Monday, January 08, 2007

Brodhead's Apologia

President Richard Brodhead has just issued a statement in which he couples his long-overdue but admirable criticism of Mike Nifong with a defiant defense of the Group of 88.

The statement has three troubling aspects.

1.) Brodhead continues to reinvent the past.

Brodhead describes his handling of events last spring as “guided by two principles: that if true, the conduct that had been alleged was grave and should be taken very seriously, and that our students had to be presumed innocent until proven guilty through the legal process.”

From all accounts of him, Brodhead is a decent man. There is simply no reason to believe that, in writing the above remarks, he does not consider them to be true.

But, much like Cathy Davidson’s bizarre claim that the Group of 88’s statement was a response to non-existent defenses of the lacrosse players from the time, the facts from last spring do not back up Brodhead’s statement. Canceling the season and firing the coach did not communicate a belief in presumption of innocence. That less than three percent of the words in Brodhead’s April 5 and June 5 addresses dealt with the issue did not communicate a belief in presu mption of innocence.

And those who would look for a celebration of presumption of innocence in Brodhead’s comments to the Durham Chamber of Commerce would need to look hard. On April 20, two days after the indictments of Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty, he said, “If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn’t do it, whatever they did is bad enough.”

Brodhead’s recent policies, on the other hand, have commendably reflected a belief in presumption of innocence. It is unfortunate that he continues to trivialize this important principle by suggesting that the early actions and statements of Duke’s administration could, in any way, be considered based on a presumption of innocence.

2.) The University appears determined to ignore its faculty’s rush to judgment last spring.

In his statement, Brodhead asserts that “we still have work to do on this campus,” dealing “with larger community issues of race, gender, privilege, and respect.” He singles out the work of the Campus Culture Initiative for this matter.

In his appropriate remarks about Mike Nifong’s need to recuse himself from the case, Brodhead asserts, “We entrust our conflicts to the law to provide a path to a fair resolution. But to earn this faith from the public, those who work in the legal process must behave with elemental fairness and regard for the rights of those involved. We need and deserve for that faith to be restored.”

The same could be said for the University’s response to the affair, but Brodhead appears determined to lurch forward with a rigged process. Why should anyone consider the process to be characterized by “elemental fairness and regard for the rights of those involved” when those leading the CCI process have acted in such a blatantly unfair fashion?

  • Why should anyone consider a race subgroup headed by Karla Holloway (“White innocence means black guilt. Men’s innocence means women’s guilt”) to be fair?
  • Why should anyone consider an athletics subgroup chaired by Peter Wood, who has seemed to go out of his way to slander Reade Seligmann, to be fair?
  • Why should anyone consider a gender subgroup co-chaired by Group of 88 member Anne Allison—a figure who was previously rebuked for spending departmental funds on partisan political activity—to be fair?

3.) The lacrosse players and the faculty who rushed to denounce them are equally “victims” of this affair.

I’ll quote Brodhead’s astonishing remarks on this point in full:

Just as important, we must work together to restore the fabric of mutual respect. One of the things I have most regretted is the way students and faculty have felt themselves disparaged and their views caricatured in ongoing debates, often by individuals - sometimes anonymous - outside the Duke community. In the age of instantaneous worldwide media coverage, members of the lacrosse team were judged around the world on the basis of highly selective, highly prejudicial coverage last spring. A number of them were subjected to vile abuse. More recently, a group of Duke faculty members (including a number of African American faculty) have been widely attacked in blogs and emails - and in some cases personally attacked in highly repugnant and vicious terms - based on caricatured accounts of their statements on the lacrosse event.

Translation: The Group of 88 is fine by Duke!

I would like to think that most University presidents would have read with deep shame pages 16 through 18 of the defense change-of-venue motion. To my knowledge, these pages represented a first in the history of modern American criminal law: the behavior and statements of an institution’s faculty were cited as one of the principal reasons for which students of that institution could not receive a fair trial.

I would like to think that most University presidents would have pondered that fact with deep shame, and resolved to take concrete measures to ensure that their faculty never again so readily abandoned their obligation to treat their students fairly—regardless of the students’ race, class, gender, or athletic status.

I would like to think that most University presidents, upon reading pages 16 through 18, would have publicly reminded their faculty of the relevant provision of the Faculty Handbook dealing with faculty obligations to students. For instance, Chapter Six of the Duke Faculty Handbook 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.

Of course, Brodhead is not “most University presidents.”

  • With his statement, is he publicly defending Kim Curtis, who publicly suggested that two of her students were accomplices to rape, and thereafter gave both grades of F on their final paper?
  • With his statement, is he publicly defending Grant Farred, who wrote that Duke students who registered to vote in Durham were attempting to project their “secret racism” upon the city?

  • With his statement, is he publicly defending Cathy Davidson, who preposterously rationalized the Group of 88’s statement as a response to non-existent defenses of the lacrosse players?
  • With his statement, is he publicly defending Thomas Crowley, who published an op-ed so riddled with factual errors about Duke students that he had to retract it (though only after an outpouring of the blog criticism that Brodhead so chastises)?
  • And by singling out the race of the some Duke faculty members who have been criticized, is Brodhead, with his statement, publicly suggesting that minority members of his faculty are less publicly accountable for their actions than are other professors?

It would seem, based on the tone, content, and timing of this statement, that the answer to all five of these questions is yes. That is deeply unfortunate for the future of Duke.


Anonymous said...

This is a truly bizarre statement from Brodhead. Anybody who donates money to Duke as long as Brodhead is in charge needs mental help.

Anonymous said...

KC -- I think you're reading more into the Group of 88 statement than is actually there, and you're ignoring the rather vile comments you tend to attract.

The best criticism of the Group of 88 I've read is that Davidson and company should have realized they were indirectly empowering the folks holding up the "Castrate" banner. That's the worst of it when you look at it objectively.

That's hardly a firing offense, and it's hardly worth the vitriol being stirred up here.

Tagging Brodhead and even the Group itself to the worst of the potbangers is like tagging all Duke student-athletes to the McFadyen e-mail.

KC, for the good of your book, you might want to take a break and calm down. I think you can write something great if you'd just take a step back and look at this again.

Anonymous said...

The more I read of Brodhead, the more the guy disgusts me. This quote is particularly galling:

"More recently, a group of Duke faculty members (including a number of African American faculty) have been widely attacked in blogs and emails - and in some cases personally attacked in highly repugnant and vicious terms - based on caricatured accounts of their statements on the lacrosse event."

As if anything the professors (some of whom are African American) have had to endure via e-mail could remotely compare with what the players and their families have been subjected to -- and subjected to by members of the Group of 88! And the fact that some of them are AA, well, what's that got to do with anything?

And "caricatured accounts"? I guess shame on us for quoting you guys. How dare we use your own words against you. This isn't simply spin; this is second-rate historical revisionism.

Brodhead didn't learn his lesson. He was more concerned about image than truth when he threw the lacrosse team under the bus. And he's more concerned about image than truth in defending the group of 88. What a pathetic weasel.

Chicago said...

Was the Duke Lacrosse team the subject of intense, judgmental and vile threats last Spring and into the summer on a national level?

Did the NBP not threaten to come on campus and physically assault them?

Did potbangers, professors, Durham liberals and others not convict them in the court of public opinion with out any evidence?

Where was Brodhead when all of that was going on? I do not recall Brodhead defending them at that time.

Brodhead is a disgrace. Brodhead lacks personality, leadership and presence. Brodhead should be at best, a lit professor.

Duke is going to take a serious dive in the coming years (already has obviously but will continue to) and you know what, I am sad to say they deserve it.

Greg Toombs said...

Dickie the Pigeonhearted strikes again!

Apparently this man with latent Shakespearean tendencies does not want words to mean what they do mean.

He was an English professor, was he not?


Anonymous said...

3:10 - KC does not admire intellectual and moral cowardice. Neither do I.

Actions speak louder than words, and Broadhead's actions have been in direct contradiction to the words he writes.


Chicago said...

Excellent point 3:11!

Why does the fact that they are black make them different from any other of the professors in the Group of 88? In my opinion, all 88 members deserve scrutiny for their actions, not for their skin color.

It is obvious Brodhead went out of his way to make sure he stood behind the Group of 88, but especially the black members of the Group of 88.

Anonymous said...

KC. When you say "Brodhead is a decent man" are you being sarcastic?

Anonymous said...

He is also very carefully limiting who is part of the community that is allowed to be a part of this whole affair - ie the community is students, faculty and staff. It is NOT parents of students. It is NOT alumni. These people are not and cannot be a part of the community that make Duke great. WOW. As only a Yalie could say it! I know as an Alumnus I feel marginalized. I think he is being clear as to who is the real problem.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:10 p.m. makes a fair point about the tenor of the comments on this blog. Although Prof KCJ is always temperate and thorough in his analysis, a good deal of the commenters tend towards ad hominems, which are appropriately considered objectionable -- even if based on justified outrage at certain conduct. Perhaps it is unfair to tar the entire blog with the same brush, but I suspect that has happened. Hopefully future commenters will realize they can make the same points as effectively (or more so) with a more measured tone.

Michael said...

I think that the caricatures are over at LS where they have some rather creative artists.

As far as the castrate banner goes, anyone of those protestors could have walked over to the people holding up that banner to ask them to put it away.

The protestors didn't need to leave their stuff all over the property ("littering").

And they didn't need to parade the signs implying guilt. And even if they weren't holding signs, they could have asked those holding signs that implied guilt to not display them.

If you look in the Yahoo Groups, you'll see that there's planning and discussion involved in these things and that there is an organized structure. I don't recall the name of the lady (bio major/grad student) that organized the thing but she certainly could have had the banner taken down.

If KC is reading more into G88 than there really was in it, then the G88 is certainly free to send KC emails correcting him or apologizing for what they wrote. Do you think that's going to happen?

KC was willing to give Brodhead the benefit of the doubt over his announcement last week and he got criticized over that right here. I think that KC would take anything that came from the G88 as far as them explaining themselves very seriously.

I've counted maybe three
or four apologies from people on what they did to the Lacrosse players on the web. That's a really, really tiny number. I've counted far more rationalizations of March 2006 behaviours though.

Anonymous said...

For the last several years, I have closely watched administration "gyrations" at the University of Colorado over Ward Churchill and a set of football rape allegations. There is no doubt in my mind, that in most major universities in America, the faculty has more institutional power that the university president.

Brodhead's statement seems to reflect the fact that he sees more "danger" from failing to defend the faculty than in failing to defend the students.

Chicago said...


Also a great point! Is the Durham Community not part of Duke? Or alums? or parents? or any young kid who loves Duke because they play basketball on ESPN 20+ times a season?

I am not a Duke alum, but I did live in Durham for 3 years and I was very active in charity events, many of which were held at Duke. I was also a strong supporter of all Duke sports and was an Iron Duke. I consider myself a part of Duke as a result. I even worked at a few summer camps there. Perhaps I am not as involved or connected as alums or other big ticket donation makers, but I am still part of Duke.

Anonymous said...

to 3:10
As I have said previously, at my age I have a hard time understanding and responding to non-sequiturs. You people have got to come up with a better plan.

Please define "decent".


Anonymous said...

3:10 PM

It's not just the statement. It is (1) the statement plus (2) other comments by some of the Group of 88 plus (3) most importantly, the continued silence of the Group of 88, even though its members now know, as do we all, that no credible evidence exists to even suggest that the accused players committed any crime for which they are charged.

Anonymous said...

"The best criticism of the Group of 88 I've read is that Davidson and company should have realized they were indirectly empowering the folks holding up the "Castrate" banner. "

No its not. The best criticism is that emboldened the prosecution to continue its misguided and potentially criminal prosecution. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever the only potential chance for the prosecution to have legs was to advance itself in the court of public opinion, since there was no case in a court of law.

The gang of 88 contributed to the then public perception that there was a case, and in retrospect appears to be fatally stupid. Most people that mean well, regardless of intelligence or conscience, admit to their mistakes. At the very least even if these professors (wrongly) believe that the statement was interpreted incorrectly and not a salvo against the innocent, at least they should just as strongly denounce the harm it may have "incorrectly" caused by deriding Nifong. One or two sentences in a multi-paragraph letter is not derision enough.

Oh, and by the way, you're very much in the minority that KC nees to take a break...he's been spot on 99% of the time (including this one). Perhaps you should take a break and revisit the multitude of harm that was senselessly caused by a rush to judgment, that the faculty of Duke University was a large contingent.

Anonymous said...

3:10 This is a very sad day for Duke. Stepping back and taking a second look only confirms that.

Anonymous said...

3:10 is a Duke administrative flunky. Paid to post on this blog.

Don't any more breath on him,

Brodhead has seriously miscalculated thinking he could provide cover for faculty friends who engineered this hoax.

He will find out otherwise.

Chicago said...

