Tuesday, December 26, 2006

L.A. Times: Drop the Charges

The paper with the nation's fourth-largest circulation total, the Los Angeles Times, this morning published a blistering editorial demanding that Nifong dismiss all charges and that those who enabled him "engage in an examination of conscience."

Nifong’s bizarre decision to drop the rape charges but to retain sexual assault and kidnapping charges, the Times correctly notes, “
further undermined his already sagging reputation for fairness.”

After a throwaway line (“we may never know exactly what happened the night of March 13”—well, yes, but we certainly know what didn’t happen), the Times moves in for the kill:

What is clear is that Nifong, whose election campaign for a full term overlapped with the investigation, lost control of his tongue and participated in the transformation of this incident from a case into a cause — usually an ominous development for the administration of justice.
The Times notes the litany of “other lapses,” including the DNA coverup and the inexplicable decision for the lead investigator on the case (Nifong himself) to wait nine months to have someone from his office interview the accuser. That when this interview occurred she dramatically changed her story (yet again) “should have been the fatal blow to the prosecution.”

Rather than continue his peculiar crusade, the Times urged Nifong “to focus instead on how the case went off the rails.” In my opinion, this would be a task better suited for the Justice Department and the North Carolina State Bar.

The Times concludes with a call I hope will be echoed by others in coming weeks:

Nifong isn't the only one who profitably could engage in an examination of conscience. Those who seized on this case as an emblem of a "larger truth" — a racial double standard in rape prosecutions, the historical exploitation of black women by white men, the arrogance of adolescent privilege — did not contribute to a clarification of the factual questions that are at the heart of any criminal case. It may be true, as a Washington Post feature put it, "she was black, they were white, and race and sex were in the air." But in a criminal case, atmosphere is no substitute for evidence.

Those who could most profitably engage in an examination of conscience? The Group of 88. It’s high time for Duke alumni to call upon the University to begin enforcing Chapter Six of the Faculty Handbook, which opens with the following passage:

Members of the faculty expect Duke students to meet high standards of performance and behavior. It is only appropriate, therefore, that the faculty adheres to comparably high standards in dealing with students . . . Students are fellow members of the university community, deserving of respect and consideration in their dealings with the faculty.

Reliable sources inform me, meanwhile, that the paper with the nation’s second-largest circulation total, the Wall Street Journal, will publish an even more blistering op-ed on the issue in tomorrow’s edition.


Anonymous said...

I'm glad the WSJ is jumping in on this one. I contacted The Weekly Standard and the American Spectator, and neither of them were interested. Reason Magazine, for which I have written four pieces over the years, turned me down, and the American Conservative killed a piece I wrote for them under spec just before Thanksgiving.

In other words, the "conservative/libertarian" journalistic outlets simply were not interested. Now, Jeff Taylor has done some stuff, and I was on WBAL with him as a guess last Friday. But this case is much larger than just Nifong and rape charges; it is about the use of "collectivist justice" as a substitute for traditional criminal law.

In many ways, this case has much more in common with Stalin's Moscow Show Trials than it does a traditional rape case. I'm working on a Lew Rockwell piece that looks more closely at that point.

But, if the WSJ is willing to go after this one, then maybe there is hope for others. I look forward to reading it. (No, I am NOT the author, and I do not know who is.)

Anonymous said...

It's all over but the shouting, and people with a lick of sense are realizing that. Does anyone think that the alleged victim in this case can withstand the scrutiny of cross-examination in the pre-trial hearing? Can she keep her story straight? No way.

Moreover, the identification procedures are completely bogus, and it is highly unlikely that any judge will allow an in-court ID. That would end the case right there.

Anonymous said...

We all agree that the NC bar and DOJ are better handeling this matter. They refuse to step up to the plate. So keep on blogging. I see Nifong dropping the charges and returning to business as usual.

Anonymous said...

I hope this case not over, at least until civil liability has been established. In fact, while it may be politically undesirable for Duke or the affected students to sue Durham, what about the cavalcade of clowns who exploited this case in the media? What is the potential civil liability of Wendy Murphy of broomstick fame? or the N&O of wanted poster fame? How does one use the court system to prevent or at least discourage such libel and slander in the future?

