Monday, January 01, 2007

FODU: Message to Group of 88

Friends of Duke University has published a New Years’ appeal to its readers—and to the Group of 88:

Now that the University has come around, let us see if we can round up some lost sheep. Here is an e-mail address list for the Group of 88. We encourage supporters to write them and politely ask them if they will join the University in calling for due process for Reade, Collin and David and perhaps even reevaluate their own rush to judgment.

It is too early to celebrate as Nifong is not yet defeated. However, it is not too early to start thinking about putting Duke back together and making sure it is put back together right. Finding common ground with the Group of 88 now would greatly help in both regards.

I endorse this appeal wholeheartedly (with an emphasis on the politely), and hope that at least some Group members take advantage of the opportunity to regain their integrity.


Anonymous said...

These ultra left liberals are never wrong so don't expect there to be a rush to save the University , sorry.

Anonymous said...

That "message" is just too dumb to comment on.

The Undertaker to the Godfather:

"Be my friend, Godfather?"LOL

Anonymous said...

1.37 You must be one of them liberals then ?

Anonymous said...


FODU is advocating either surrender or forgiveness to these people.

Is the author a lawyer?

Sounds like lawyer-speak.

Anonymous said...

Collin, David and Reade,

What do you think of this message to the group of 88?

Let me rephrase that question:

What's your opinion about Brodhead's decision to cancel the season and fire the coach?

Sarah D said...

I think it would be interesting and quite educational to read any replies which come from the gang of 88, although I doubt many will.

I hate to appear cynical but I don't see these leopards changing their spots in a hurry.

One or two may recant, but as for the majority, no chance I am afraid.


Anonymous said...

Still, it's not a bad idea to contact them. It would be interesting to see how many would respond to polite inquiries.

Unknown said...

Give them a chance to rectify their behavior. If they don't, then skewer them.

However, in my experience, these people will just go silent in the hopes that this episode will be forgotten (and it will, If so many can forget 9-11...). A concerted campaign has to be undertaken directed to reduce the amount of money and influence that they have. If they have some somebody funding their chair etc. start pounding on them. Target the sources of funds. Money talks even with the ultra left.

Anonymous said...

The far leftest Professors at a University like Duke stick together. They act as a group. I really doubt any of them would have the courage or desire to admit they were wrong.
The radical left at Brooklyn College tried to ruin KC's career, because he refused to accept mediocrity.
I don't doubt, the radical left at Duke would rather see 3 innocent boys in prison, than change their views.

Anonymous said...

Put Duke back together again? This reminded me of a little poem, I am sure most know how it goes.

Anonymous said...

No offense to anyone, however they (the 88) have had the same information as everyone else did during these 9 months. Ummm, why the kid glove treatment now? Aren't these vile morons, adults where they should know WHAT the right thing is to do?

Personally, I would not want them to reconsider anything. They need to be made examples of.

Anonymous said...

The first step is to get rid of Brodhead. Certainly next year when US News drops Duke 20 colleges down the list the pressure to dump him will increase. The alumni have to pressure the Trustees into hiring a "reformer" who will try to reassure the "missing " students from the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast that they are welcome here.

The Duke 88 don't care who "butters their bread". They are like children with their heads up their @ss. Right to the end they will not budge. Anybody who thinks they will give in short of being canned are also living in a fantasyland.

Anonymous said...

The most you might get is a two wrongs don't make a right comment. You know, all the editorials that say that while what the lacrosse players did was "reprehensible" it does not excuse Nifong. And, of course, the same writers always add that "we don't really know what happened" (except that it was reprehensible).

None of the 88 will respond otherwise. For example, none of the anti-Duke crowd saw any contradiction in understanding with compassion that a grown woman worked as a "stripper prostitute" to support her family while condemning her erstwhile customers. Also, DNA was the tool for conviction, not exoneration.

Similarly, here, if a rape ocurred, get em, if not, what they did was reprehensible and they need to get back to "pending publications."

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to see that not ONE member of the Gang of 88 has even the slightest twinge of conscience. While I understand the strategy of FODU (which has not wanted to hurt the university in all of this), I can guarantee you that every one of the signees will refuse to back down an inch.

If you receive emails from them (and most simply will discard the emails), it will be something akin to "you don't know what you are talking about" or something like that. But it is worth a try.