Yeah, the Group of 88 is now hiding behind a "Blue Wall of Silence." ;)

Anonymous said...

The ones carrying the signs _were_ the Duke 88.


Expect to see more lawsuits, Burness.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 3:10, I think you understate the listening statement by describing it in such innocuous terms: "indirectly empowering the etc.".

The listening statement didn't occur in a vacuum. It might have been vacuous but that's a different matter. But, from your comments, it's like you're pretending the rest of us weren't around paying attention to this case back then and that you can make whatever claim you want to as if we won't know any better.

Did Broadhead not say "whatever they did was bad enough"? Were there not professors in the group of 88 openly denouncing the lacrosse team and making statements that presumed their guilt? Were the women's lacrosse players not berated in editorials for supporting the men?

There was an environment there at Duke when these comments were made. The professors didn't simply yell "fire" in a vacant parking lot. They yelled "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater.

There was a message implicit in saying "we're listening" and it was "you people better deal harshly with those lacrosse playing rapists or there'll be hell to pay." There's no point saying you're listening unless you want to convey that you're waiting to hear something in particular. And isn't it telling that Broadhead willingly obliged?

Anonymous said...

Your post was to the point and it did not take your 10,000 words to make it. THE only good thing I can see from this lame letter, is that Brodhead has been tipped that this is going to be over soon and he is running for the door.

It is too little too late, no alumni is going to forget his sneering on 60 minutes. He is not long for the campus.

Anonymous said...

Your point #2 is the egregious omission.

I don't quarrel too much with what the letter says. But he can't convincingly call for reestablishing mutual respect among the university community members and ignore the worst example of disrespect of students by the faculty in the Listening Statement. (Well, Curtis' retaliatory flunking of Dowd would be the worst, but I understand why he can't comment on that one at this time.)

Davidson's attempt at saying the statement was really support of the Defendants, as yet unnamed at the time, was ridiculous: "I am positive I am not the only professor who was and continues to be adamant about the necessity for fair and impartial legal proceedings for David, Collin and Reade."

If Lubiano didn't write the statement, didn't she at least "edit" it in the sense of gathering the quotes for the document? And didn't she later say it was a "stake in the heart" of the lacrosse team? Was she caracturing her own document?

Anonymous said...


I disagree with anon @ 3:10pm. So much more information will come to light during the discovery process in the Dowd suit. As we found with the Meehan testimony in the last pre-trial hearing, you just don't know what you have until the attornies start digging. Where would we be today if we hadn't learned of the conspiracy?

I just can't wait for plaintiff's attorney to start discovery (assuming it survives the 12B motions). It will open the flood gates of information! To 3:10pm = I don't know all of what Brodhead and the group of 88 did, but what they already admit is bad enough!

I JUST CAN'T WAIT.............

Anonymous said...


I think KC's posts thus far have been magnificent. Remember, KC is a professionally trained historian, who is more than familiar with the pitfalls of rushing into judgment. What he has offered on this blog is nothing short of remarkable.

As for people who are commenting on this blog (like me), hey, this blog is open to the public.


Anonymous said...


What's next? "Why can't we all just get along?"

The Gang of 88 tried to start a war; Brodhead aided and abetted them. Being what's known as an "alpha squirrel" (i.e., an ineffectual toady who gets promoted merely because he is a reliable sycophant who doesn't make waves), Broadhead is now trying desperately to cover his narrow ass with some revisionist history. Piling lies on top of other lies isn't really going to help his position.

A curious thing about this case is that it's been so thoroughly documented -- thanks in no small measure to Professor Johnson. One need not look hard or far to find plenty of evidence to contradict Brodhead's statement.

Bottom line, there's no accountability in the arts-and-letters area of academia. That's why it tends to attract emotionally immature people who are incapable of functioning outside of that wholly artifical, protected environment. Those of us on the outside are to blame, really, for paying even a modicum of attention to what any of them has to say.

Pardon me, but I must now return to writing my dissertation...Chicks with Dicks: Gender Studies and the Role of Bias in the Context of 20th Century Phallocentric Hegemony. (I'm kinda hoping Duke will create a department for me to head.)

Anonymous said...

Brodhead has to go.
If he doesn't yet get what the group of 88 did wrong, he never will.
Duke needs to change. The problem is Brodhead wants to go more PC.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the discovery process and the information that is gleaned from it will be embarrassing to Duke University, because we will see in black and white just how hostile Duke is to many of its students. Faculty members are free to hate whomever they like, but they are not free to vent that hatred toward their students. If they are filled with that much hatred of others, then they need to find other means of employment.

Anonymous said...

According to Brodhead, the problem at Duke is the lacross team and blog hooligans.

In the real world, the problem is Brodhead, Gang of 88 and the culture of racism and various other kind of discrimation, intimidation, grade retaliation and academic fraud committed by Gang 88 and other pseudo-science departments.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if everyone will break into "Kumbaya my Lord" at the UNC game on Feb 7th?

Think we could get Brodhead to have everyone hold hands and sing?.

Wouldn't that be "precious"?

opps, wrong pun, Kemp

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer/retired professor: I also find Brodhead's comments too little, too late. But the one issue I do find disturbing on the blogs is the racial animus and taunting that one occasionally finds among the comments. With such an open forum on-line, this is difficult to manage, but nevertheless, racial commentary undermines the good work done by KC and other blogs. I know that the bloggers have now been characterized as hooligans, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Anonymous said...

I can't imagine a more inept response than Brodhead's today.

This will go down in PR history as a classically tone-deaf misstep.

Anonymous said...

One word,


Anonymous said...

I find VERY little racial baiting here, go to save the two sisters, and the other liberal blogs if you want some good ole hate whitey racism. You comment is not well taken.

Anonymous said...

After all the screwing up they have done, Broadhead can only get support from the professors just like Nifong only gets support amongst blacks.

These guys understand that in order to survive they need to hang on to whatever support they can get. The blacks in Durham with their votes and the Administration of Duke all carry great power so his statements shouldnt be so shocking. The problem is that those who should administer justice to Broadhead and Nifong just arent sure how to do it without upsetting the power base that these guys have no matter how pathetic that base is.

The President of the Duke Alumni association needs to organize a mass organization of no alumni gifts until Broadhead is replaced. Money trumps everything and surely there are some Duke graduates out there with real power who hate what is happening to their school.

Anonymous said...

I read the Broadhead statement before coming here, and my own reaction was immediately echoed by KC.

I actually think Broadhead gets it, lately, at least, but is too afraid of his own faculty and other consequences (see below) to say so more directly.

The marvel in this story is how difficult it seems to be for many intelligent folks to admit they were wrong (or just how long it's taken them). I was wrong/unfair in my assumptions based on the early press, etc. (I'm a NY Times reader, so cut me some slack.) The story did play right into an anti-jock bias, more relevant in my case than any racial element. But it didn't take too much to open my eyes.

I don't have any public statements to retract, but I wouldn't really begrudge those who were "misled" whether by their own prejudices--and we all have them--or by a naive faith in law-enforcement ("the D.A. must have something").

I do have one insight/conjecture to offer about the lack of willingess to admit mistakes (especially on an institutional level). I blame (in no small part) the lawyers and general litigiousness.

Rare indeed is the counsel who advises a client to cede any ground in a dispute. I believe this mentality seeps deeply into institutional statements such as Broadhead's. The first task to admit no wrong and weather the storm, for fear of giving one's adversaries ammo.

It's a poisonous mindset (on both sides). Apologies sincerely offered should be usually be graciously accepted, especially since there was third-party (i.e. Nifong) wrongdoing here. That's where the scandal lies. As appalling as some of the Duke faculty behavior may be, that damage could still be repaired with a real look inward.

Anonymous said...

I believe that one of the reasons President Brodhead’s statement had the shape it did is associated with the avalanche of race-hate directed to a large number of Afro-American faculty members, from outside the university. This has been over the top, in terms of threats, statements about the personal and family lives of those faculty members, and all manner of sociopathic rantings. Duke is still in North Carolina. A number of people posting here have called out other posters for racist stuff, but it persists even here, in a posting forum. The faculty are faculty who live in or near Durham, not politicians, not murderers. No matter how much you disagree with them, no matter how much their staements offend you, there is a difference between saying “You talk nonsense” and saying “I’ll kill you and your children.”

Anonymous said...

I agree that this reminds me of Rathergate. Everybody knew Rather was lying and he was wrong but he refused to give in. Anyway, Rather still have his followers who admire him (no doubt, Curtis, Brodhead and Gang of 88 among them).

Anonymous said...

The president of the Duke Alumni Association was very carefully selected. He take his orders from Brodhead. Don't expect anything from him.

Anonymous said...

4:11P is a Duke administrative troll.

Show any of us, one single piece of email to any Duke faculty member that threatens violence against them or their family.

Put up or shut up, troll.

Anonymous said...

I think the 3 players would gladly swap their so-called "victim status" with Karla.

-Brodead's gone over the edge

james conrad said...

RE:3:42 lol, dead funny

Anonymous said...

Brodhead's conviction that the players "were presumed innocent" has the sincerity of the Surgeon General's warning on a pack of Camel non-Filters.


Anonymous said...

Excellent comment by Bill Anderson. The discovery process is going to expose even further what we already know, a significant part of Duke's faculty is extraordinarily hostile to the majority of its students. I don't think Duke is unique in this regard, however most people were most likely unaware of this dynamic.

As far as the statement by Brodhead I don't think any attention should be paid. Every statement made by Duke for the next few years will be guided by only one prinicple, mitigate the damages in the civil suits that are going to be filed. Brodhead will not give anything that could remotely be categorized as an admission of wrongdoing because of the liability issue.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead's letter is far too long, and it's rambling and whiny. This from an English professor? I agree with those who suspect that this is basically a draft of what he's going to be saying to the Board of Trustees as they think about how to proceed. This "social disaster" has been taking place on his watch.

John Bruce

Anonymous said...

Anon at 4:11 pm sez:

A number of people posting here have called out other posters for racist stuff, but it persists even here, in a posting forum. The faculty are faculty who live in or near Durham, not politicians, not murderers. No matter how much you disagree with them, no matter how much their staements offend you, there is a difference between saying “You talk nonsense” and saying “I’ll kill you and your children.”

Would you care to point out which posters have said anything remotely like that, or are you just lying?

Anonymous said...

If black Duke professors have gotten death threats, that is terrible. I haven't seen any proof of this, or any proof that they received racist threats. Nor am I sure that Duke's location in North Carolina automatically means Duke exists amid a sea of white racists.

The most racist statements I have seen in this case have come from blacks, not whites.

Anonymous said...

A poster with the name "Debrah" is the chief offender with her race-baiting comments. I actually called her out a few times last week.

Anonymous said...

I definitely recommend staying away from any member of the Gang of 88 if you have to write threatening emails or even emails that smack of threats. I do have dialogue going with one, and it is a friendly back-and-forth with some positive results.

I do not want to give anyone on the Duke faculty any ammunition. It is important to keep the high ground. Granted, the readers of this page know how angry some of them have made me and I will not make excuses for them, but I will not give them "bulletin board" material, either.

Anonymous said...

4:11 PM,

You and Brodhead have a full deck of race cards, don't you?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous professor at 3:54, I was the anonymous poster who, at 3:11, made a comment about Brodhead commenting about the race of some of the group of 88. I still don't get the relevance of Brodhead interjecting race into his statement. What was the point of indicating that some of the people who are getting flack over the listening statement are black? Seriously. What's the point?

Anonymous said...

I have to agree, surely if anyone sent an email to any professor, police officer or anyone in this case saying "I will kill you and your children" it would have been forwarded to police and investigated.

I've heard of no such investigations so I have to believe these threats are as imaginary as the victim's gang rape by the lacrosse players was.

AMac said...

non-lawyer/retired professor 3:54pm --

An anonymous comment like "all blacks are stupid and immoral" might be left by somebody steeped in race hatred.

It might also be the work of a pro-Nifong partisan hoping to discredit Prof. Johnson by painting his readership as racist.

Or, it could be bait left by an internet Troll--somebody who enjoys stiring up trouble for trouble's sake.

There's really no way to tell. To respond to the offensive remark is to participate in hijacking the discussion away from the subject of its parent post. So, most people roll their eyes at this juvenile nonsense, and ignore such contributions.

Although this is the best strategy that listserv and blog contributors have come up with, it has a downside: unsophisticated readers may mistake scornful silence for approval.

Pres. Brodhead: as a regular reader of D-i-W, I strongly disapprove of the instances of hateful and race-baiting speech that appear in these comments from time to time. I hope you now understand why such poor-quality speech has not earned my constant devotion. You could safely assume that other readers of good faith feel more-or-less the same way.

Anonymous said...

The ONLY way forward for Duke is for Brodhead to resign and stop digging a deeper hole for himself.

Duke requires a new broom to sweep away all that radical trash that has taken Duke to the top of the media circus!