Richard said...

Yes it is a strong editorial considering the source, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. If the LA Times truly wants justice to be done, rather than simply calling for a dismissal of the charges, the paper should be calling for an investigation by the Justice Department and the indictment of Nifong for the criminal acts he committed in this case.

Anonymous said...

Nifong's power comes from the radical left wing, politically correct cabal, and the rest of us who are afraid to stand up to them.
Thank goodness the WSJ has guts.
Excluding editorials, the WSJ is still the best written newspaper in the country.

Anonymous said...

Well, the fog-making machines have started up at Duke. See the first couple of paragraphs of the Update column in todays USA Today..Page 13C. What tripe!!! I cannot believe Burness, brodhead, et al really think people are going to buy this crap.


Anonymous said...

12:29 pm Trinity60:

Is this the USA Today article you're referring to?

Duke turns up heat on district attorney

Anonymous said...

Do the LAX players have any grounds on which to sue Duke University, some of its administration or faculty?

The cutting-edge story now is not Nifong and his malfeasance, but Duke University. The legal system and the old news media will focus on Nifong and bring him down. The bigger and more important story is the intellectual and moral culture at Duke and its support system (e.g., the pot banging social workers in Durham).

I would urge KC, Bill Anderson and other bloggers to turn their attention to the bigger cultural issue at Duke. That's the real story.

Anonymous said...

Let us translate Burris's statements: "Since it now has been established that Nifong is a liar, we think it is safe to come out against him. Granted, it shows no courage to step out when everyone else has joined the parade, but we just don't want to be caught on the losing side."

Contrast Burris and Brodhead with the unequivocal statements coming from Kirsten Kimel last spring. Don't forget, Kimel could have been fired for what she said because she clearly was bucking the administration's talking points, not to mention the tripe coming from the Gang of 88.

So, yes, I welcome this show of support. Mr. Burris and Dr. Brodhead, please take your places at the tail end of the parade.

Anonymous said...

to 12:38

Yes. Thanks for posting the address.

Harry Eagar said...

Bill Anderson sez: 'In many ways, this case has much more in common with Stalin's Moscow Show Trials than it does a traditional rape case'

That is so bizarre it is hard to know where to begin. Nobody is accusing the players of being 'spies' or 'wreckers.'

I begin to see why conservative/libertarian journalistic outlets have declined Mr. Anderson's services.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the grounds the family may have to sue Duke, I'm not an attorney, but my wife is, and I've chatted (just for fun) about this with her. She thinks I am more or less correct in seeing several theories of the case:

First, defamation by the Group of 88 and others associated with Duke purporting to speak for Duke, with Duke not making it clear that they didn't, nor disciplining them for ethical violations. Remember that the 88 ad was a basis for the defense moving for a change in venue.

Second, intentional infliction of emotional distress, when Brodhead repeatedly refused to meet with the lacrosse parents, especially in light of Duke trying to deny them counsel in having the coach tell them not to tell their parents about the investigation (!!!!)

Third, the very, very strange events where on top of telling the students not to tell their parents about the investigation (which could have resulted in 30 year prison terms for any of them), Duke hired its own counsel with a conflict of interest to "coordinate" giving evidence to the police. I suspect Duke breached some kind of respnsibility to the students here.

Fourth, there may be the full set of elements ON DUKE'S SIDE of a conspiracy to deprive the three defendants of their civil rights, namely the right to counsel, in the facts above.

I'm sure there are other theories. My wife the attorney thinks Duke will have to settle for amounts in the neighborhood of $10 million per defendant, but I'm sure a really good litigator could work on this.

John Bruce

Anonymous said...

My point about the Moscow Show Trials was that no real crime ever was committed in that episode. The purpose of the trials was purely political. Read Paul Craig Robert's book, "Tyranny of Good Intentions," and especially the chapter on Nikolai Bukharin to get a sense of what I speak.