Again, FODU has tried to be conciliatory at every turn, and I think that the strategy is understandable. As I pointed out in a previous post, Duke has a VERY loyal alumni base. That the university would go out of its way to alientate many of these people tells me that its leadership is weak, pathetic, and downright stupid.

The Gang of 88 would be the very last people who should run a university. To them, a university is nothing more than a re-education camp. They are not scholars in any way.

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer: I write this as a retired academic (now a Professor Emeritus), and my perspective is that these 88 idiots really believe that they are saving Duke. If they have not yet apologized or retracted their statements, don't hold your breath waiting for them to do so. I hope that I am wrong.

Anonymous said...

By the way, this was Houston Baker's response to a very polite email from the mother of an unindicted lacrosse player:

LIES! You are just a provacateur on a happy New Years Eve trying to get credit for a scummy bunch of white males! You know you are in search of sympaathy for young white guys who beat up a gay man in Georgetown, get drunk in Durham, and lived like "a bunch of farm animals" near campus.

I really hope whoever sent this stupid farce of an email rots in .... umhappy new year to you ... and forgive me if your really are, quite sadly, mother of a "farm animal."

I am not making this up. And the email was NOT provacative under any circumstances. This is pretty typical of these kind of "scholars" who, in my book, are faux scholars.

Anonymous said...

Waste of time and improper gesture. Trust me they would not return the favor if the shoe was on the other foot.

Anonymous said...

In case you are wondering what set off Houston Baker, here is the email:

To the Group of 88,
I am the mother of the Duke Lacrosse player who wrote most of you in April and asked for your response to some of the questions I had in regards to the ad you signed in the Chronicle. I received one very thoughtful response back in May. Those questions still exist, but I have come to realize that I will need to make sense of the silence myself.

However, I am again asking for your help. Over the past eight months, much of the evidence has revealed that the three falsely indicted young men have been the victims of rogue DA Nifong. They have been denied due process and are the victims of a possible conspiracy. What ever you believed in March, I am sure you must be questioning the actions of DA Nifong. Therefore, I respectfully request that you join Pres. Brodhead in asking for a special > prosecutor. In addition, I respectfully request you petition Pres. Brodhead to allow Collin and Reade to resume classes this spring.

Our paths may have been different, but I am sure all of us seek the
truth and justice. This can only be accomplished with an impartial

Collin and Reade, along with Dave, have had to put their lives on hold due to a false accusation. I trust that with the filing of ethics charges by the NC State Bar and the Conference of District Attorneys calling for DA Nifong to recuse himself, we can all agree that justice can best be served with Nofong's removal.

Read Baker's response, and you will see that he still is insisting that these young men raped Crystal. Why else would he say what the mother wrote are "lies"? You can get a sense of the mentality of these professors in Baker's response. There is nothing provactive or even hostile in the email.

All I can say is that Houston Baker is evil, and that Vanderbilt University must be truly glad for this great "scholar" that Vandy has hired.

Anonymous said...

By the way, notice that Houston Baker, the Great English Scholar, cannot even spell simple words? Great scholarship, Houston!

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

The group of 88 are the key to Duke's problem here. The key to Duke's fall off in applications.

Afterall the group of 88 have shown that a large fraction of the Duke faculty hate their students based on their sex, race and parents income. What person would pay huge amounts of money to send their child to a place where a significant fraction of the faculty hate them because of their sex, their race or because you worked hard in your life and made some money.

It is a problem that I am not sure how Duke overcomes this? Unless they very publically get rid of the untenured memembers of the group of 88 and as a defender of free speech and academic freedom, that makes me uneasy? Perhaps Duke needs to evaluate their hiring practices to avoid hiring bigots?

Anonymous said...

I sent the following to the group of 88:

January 1, 2007

To the Duke University faculty supporters of the “We’re Listening” Chronicle ad:

As a Duke grad- BHS, School of Medicine '75- I had thought it would be impossible for me to be anything but very proud of having had the opportunity to attend such a prestigious institution. I was wrong.

I have followed the events arising out of the lacrosse party last spring very closely. I was (and am) appalled by the University’s response to the initial allegations. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary (like a confession of guilt from the accused) I would hope that that the school would support the boys in every way possible. Granting that there might be some who would be unable to do this, at least granting them the presumption of innocence would be the minimum acceptable position.

The ad you placed in the Chronicle clearly indicated that you accepted as fact that the accuser was a victim whose 'humanity' was both a central feature of the situation that needed to be kept at the center of your thoughts and, conversely that the behavior of the lacrosse team needed to be punished as a manifestation of the larger issue of the continuing problems of racism on the Duke Campus and in society at large.