Every time Brodhead writes he places another nail in the coffin of Duke as a University.

For Heavens Sake ...GO !

Anonymous said...

Show any of us, one single piece of email to any Duke faculty member that threatens violence against them or their family.

No need for proof. White males are guilty anyway, by definition. Therefore, pseudo-science profs have been attacked. Case closed.

Anonymous said...

To Bill Anderson:

Rather than insult the G88, I recommend people simply forward some of Houston Baker's emails to the Vanderbilt board of trustees and to members of his own VU department.

Those who are interested in a more long-term project might want to put the work of several AAAS profs through plagiarism software.

They will find interesting results.

Also recommended is reviewing the productivity of G88 faculty with their department chairs.

For the G88 who are themselves department chairs, their productivity can be reviewed with Peter Lange, the Provost.

Consider yourselves as external reviewers.

And be fair. I don't want to hear that Lange had to change your grades due to a calculation error.

Anonymous said...

Wonder how the Group of 88 would like to have their photos posted on campus, like what happened to the lacrosse team. "WANTED: For rush to judgement and discrimination."

Or, publish a little booklet or leaflet with all of their names, the history of what they did, and then suggest that no one take their courses. Hand it out, especially to orientation groups of new students.

Anonymous said...

to amac at 428 from the non-lawyer/retired professor: Thanks for your comments. I know about the trolls. And you and I seem to agree that we should not pander to racists on this blog. And ignoring them at times might be the best solution. But occasionally it needs to be said on this blog that the great majority of readers on this blog do not condone or support any kind of racist commentary. As Bill Anderson recently wrote, let's take the high ground (my paraphrasing of Bill's comment).

Anonymous said...

I didn't think Brodhead could do anything that would make my opinion of him as a cluless, spineless weasel go down even further. Obviously, I was wrong! Who in the world can be advising this man?

Anonymous said...

KC said: "I would like to think that most University presidents would have read with deep shame pages 16 through 18 of the defense change-of-venue motion. To my knowledge, these pages represented a first in the history of modern American criminal law: the behavior and statements of an institution’s faculty were cited as one of the principal reasons for which students of that institution could not receive a fair trial."

This is so important and cuts to the center of Brodheads inability or unwilingness to take a shred of responsibility for his own or Duke's behavior. Thank you KC for pointing this out. This nails it.

Anonymous said...

Does any Duke student group publish a course guide, giving the history and viewpoint of professors -- especially the most egregious? The Dartmouth Review at Dartmouth has such a guide on line (most, I think, are done as fundraisers and therefore are unfortunately not online).

That a prof is/was a member of the Group of 88 would certainly be relevant information.

For that matter, has anyone gone to and looked up members of the 88?

This would, it seems to me, be far less destructive than the students who published WANTED posters on the lax members.

John Bruce

Anonymous said...

All of a sudden certain faculty are tongue-tied and have asked for Brodhead's intercession to fend off the troublesome bloggers. Give me a break.
We need to understand whether or not the majority of duke's faculty support the positions of Davidson, Holloway, Cole, et al. Can't they speak for themselves?

Anonymous said...

The reason Brodhead brings up the “attacks” on the black profs is an attempt to call anyone who attacks them “racists”. Anytime the radical left gets attacked, they trot out the same tired “ist” slogans: Racist, Sexist, etc.

It’s boring and clich├ęd, but it’s all they have because their own warped views cannot stand on their own.

I cannot imagine how they’ll react if they get sued. If any, including Brodhead, have to sit in a meeting room getting deposed, they’ll be like dear caught in the headlights. If the plaintiffs are lucky, one of these loons will go off on one of their “racist. sexist” rants in the deposition, and it’ll all become public record.

Oh! The rich white alumni will just love that.

Anonymous said...

"deer" caught in a headlight...

Anonymous said...

1. Would you want your son/daughter to attend a University where, if accused of a crime, might be crucified by their own professors. Me thinks NOT
2. Would you want your son/daughter to be presumed innocent, treated fairly, and respected in any criminal complaint, Me thinks YES.

I mean come on, how hard would it be to say, as a collective group, that we understand the charges to be serious and appalling, however, we also believe in the due process of the legal system, and until the facts of the case are known, the young men should be considered innocent as all accused of a crime in this country are.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what PR problen it will be for DUke, when 1. The charges are dropped or dismissed, and then 2. The 2 players invited back decline to return, citing (publicly) the inability to receive a fair education becasue of the 88 idiots.It will be the prelude to the lawsuit, one of the lawyers will explain the reasoning for the men not returning to Duke. The 88's statements and actions will be then in the mainstream media (MSM) and the negative publicity for Duke will be incredible. If I were Mr. Dumbhead, I would be asking that group of 88 to write a nice, apologetic retraction letter and get the boys back.

Anonymous said...

For a discussion of the importance (or from his perspective the uninmportance) of the Group of 88's statement see this blog entry:

KC and the blogger (an ex-Duke professor of geology) have an interesting exchange of views on the significance of the statement.

As far as the overall importance of the statement to the case, I agree with the ex-prof. I am not one who thinks it did anything to help Nifong. But regarding the issue of campus culture and mutual respect, it stands out.

If Pres. Brodhead wants to write Avuncular Letter II, he needs to go back to his desk.

(For the text of the famous "Avuncular Letter" from Terry Sanford to Duke students regarding obscenities at basketball games, see this link:
Or try Googling Duke avuncular letter.)

Anonymous said...

As someone who has followed this case with an increasing interest as the machinations of the principals are revealed, its obvious to me that this is a 'disaster' for Duke University. Even if you accept the most charitable characterization of events laid out by KC, President Brodhead and the more militant G88 members' have broken the faith between themselves and their OWN students. Healing from this point forward is going to be difficult and there may be some point in Brodhead staying in office to absorb the many legal bullets that are sure to be aimed and fired at Duke, rather than injure any future successor, but surely, even Brodhead must see that to fully heal the institution his resignation is going to be required. I can't fathom a circumstance (short of a court conviction of the 3 students) in which the Alumni won't demand it.

Anonymous said...

To 4:49

Yeah “dear” should have been “deer”.

I had just finished reading “A Neo Marxist Critique of Modern Sexist Attitudes Within the Oblique Structural Balance of White Male Self Awareness”, written by a prominent Women’s Studies scholar. I was so overwhelmed by the brilliance in this 15,000 word treatise (most of which was unintelligible to me), that I forgot basic spelling.

Anonymous 4:45

Anonymous said...

Yes, Nifong and Brodhead to lead the healing process. Maybe add the Gang88 there as well. How about adding Gottlieb as well. Why not adding Al Sharpton & New Black Panthers?

That's the way to go in Durham!

Anonymous said...

To the Duke09parent,
I am sorry, but I side with KC on this one. refering to anonymous 4:52 notes that no parent would want their child publicly scorned by their own professor. I realize the Gang of 88 want to think they were trying to make a general social statement, but they went too far, and publicly accused their own students, and implied they had clearly done something wrong (and I don't mean just drinking and partying). To me, it is this behavior that is appalling.

Anonymous said...

"The Campus Culture Initiative, begun last year and due to report this spring, is not a referendum on the party last March. It is an effort to visualize the best community we could make for students to grow and learn in, a community of mutual respect and vibrant mutual engagement."

Did he really just try to say that?


Jamie said...

Decent ol' Brodhead sincerely believes that in handling this mess he was guided by the principle that "our players had to be presumed innocent"?!! No, actually, he doesn't. Brodhead knows full well that early on he was guided by the principle that he had to try to get out ahead of a PR disaster... and right now Brodhead is guided by the principle that he has, somehow, to salvage his career. He's ready to distort the facts and try to rewrite history in order to do so.

Brodhead is merely a more nuanced Nifong. Both of them dream they are going to "heal" their careers by sheer bravado. Ain't gonna happen.

Had there turned out to be lots of -- check that, any -- evidence against the Duke three, Brodhead would right now be using his earlier statements and actions to prove that he (and the 88) were on this thing hard from the beginning.

This is a decent man? This is a craven, hypocritical, opportunistic liar. Duke needs to be shed of him.

Anonymous said...

Comment on Brodhead's personality:

My senior graduated from Duke last year. Following the morning Convocation ceremonies we walked out of the Duke Chapel only to see President Brodhead standing on the steps leading to the Chapel. He was doing a "meet-and-greet" with graduates and parents who wanted pictures with him. The look on his face was worth the price of admission!

I tell you now that was one frightened puppy! I looked at his eyes (truly the window to the soul) as they darted back and forth across the robed graduates and proud parents. He stood there no more than 5-10 mins max and WAS GONE! I actually was going to take it as an opportynity to go and let him know how happy I was that he (someone?) had decided to ban the press / MSM from the ceremonies.

I really felt sorry for him; he really has zero confidence in himself. I know I can't believe I said that........

Anonymous said...

To 5:11,

I agree with KC that it was grossy inappropriate for those faculty members to sign such a statement. He said it was unprecedented and I'll take his word for that. It was certainly destructive of an attitude of mutual respect that should exist on a college campus, even in the midst of controversy.

The part that I did agree with was the view that the statement had little effect on the progress of the prosecution. I understand that KC and many others disagree.

Anonymous said...

I disagree that Brodhead has no confidence. He has to be in the spotlight for 3-1/2 hours according to the "Duke Conversation" invite I received today.

But then being confident and right are two different things.

Anonymous said...

4:45 wrote: "... I forgot basic spelling."

The other day, on the Duke Chronicle board, one of Brodhead's supporters posted a rant about "the dumming down" of Duke by student atheletes.

The word, of course, is "dumbing."

I figure it was a Gang of 88 faculty member.

kcjohnson9 said...

To Duke '09:

My take on the G-88 statement's effect has been less on Nifong per se than on the fluid legal and political environment in Durham. But, there's no way to prove (or disprove) this theory. If the primary hadn't been so close, the statement probably wouldn't have had that effect.

On campus, I agree, the statement is enormous--and that not one has apologized, or retracted, or issued anything near as strong a condemnation of Nifong is amazing.

Re the occasional racist comments on the thread. I try to delete them, but can't monitor the thread at all times. If you see one, email me. I strongly disapprove of anything that approximates racist attacks--and even more so in a case like this one, where there are so many fruitful, legitimate grounds of controversy.

Anonymous said...

To 5:28 -- The other word, of course, is "athletes."


Cowardice and lies continue to come out of Duke's Administrative office. This is hardly a surprise, but I had hoped, given recent revelations about the case, that Brodhead and company might take the high road. Instead they have elected to rewrite history. I wonder how many attorneys had a hand in Brodhead’s most recent attempt at fiction. Funny how a snake still has the same markings even after shedding its skin.

So Brodhead has passed up another chance to do the right thing. Too bad, but at least he still has the support of the Group of 88 and especially those of African descent. Help me here; are African American faculty members some how different from their non African American faculty counterparts? Brodhead certainly seems to think so. Or is it that they are more vocal and fragile and in need of special Presidential attention. I have friends of all colors and persuasions and would have to make an effort to give their differences a second thought. Good people are good people; bad people are bad; enlightened are enlightened and misguided are misguided. Brodhead some how thinks that his African American Faculty needs special protection from the nasty bloggers, who by the way, have gone out of their way to report the facts. As someone earlier said so well, "Shame on us for quoting you." President Brodhead (in the event you are reading this), you need to come down from your elitist ivory tower and see people as people based on what's inside, not the color of their skin. If you treated me the same way, I would view it as patronizing and condescending.

Now with respect to the cowardice and recreation of history (i.e., lying) issues, I am afraid you are beyond help on these scores. Nevertheless, even now it is not too late to do what’s right. What is that you ask? Well you can start out with admonishing the 88 and any other group that is guilty of promoting their personal social agendas at the expense of innocent people. Secondly (perhaps this should be first), you can accept the fact that you rushed to judgment, seeing the facts of the case early on through glasses tinted with your own personal and professional prejudices. You presumed the boys were guilty right from the beginning; this despite their visiting with you in your office and divulging all the details of that night a few days after the party. You knew the facts even before the Durham police, but chose to ignore them. You know this and we know this. You will have to live with it and no amount of historical revisionism will change things. Taking responsibility for one’s actions is a major hallmark of a man, finding someone else to blame is a major characteristic of animals that crawl on their bellies.

Think about it President Brodhead, there is still time to do the right thing.

Anonymous said...

To 5:32. What can I say? I spell better than I type. My biggest problem is "the" which usually comes out "teh."

I suppose the moral of the story is proof, then post.

Anonymous said...

The most disappointing aspect of Brodhead's behavior, to me, was his failure to assume moral leadership of the university for fear of short term losses. The repeated concessions to the figurative mob he made through his policies of appeasement reminded me a lot of Neville Chamberlain.

