/99636/Listening_Statement_b.jpg" REL="nofollow">the Listening Statement.</A> Its thesis:<BR/><BR/>"we [the sponsoring professors] are turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait." [Is this reconciliable with respect for Due Process? With the demands of Duke's Faculty Handbook?] <BR/><BR/>The Listening Statement's points include:<BR/><BR/>* thanking protesters "for shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman." <BR/><BR/>* mirroring concerns about keeping "the young woman herself central to this conversation" <BR/><BR/>* applauding the claim "that the disaster didn't begin on March 13th [the date of the alleged rape] and won't end with what the police say or the court decides".<BR/> <BR/>The statement ends with<BR/><BR/>"To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard." [This refers to the potbanging demonstrations where protesters carried posters saying such things as "CASTRATE" and "GET A CONSCIENCE NOT A LAWYER"].<BR/><BR/>Thus, the revisionist notion that the Listening Statement was <I>not</I> about the Lacrosse Rape Case is patently insupportable. <BR/><BR/>Caroline Light--to take one of the 88--signed this statement. Was that reprehensible? If so, may that be pointed out in polite company?<BR/><BR/>When we make mistakes (since we all do), what responsibilities must we shoulder to acknowlege them? To mitigate the harm done? To <I>apologize</I>?<BR/><BR/>Does Light have a <I>pattern</I> of engaging in intellectual bullying? <A HREF="http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2006/March2006/BenJohnsonRedFacedatDuke030906.htm" REL="nofollow">This account</A> of her disruption of David Horowitz's scheduled speech at Duke says 'yes'.<BR/><BR/>Light may cuddle with puppies, pick up litter in her neighborhood, be kind to some students. Are such good points a shield from criticism? If some of her opponents throw rude, angry, even vile words at her: does this immunize Light from <I>thoughtful</I> and <I>fact-based</I> reproofs?<BR/><BR/>Over-the-top critics are their own worst enemies (Godwin's Law). In the eyes of many, they justify the Group of 88's tactic of playing the Victim Card. <BR/><BR/>Instead of enabling this conduct, Light's suppporters should counsel her to rise above the invective, and begin her own version of a Twelve Step Program.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-65233373130528682542007-08-15T08:59:00.000-04:002007-08-15T08:59:00.000-04:00"I am not sure how all of this morphed into whethe..."I am not sure how all of this morphed into whether or not Caroline is a good person or good professor from my original point that name calling and bashing of others is without merit regardless of who is doing it to whom."<BR/><BR/>Then you're pretty dense. Whether or not Caroline is a good person is directly related to the following questions:<BR/><BR/>(1) Whether or not the names she is being called are <B>accurate</B>. If so, why shouldn't they be used?<BR/><BR/>(2) Why she joined a lynch mob.<BR/><BR/>(3) Whether she should be teaching.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I do make the default assumption that anyone who joins a lynch mob is probably a bad person, until demonstrated otherwise (in which case they're just weak.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-44895713586818007542007-08-14T20:30:00.000-04:002007-08-14T20:30:00.000-04:00KC...That is the first time I've heard that there ...KC...<BR/><BR/>That is the first time I've heard that there were so many other parties at which strippers performed. <BR/><BR/>7:02<BR/><BR/>You have convinced me that your intellect is severely constrained -- by what, I'll leave to you or others. But let's anlayze your thoughts. To wit:<BR/><BR/><I> "You argue that we should look only to facts."</I> In fact, I don't recall a reference to facts per se -- I was referring to perception of facts. <BR/><BR/>You assert: <I>"The facts show that a large number of Duke students were greatly troubled by what happened at that lacrosse party..."</I> Huh? But not at all the other parties? Where were the pot bangers when other parties took place? Nothing happened that had not happened at 10's of thousands of parties across the country. Moral: Don't blame Duke University and Duke lacrosse. Maybe <B>your</B> moral compass is askew with modern society. Or if not, your challenge is so much larger that Duke.<BR/><BR/>Then you assert that by ignoring the so-called "fact" that I <I>"...perpetuate the many racist and sexist problems that exist in our society today."</I> Please educate me. To what problems are you referring? Left unsaid, I can't help you in your quest.<BR/><BR/>You say: <I>"Moreover, the fact that the team intended to hire white strippers doesn't excuse anything."</I> I was simply trying to assert that the team had some sense of taste. Sorry. That's life.<BR/><BR/><I>"First, the very act of hiring a stripper is arguably demeaning to women and runs a great risk of offending half of Duke's student population. Yes, it's legal, but that doesn't make it moral and certainly doesn't make anyone who hires a stripper immune from being called a sexist."