Likewise, this case primarily has been political in nature. As for the rest of Mr. Eagar's ad hominen, I will ignore it.

Anonymous said...

The transcript is fascanating. Nifong is really Bush League - I think the judge has his number. He interupts the long confusing explanations from Nifong. My guess (dto paraphase NIfong this case will be dismissed on December 29,2006

Anonymous said...

When the ultra-PC LA Times jumps off the USS Nifong you know the ship is going down. Fast.

Anonymous said...

Dropping the rape charges doesn't mean that the rape didn't happen. That's irrelevant. All the matters is what the prosecution can prove. The prosecution believes that it can't prove that rape, which includes proving penetration, but believes it can prove sexual assault and kidnapping. Hopefully, if the accused are found guilty, they'll be thrown in jail. If they are not proven guilty, then they are to be considered innocent (until proven guilty). That's the law.

Scott Hughes

Anonymous said...

Man, if you still are trying to foist this "the rape MIGHT have happened" crap, you need to go back to Nifong's office. There is no mystery here. There was no rape, no kidnapping, no assault, no nothing.

This is not a case of a prosecutor having information and screwing it up. It is a case of a prosecutor breaking the law in order to ramrod a non-existent case into trial. There is a difference between the two, even if you cannot see it.

You must be a fan of Wendy "Recovered Memories" Murphy.

Anonymous said...

1:22pm you said it best, the transcripts are laughable and the statements put forth by the Fong are the stuff of 1Ls - if that. I honestly believe Denny Crane could argue a better case in a more concise manner, and everyone knows this character on Boston Legal has a degenerative organic brain syndrome. Wonder what the Fong's excuse will be when this case totally unravels and he is pressured into dropping all charges. Will it just be that he had another murder case which was more important ? how about he had to check into rehab for an undisclosed problem ? or how about he is suffering from the same degenerative brain condition as Denny Crane? My guess is the later.

Orange Lazarus

Anonymous said...

John Bruce,
Fifth, making the lacrosse players leave campus the day the Black Panthers were to march. Not reported very often, I was in the dorm when my son's fraternity brothers on the team were packing up to MOVE out of their rooms so they wouldn't provoke the Black Panthers. WHAT A DISGRACE. Listening to a 19 year old boy on a cell phone trying to explain to his dad that he had to leave his room was not very much fun, Brodhead must go.

Cedarford said...

Earlier KC writes: Tenure and principles of academic freedom protect the Group of 88 from personnel retaliation (quite appropriately). But nothing prevents the administration from taking other steps to express its disappointment with the Group’s actions.

I looked at the Gang of 88. The majority do not have tenure. While it is true that some are immune from career consequences from Dule tenure, that is not a collective protection all 88 enjoy. Many of the signers are associate and visiting profs from other colleges. A large number are post-docs on teaching fellowships. A few are not even faculty, but staff assistants.
As for academic freedom, while it is true that - and right that - individual employees may speak out on piltical and cultural issues AS INDIVIDUALS NOT SPEAKING FOR THEIR EMPLOYER - the Gang of 88 presumed to be speaking for Duke, used Duke resources to push their view, and from a liability perspective...Duke management gave tacit endorsement to this by letting it occur.

If anyone at Duke is serious about fixing this to prevent other packs of ideologues arising and attacking other parts of the Duke community in internal warfare...they need to do something. Both with that part of the Gang of 88 they can go after (lacking tenure), and to show some measure of symbolic disapproval for certain tenured professors that attacked a segment of the Duke student population, compromised student civil liberties, and helped create a hostile work environment.

If you look at the Gang of 88, even my cursory look shows interesting things:

1. The attack came from the liberal arts faculty. 85 of the 88. Only 3 came from the sciences, engineering, business, medical, law schools at Duke. (1 from physics, one from math, 1 surgical unit staffer)
2. Whole departments within liberal arts also did not have a single faculty member sign. Other large departments only had 1-2 sign.
3. If those that did, 12 came from Romance Studies, 9 from History, 7 from University Writing Center, 8 from Literature, 6 from cultural anthroplogy, 8 from African American Center, 9 from English.