Brodhead treated Duke more like a corporation than a place of higher education. It is true that a lot of what Duke does is a business (athletics, education, research,...) Had Brodhead strongly insisted on due process early on, there is no doubt in my mind that Duke would have taken a hit. After all, the original storyline was too juicy to be altered by someone representing Duke. Worse, if the players had turned out to be guilty, Duke would have been further slandered for forming a "blue wall of silence". However, there is something to be said for standing for truth and justice regardless of how it may affect one's popularity. We expect corporations to count their beans and make decisions based on perception. We expect politicians to sway like reeds whichever way the wind blows, but not universities. We expect moral leadership from our leaders. I'm sure what Brodhead has done is the best for the bottom-line. After all, not many people are going to look back at his past statements in detail; even fewer will ever know or care about The 88. Revisionism is strongly reviled not only because it is evil, but because it is so effective. Brodhead, I believe, did attempt to minimize the theoretically *possible* maximum damage to business side of the university and its reputation in the eyes of the ill-informed majority.

However, does this mean the Brodhead was/is justified in defending The 88? Of course not. Education might have become a business, but business is still far from the number one goal of education. To abandon honor owed to the students (or for that matter, any other member of the Duke community) to flee at the first sign of fire is unbecoming of an educator. When I expect my university to be great, I speak not of being highly rated by others (though it's a nice perk that some of us are addicted to), but of being great in its mission to seek truth and educate whether anyone else recognizes it or not. Brodhead has failed in this regard, and for that, this Duke alum awaits the end of his tenure at my alma mater.

Michael said...

5:02 duke09parent

Could you post the rest of that link. I went to that site but couldn't find the conversation with KC.

Anonymous said...

All that needed to be said...thanks 4:52;

I mean come on, how hard would it be to say, as a collective group, that we understand the charges to be serious and appalling, however, we also believe in the due process of the legal system, and until the facts of the case are known, the young men should be considered innocent as all accused of a crime in this country are.

I have never understood in the early days of the case why the DA, DUKE Admin & G88, and MSM didn't take this position. But decisions were made to be seen as doers and savours by rushing to judgement.

I was frankly saddened to read Broadhead's letter, I expected more leadership and responsibility in the letter.

His "way forward" plan with The Campus Culture Initiative appears to be soft cover for what a university president should have had ongoing since he/she arrived.
You don't need a commission to be a leader.

The potbangers certainly exposed the fact that for whatever reason the Duke leadership had not been true ambassidors with the city of Durham. And the DA, well exposed more than anyone could have imagined.

BB (Before Broadhead)Duke had been a great institution with tremendous resources for both the university community and the city of Durham.

Duke and Durham need leaders. Is receivership for both in the future?

Michael said...

The Economics dept continues to look better and better. For those in other departments that read here, what's holding you back?


To bsi

Your comparison to Neville Chamberlain is an excellent anology. He, like Brodhead, caused untold damage with his short term outlook, pandering and appeasement. Unfortunately, the Nazi’s had their own agenda and used Chamberlain’s weakness to further their European objectives. I wonder if the group of 88 likes the analogy?

Anonymous said...

The parellels to Rathergate are stark:

Rather said:

- because of the seriousness of the charges they had to act before waiting for validation.

-"and that even if the documents are false, that the underlying story is true."

-" I find we have been misled on the key question"- blamed an outside party of misleading them instead of accepting their own accountability.

-Characterises any Internet criticsm as "attacks".

- Insisting it is an internal matter and that there is no need for an outside investigation. It finally took Dick Thornburg to investigate what Rather and his producers were covering up and it wasnt pretty.

-Curtis will serve as Mary Mapes and Davidson as Betsy West and Hummel is equally pathetic Bill Burkett in this drama.

I dont think Brodhead has the privilege of issuing too many more Letters from the President before he gets to spend more time with the family. Like Rather he is unable to accept the facts of the situation or his own organization's failures. Like Rather he will wander around claiming to whoever willstill interview him that there was inappropriate and unacceptable behavior, never realizing it was his.

Anonymous said...

KC and amac -- Me again, the 3:10 guy. I appreciate the situation you're in with racist comments, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were posted by someone in Nifong's dwindling band of supporters. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but that sort of thing is entirely possible.

To answer other comments -- No, I'm not employed by Duke in any capacity. I'm an alum. And this is my first post since 3:10, so apparently, at least one other person feels the same way I do.

I'd love to see KC have an honest discussion with someone over the Group of 88. I agree they misstepped. They overdramatized racial issues at Duke. And while they did not directly address the accused students (a point many commenters here -- and even the Time magazine writer -- don't seem to realize), they contributed to a nasty atmosphere. But that's it.

And KC's comments about them are also contributing to an incendiary atmosphere, though I will stress that what they're going through **is not anything like the pain the three accused men have endured**.

Anonymous said...

Instead of going all over the country doing "conversations," Brodhead needs to schedule an all-faculty and administration day long seminar about F.E.R.P.A. requirements, the Faculty Handbook, and "the kid business." Many faculty members could be excused, but not the 88 and their ilk.

Anonymous said...

Holy macaroni! KC your analytically devilish. Keep sticking their noses in it. This case has crumbled like a house infested with termites.

If Brodhead came out the other way and blasted the group of 88 do you think there might have been a potential "academic coup d'etat."

RM PAM - Crack that code yet?

Anonymous said...

3:10P- Why you think your failed PR campaign does anything but digger Brodhead a deeper hole is mystifying.

The G88 statement was designed to be seen as a "collective stake through the heart of the lacrosse team" by its Author. In the words of its Author.

It was an attempt to convict in the court of PC public opinion.

It was written by the same group as the wanted poster.

It was an attempt to race-bait and as such was the very heart of the Hoax.

The G88 were the same as the pot-bangers. And the same people who encouraged the Durham police to violate the civil rights of Duke students.

The G88 created the hoax. Nifong just went along for the ride.

To claim otherwise is disinformation.

You have lost this particular propaganda campaign of yours.

I suggest you take up another cause. This one is lost.

Anonymous said...

The Duke administration and the Duke 88 suffer from the same holier than thou, smarter than everybody else attitude. This inhibits their ability to admit that they have made a bad mistake.

They intentionally affected the defendants' rights to a fair trial. Even if the defendants' were guilty, the Duke 88's incitement was wrong.

Like Nifong, the Duke administration and the Duke 88 are in quicksand. Every time they try to defend their egregious behavior, they get in deeper.

The difference between Nifong and the Duke 88 is that the court can punish conspiracies to bury evidence and lies to the court while there is nothing to be done about irresponsible people acting irresponsibly at a university. Maybe that is as it should be. The tenured professors will be fine, but Duke is taking a body blow.

In response to 3:10, I am reading the Duke 88 advertisement exactly as it was written. The Duke 88 motto should be FOR EVERY WRONG, THERE IS A RATIONALIZATION!

Anonymous said...

This is also a huge scandal for the democratic party. All the bad people involved people are democrats. Nifong, Brodhead, Gov Easley, NAACP, Black Panthers, Gang 88 etc.

Had this been other way around, consisting only republicans this would have been front page news on New York al-Times and CBS "News". Dan Rather would be back in business as a special reporter on 60 minutes.

This case also shows a massive (but expected) failure on drive by media. No wonder NYT circulation and CBS News audience has plummeted dramatically.

Anonymous said...

We are seeing the continued Balkanization of the college campus. Different groups draw the lines, and then people go after each other. For the most part, there is an understood treaty, in that the different factions know that they cannot engage in Mutually Assured Destruction.

However, and especially for the hard left, there are situations in which they are tempted to run to the barricades. For the most part, the guns are trained on those things "outside" the university campus, like Republican politicians, corporate executives, and the like. They can demonize these people, and generally they can do so in relative safety.

What we saw at Duke, however, was a faculty-led hatefest aimed at a specific group of students. This was much different than the "Hi, ho, hi, ho, the patriarchy must go!" that my wife chanted when she was at the University of Georgia a while back. (She is an adult now, and does not act that way, anymore.)

Instead, this was a series of demonstrations in which real students were called rapists and had to run a very nasty gauntlet just to go to class. They were condemned in about every quarter, even though on the face of it the story seemed pretty fantastic, even at the start.

There were no brakes placed upon the faculty members, who apparently live in seething hatred of many students on campus. Brodhead would not have been able to curb everything, but a strong statement from Duke on what was acceptable and what was unacceptable with faculty behavior would have been in order.

This did not happen, obviously, and Duke will pay a very heavy price for that. People do not realize just how anti-social and anti-civilization the campus hard left really is. These are destructive people.

Now, not all of the 88 signees were in this category, but enough of them were to make it almost impossible for any group at Duke to change directions. Some apologies are in order, but they are not going to come from the people who most need to apologize.

While Houston Baker no longer is at Duke, the tone of his posted emails tells me that many Duke faculty members not only are NOT apologetic, but they are defiant in their insistence that Reade, Collin, and David actually are rapists. It is a lie, but much of what the hard left does is a lie. Indeed, we are seeing a true MAD moment.

Anonymous said...


Sorry for the link problem. I had some trouble tracking back. The site is

The particular exchange followed his essay on November 25, 2006. If you go to that website, click on the archive link for 2006 and scroll down to the date.

He has various interesting perspectives. A recent one:

"Duke is suffering a drop in public esteem largely because they have failed according to the new rules of academia. They failed to protect and serve its customers."

Another essay said he found the culture to be about 1/3 debauchery and 2/3 great kids. He also characterized the social atmosphere as work lite/party hard. He thought the academic requirements were pretty light. That doesn't seem to be my son's experience and while he's not genius, he's pretty bright and has had to work pretty hard in his 3 semesters so far. I suspect it's pretty hard to flunk out, but also hard to excel. Not much different than my experience at an Ivy 30 years ago.

One of his other posts says Baker was chased off by the negative reactions to his letter and he sympathizes with Baker. If someone has a credible source saying Baker had his Vandy offer before dropping his stinkbomb, send it to the guy.

Anonymous said...


I call TOTAL BULL SHIT on your post. Show or NAME one threat or post aimed at the AA staff.

This is Yankee nonsense, and I will not put up with it.

I will match every white racist comment you come up with, with 10 Black Panther kill whitey statements.

NOT ACCEPTABLE by any means and I repeat TOTAL BULLSHIT.



Anonymous said...

KC and fellow readers/commentors
First,it's hard to know(approaching impossible) whether someone making racial statements here is trying for secondary gain or speaking their feelings.I agree;they shold be ignored.But I want to talk about one of the most bothersome aspects of the hoax.It's been obvious for months this was a fake charge,but certain groups(88 et al?) would rather have had 3 innocent young men imprisoned than to challenge the story of someone considered "one of their own".All of the hyperbole and obfuscation-"they hired a STRIPPER" arer to avoid the above issue.It's a very sad and telling attitude.

Anonymous said...

Oh, sorry about my last post, I snapped. Trolls will do that to you sometimes.

It is going to be over soon and the trolls will have nothing to say.

Take a deep breath, that's it, now a cooling beverage,

Anonymous said...

To 6:14

You said: “and while they did not directly address the accused students (a point many commenters here -- and even the Time magazine writer -- don't seem to realize).

They could not have addressed the accused because the ad was placed well before any indictment.

So no, KC, Time, and the commenters here did not miss that point.

Anonymous said...

As some commenter pointed out, Brodhead is supposed to be educated and an educator.

Is it possible to have an "underlying cause" for something that did not happen? Of course, it is obvious that "something" happened in Durham last spring, but it is far from clear what that something was. If there is to be an examination of the "underlying causes," there first must be an identification of what exactly was caused. Is it incompetence or malice that caused Brodhead to pass by in silence what is to be explained.

A cynic might say that this is Brodhead's way to pretend respect for due process and the presumption of innocence while reasserting as subtext a claim these young men were guilty of something more than bad taste.
The charitable interpretation is that Brodhead's prose is the result of repeated over-indulgence in post-structuralism and LumpenMarxism.


Anonymous said...

Like the Times article and the 4.l1 post.

It all stinks of desperation from the defeated Nifong enablers who continue to stir the race pot with left wing radical nonsense as a smoke screen from the truth .

The boys did not do a thing and the prostitute is a LIAR.

Anonymous said...

I want to second everything BA just said.

The hard left are some of the most cavalierly malicious and most immature and self-involved people you will ever encounter.

From my experience, the worst of the G88 are Houston Baker, Lee Baker (no relation), Tim Tyson-an hononary G88, William Chafe and Anne Allison.

They are normally irrevelant to anything in the real world but in this case they had a very real detrimental impact on people's lives.

This may seem like hyperbole. Unless you have had actual real-world contact with the actions of these cowardly thugs.

The Duke Lacrosse team certainly now knows from experience.


Anonymous said...