</I> How is the act of hiring demeaning? That's a commercial transaction, no different than buying a ticket to see an Oscar winning film. If you,...you in particular....don't like the film...then, don't buy the ticket. It seems that about 75% of your argument depends upon injecting the notion of morality into situations that others see as neither moral nor immoral, but "amoral." Look it up. Good and evil are not absolutes. If you continue to invest the notion of your absolutes into your arguments, even subliminally, then you weaken your own position.<BR/><BR/> Finally, I acknowledge that <I>... Reade Seligmann ... was uncomfortable with...</I> the strippers and left accordingly.<BR/><BR/>I probably would have left, too. But not because of a moral judgment. They were simply a bad act. Now if Sally Rand were performing ... Sally Rand was art.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-91142840186267624792007-08-14T19:25:00.000-04:002007-08-14T19:25:00.000-04:00To the 7.02:As we know now, there were women's tea...To the 7.02:<BR/><BR/>As we know now, there were women's teams and sororities at Duke who hired male strippers. I suspect the Group of 88 has no problems with that behavior.<BR/><BR/>There were 21 other stripper parties at Duke in the 2005-6 academic year (before the lacrosse party). I was stunned when I found this out: it suggested, to me, a perfectly legitimate "campus culture" question worth exploring: how could otherwise smart college students even think hiring strippers was remotely acceptable behavior?<BR/><BR/>But that, of course, wasn't the way either the adm. or the Group of 88 framed the question--the decision to stack the CCI, for instance, with extremist critics of the team is a good example. So I agree with you that problems remain, but believe that it's not Duke's critics who are responsible for perpetuating those problems.<BR/><BR/>One other issue on the party. Each college, obviously, has different schedules. I didn't know Duke's schedule when this case emerged (we were in school at the time). So I initially assumed that this was a group of students who held a wild party on a schoolnight. My interpretation changed dramatically when I learned the party happened during spring break.<BR/><BR/>For better or worse (I would say worse, obviously), lots of college students engage in tasteless behavior over spring break. It's hard to imagine even extremists like the Group of 88 taking out a denunciatory ad against students engaged in underaged drinking or raunchy behavior in Cancun or Myrtle Beach.<BR/><BR/>In the Yaeger/Pressler book, Ruth Sheehan rebuked the Duke officials for not "spinning" the players' side of the story in late March/early April. This was one fact that it was vital to have gotten out--in terms of popular image, a schoolnight party and a spring break party are very different.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-2741933010017176712007-08-14T19:22:00.000-04:002007-08-14T19:22:00.000-04:00I agree with much of what you say Duke 92. But wh...I agree with much of what you say Duke 92. But what's the major difference here? The lacrosse team has acknowledged their behavior was out of line and they screwed up, which was plain to any objective observer. <BR/><BR/>The 88 on the other hand say nothing of the sort. In fact, they were right all along even though their "narrative" as it were was based on a lie. What's worse, they put out a second statement affirming their and now refuse to speak about their positions at all and claim victimhood.<BR/><BR/>While you;re right many Duke students may have been outraged at the lacrosse party. Let me ask you this...did 1,000 of them feel strongly enough to take out an ad demanding an apology?<BR/><BR/>The players apologized and asked forgiveness. The 88 thumbed their noses. Pretty sad for a group of distinguished professors if you ask me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-71836937551521884142007-08-14T19:02:00.000-04:002007-08-14T19:02:00.000-04:00Anonymous, you are so blinded by the self-perceive...Anonymous, you are so blinded by the self-perceived righteousness of your cause that your argument suffers as a result.<BR/><BR/>You argue that we should look only to facts. Well, let's see what the evidence proves here. The facts show that a large number of Duke students were greatly troubled by what happened at that lacrosse party -- many remain so today, despite the fact that we all now know that no rape occurred. By simply ignoring this fact (or, worse, arguing that those who feel troubled should "just get over it"), you help to perpetuate the many racist and sexist problems that exist in our society today.