Your "rush to judgment" against members of your own academic family is both shameful and puzzling.

Now, as seems increasingly likely, that there is no basis for the allegations beyond the claims- that were apparently not lodged by the victim (unwed mother and sex industry worker) until she was about to be incarcerated or involuntarily committed for being a danger to herself or others because of her apparent intoxication- it would be a good time for you to reconsider your unprecedented decision to publically vilify the members of the lacrosse team and support the accusations of the accuser as an accepted truth.

I think you owe the boys AND the Duke community an apology.

The damage to the lacrosse players is incalculable and can never be remediated. The damage to the University remains to be seen. I suspect there will be a decreased interest in attendance there among a broad range of potential students not to mention the possibility of an impact on the ability of the school to attract high level faculty in an atmosphere where pursuit of the truth seems to take a back seat to political and social agendas.

The "wall of silence" among the preponderance of the faculty who did not sign your "ad" some of whom certainly must have taken exception to its contents but were presumably fearful of some kind of retribution if they did demur is also profoundly disturbing.

You, as a group, have gained some notoriety as players in this sad affair which seems to have more that its share of injustices. It would be an act of uncommon decency and courage for you to come together as a group and recant the contribution you made to these injustices and perhaps begin the process of mending Duke's tarnished reputation. I have little hope that this will occur, but asking for it is the least I can do as a concerned member of the larger Duke community.


Ralph Lloyd

Anonymous said...

Actually, the 88 are a small percentage of the faculty at Duke. Also, most of the classes they offer have many open seats (for obvious reasons!)...

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re 3:54

According to Duke:

Trinty A&S had 612 faculty members in 2006. Now the 88 did include one medical person and probably some adjuncts who may not be counted in the 612. But lets guess 80 are from the 612. That is well over 10 percent of the faculty that undergrads deal with even engineering undergrads their at least their first two years. Thus, I stand by my significant fraction statement.

Anonymous said...

To Bill Anderson,

What are your sources for the alleged email from Houston Baker and the earlier email to which Baker was supposedly responding? I'm no fan of the despicable Group of 88, but the alleged Baker email is so over the top that I find it hard to believe any one would write it.

Anonymous said...

The Gang of 88 was relatively small in number, but managed to be de facto running Duke University this past spring. The Gang members took all of the key positions in the campus "initiatives" and were rewarded by having a new AA Studies department given to them.

They also dominated the "conversation" at Duke and any faculty member who openly disagreed with them was subject to verbal abuse. So, they were small in number, but large in importance.

Michael said...

Most here believe that the 88 are too stubborn to admit that they were wrong. I guess we'll find out in 2007.

At any rate, what happens will make for a great section of the book that deals with the Duke 88 as they're given an undeserved chance to reconcile.

Anonymous said...

Chicago writes:

Bill, that e-mail Houston sent back needs to be sent to the department head of his department at Vanderbilt. That department head certainly will not condone such immature behavior and rhetoric.

I assume the farm animal comment refers to public urination. I bet there is not one male in the world over 20 who has never urinated outdoors. Anyone who has played golf has certainly done so.

Anonymous said...

Baker's email response is another "new low" in this sordid affair. I'm beginning to think that many people in the AA community share Chan Hall's view of how this should play out, they just won't say it out loud.

Anonymous said...

Chicago writes:

Ralph, excellent read. Very well written. I am anxious to hear any repsonse you may get.

Anonymous said...

why is houston baker's email such a surprise to you people. you folks clearly don't know much about black people.

and houston baker is the best of what they have to offer.

farm animal? whatever yard ape.

Anonymous said...

bill anderson said...

The Gang of 88 was relatively small in number, but managed to be de facto running Duke University this past spring. The Gang members took all of the key positions in the campus "initiatives" and were rewarded by having a new AA Studies department given to them.

I guess you know that these statements do not describe what actually happened, so I am puzzled why you are saying them. It is perhaps dramatic and fun to imagine "as if". The downside is that such imaginary allegations discredit the many meritorious things done by people on this blog.

Unknown said...

To Bill Anderson:

I am going to send the mother's e-mail and Houston's response to President Gee and see if I can get a set mailed to VU Board of Directors. This atrocious behavior should not and cannot be tolerated.

Anonymous said...

For many years business schools have used the Johnson and Johnson Tylenol poisoning case to show how organizations should behave in times of crises.