WOW, when is the mini-series going to be on TV?
- Stripers
- Pot-bangers
- Corrupt DA
- Corrupt police
- Racism
- Sexism
- Elitism
- Leftist faculty
- College kids (on both sides) with no common sense
- Jumping to conclusions
- "Castration"
- Hiding evidence
- The national media
- 88 goofballs calling for a lynching
- Political shenanigans
- A college president with no backbone
- No due-process

The above is meant as satire, but all those attirbutes will be what Durham/Duke is remembered for when all is said and done. And all because a bunch of goofy college kids hired a goofy stripper who told a goofy lie to stay out of trouble herself, that was fanned by a corrupt DA seeking election, that riled up a bunch of leftist college professors, who drew even more media attention to the case that it deserved. Have I summed everything up correctly??
No doubt the charges need to be dropped. Nifong needs to be in jail. The lax players have learned a VALUABLE lesson about messing with leftist political college profs. Too bad the profs and pot-bangers are beyond reason.

AMac said...

ABC columnist Ben Mankiewicz offers the 1/8/07 version of we-can't-know-what-happened.

"Nor does anyone else [know what happened in the case], save the lacrosse players or the strip…er, exotic dancer, though they appear to disagree. Was it rape? Did she lie? Was there another kind of assault? Is she looking for attention?

"Don't know. Can't possibly know...

"But conservatives emboldened by Duke case prosecutor Mike Nifong's apparent ethical lapses should not deny one aspect of the case that rings resoundingly true: There almost certainly were racial taunts that night."

Anonymous said...

Son just left to return for his LAST semester. Students seem calm, they have known the boys were innocent since April. They just want to beat UNC and graduate with a degree that won't be a joke, after $160K, I do too.

Tick, Tock the clock is moving, Nifungu is TOAST!! Just days now!


Anonymous said...

I must say I really dislike this letter. If only Brodhead expressed as much concern for the indicted students as he did for the faculty. Why should Collin and Reade return to Duke?

Anonymous said...


And those racial tauts where
"Heh, whitey, with your little dick!"
quote Kim.

Anonymous said...

It seems as if, over time, KC has become engaged in a sisyphean struggle to cast every player who has evidenced any degree of intellectual and moral cowardice in this sorted affair as the epitome of evil.

It is not all black and white – not everyone who faltered need be relegated to Hades

Anonymous said...

I think KC is correct to support Brodhead's current position.

It must be obvious that Brodhead is now in the position of a contortionist; he is now effectively saying that the evidence against the LAX players is so weak, they can come back to college even with a serious felony prosecution proceeding against them. He cannot square this position with his previous behaviour and comment, and the group of 88's ad. The logic of his current stance will force him to accept that some of his previous decisions were not wise ("poor me! I believed the DA!").

As has been pointed out, brodhead is humanities, and many of his colleagues will be part of the 88, and may well have spoken extensively with him (perhaps even prior to placing the ad?). Brodhead's defence of his humanities constituency may be an attempt to shore up support for the inevitable barrage of criticism that is unleashed when the LAX players are acquitted. Brodhead's comments, and behaviour, are a clear record, and will be very difficult to justify in the cold light of the facts.


Anonymous said...

Hey, Anon 7:10pm

It seems as if, over time, KC has become engaged in a sisyphean struggle to cast every player who has evidenced any degree of intellectual and moral cowardice in this sorted affair as the epitome of evil.

It is not all black and white – not everyone who faltered need be relegated to Hades

Your use of big words would be even more impressive if you could spell words like sordid correctly.

Daddyx4 said...

Love your work, KC. Facts are painful and the immense drop in early admissions applications and donations are the direct consequence of the fact that Prez B has allowed and empowered the G88 to continue with their ridiculous actions/inactions unabated. If you make your own bed...

On another note - I received the following recently and wondered if anyone has any idea which co-conspirators are coming:

We hope you can join President Richard Brodhead at Duke's new public event series, A Duke Conversation: "Making a Difference." The event is taking place on Thursday, February 8, 6:00 p.m. at the North Carolina Blumenthal Performing Arts Center, Booth Playhouse, located at 130 North Tryon Street in Charlotte.

The event features President Brodhead, as well as Duke students and faculty, and promises to be an exciting evening as we explore the many ways that Duke is making a positive difference in people's lives, both at home and around the world.

For more on the event and to register on-line, please visit
You can also register by calling (919) 681-1940.

We hope to see you there.

Anonymous said...


Do you really doubt that the members of the G88, whose email addresses were posted on FODU, did not receive hate mail from those, say, less-then-eloquent individuals incensed by their behavior (as brought to light by KC)?

I find it completely plausable that those among us with less control may have used the anonymous nature of the internet to vent their furustrations.

Perhaps 4:11 is not so far off base.


Anonymous said...

7:16 Which big words where those??

Sorry -- physics guy wihtuot a sepll chcekr...

Anonymous said...

"Is it possible to have an "underlying cause" for something that did not happen? "

HA! so true.

And as was noted on LieStoppers
"As perceptions of the story changed..."
also doesnt make sense. The facts have always been the same, there were just less known. In as much as certain people have preconceptions, I dont think any of those have changed.

Is poor single mother black stripper lies, rich white helment sport athletes innocent a truth that can be 'perceived' by some people? Appearently its like the Mosquito Ringtone- some aging radicals just cant detect what's right in front of them.

Anonymous said...

It appears that the only way to expose the dirty truth and memorialize it for all to see, in decades to come, is through a civil federal lawsuit forcing full discovery of everything that the group of 88 and Brodhead wrote. KC has brilliantly pointed out that Duke is running from the truth, but the only way to make Duke face the truth is through a legal discovery process and huge monetary damages. Since Duke refuses to conduct an internal institutional review, it's time for the Federal Court to conduct one for them.

Anonymous said...

We hope you can join President Richard Brodhead at Duke's new public event series, A Duke Conversation: "Making a Difference." The event is taking place on Thursday, February 8, 6:00 p.m. at the North Carolina Blumenthal Performing Arts Center, Booth Playhouse, located at 130 North Tryon Street in Charlotte.

That might be a little too close to the Feb 5 hearing for comfort, or does Duke expect it to be well over by then?

Anonymous said...

My quick summary of Mr. Brodhead's letter:

1) Blame Nifong
2) Blame the bloggers
3) Don't blame me or the Duke faculty who did not support the players


Not fine by me!


Anonymous said...

The Brodhead statement reeks of disappontment that the LAX are provably innocent. The scenario of privideged white jocks abusing a perfect PC victim is so delicious that he like so many others, simply cannot let go of it.
What other explanation is there for his saying that the party raised serious issues involving race and sexual violence? In point of fact, the party itself raised none of those issues because it was boring and uneventful. The FA plus M.Nifong plus the pot bangers forced such issues artificially into the public realm. The LAX guys never touched that woman and had not even wanted AA dancers as everyone knows.
But Brodhead, like Davidson, is apparently drunk with feelings of warm affirmation from playing and replaying a fantasy version in their minds of what, for them, SHOULD have happened that night. (Their fantasy versions no doubt included bullwhips and backwoods accents) That is, for them to keep their world view intact - which can be a pretty strong motivation
Brodheads latest is obviously as far as he is capable of going in the direction of saying that hard working white male student-athletes are ever really innocent in his eyes. Which is why his continuued presence as leader a major University makes no sense at all.

Anonymous said...

Park Slope @ 4:10
It takes moral character not IQ to admit when you are wrong. The academic left deconstructed that a along time ago.

Anonymous said...

I'm with 3:10. Calm down. Broadhead's letter was thoughtful and poignant. I think your analysis of it is somewhat agenda-driven and slanted.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead is, it seems to me, and as KC and others have pointed out, trying to stay on the good side of the faculty. The last two high-profile resignations of university presidents, Ladner at American and Summers at Harvard, came not long after "no confidence" votes by the faculty, although Ladner was out no matter what the faculty would have said. What would likely result in a "no confidence" vote for Brodhead would be any type of disciplinary action against any of the 88, including Kim Curtis.

Thus will Duke likely implode.

The trustees should be getting out ahead of this and suspending Brodhead pending investigation of his handling of the situation. They should then get a 63 year old caretaker president to clean house, take the crap from the faculty, and then retire.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, 8:16, Brodhead is real good at "thoughtful" and "poignant"

It's the only gear Hamlet has got.

What he needed, unfortunately, in March '06 and now, was leadership and cojones.

How about he gives a real poignant resignation speech.

Would that satisfy you?

Anonymous said...

Duke alum: Would you hire Brodhead to mow your grass?

Duke parents: Would you hire the 88 to mow your grass?

Think hard before you answer, then ask yourself if you would hire Brodhead to run your university or the 88 to teach your kids

Anonymous said...

Liberal Arts Academia, meet the Real World. It's brutally cold out here, but there is warmth over there by the fire of 'accountability'. No, your cute little games of politics don't work well out here, sorry. Not enough BS.

Anonymous said...

I know Dick Brodhead personally. He is a fine, decent, highly intelligent person. Frankly, many of the remarks about his character and motives I have found in this thread are as ignorant and petty-minded as the most ignorant and petty-minded remarks of certain faculty in their rush to judgment of the lacrosse players. He has badly mishandled a mess not of his own making, thus making it his own, and he will probably pay for his blunders with his job. But the trustees who over two decades have acquiesced in the creation of an academic theme park appended to a medical complex are most unlikely to choose a replacement more to your liking.

Anonymous said...

John Bruce makes a good point, Where are the Duke trustees. Brodhead answers to them, why haven't they weighed in? Painful silence.

Anonymous said...

It is absurd for Brodhead to cite the 'evils" of anonomous postings in the same breadth he discusses the civil abuse of his students.

Get real Dick

Anonymous said...

what is so wrong with asking why wahneema lubiano is permitted to remain on the distinguished faculty of duke without publishing? how many white professors have such a paucity of publications as lubiano?

what other departments of traditional study (english, history, classics, chemistry, biology etc.) have such a low record of publications like the AAS dept?

Perhaps Broadhead should spend some time on that and ignore what the rants of the anonymous bloggers who have been so vile and vicious. The former he can change; the latter he cannot.


Anonymous said...

KC -- I think you're reading more into the Group of 88 statement than is actually there, and you're ignoring the rather vile comments you tend to attract.

The best criticism of the Group of 88 I've read is that Davidson and company should have realized they were indirectly empowering the folks holding up the "Castrate" banner. That's the worst of it when you look at it objectively.

That's hardly a firing offense, and it's hardly worth the vitriol being stirred up here.

Tagging Brodhead and even the Group itself to the worst of the potbangers is like tagging all Duke student-athletes to the McFadyen e-mail.

KC, for the good of your book, you might want to take a break and calm down. I think you can write something great if you'd just take a step back and look at this again.

3:10 PM

I agree with this comment.

cf said...

For years to come MBA's and pr analysts and university administrators will study the way the Administration handled this, and Brodhead will like Nifong become a urban dictionary term.And it will not be a flattering reference.

Anonymous said...

oh, and let me toot my own horn. WINDBAG called this some time ago. as the case begins to crumble, the left will throw nifong under the bus. they'll blame this on him and hope that he will suffice.

but, they want to do this quickly so that the agenda that got the boys into this won't be examined. listen and you can hear in the distance "kumbaya"; its time for healing not retribution.


Anonymous said...

"More recently, a group of Duke faculty members (including a number of African American faculty) have been widely attacked in blogs and emails - and in some cases personally attacked in highly repugnant and vicious terms - based on caricatured accounts of their statements on the lacrosse event."

Right. That's what happens when you adopt as truth a set of lies that have no relationship to the the facts of a particular night. Even if I felt sorry or badly for these people, I'd have to say that they earned every bit of the disdain they have received.

And would someone like to tell me how exactly you create a caricature of the fools who were standing there with a sign that said, "Castrate"? I cringe to think at the "race baiting" accusations that would have been throw about had someone suggested that Willie Horton should have been castrated even though he was truely a murderer and rapist.


Anonymous said...

Revenge is dish best served cold!

Anonymous said...

I know Dick Brodhead personally. He is a fine, decent, highly intelligent person. Frankly, many of the remarks about his character and motives I have found in this thread are as ignorant and petty-minded as the most ignorant and petty-minded remarks of certain faculty in their rush to judgment of the lacrosse players. He has badly mishandled a mess not of his own making

Frankly, this is a ridiculous statement. Saddam may have been a nice guy, as well (Gang88 surely thinks so) but it is the actions that count.

Brodhead's actions were despicable.

Anonymous said...

Kc, another great commentary. The saddest aspect of this case is the "good old" fall back position of race.

Why did Mr. Broadhead feel the need to mention African American Professors in this? What about everyone else? Does this mean if your anything but African American its ok to send hate mail? *shakes my head*.

This simply shows that when in doubt, pull out the race card and slap it on the table. Apparently in Durham, that card trumps Lady Justice every time.

Mr. Broadhead needs to stop digging else he will be in Bejing in no time at all...

Anonymous said...