59 of the 88.

4. Any scrutiny of the Gang of 88 and likely, the student activists calling for lynching - shows that the problem is not systemic across the whole Duke faculty and students, but a narrow subpopulation.

5. Very few of the signers are in the strata of what appears to this outsider - to constitute Duke's most outstanding scholars in Duke's most prestigious departments.

6. Of the signers, I am sure there are many that would renounce their rush to judgement at this point. But Duke has not even tried to create a comfortable way were such people could renounce and not face future repercussions from radical activist faculty members that demand solidarity and who have the power to mete out such repercussions on junior faculty with second thoughts.

7. I do hope that the 3 accused, the coach, and the other 43 accused who do have expenses DO sue Duke. It would provide an incentive for otherwise foot-dragging, "let's sweep this whole sorry incident under the rug now we've cracked down on athlete's parties" Administration and Board of Trustee members to explore whether or not they have a problem isolated to a few radicalized Departments of faculty and like-minded students. That are bringing discredit and antagonism to Duke University, contributing little to scholarship or developing valuable alumni. Whether or not it makes sense to reduce or eliminate such departments if they are not fixable.

8. For alumni, understanding WHO the gang of 88 are and WHO their tacit supporters are would be helpful as they weigh in on where Duke fell down in handling the Duke Rape Case. I don't think that they will accept the "root cause" of this being students having parties, and punishing or further restricting innocent victims the cure.

Anonymous said...

Adding to John Bruce's list:

Libel - posters and demonstrations on campus with no effort to remove or absolve by Duke administration.

Slander - by Brodhead, both individually and corporately, regarding cooperation by LAX players - every defendant can testify to Brodhead's personal knowledge of their cooperation prior to his statements that indicated the students were not cooperating.

Contract violation for all LAX players with scholarships for the 2005/06 academic year


Anonymous said...

Yeah, Kemp...that too. Let's see, forcible vacating of one's domicile...presuming the "rent" had been paid.


Anonymous said...

"If they are not proven guilty, then they are to be considered innocent (until proven guilty). That's the law."

Perhaps I read this section of your post wrong but in the context of 'just because the charges were dropped doesn't mean it didn't happen' there seems to be an issue with the closing sentences. You are suggesting that if one is found not guilty at trial they should be considered innocent until retried. The two sentences are circular in that they would suggest that the 'law' allows for retrials until one is found guilty..

Anyway there really is no evidence in this case other than the accuser's statements of which there are multiple versions - the latest lead to the rape charges being dropped. The timeline doesn't fit for at least one player, facial features/body features don't match, etc.

Of course the 'just because charges were dropped argument' can be valid but the length we are going to suggests that one can only be truly innocent (not tainted, no doubt, etc) of a sex crime if one is say 3000 miles away (not at an ATM a few miles away).

Anonymous said...

For cedarford, it's possible to take measures even against tenured faculty. First, they may have various appointments not subject to tenure, such as department chair. They can be removed from such additional jobs (and pay) without due process. Second, they can be disciplined short of termination, by suspension, docking pay, and so forth. This is what has happened in the relatively recent speech cases, such as Peter N. Kirstein or Leonard Jeffries. I would imagine that this is what would happen to many of the tenured 88 in any case. Kirstein, interestingly, was subject to a review of his scholarship -- based on KC's posts regarding the poor academic credentials of the 88, this would be an interesting outcome.

I would hope that of the 88 who were assistant professors, visiting, TAs, or whatever, they would be terminated immediately. This is what happened to a visiting prof at Claremont who filed a false hate crime report.

The pressure needs to be kept up on Duke for this to happen. KC commends Michael Munger for speaking out, but as chair of the PoliSci department with at least two of the 88 reporting to him, he's been out to lunch. It would be his responsibility to initiate action -- but he's preoccupied with a vanity campaign for NC Governor.

Jouhn Bruce

Anonymous said...

LA Times said: "the historical exploitation of black women by white men"...