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, the fact that the team intended to hire white strippers doesn't excuse anything. First, the very act of hiring a stripper is arguably demeaning to women and runs a great risk of offending half of Duke's student population. Yes, it's legal, but that doesn't make it moral and certainly doesn't make anyone who hires a stripper immune from being called a sexist. Second, despite this so-called "breach of contract" (btw, is there any proof of this?), the students showed incredibly poor judgment in proceeding as planned. To his immense credit, Reade Seligmann appreciated this fact and left the party. He was uncomfortable with this situation. You should be too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-9480468019284258772007-08-14T18:56:00.000-04:002007-08-14T18:56:00.000-04:00Duke 92....OK OK, we get it, we get it, we get it....Duke 92....OK OK, we get it, we get it, we get it. The 88 were trying to do something good. They were probably even right to do so, although the ad in the Chronicle certainly wasn't the best way to do it.<BR/><BR/>But the fact that they worded their ad so poorly is/was/and always will be pathetic and weak. The continued refusal to apologize for that is spineless and inexcusable. <BR/><BR/>Many people were surely outraged by the hiring of these women (even though the players did not request black women) and perhaps rightfully so. But these Professors screwed up. It's a fact and it's clear for all the world to see. Their unwillingness to admit it has cost them their reputations in my opinon. As a result they have brought shame to your alma mater.<BR/><BR/>While I am completely against any name calling and personal attacks of any sort, I can also understand why many people attack them. I personally won't do it and feel it demeans me, but the 88 deserve all the scorn they receive in my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-70296961374284356972007-08-14T18:38:00.000-04:002007-08-14T18:38:00.000-04:00We have no common goal. I believe that Black femal...We have no common goal. <BR/><BR/>I believe that Black female Duke students have enough backbone to withstand the fact that legal activities were occurring somewhere in Durham on March 13, 2007. Will they be able to get over you coddling them? Will they look back and appreciate your racist or misogynist belief that they are that delicate and frail? Good god, these are thinking and breathing people with will and backbone, not teacups. Give them some credit. <BR/><BR/>P.S. I have more backbone than you attribute to Light, as I will continue to use the words "lynch" and "Klan" to describe how the Klan of 88 attempted to lynch the innocent Duke students. The evidence proves it. And the Gang of 88 continues to fail to disprove it. <BR/>____________<BR/><BR/>"The classic pincer movement that ended the Battle of the Bulge had the U.S. 7th Army on the left flank, K.C. Johnson on the right." I CAN'T EVEN SPELL RETREET, at p. 50 (G. Patton, 1946). MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-52685379225838694132007-08-14T18:36:00.000-04:002007-08-14T18:36:00.000-04:006:03What the students had agreed to pay --when the...6:03<BR/><BR/>What the students had agreed to pay --when they made their hire -- was two Caucasian strippers. The breach of contract by the escort service was the initial problem. <BR/><BR/>And if the behavior of other people is so easily transmitted and accepted as a part of a Duke student's identity, then those student's have more serious problems and psychiatric or identity issues. <BR/><BR/><I>"Imagine for a minute how this story must have made black female students at Duke feel. The campus already has significant race and gender issues to deal with without a bunch of white guys paying a black girl to take her clothes off."</I><BR/><BR/>The perceived relationship between the students and the strippers should be about the same as the strippers and me. Zero. The logical extension of your argument is that I should feel some connection between me and white evil ... such as Hitler, Escobar, Dahmer, etc. And yes, while I can think about their evil, I'm not sure I will ever understand it, and importantly, I in no way think it reflects on me solely because they were white and I am white. Further, the next logical step is that I should feel some connection with not just white evil, but also human evil, as a human. I am a human after all...surely the collective conscious extends to me and my identity. So are you suggesting that Dafur should in some way reflect on my id, my ego my super ego or whatever identity theory or politics <I>du jour </I> suggests. Am I also to feel some connection and responsibility for global warming (assuming it exists, in fact)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-52820445497761372072007-08-14T18:03:00.000-04:002007-08-14T18:03:00.000-04:00Please leave the Klan out of it. I believe the En...Please leave the Klan out of it. I believe the English language is rich enough to disparage an adversary without reference to that noxious movement.<BR/><BR/>Besides, we're on the same side here. You want them to apologize and so do I. But instead of viewing the Group of 88 as a non-thinking hate group (which, btw, is the same thing many did in this case vis-a-vis the lacrosse team), you might just try to appreciate their side a bit. You might even learn something.