9:15 Thank you for so quickly providing an example of the kind of intemperate and irrelevant remark I was criticizing.

What possible grounds to you have for
(a) comparing Dick Brodhead and Saddam Hussein
(b) attributing to the Group of 88 the opinion that Saddam was a "nice guy" ?


Anonymous said...

AP April 6, 2006
"Brodhead followed his decision to cancel the season by announcing a series of steps that Duke plans to address the allegations, including examining the culture of the lacrosse team and investigating the school's response to the scandal."
What is Brodhead's uneducated groupthink theory saying?

1)If 3 team members were rapists, ALL were rapists?
2)If there actually was a rape(which is obvious there wasn't) ALL must suffer by canceling the season, even though only 3 of the 47 players were ALLEGED to have committed a crime?
3)If there was a rape the Coach must also suffer? (what exactly did the coach do? Did the Coach know rape allegations would be made?)(Did the Coach encourage raping?)

Why stop there? Why didn't the whole University suffer? Why didn't Brodhead step down with the Coach? (seems to me in the groupthink world they'd be equally guilty)
Why didn't Brodhead cancel the rest of the school season?
....afterall...the University is one big community...If one member of that community is a rapist then aren't they all?

Anonymous said...

Okay, let's just assume for argument's sake that we're all white racists. What impact does that have on the following facts:

1. CGM made up her story.

2. Mike Nifong used that story to get reelected.

3. The NAACP bought into it and pushing the story.

4. Wahneema Lubiano doesn't publish.

5. Karla Holloway makes incomprehensible statements e.g. "White innocence means black guilt".

It has no bearing on these facts whatsoever.


Anonymous said...

I just saw this on the FODU discussion board. They are starting a new petition drive for the Duke Alumni:

Concerned Duke Alumni

Time to sign up.

Anonymous said...

Re: Broadhead memo
What is this ivory-tower idiot trying to say! Here we have a university president standing aside and letting 46 of his
students get railroaded by a political prostitute and a junkie hooker with a rap sheet while he preaches forbearance--
to us. And all the while he's indulging a faculty of banana-boat bigots who have been gaming the higher education system
for years. For God's sake, man, get a grip on reality. A rush to judgement is still that and nowadays--a petard is only for
hoisting yourself on.
l'enfant perdu

Anonymous said...

K.C. you have been wonderfully decent throughout the Hoax and your past and continuing contributions earn you a place beyond reproach as far as I'm concerned.

I find it curious that elements of the Administration now appear asking for restraint and a broader perspective now that is is their ass in the wringer.

I am a Duke alum, as is my wife and we are very angry. This is not over by a long shot, nor will it be until that time a fundamental reckoning takes place with the shameless enablers and promoters. Brodhead, Burness and many others should be shown the door, as they obviously haven't the decency nor sense of shame to find it themselves.

Anonymous said...

To quote (paraphrase) Dr. Hibbard on tonight's episode of The Simpsons, "The Group of 88 has given the word "MOB" a bad name."

Anonymous said...

a junkie hooker with a rap sheet ...
9:30 PM

A person who came into the house at the invitation of the lacrosse team, not Brodhead or Duke.

Anonymous said...

The statement was, in fact, a statement of (sort of) apology without any admission of wrong doing. We've all heard them, from employees, children, spouses, whomever. Anyone who reads the statement differently has a much more trusting soul than I.

If any of the faculty are actually getting threatening emails - and I mean emails that insinuate bodily harm to themselves or their loved ones -- that is not only wrong, but sad. Supporters of the Duke 3 (and - dare I say it? - the Constitution) should be better than that.

If any of the faculty are unhappy that they are being taken to task for their words and/or actions in a way that makes them feel persecuted (but not in actual fear for their physical safety) or mocked - then I can only say that the same 1st Amendment which allowed you to say what you wanted and protest what you didn't agree with - allows other people to tell you that they think you are a disingenuous agenda driven idiot.

Sometimes it stinks to be "famous".


Anonymous said...

My wife, a gad student at Duke, forwarded this note to me this afternoon. At first I was pleased then I came to the comparison of criticism of the G88 with the false charges against the three players. Every bit of goodwill that I had gathered up toward Mr. Brodhead just evaporated. How dare he!

Then as I read KC’s much more thought out dissection of the letter, I realized that we are reading Mr. Brodhead’s response through a lens that he doesn’t look through. We see the President of Duke as an educator who is there to serve the students, the faculty, the institution and community of Duke. We see this duty through the lens of outsiders to the community of which Mr. Brodhead views himself a member.

We might ask ourselves who are Mr. Brodhead’s customers? I think most of us would say: “the students.” A few might say donors, alumni, or trustees. I think very few outside the academy would say the faculty.

Yet, from within the academy, I see many faculty who themselves as the President’s customers. They view themselves as the highest point in the pecking order and the purpose of the President is to insulate them from both the students and outside world as much as possible.

Who Brodhead views as his customers is impossible to tell completely, but his actions and words speak wonders. It is obvious that his is worried about not offending his faculty. Certainly his background as an academic comes into play here. The example of Mr. Summers is also fresh in the collective memory of any college administrator.

Let us also keep in mind that Duke as a university views itself in competition with schools such as the Ivies, Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins, etc. They are just as much in the thrall of the leftist academy as Duke. Also I think Duke still has a bit of an inferiority complex in relation to these other schools. They are competitors, yes, but they are also the bar upon which Duke is held. For folks in this rarified air of academics, The New York Times is still the paper of record.

To expect Mr. Brodhead to come out and criticize the G88, is to expect the impossible. He would have to overcome the opposition of those he sees as his customers and support base. It would be to also set himself up for ridicule from those he sees as his competitors (betters, even) and judges of the social status quo. Don’t think for a minute that any serious criticism of the G88, or any serious disciplinary action to members of these privileged programs for their actions would not be met with withering replies from all of these quarters.

In this sense, this is not a “Duke” issue. This is an issue at most universities, certainly at most universities that view themselves as “elite.” This kind of prejudicial response of professors could occur at most schools. It has, in fact, occurred at many in less publicized cases.
I am sad to say that I think that many people on this board are correct. The only way the academy will be cleaned up (or Duke at least) is by forces outside the academy using the legal system to make an example of these individuals and Duke as an institution.

Anonymous said...

The Gang of 88's statement was carefully worded to effect maximum incitability, and simultaneously provide cover through Plausible Deniability in the event they are wrong.

Thank * for Highly Professional defense lawyers. The authors of the US Constitution would be proud!

They know what they did, and we know they know...

The rest is silly, except 3 men are still wrongly facing a criminal trial because of criminal acts by the DA and others.

Good people, account for yourselves!

Anonymous said...

A letter tonite to the man-of-the-hour and a few of his faculty.

Hey Prez:

Wow, Dick, you are even being compared tonite to Neville Chamberlain and Saddam by angry alums

Good things alums aren't part of the "Duke Community" according to your definition. Even _I_ think their rhetoric tonite has gotten a little hot.

Apparently they're not that fond of eye-darting weasels like yourself.

And yet, there's that troublesome word, "community".

Who belongs, who doesn't.

You belong, of course..for
the moment...

But is your "Duke community" restricted now to
grade-changing, leftist, race-gender polemicists or
does it include, for example, apologetic and apolitical geologists?

How about blog Hooligans?

Let's reread (or relisten to) Geoffrey Numberg's
wonderful commentary on the word "community".

It tells us pretty much everything we need to know about your (and Duke's) current dilemma.

I find especially apropos his discussion of the "pedophile community"

It begs that question...Are your personal friends in the G88 members in good standing of the judgemental,
non-apologizing, malicious Marxists community?

Probably, huh?

-From a long-standing member of the Nifong community

/templates/story/story.php storyId=1111612

Anonymous said...

The closest thing to a hero among the Duke administration is Provost Peter Lange. How sad is it that the hero of this piece is a man who a) urged people to hold fire and to respect due process, and b) to publicly criticize Houston Baker's outrageous letter. These are things that ANY responsible member of the administration and faculty should have done.

Trinity Parker

Anonymous said...

Brutus at 8:50:

Your statement, "He has badly mishandled a mess not of his own making, thus making it his own," captures my view of him exactly.

I've met the guy and seen him in discussions about education and have been impressed. When he issued his Dec. 22 statement I thought he might finally be starting to get it right. But then this statement takes another step back. I'm less angry about it than sad. He had so much potential.

Anonymous said...

No, he didn't have potential. He is a weak-willed, metrosexual academic who wants to please everyone. He, like James Moeser at UNC, are archetypal college presidents for the 21st century. Imagine, if you will, how Terry Sanford would have handled this problem. No PC crap. No whiny statements. Just action. You don't get that from new college presidents. Just look at Gene Nichol at Wm & Mary who too the damn cross out of the chapel. There was more testosterone in the Allen Building when Nan Keohane was president.

Anonymous said...

re 9:55 PM

Thanks Jen. Well said:

"If any of the faculty are unhappy that they are being taken to task for their words and/or actions in a way that makes them feel persecuted (but not in actual fear for their physical safety) or mocked - then I can only say that the same 1st Amendment which allowed you to say what you wanted and protest what you didn't agree with - allows other people to tell you that they think you are a disingenuous agenda driven idiot."

Anonymous said...

I would think Romand Coles,the tenured professor husband of Curis is saying WTF. With any luck, he will be writing a letter to KC, Bill A, the newspapers or Greta. I am not insulted by the strip party (I am a grandmother),whether we like it or not kids will be kids. I have never seen an incident have so many twists and turns.

Anonymous said...

"A person who came into the house at the invitation of the lacrosse team, not Brodhead or Duke.

9:50 PM "

WHAT??? All this time I thought they ordered up some "exotic dancers", not

"a junkie hooker with a rap sheet ..."

Do you suppose they had her police record to hand when they called her booking agent?

"Yeah, uh, we want a junkie hooker with a rap sheet, please..."

"Wait, guys, what would President Brodhead do?"

"Could you change that to a stripper who quotes Shakespeare, please?"

Duke, '86

Anonymous said...

Duke '86-

Speaking of pedophiles..., your comment brings to mind Woody Allen's story 'The Whore of Mensa'

Who can see Brodhead any other way.
..She began to cry. "Don't turn me in, Kaiser," she said. "I needed the money to complete my Master's. I've been turned down for a grant. Twice. Oh, Christ."

It all poured out - the whole story. Central Park West upbringing, Socialist summer camps, Brandeis. She was every dame you saw waiting in line at the Elgin or the Thalia, or penciling the words 'Yes, very true' into the margin of some book on Kant. Only somewhere along the line she had made a wrong turn.

"I needed cash. A girl friend said she knew a married guy whose wife wasn't very profound. He was into Blake. She couldn't hack it. I said sure, for a price I'd talk Blake with him. I was nervous at first. I faked a lot of it. He didn't care. My friend said there were others. Oh, I've been busted before. I got caught reading Commentary in a parked car, and I was once stopped and frisked at Tanglewood. Once more and I'm a three time loser."

Anonymous said...

An open-and-shut case of public matriculation.

Anonymous said...


Bad for Duke, good for your book.

Just got back from traveling.


Anonymous said...

Just listened to ABC11 news at 1100hours tonight.

The way they presented Brodheads letter was to deflect blogger anger !!!

Brodhead did not apologize he was making excuses for the crazy 88.

Amazing that they can dish it out for 9 months but as soon the tables are turned they run to mommy Brodhead crying like puppys;Its not fair..Boo Hoo!

What goes round comes round , get use to it or move on all 88 of ya!

Anonymous said...


You are wrong. CGM was not invited to the party by the lax players.

They asked for white and/or hispanic dancers.

CGM was sent there by the agency. Too bad they let her into the house.

Anonymous said...


What's with the "Yankee" comment to the 4:11 poster? I'll have you know that I was born and raised in Connecticut -- the very HEART of Yankee territory. In the future, I'll trouble you to take care before casting blanket aspersions. I suppose I can find it in my heart to forgive you, but only at the price of some first rate barbecue offered as restitution. %^)


allie said...

"I'm with 3:10. Calm down. Brodhead's letter was thoughtful and poignant. I think your analysis of it is somewhat agenda-driven and slanted."

agree completely. I think everyone on here could afford to calm down a little... there's something about gathering like-minded individuals that drives the whole group further into extremism.

and to whoever emailed brodhead calling him an "eye-darting weasel"... why on earth would you expect anyone to take that seriously? there are two ways to debate with people- 1) reason with them and try to actually get through to them and 2) piss them off by throwing around insults. pissed-off people don't make great listeners, so strategy 2 probably won't get you far.

Anonymous said...

Above all else, Duke needed leadership in this crisis and instead Brodhead issues worthless bromides. We are a double alum household, and even we would hesitate sending our sons to Duke under the current leadership. This statement continues his pattern of name calling the students without ever saying just what they did that warrants such snide personal attacks. This was transparently a bone to the radical faculty to let them know that Duke is squarely behind the Gang of 88. Adult supervision at Duke is in order.