Do rape statistics support the above assertion? What are the rape rates for:
1. white on black female,
2. black on black female,
3. white on white female, and
3. black on white female?

Would someone be kind enough to post the above rape rates?

Anonymous said...

harry egar says..Nobody is accusing the players of being 'spies' or 'wreckers

Well, golly , Harry.. which carries the longer jail term? Certainly the 57 years in jail for sexual assault and kidnapping must parallel that for "wrecking " or spying, dont you think? Being railroaded for a crime because of political considerations (ie you got the wrong skin color, gender and bank account) is a weak analogy to a show trial?

Youre either as deep as a puddle or deliberately obtuse.

Anonymous said...

well, i think it would be better stated if the LA Times would have said that the MYTH of white male exploitation of black women was at play here. i doubt many black women walk swiftly through parking lots at night avoiding lax players or other white men; its just a hunch. but the numbers of white women who briskly make their ways to their cars after work or shopping probably rank in the 90's, but again i'm speculating.

But back to what i was going to say. i think the bar should have a look at the intellectual capabilities that are required for obtaining a law license. not only is nifong crooked, but he is a total idiot. look at how he attempted to cover his tracks after the damning admission came from meehan. my four year old son does a better job of explaining where the last cookie went before dinner.

how pray tell did this idiot get a law license?????


Anonymous said...

Can't the judge call into his chambers all the people who were in the grand jury and the prosecusting team and find out exactly what transpired. It is now known that Nifong knew the young he was planning to indict had no DNA connection, had exculpatory evidence, there was other DNA on Crystal, the SANE exam didn't show signs of rape, Crystal changed her story numberous times and has had a past history with the police and a recent nervous breakdow. The judge will be able to find out how much they lied to the grand jury to ensure the indictments. Then he can drop all charges.

Anonymous said...

Re Group of 88
"2. Whole departments within liberal arts also did not have a single faculty member sign. Other large departments only had 1-2 sign.
3. If those that did, 12 came from Romance Studies, 9 from History, 7 from University Writing Center, 8 from Literature, 6 from cultural anthroplogy, 8 from African American Center, 9 from English."

Acc to departmental webpage, Romance Studies includes French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish.
There are 12 active (ie non emeriti) full-time faculty in Spanish. It seems that of these, two-thirds (!), ie 8, are in group of 88. These 8 include the dept chair as well as 5 of 7 tenured profs in Spanish. By contrast, only 2 of 13 active faculty in French are in Group of 88. Pity students of Spanish at Duke!

Anonymous said...

I agree with Georgia Goslee, who states that just because the charges are dropped by a prosecutor, it doesn't mean a rape didn't occur. This only means that the prosecutor is saying he doesn't have enough evidence to support the charges.

Anonymous said...

Let's follow "theman's" logic. (1) we cannot prove a rape occurred, (2) by the very nature of proof, we cannot prove a rape did not occur, (3) therefore, a rape occurred.

I hope that thestupidman never finds himself charged with any crime in which the prosecution is using the Kafkaesque standards of proof that he is demanding. But, then, Goslee was a federal prosecutor, and most federal prosecutors I know are incompetent attorneys would could not make it in the private sector. Thus, seeing such idiocy from her fits.

kcjohnson9 said...

When Nifong defenders are reduced to citing the legal analysis of Georgia Goslee, I'd say it's pretty near game-over.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who ever is charged in court is guilty. Just because a prosecutor cannot prove guilt means someone is innocent. Everyone knows that theose threee rapists rapes thsat woman.

Anonymous said...

Why won't everyone leave poor Mr. Nyfong alone? Hasn't he suffered enough?

Anonymous said...

Nifong is a hero. It doesn't matter if the rape charges are true or not because they are true. Nifong knows that and the white racist power structure is behind his dropping of the charges. Those racists made him use DNA and everyone knows that on CSI racists always make DNA disappear.

Anonymous said...

While Murphy and Grace are evil and dumb, Gorgia Goslee is just dumb as a rock.