I've recently talked to one of my old B school profs at Anderson (UCLA). He's thinking of writing a companion to the Tylenol case - based on the actions of the Duke administration. To show how NOT to react in time of crisis.

Broadhead actually got *some* of it right in the first couple of days. Cooperate, be above board, don't go silent, take the hit and make sure no one else gets hurt. Put the good of your customers above your own well being, and make sure your customers know that.

But that very quickly changed to pick a scapegoat, throw him to the wolves, go with the herd, say nothing, do nothing, hide and pretend there's nothing going on.

Anonymous said...

Readers of this blog may find this early exchange between Houston Baker and Duke Provost Peter Lange to be enlightening:

Anonymous said...

Regarding the 5:07 post - for some reason the publishing program is cutting off the end of the web site address. The last part of it is: lacrosse_incident/lange_baker.html

Anonymous said...

"The alumni have to pressure the Trustees into hiring a "reformer" who will try to reassure the "missing " students from the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast that they are welcome here."
I suspect this is how the story will be played out: The drop in applicants is owing to a misperception that the school is overrun by loutish and disrespectful individuals leading applicants to wonder if they could feel invited or safe on such a campus. The institution of certain codes of conduct will go a long way in correcting that misperception by, at the very least, publicly demonstrating that the University fosters an environment where each student has the opportunity to excel free from those externalities that challenge his or her well being and self worth and which, ultimately, erode the sense of community.

This is my long winded way of questioning whether there will be any acknowledgement that, or any attempt to discern if, the drop in applicants is owing to a perception that the school is not supportive of its students or that the students are targeted by the local authorities or that Durham at this place and time is not an appealing place to be for some.

Unknown said...

Here is a copy of the e-mail I sent to Chancellor Gee,

Dear Chancellor. Gee:

My name is Vincent Walker A&S '73. I am writing you in response to a currently very volatile issue- The Duke Lacrosse Case. One of your recent faculty hires, Houston Baker, was in the forefront of publishing the "Listening" Letter by 88 faculty members. As you probably know, these faculty labeled the accused as "rapists" and subsequent events have shown that this was a dubious charge at best by ambitious and unscrupulous prosecutor. Many people, myself included, think that the Duke "88" owes an apology to the students, their families and the community at large for their presumption of guilt. One mother wrote a e-mail to Professor Baker asking her to apologize. It was a polite letter. You should see the response she received. It was nasty, unprofessional and, quite frankly, unbelievable. I believe Universities are for the progression of thought, not race-baiting. I sincerely hope that should this situation ever arise at Vanderbilt, you will take a more courageous approach towards the prosecution of justice than did the Administration of Duke and, furthermore, instruct the faculty about appropriate behavior, with freedom of speech comes responsibility. Faculty members do not operate in a societal vacuum.

Thank You for your time.

Vincent Walker

Unknown said...

Ping Bill Anderson:

Do you have the entire e-mails including headers?
I think they should be passed on to Vanderbilt Administration. Also there are Vanderbilt Student Publications that should have this stuff - The Student Paper is called the Hustler.

Anonymous said...

To BA,
Thank you for posting the e-mails to and from Houston Baker. I am very dismayed by his response.

To Clarence Darrow,
Thank you for sending the e-mail on to Chancellor Gee and the Board of Trustees. I, for one, will be extremely interested in the responses you receive.

Prof. Baker's departure from Duke seems to be at least one positive development for that University since the Spring of 2006.


Michael said...

You can use "a href" tags to produce a clickable link as below. You can find directions by searching for html programming.


Anonymous said...

To Bill Anderson,

What are your sources for the alleged email from Houston Baker and the earlier email to which Baker was supposedly responding? I'm no fan of the despicable Group of 88, but the alleged Baker email is so over the top that I find it hard to believe any one would write it.

Anonymous said...

re 5:07pm

Anonymous said...

To Clarence Darrow,
Before you send your e-mail, you will find the actual letter from Houston Baker to President Brodhead and Peter Lange's response very enlightening. Richard/Anon 5:07 posted the link. To the Anon who doubted that Houston Baker wrote this e-mail, you would benefit from the same link, too.


Michael said...

I guess I could imagine
that someone that wrote the letter that the Provost replied to could write that letter to a parent.

I wonder if Baker was asked to leave or if he was recruited by Vanderbilt. If he already had the new job in the bag, then mistreating a parent probably wouldn't cost him.