It is painfully obvious that despite eveything that has happened the so-called leadership of Duke continues to hold the lacrosse team fully and solely responsible for every bad thing that has happened, from the pot bangers to the dip in applications to some members of the faculty being exposed as arrogant prima donnas. They will not let go of the now discredited narrative; it simply fits the schoolboy agenda too well to let go and accept that they were snookered and made to look foolish.

Brodhead needs to leave the echo chamber and really listen to what is happening. The fact that he badmouths people "outside the Duke community" is a Nifongian mentality that only those inside the walls count and shows a profound ignorance of the pickle Duke is in and how to get out of it. And I have some news for him: it is inside the Duke community where the criticism is strongest.

Finally, it is worth noting that James Van De Veld, another person Brodhead threw under the bus while he was at Yale, stated that he knew that Brodhead knew he was wrong because Brodhead gets verbose when he is panicky and unsure of himself. THis is at least the third letter we received that rambles on with no apparent point; a couple of years ago, after Brodhead let terrorists recruit on campus we received a several thousand word letter that said nothing. Interesting.

What's the old saw? Ah yes, 'tis better to close the mouth and be thought the fool than open it and remove all doubt

Anonymous said...

Allie- Don't worry so much. Brodhead and I are on quite close terms these days.

And the eye-darting weasel is actually a protected species so no real harm can be done.

Once he runs Duke into the ground, Brodhead will be returned to his native habitat none the worse for the wear-

Anonymous said...

"allie said...

agree completely. I think everyone on here could afford to calm down a little... there's something about gathering like-minded individuals that drives the whole group further into extremism."

Yeah, especially when they're in groups of 88.

Sorry, but these defenses of Duke's loathsome gang of 88 are wholly unpersuasive. They showed their bias and they don't have the courage to own up to it. Brodhead is just the King of the Squirrels.

Anonymous said...

As an alum, it seems pretty clear: it's time for Brodhead to go.

Anonymous said...

The blatant racism portrayed by Dook against its students is indefensible. There's just no other word for it; if you are a white, lacrosse player at Dook who didn't even go to the party, is there any doubt you are paying the price for something SOMEONE ELSE was FALSELY ACCUSED of doing?

To no one's surprise, Brodhead writes an entire statement of the case without passing any judgment on the lying accuser (black), but instead uses that effort to defend and indefensible faculy ("even some black faculty"...YGBSM) or through its own students under the bus to advance their own personal, political agendas, and blames the whole rush to judgment on the pigmentationally appropriate fall guy for racist liberals in this affair, Mike Nifong (whadya know, white).

Is there any wonder why degrees conferred by people who are so clearly prejudiced in their views are decreasingly relevant in the modern economy? Is there anyone who uses something they learned from one of these racists in a soft sciences/liberal arts class in the job in the modern era?

What is possibility defensible about Brodhead's position on his own faculty's rush to judgment? Upon what actual evidence did they (he) make their premature and sweeping conclusions. It is freaking laughable that he describes the attacks on his players as follows: "...the age of instantaneous worldwide media coverage, members of the lacrosse team were judged around the world on the basis of highly selective, highly prejudicial coverage last spring..."

"..around the world..." Dick? Really?

I mean, I guess he is technically correct, b/c Dook faculty offices are located on "the world", but it is a little misleading to say the least. Who does he think he is kidding? Let me make this as clear as I know how. DICK BRODHEAD: YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANYONE. STOP AIDING AND ABETTING THE RACISM AND PREJUDICE ON YOUR CAMPUS THAT FUELED THIS FIRE AND CLEAN HOUSE BY REMOVING THOSE RACISTS OR YOURSELF. Is it really his position that the fervent defenders rose up in support of the lacrosse teams and they had to call out the water cannons to control the mob of LAX supporters promising vigilante exoneration? Where is the footage of sit-ins, protest rallies, signs about outraged durham residents in favor of the accused that he suddenly remembers? Please face the obvious facts that racist, leftists were the ones that got out of control, rushed to judgment (fired the lacrosse coach for something someone else didn't do, and cancelled the season for something that was completely made up...stop me when I hit too close to home here Mr. Voice of Reason...).

Academic leftists unwilling to put aside their own racism and political agendas in this case to face the occasional fact personify the term irrelevant.

P.S. THIS is the group the Supreme Court wants to entrust "race as a factor" to in admissions decisions? Seriously?

Newyorkstateofmind said...

165 comments! Thanks to KC and his devotion to the cause of the Duke Three, and the probity and lucidness of his arguments as presented in this forum, the number of commenters to this blog is increasing at seemingly an exponential rate! May it so continue.

There are several problems with Brodhead's apologia, the following the most glaring (several posts have gleaned the gist of these):

1) Brodhead decries the intemperate and even at times hysterical reaction to the lacrosse players in the early weeks and months of this affair, while he himself, along with the Group of 88 and fellow travelers, is one of the main reasons for this misplaced reaction. A show of support to the players in the early days after the incident (even while acknowledging the gravity of the charges) would have greatly reduced the tenor of the anger directed at the lacrosse players regarding what has proved to be (and appeared to be from the earliest stages of this affair) a malicious hoax. Instead, Brodhead alternately ignored and abetted (and thereby encouraged and made more inflamed) the lynch mob mentality that formed around the players, abandoning his proper role as a steward to all of Duke's students.

2) Brodhead clearly resents the role the Blogosphere has played in publicizing his outrageous conduct in connection with this affair. Hence his comments the import of which is that only the Duke community has standing to take an active interest in, and comment on, these events, and that bloggers who comment as anonymous are somehow misusing the public space, or illegitimately hiding behind their anonymity. He's wrong on both counts. As to standing, anyone living in America has much reason to be concerned with the travesty of this case: that it still continues these many months later suggests that hypothetically just about anyone can be subjected to criminal prosecution via bogus charges, given a PC "victim" and a self-interested prosecutor. And I make this comment as an attorney myself, not someone who is simply painting a "worst-case" scenario. As to the issue of anonymity, blogs that allow anonymous comments are more robust forums of free speech, and to my mind by that measure superior public squares. Yes, you will get more drecky comments in a blog which allows anonymous comments; you will also get even more trenchant insights to the full dynamic of the issue at hand, with many nuances and ways of looking at such issue; at least this is so on a blog like this one managed by someone like KC who so thoroughly and measuredly advances his arguments.

But of course, Brodhead doesn't want a robust, full examination into his irresponsible doings these last so many months. Better the whitewash he gets from the local papers-cum-rags and still gets from much of the MSM.

As for the notion, aired in a number of the postings here responding to KC's remarks about Brodhead's recent commentary, that KC is in effect exaggerating Brodhead's treachery in all this, it is clear to me that the only difference between the continuation of these charges against the Duke Three, and an oldtime Stalinist Show Trial, is that in the case of the latter there often was some relationship between the charges laid on the defendant (albeit via the Soviet codes outlawing all manner of political activity and expressions of opinions), and his ultimate execution or exile. Here, the Duke Three are "guilty" of nothing more than hiring a stripper, a perfectly legal activity for them, and a legal activity in the vast majority of the country, and one in which, feminist and various leftist fantasies nothwithstanding, is parlayed and even exploited by everyone from housewifes to twenty--something goths (male and/or female) to gays on an organized gay-themed cruise. And so Brodhead and the Group of 88 and various like-minded PC enablers would have us believe that because one of the lacrosse players sent out an email with racist verbiage then somehow all of this is justified. But of course "we don't support unsubstantiated charges" being brought against the Duke Three, the PC enablers tell us. Too little too late. Absent Brodhead's crucial role in failing to protect the reputation of the lacrosse players in the days after the event (which at a minimum would have been demonstrated through a show of support for the lacrosse team coach, not his firing-cum-resignation), and the Group of 88 statement which doubtless had 88 signatories instead of maybe 33 or even just three if Brodhead had stood behind the players, and the other pilers-on from even as far away as California in the person of Susan Estrich (who like Gloria Allred will take any opportunity to defend or promote any female against any male any time she can arrange it)--absent Brodhead's hostility to his own students (the lacrosse players), no charges may have ever been filed, or if filed, may already have been withdrawn.

Anonymous said...

I can not speak to what someone sends in an email. I follow most blogs on this subject, and except for my sick humor about Butner prison, I have seen no racial slurs, EXCEPT on the liberal blogs.
That is my point, it is the left that is accusing those of us defending the boys of racism, because we dare to question Crystal. See the point?

Anonymous said...

You can not come over here from Lashawns and start abusing me, hard weekend, sorry I too have done time up there. The Yankee BBQ is awful.

One other point, earlier someone asked who are Brodhead's customers?

Far as I can see, the folks paying the tuition would be called the customers, AKA I got $160K in this fight. I think that makes me a customer, what do you think?

Anonymous said...

you blog hooligans are just mad that Brodhead called you out as the racist harrassers that most of you really are. all a person has to do is read some of your posts and see you call the accuser, the black durham community and especially the black professors in the gang of 88 like Holloway and Baker everything uder the sun and in racially demeaning terms. you don't think that they were not keeping track of all the hateful emails coming to the professors? I am at duke and I can tell you that all of them got some death threats and some of the letters said they should be lynched and the n word was liberally used in the emails. On this blog the majority of the emails about these professors are ad hominem attacks and racist aspersions about them being unqualified and how women's and african american studies not being legititmate fields of study. Nifong also got death threats and has had increased security at the court house and he had equipment put in to identify who the emails came from. duke had a similar program. this shows how morally low the supporters of the duke 3 are and Brodhead is not afraid to tell the world how you guys have behaved. He is also not afraid to tell the world that the LAX team did not behave appropriately, which is something KC and Bill anderson and the rest of the bloghooligans want to cover up. Brodhead will not and should not apologise to the LAX team as their own misbehavior started this whole mess. There would have been no Stripper, no email, no coach dismissed and no felony charges without their behavior that night and also previously; they admitted their coach warned them about their behavior prior to the party. Why would he have to warn them about their behavior is they were such good guys? The answer is they were not such good guys and the team had 15 members with criminal charges in the last 3 years and more than that in the last 5 years and there had been complaints about their behavior to the dean. That is a fact and is also in the report done at duke. Brodhead is signaling he is not going to compromise his morals but so much for these miscreants and that he is not going to abandon the gang of 88. Forget a more detailed apology as the duke 3 will not get it(nor do they deserve it).

AMac said...

anonymous 4:43am --

Thanks for writing in.

I hope you can critcially evaluate Cedarford's 5:48am response. I say this because your comment actually contains elements of a reasoned outlook:

--Given the ease with which anonymous emails can be sent, I'm sure that DA Nifong and Duke's Hard Left professors have received taunts, threats, and racist drivel. Legitimate complaint.

--There is a "party hard/study easy" attitude that a significant minority of students at Duke, and elsewhere, subscribe to (see Tom Wolfe's novel, "I am Charlotte Simmons"). This did contribute to the events of last winter, notably the notion held by the lacrosse team, the basketball team, the baseball team, and other groups of Duke students that stripper parties are a hazard-free way to pass the evening. Legitimate issue, if you can phrase it correctly.

Some friendly advice from a bloghooligan: advise your hard left faculty friends to look past the Junk folder in their inboxes, and to start working on accepting responsibilty for their substantial roles in this mess. Specifically, this means the Listening Statement supporters' call for a rush to judgement ("thank you" for "Castrate" posters) and assumption of lacrosse player guilt. The apparrent slander of players in the classroom and alleged instances of grade retaliation strongly suggests that some on the hard left have also displayed reprehensible professional conduct.

Sincere apologies are no fun, especially when you believe in your heart that you are the moral superior of those you have wronged. But even at this late date, your friends can overcome this obstacle.

If they decide to try.

Unknown said...

The 4:43am comment made me laugh. Out loud. Goodness gracious, was someone drunk when they posted? What a load of bloated tripe. The train has derailed. You may want to start sipping on a tall dose of reality.

Nice Blog KC. I hope the energy of this injustice permeates other closed minded institutions of higher learning that have been hijacked by PC neutering. The hierarchy in these situations almost leaves Brodhead and other presidents impotent to foster the change needed. Will the alumni rise up and demand change?

As far as Nifong - he will get his.

When it comes to the group of 88, the justifications, rationalizations, obtuseness, and historical revisions are quite revealing and to some degree amusing. The reverse and pseudo intellectual racism is wholly evident. One must feel an outsider to confine themselves to the alternative reality based community it seems certain portions of faculties comprise themselves of. I guess the sheltering, the tenure, and the control attract those of spite, hate and vitriol so that they can freely condemn those they can’t aspire to be.

There is danger living your life in an echo chamber. Some of the characters in this sordid affair need to get out more.

Anonymous said...