Anonymous said...

A few of the twelve guys on lacrosse scholarships are sons of 9/11 heros - New York Fireman.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if anyone else surfs the other threads. But most of the ones that were supports of Crystal Gail Mangun have shut down.

I now know that they were suckered into her story of lies no one can or will stand up for her unless they are die hard Nifong fans hint " The Man".

Anonymous said...

Come on all Georgia Goslee, has a thriving law practice in Silver Springs, MD. She is no longer a fed prosecutor, she is too smart for that stuff. You can check her out here.

Anonymous said...

Let me ask you something: Would you want Goslee to defend you if you were charged with a crime when her announced standard is that defendants must "prove themselves innocent without any doubt"? Here is a person who believes that "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a tough enough standard.

Furthermore, she is willing to discount all DNA evidence and seems to believe that one can engage in a brutal rape of someone and not leave a spec of evidence.

Furthermore, she has stood with ALL of Nifong's abuses of the law from day one. And you, theman, believe that she would then turn around and aggressively defend someone accused of a crime?

Face it, she is nothing but a lackey of the prosecution. By the way, if you are saying that prosecutorial abuse is good, then you believe that prosecutors also should be able to railroad blacks. You and Georgia deserve each other.

Anonymous said...

The more I think of it, the more I realize that someone needs to complain to the Bar Association Maryland about Goslee. Here is someone who looks at mountains of exculpatory evidence, and then declares that NONE of it should be considered.

If it were up to her, even without the DNA evidence, she still would be demanding rape charges. This is most interesting. Here is a defense attorney who declares that people should not be permitted to defend themselves, and then when they produce evidence that demonstrates their lack of guilt, she discounts it, all for purely racial reasons.

For example, if she is defending someone charged with rape, and she is faced with the same kind of DNA evidence as is in the Duke case, would she refuse to use that evidence?

Why does this person still have a law license, if she advocates a different standard of prosecution and conviction, and then endorses prosecutorial misconduct? I am wondering if those of us who live in Maryland should be filing complaints against her.

Anonymous said...

Why do people respond to "theman"? Isn't it obvious that he is a just having fun with everybody? Nobody is stupid enough to actually believe the nonsense that he is spouting. Ignore him please!

Anonymous said...

True, but it is fun to dis on Georgia Goslee.

Anonymous said...

Georgia Goslee is a rising star in the MD judiciary, someday she will be a judge and you will all regret picking on her. She is a very smart civil rights and defense lawyer.

Cedarford said...

Jouhn Bruce - For cedarford, it's possible to take measures even against tenured faculty. First, they may have various appointments not subject to tenure, such as department chair. They can be removed from such additional jobs (and pay) without due process. Second, they can be disciplined short of termination, by suspension, docking pay, and so forth.


KC Johnson has his opinion on this and I'll add my separate one about attacking people with tenure.

1. You would guarantee most of the Duke faculty and faculties elsewhere would rally to the Gang of 88's defense if people jeopardized conventions protecting tenure in retaliation.

2. As individuals, what the 88 did was not illegal. It was rash, it was a rush to judgment, it encouraged divisiveness on campus. It showed poor personal judgment. But if kept as individual opinion, it is protected academic free speech.
What they did was post under the aegis of Duke, using Duke resources, a medium to minor violation of policy.
For those lacking tenure, it might and probably should be held against them as an incident that reflected badly on their judgment and negative impact on university collegiality and good student-teacher relations.

3. The main problem is with Duke Administration refusing to condemn them for their misjudgment, make it clear they were not speaking for Duke. Further, it was up to Duke Administration to work for racial harmony rather than endorse racial and class-based warfare against members of the Duke community. And it was in Duke's court to investigate if the vigilante poster originated at Duke and who might have created it and distributed it.

4. In the future, it will be up to Duke to determine if it's mission, charter, and reputation will allow faculty and student activists deep in identity politics and "action fronts" to engage in open warfare with other Duke elements or indulge in intimidation. It will be up to Duke to determine, as they jumped to do with Lacrosee members, if "problems" exist with certain radicalized Departments and student activist groups that have brought harm and discredit to Duke, and how to organisationally structurally deal with them.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Goslee is such a star that no one else works with her. Would you want someone defending you who claims that exculpatory evidence should be ignored?