Anonymous said...

I would not waste 'one keystroke' in contacting the '88'.

Among the full cast of miscreants they are minor players - eccentric academic gadflys who have garnered FAR more attention than they warrant.

I am far more interested in hearing from the faculty who have remained silent - where does the REAL Duke faculty stand ?


cf said...

I've given this a lot of thought today, K.C.
What the 88 did was an unethical outrage.
Surely, they are not unaware of what has transpired since they signed this outrage, and yet not one has shown the courage to apologize.
Frankly, at this point I think only stronger consequences would suit my sense of justice.

Anonymous said...

How about someone making up a "wanted poster" for the "group of 88" and then sticking them up around the Duke campus?

The header could read:

"In 1939 a group of left-wing socialist racists known as the "Social Democratic Party of Germany" (aka the NAZI's) attempted to overthrow Europe and instigate a series of social engineering experiments known as genocide by eliminating people due to their race and class and sexual orientation (Jews, Gypsy's and Gay's).

In 2006 a load of left-wing socialist racist-facists known as the group of 88 attempted to railroad innocent students because of their race, class and sexual orientation (White male, upper-middle class and heterosexual) into incarceration with absolutely no evidence."

After that you have as many pictures of the "group of 88" you can manage and for those you can't find just have their name underneath the picture of a question mark.

Anonymous said...

Lost sheep????? I suggest they are more like a cancer which needs to be excised as soon as possible. Playing Neville Chamberlain to these clowns is going to produce the same results he achieved.

When I was at Duke back in the dark ages, I learned in one of my classes (do not remember which...senile) that the modification of any behavior requires a significant emotional event. Duke needs to provide these scum bags with a significant emotional event (also brodhead).

As I indicated on FODU on Dec 23 regarding their position on brodhead, I am terribly dissapointed that they (and apparently Bill Anderson) would even consider getting into bed with these clowns.


Unknown said...

Is anyone else here upset at the deafening silence of the rest of the (non-88) faculty in regards to this matter? Failure to stand up for your beliefs is just as bad as screeching unsubstantiated nonsense, IMO. I think time would be better spent emailing the rest of the faculty asking them to publicly affirm their loyalty to truth, due process, and the Duke family.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to say.....but I must vehemently disagree with the idea of asking the Duke 88 professors who caused such damage to three young guys to now please "be nice".

There are some situations in life when extending largesse is a form of insanity.

This is one of those situations.


Anonymous said...

2:35PM said...
Put Duke back together again? This reminded me of a little poem, I am sure most know how it goes.

...for those who don't know how it goes:

President Brodhead straddled the wall
DA Nifong had a great fall
All Brodhead's forces and all Nifong's men
Couldn't put Duke's reputation together again!!!

Anonymous said...

Offer them the opportunity to resign while sitting in front of a very classy pillow of goose down, oh and a very liquid bucket of tar!

I fully believe in a fully open and equal education, but some of these folks are using OUR money to run induction centers!

Ask you child, ( of any age), did they teach you learn today? Or did they teach you to obey?!!!

100% or our institutions of education carry this one and very simple rule. Teach the teacher, which can only equate with teach them to learn! Not accept, but to discover for themselves!

tenure is akin to Neanderthal thought. Are students givin a free ride if they do well for say 4 quarters/trimesters, (added for those that would take exception).

I mean come on, they done well for a time, so from now on, anything goes, and they grade a-b! ALWAYS!

Duke could go belly up tomorrow! I could care less, such would not effect me in any shape for form sans the absence of the name in the sweet 16 in basket ball.

But the legal community is the ones responsible for cleanup over Nifong!

Nothing like being Nifonged now is there? Leads to lots of $$$ for the industry right?

The educational community is responsible for cleaning up their own bathrooms as well.

We as users can only watch and evaluate how well they keep the shitters for us that happen to actually pay the bills for them!!

Anonymous said...

I wrote to the three scientists in the group of 88, Petters, Lee and Plesser. I figured, if anyone would have the courage to apologize, it would be a scientist.

They each ignored the letter.

I don't think any of them will apologize or recant.

Anyone remember a similar scandal, Rathergate, where leftists were similarly hoodwinked by an obvious forgery from an insane person? None of them ever apologized either: they just shifted the focus of their comments from "this document shows something about Bush" to "Bush is evil anyway ."