KC said:

President Richard Brodhead has just issued a statement in which he couples his long-overdue but admirable criticism of Mike Nifong with a defiant defense of the Group of 88. ...

President Brodhead wrote using his normal elusive style, so it is hard to pin down just what he meant. You gave one interpretation. Another interpretation is that he is criticizing the 88.

Anonymous said...

4:43 AM --There is a "party hard/study easy" attitude that a significant minority of students at Duke, and elsewhere, subscribe to (see Tom Wolfe's novel, "I am Charlotte Simmons"). This did contribute to the events of last winter, notably the notion held by the lacrosse team, the basketball team, the baseball team, and other groups of Duke students that stripper parties are a hazard-free way to pass the evening. Legitimate issue, if you can phrase it correctly.

Yes, a legitimate issue.

Anonymous said...

7:24 Anon:

"Sincere apologies are no fun, especially when you believe in your heart that you are the moral superior of those you have wronged."

I am of the philosophy that the latter would preclude the former. I'm thinking of Steps 8, 9, & 10 here - making amends requires a level of humility that at this point eludes the 88 and Duke admin.

Anonymous said...

If President Brodhead wants to genuinely move on and heal his campus he will create a group to study the phenomenon of highly educated, supposedly intelligent, and (in their own minds) morally superior individuals banding together to form an anti-civil liberties lynch mob. In addition to studying excessive anti-intellectual behavior on the part of many faculty members, this group could also study the silence and moral cowardice (with a few noble exceptions) of the majority of the faculty. As the head of an elite institution, he should be profoundly disturbed that such a distinguished and privileged faculty, that could be providing leadership to society, still has not learned after nine months what most us benighted non-academic people figured out in nine weeks.

He needs to decide if the Duke faculty seeks to be detached, effete, and irrelevant or if they want to participate in the larger society.

Brodhead has retreated to the time honored strategy of conflating an event (an alleged crime in this case) with the various "isms" that excite the Left. That has been done before and will be done again since we have identity politics scholars who will always be available to interpret anything and everything as a race/gender/class issue. Sometimes they will even be correct. But, not this time.

The "larger issue" or "root cause" to examine here is the complete breakdown in academic integrity and courage that has taken place in Durham.

Scholars, heal thyselves so the real healing can begin.


Anonymous said...

To 4:43 AM
"Brodhead will not and should not apologise to the LAX team as their own misbehavior started this whole mess. There would have been no Stripper, no email, no coach dismissed and no felony charges without their behavior that night and also previously"

Um...I guess they were just 'asking for it' through their legal behavior.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we now require a Second Constitution, as the First appears inadequate. The Second constituion will describe how behaviors that are 'asking for trouble', such as dressing provocatively, will make crimes set forth in the First constitution legal!

Anonymous said...

"Forget a more detailed apology as the duke 3 will not get it(nor do they deserve it)."

See the healing cant begin with an attitude like that. Its unacceptable to pillary people for something they didnt do even if you dont like 'em.

This is an answer to all those who wonder "why hurt Duke, lets drop it"- people like 4:43 wont learn until they are on a losing side of a lawsuit.

Likewise people who dont think Dowd was damaged by Duke's actions. Perhapse they will need to be instructred by a jury otherwise.

Anonymous said...

False alarm, here is Brodhead's actual statement:

Anonymous said...

I don't doubt there have been racist and hateful emails sent to the Group of 88. I wish there weren't racists who have enough knowledge to use a computer and find email addresses. I am truly sorry there are such people.

There have been postings here, although fewer than some other blogs, that imply or state flat out that black Americans are less intelligent than whites, solely because of their race. I regret that too.

But those facts do not discredit the legitimate criticisms of the Group of 88's actions in this case.

Newyorkstateofmind said...

Cedarford 5:58 well refutes 4:48's method of using "but-for" causation to justify Brodhead's non-apologia re the Duke Three. I used "but-for" causation myself in explaining Brodhead's crucial role in all this. The essential difference in my use and 4:48's use is this: We still live in a society where the government (in all its various forms) cannot jail you or subject you to harassing criminal charges unless and until you've engaged in unlawful behavior. Lots of people engage in behavior of various kinds which is imprudent or sleazy or just plain dumb. And which causes them all kinds of problems. But it is a special problem, needing special attention and a focused remedy, when the government comes after you--in this case in the form of a bogus rape/sex crimes prosecution, deploying all the power at their disposal--in this case the power to subject you to a full-bore felony prosecution at the end of which you could be in prison for a period of decades.

The attendant problem with slamming the lacrosse players for engaging in "hiring-a-stripper" behavior is that, as I noted in my earlier post, large numbers of people across the demographic and political spectrum engage in that behavior, so to flay the Duke Three for this is misplaced at best. 4:48 then notes various "criminal charges" that some of the lacrosse players have been subjected to over the last several years. Surely we need more detail in the context of this case. "Criminal charges" can be anything from loitering (still exists on the books in many jurisdictions), to shoplifting, to disorderly conduct. Just what is the gravity of these charges? Moreover, if you take any group of 50 people (particularly 50 men, who still make up the vast majority of criminal offenders), it will not surprise to find "criminal charges" laid at some of them sometime over the last several years. And finally, if we let prosecutors simply round people up because at sometime or another some of their cohorts (from teammates on a sports team to colleagues at a work-lunch counter to friends at a cofee place) engaged in some sort of "criminal behavior," then our jails would be very full indeed, and not just with those whose politics or lifestyles do not suit us.

Brodhead is the fountainhead of this whole sorry mess, arguably even more than is Nifong. It is Brodhead who has a special relationship to the Duke Three, indeed a fiduciary relationship with attendant obligations to act right by them; not so with Nifong--although Nifong's obligation to bring only legitimate charges has been grossly flouted in this case.

Anonymous said...


When stuff hits the fan, real leaders take responsibility. Yesterday's Brodhead letter dealt with responsibility, but only in the disingenuous attempt to shift it away from himself or his faculty. But, it is hard to blame him since he and his 88 friends are creatures of a culture of irresponsibility.

Higher education pretty much begs for irresponsibility. How many of us work in businesses where:
a) we can hike the prices of our goods and services at twice the rate of inflation, year after year, with impunity?
b) some of us have decades of job security with no risk of termination except for the most extreme outrages?
c) many employees have no sincere interest in providing the core service that the customer buys?
d) many employees are clearly disdainful of the customer and can even be professionally rewarded for building a formal "science" around what was formerly called hate (i.e. identity politics "scholarship")?

Parts of academia - especially the humanities and social sciences - have become a playground for the childish and the intellectually indolent. This is nice work if you can get it but living in a Peter Pan world means never having to grow up and never having to take responsibility.

Brodhead and the academic Culture (make that Cult) of Irresponsibility have lots to apologize for. And some cheesey postmodernist apology ("I'm sorry if YOU were offended" or "I'm sorry YOU misinterpreted our statement or potbanging") won't cut it.

Perhaps there is no sense of responsibility among the Group of 88 because it is easy to dislike drunken, leering, hormonally challenged athletes. )I don't think I would want my own children hanging around with those guys.) But the consequences of this irresponsibility are so far reaching as to even hurt groups that the Group of 88 and their sympathizers might feel are more worthy than those hated rich, white males. Their impulsive and blind reaction to a crime allegation has roiled the entire community. They have tried to foment a race/gender/class war which will harm the groups they do care about as much as their intended targets. Yet, after trying to drop a nuclear bomb they whine when a few idiots retaliate with spitballs in the form of nasty emails or postings. If they truly care about rape victims, they should realize that they have poisoned a thousand future rape cases. It will be tougher for real rape victims to come forward and easier for real rapists to claim that they were "Nifonged."

Unlike Vegas, what happens in the ivory tower DOESN'T stay in the ivory tower.


Anonymous said...

re 10:23 AM
Sorry, I meant to write:

Perhaps we now require a Second Constitution, as the First appears inadequate. The Second constitution will describe how behaviors that are 'asking for trouble', such as dressing provocatively, will make rights set forth in the First constitution illegal!

Anonymous said...

Peter Brimelow wrote: "The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal."

Anonymous said...

Where was Brodhead's concern when his student received death threats in open court. Where was come-on-down Brodhead's concern when the NBPP stated their intent to come to campus and administer their own justice. Where was Brodhead's concern when Coach Pressler was receiving death threats?

He could have gotten credit for being the locomotive (you should pardon the analogy) of the innocence train but instead he's jumped on the caboose as it's leaving the station and dragging his feet along the rails trying to slow it down.

Anonymous said...

4:21PM....little "Anonymous" scuzzball sez---

"I actually called her out last week...."

You lying, pathetic, cowardly, insipid, and anonymous little internet navel gazer.......

.....shouldn't we be calling YOU out?......of your loo you squat?

Buzz off troll!


Anonymous said...

I think using this definition of racism the Group of 88 listening statement starts to no longer be a non-sequitor.

Stuff like:

But it is a disaster nonetheless.

These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman and to themselves.

. . .We want the absence of terror. But we don’t really know what that means . . . We can’t think. That’s why we’re so silent; we can’t think about what’s on the other side of this. Terror robs you of language and you need language for the healing to begin.

This is not a different experience for us here at DukeUniversity. We go to class with racist classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists....It’s part of the experience."

Anonymous said...

7:01 You are so right. This case has it all and no one could write this stuff,
7:02 "Thank your grandpa" barely makes it on the racial taunt meter. I think the statement shows these guys had been PC'd by their parents and did not know how to deliver a serious racial taunt.

Anonymous said...

4:43 - Ann Coulter says "lie down with strippers, wake up with pleas." No doubt the team should not have gone behind the coach's back and hired strippers. The coach told the captains "don't do anything stupid", yet they did. I do not believe they "asked for it". Per Ann "You greatly reduce you chances of being charged with rape if you don't invite strange women to take off their cloths in your house", Thats the truth.

Anonymous said...

Fact: the lacrosse team had more criminal and Duke disciplinary complaints than any other sports team

fact: there had been complaints about their behavior to the dean

fact: their coach warned them to be good over Spring break

fact: a white man(Bissey) corroborated that the team used racial epithets that night and their lawyers admitted it

fact: although now you blog hooligans are trying to pretend that Nifong supporters may have posted racist things on these blogs to make you look bad, the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of evidence in more or less routine Lax supporter posts that much of what they have said on these blogs is racist and demeaning.

fact: the Ryan Mcfayden email was evidence of an interest in a sexual sadistic movie/book and fantasies as Ryan even visualises masturbating after killing the strippers and coming in his own duke issue spandex. That is not normal and anyone who says it is is also perverted

Fact: The lawyers admit that one of the players told the women to sodomise themselves with a broomstick; again this is sadistic and perverted

fact: despite the apologias that the cotton shirt comment was "PC" and not even a problem per the racist blog hooligan alleging this above, this comment, which the lawyers and Bissey also admit occured is the most racially insensitve of the lot as the Lax player saying it and the others endorsing it are trying to demean the women of color back down to slavery time level when they had no rights and had to pick cotton for the white man whether they liked to or not. this evokes a historic time when white men raped black women with impunity and that one comment alone set a lot of blacks in Durham on the war path.

Anonymous said...

Which North Carolina General Statute does contracting with an exotic dancer (of age, of course) violate?

Which North Carolina General State does the childish act of calling someone a name violate?

Is it your point that these kids used poor judgment? If so, please identify who you are arguing with on this blog; I can't find them.

The real problem is not the obvious fact that these kids used poor judgment (P.S., "What? There's a NEW Mexico?"), but the fact that they are being C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-L-Y P-R-O-S-E-C-U-T-E-D for a crime in the absence of any evidence they committed it (in fact, in the face of evidence proving they could NOT have done it; that is, unless it is possible for someone to sexually assault someone else while standing at an ATM six miles away).

Honestly, how do you not see that as being a problem? I am happy to concede that these kids are the exception, not the rule, about false accusations and there are probably more African Americans that have been wrongfully accused of crimes they did not commit than rich, white lacrosse players from the Northeast; based solely on the incarceration rates. There, now that you have "won" something, can these kids get on with their lives and we set about the business of putting this liar in jail where she belongs?

Anonymous said...

I think the women's studies class, along with african american studies should be totally dissolved all across this great nation.

Its about time we stop talking about true equality and started actually doing something about it.

A felonious prostitute is able to bring down an athletic season, a coach and probably many in Duke's administration.

The lies of feminism and political correctness have gone too far. Thank god for the Duke 3 for sticking it out. There's no telling how many good men are getting railroaded by the "womyn" with an agenda.

Anonymous said...

Given their history, why would anyone wish to give either Brodhead or the 'gang of 88' a presumption of innocence?

Or intelligence either, for that matter?

Anonymous said...

10:37 - Calling me a racist blog hooligan is funny. I was marching for civil rights when you were in diapers. Slavery is long gone - get over it man. Hanging on to this is hurting the black people. At some distant past most of our ancesters were slaves at one time or another.