Anonymous said...

cedarford, you're ignoring what was actually done in the Kirstein and Jeffries cases. Kirstein wAS suspended, Jeffries was removed as department chair. If the rest of the faculty rallies to the 88, so what? The issue is not whether what they did was illegal -- a felony conviction would normally terminate a tenured faculty member no matter what. Ethical violations, such as what Ward Churchill was found guilty of, even though not illegal (misrepresenting sources, for instance) were enough to terminate him. Naturally, they did this the way they get the mafioso for tax evasion, but they did it.

The Kirstein case establishes that violating the AAUP Statement, section c, is an ethical violation. Ethical violations may be punished short of termination, which makes tenure moot. People may not like this, but if KC is saying someone needs to enforce Section 6 of the Faculty Handbook, he's implying, as far as I can see, that there should be penalties.

I recognize that tenured faculty of any political persuasion may have spent half their lives sacrificing almost everything for that tenure and don't like the idea that anyone might lose it under any circumstances. All I can say is, sorry, it sometimes happens.

John Bruce

RattlerGator said...

Well stated, cedarford.

John Bruce, I think you're missing a bit of what cedarford is getting at.

Anonymous said...

So what's cedarford saying that I don't understand? He says, "But if kept as individual opinion, it is protected academic free speech." But section c of the AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure makes it plain that it's an ethical violation to confuse the issue as to whether you're speaking for the institution -- as well as to speak without restraint or inaccurately. All these are ethical violations as defined by the AAUP. Yes, if the 88 had been restrained, accurate, and made it clear they spoke only for themselves, it would have been protected speech. But they weren't and it wasn't.

It is perfectly possible to discipline tenured faculty. Happens several times a year. AAUP often just rolls over.

RattlerGator said...

Remember now, I wrote that "I think," not that "you are."

Having said that, I focus on his focus -- attacking people with tenure and (perhaps unwittingly) creating a cause celebre by which an impetus to rally for the Gang of 88 is unnecessarily created.

The techinical ability to go forward in a case and the advisability of doing so are two different things. And this lacrosse case is an extreme example of such. Your approach, not so extreme -- but is it wise?

Cedarford, of course (and this goes without saying but on the internet -- sometimes it has be said), speaks for himself and I could be barking up the wrong tree as far as cedarford is concerned.

It is certainly my view, however.

Anonymous said...


dont worry about the man. every since nifong was caught in a criminal conspircay, all his posts have admitted that no crime ocurred. I don't know why he, or she, or it, is still posting.

Anonymous said...

I am still posting because the Duke 3 are rapists who are getting away with it. Wendy Murphy says they are rapists. Georgia Goslee says they are rapists. Nancy Grace says they are rapists. They must be rapists, since these women never lie.

Anonymous said...

see, theman knows the truth. even though he, she or it, is a demonstrated racist borderline illiterate, he,she or it still knows that the case is a joke so he, she or it is limited to snide little comments that admit that nothing happened.

kcjohnson9 said...

Based on the 9.01, I'm assuming that "theman" is actually doing a satire of the most extreme of Nifong's backers.

Cedarford said...

KC - Based on the 9.01, I'm assuming that "theman" is actually doing a satire of the most extreme of Nifong's backers.

Agree. Some little twerp who is a troll and rather enjoys the game he plays of manipulating some gullible, imperceptive people on this blog into snapping up the bait he dangles and responding to him.
Those who respond to his stupid little game are equally stupid idiots.

Anonymous said...

Ooooo! I bet Precious baby be gettin' all dolled up for Kwanzaaaaaaaaa!

She be givin' thanks and gonna honor her African brothahs and sistahs.

They be celebratin' 'cause Precious is one pregnant lyin' ho' and her baby Mikey is one of her Kwanzaaaaaaaa presents.