<BR/><BR/>Let's say that no rape was ever alleged. Let's also say that no racist language was ever used. Let's even say that no underage drinking occurred and that an assault was never threatened. Let's just take the single fact that a group of Duke students hired two black strippers. Sure, that's not a crime, but the Group of 88 never said it was. Their point, I assume, is that this party contributed to the inequality in society between classes, races, and genders. Stripping is demeaning to women, particularly so where the women are black and the men are white. <BR/><BR/>Imagine for a minute how this story must have made black female students at Duke feel. The campus already has significant race and gender issues to deal with without a bunch of white guys paying a black girl to take her clothes off. Simply put, this is the kind of social behavior that should be, and rightly was, condemned. In this regard, the Group of 88's concerns were well-placed. By ignoring or trivializing this point, you weaken our common goal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-46553066710890131952007-08-14T18:01:00.000-04:002007-08-14T18:01:00.000-04:00I am not sure how all of this morphed into whether...I am not sure how all of this morphed into whether or not Caroline is a good person or good professor from my original point that name calling and bashing of others is without merit regardless of who is doing it to whom. As Duke 92 stated, no one here has stated that what she did was correct. Further, I believe, and I have stated in the past that I thought she had a duty to publicly renounce the ad, even if it was done while simultaneously stating that Nifong's nefarious actions were did not change the fact that there are serious issues of sexism and racism that are still prevalent at Duke, in Durham and in the USA. <BR/><BR/>I, personally, fully support KC and thank the heavens for what he has done. One of his great gifts has been his ability to stick to the facts and to let others hang themselves with their own statements and actions. I applaud KC and am kissing up on purpose because I believe that he has done this country a great service. My "beef" was with posters who chose to wallow in the gutters of name calling for shock value and pithiness instead of having the courage to enter into a real discussion of meaning and substance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41828684983035930022007-08-14T17:53:00.000-04:002007-08-14T17:53:00.000-04:00To the 4.17:I have no doubt that you're correct an...To the 4.17:<BR/><BR/>I have no doubt that you're correct and many Group members continue to believe the lacrosse players guilty. That's frightening--given that one job of any professor is to dispassionately evaluate evidence.<BR/><BR/>On scholarship and Duke profs: having looked through the CV's of all the Group members, only one in the Humanities or Social Sciences (Lubiano) received tenure without publishing a monograph. The issue here might be how "prolific writer" is defined. It's clear that all profs at Duke are expected to publish to receive tenure.<BR/><BR/>On Light's heckling: this is actually an interesting free speech/1st amendment issue. But in general, colleges and Universities have official policies forbidding heckling--Light's behavior almost certainly violated the (never-enforced) Fac. Handbook. For a good summary of the issue (outside of a Duke perspective), see <A HREF="http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/683.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-49962187611180040732007-08-14T17:34:00.000-04:002007-08-14T17:34:00.000-04:00From someone who claims to have been a Duke grad i...From someone who claims to have been a Duke grad in '92, but who has since lost touch with reality:<BR/><BR/>"No doubt, their silence today in defense of what they did can be interpreted to mean that they STILL BELIEVE that the lacrosse players are guilty. And given the context in which this party took place from a racial, gender and class perspective, it's not difficult to understand why they CONTINUE TO TAKE THIS POSITION." (emphasis added) (insanity not).<BR/><BR/>Perhaps instead of looking at the party from the context of "racial, gender and class perspective," your chums should look at it from an EVIDENCE "perspective." <BR/><BR/>Or, they could look at it in a "not lynching their students" context, or, possibly, from an "innocent until proven guilty" perspective.<BR/><BR/>When you use the phrase "it's not difficult to understand why," then I lose patience with you. You obviously share with the Klan of 88 the same inability to avoid looking at evidence and/or reason. <BR/> <BR/>Therefore, I guess you and your early-90s duke buddy and I will have to agree to disagree:<BR/><BR/>I think Light was a "greedy social opportunist." You think she was a backbone-less pawn intimidated by Lubiano into lynching students. <BR/>______________<BR/><BR/>"If K.C. Johnson didn't exist, we would have had to invent him." USDOJ Report (June 2007). MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-47041157217346179462007-08-14T16:17:00.000-04:002007-08-14T16:17:00.000-04:00A few responses:1. Neither I nor my fellow Duke gr...A few responses:<BR/><BR/>1. Neither I nor my fellow Duke grads who have posted above support the Group of 88 or their position. We have collectively called for them to apologize for what was an unfortunate rush to judgment. To say otherwise is a a complete distortion of what we have said here.<BR/><BR/>2. KC's point about Williams is well-taken and, given my own mediocre experience at Duke, likely the case. However, the criteria I set forth regarding the definition of a great academic came from the mouth of a very senior Duke professor. I can further attest to the fact the many Duke professors do not publish, or do so infrequently. Indeed, many of my best professors at Duke were not prolific writers.<BR/><BR/>3. Fringe scholarship, as KC notes, is important. Moreover, the kind of passionate defense that Prof. Light no doubt engaged in when she confronted a conservative adversary should be encouraged. Knowing Caroline, I seriously doubt that she was booing from the back -- she was likely making a forceful argument in defense of her position. That is precisely the kind of free and open debate colleges should foster.<BR/><BR/>4. Where the Group of 88 erred was in their decision to hijack the criminal investigation to serve their own academic purposes. In doing so, they presumed that the lacrosse players were guilty of some crime. No doubt, their silence today in defense of what they did can be interpreted to mean that they still believe that the lacrosse players are guilty. And given the context in which this party took place from a racial, gender and class perspective, it's not difficult to understand why they continue to take this position. However, the Group's conduct had another, albeit unintended, effect. The Group's advertisement (perhaps unintentionally) clothed Nifong's investigation in academic respectability and, simultaneously, neutered Duke's Administration from taking a more nuanced stand. I believe that these actions helped prolong the Defendants' ordeal. Sometimes, we need to apologize for the unitended consequences of our actions, even if our hearts were in the right place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-81022447540098643842007-08-14T12:51:00.000-04:002007-08-14T12:51:00.000-04:00To the 10.33:Since you say that I should "know bet...To the 10.33:<BR/><BR/>Since you say that I should "know better" than to disagree with you, I'd invite you to point to any post or comment that I have made that expresses disagreement with your two propositions. <BR/><BR/>One point, however:<BR/><BR/>"A great academic is defined by a commitment to scholarly research and the development of his or her field, and the ability to communicate such the fruits of their scholarship through either (i) teaching or (ii) publishing. To presume that a professor lacks merit for lack of scholarship denies the true value to any student in that professor's class -- the innate ability to teach. After all, that's why they are there in the first place."<BR/><BR/>That statement perfectly summarizes the tenure philosophy of an elite liberal arts institution like Williams (perhaps one reason why both Steve Horowitz and I have pointed out, several times, that students might very well get higher quality educations at such schools than at Tier I research institutions).<BR/><BR/>I don't believe, however, that it accurately summarizes the tenure philosophy at Duke--or at an Ivy League school, or Stanford. Someone who is a great teacher but who is unwilling or unable to "communicate such the fruits of their scholarship through . . .(ii) publishing" won't get tenure at most Tier I research institutions.<BR/><BR/>As to point two: "The presumption that a narrow focus compromises academic merit is similarly misplaced, even where such narrow focus is confined to the fringe of mainstream academia," I'd invite you to reread the post, which says, "It’s the nature of a quality liberal arts education to expose students to research interests that might be considered fringe."kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-40199457689165610002007-08-14T12:20:00.000-04:002007-08-14T12:20:00.000-04:00The early-90s graduates of Duke have come up with ...The early-90s graduates of Duke have come up with an interesting new variant on the old ad-hominen. Instead of making unsupported assertions that KC is a bad person they're making unsupported assertions that members of the 88 are nice people. I've never seen this particular fallacy used before, so they get points for originality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76221153014221969612007-08-14T11:55:00.000-04:002007-08-14T11:55:00.000-04:00Why should anybody "respect" a professor like Caro...Why should anybody "respect" a professor like Caroline Light who openly, very disrespectfully heckles invited speakers and praises students for doing so? So she's sincere? Then she's a sincere proto-fascist or crypto-fascist or whatever. How sad for her that she's under fellow extremist Waheema's thumb. What a pathetic bunch of people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com