Here, I predict the obvious response of the Gang of 88 will be similar:
A. Insist that one of Mangum's many stories is correct anyway; or if not
B. Attack the players anyway, for example for underage drinking; or
C. Claim that their societal struggle against racism is more important than the actual facts here.

It seems to me, however, that their position is much weaker than the the counterpart's position in Rathergate.

Many people did not like Bush, but it is difficult to see how anyone could dislike a character like Seligmann, who is a serious student, volunteers extensively in the community, and is very well-liked. The players overall have come across as likeable fellows.

Second, most people cannot relate to being framed for some kind of National Guard service problem. But many people can easily imagine themselves or their loved ones being falsely accused.

Finally, the facts are even simpler than in Rathergate. There, some knowledge of typography was necessary to understand the case. Here, by contrast, only a little commonsense about human nature is needed.

Nevertheless, I think it is important to understand how the scandal will unfold. There will be counterattack on the players character, and there will be renewed calls for sensitivity to race.

Insofar as we care about facts and justice, and insofar as we believe the lives of innocent students should not be subservient to politics, we should be ready with clear talking points to rebut the counterattack.

For example: as to the character: emphasize the strong academic standing of the Duke team; talk about how teamwork builds honesty and character, traits in short supply among the detractors.

I don't know how to combat the underage drinking attack, which I have seen repeated a lot in the mainstream media. It's so alien to my world-view to treat the seriousness of kids drinking with police conspiring to frame kids that I cannot figure out how they can make this argument - but they do and it's worth noting.

As to the facts: perhaps mention a few points the media does not know as well, like Mangum's prior triple-rape accusation and her attempted murder accusation, and her accusing a number of players who were not at the party. Emphasize the number of totally different and inconsistent accusations she has made. Osborn's site has the prior accusation's report by the way.

As to the history of her varied identifications - be sure to source them. Don't just say it, like I am here, give sources.

I do think this case is even bigger than the innocence of the Duke 3. Like the Dreyfuss affair or the Scottsboro case, it has thrown into relief deep veins of corruption in academia and the law. They will counterattack viciously and it's well to be prepared.

Anonymous said...

Here was my letter to the scientists, Lee, Plesser and Petters:

Dear Profs. Lee, Plesser and Petters,

I am saddened and disappointed by your refusing to communicate or explain your actions vis-a-vis the group of 88. I do not know whether you are rationalizing your behavior in your own minds by arguing that you trusted the D.A. on good faith (even though a cornerstone of our legal system is not to condemn people before the facts are in); or whether you believe even if the Duke players did not actually rape Mangum, that they did other bad acts (even though there is little evidence of that either, and the players were among the top student-athletes at Duke); or whether you believe that you were acting in the best interest of the university to prevent its being destroyed; or whether you argue that the letter itself did not expressly say that the students were guilty (even though it supported protesters who did expressly say that); or whether you have personal political reasons for your actions, as for example to obtain funding for pet projects (or, in Lee's case, tenure); or whether you now want to minimize your own legal exposure.

I hope that you will take time to reflect on the horrible pain that you must have caused these boys, and the sense of betrayal they must feel. I hope that you will reflect on the importance of standing up for individual rights in past hysterias, as with L'affaire Dreyfuss or the Scottsboro. I hope that you will understand by reflecting on your decisions that the rationalizations above are nothing more than that, and that you will, if not to me, at least apologize to the three young men in whose tragedy you all played a part.

Anonymous said...

As a Duke parent (Class of 2006) I am becoming dismayed at the increasingly right-wing and harsh tone of messages on this board. I find some of them as distasteful (and hateful) as the statements by the Group of 88. I hope that this board returns to the issue at hand -- the innocence of three young men -- without being infected by rhetoric from people with other political and social agendas in mind.

Anonymous said...

Memo to 12:58-- I don't care whose parent you are. It is that meely-mouthed attitude of yours of just sitting by for too long without fighting back against rabid racists in Durham that culminated in what we are witnessing right now.
This case is much bigger than a yellow liberal like you.

Go fly a kite!

Anonymous said...

6:46pm moderators i would vote to delete this message.
i am a durham liberal who voted against nifong, and have followed along and enjoyed this blog for a long time. drove by the pot bangers and thought they were wrong. when we look at characters like foley the representative and nifong the DA, it is not a political party thing. Deceit and pure selfishness, know no political persuasion limitation.

Anonymous said...

12:58, I completely agree. As I've written before, most of the principal issues raised by this case -- the innocence of the three defendants, Nifong's demagoguery and corruption, the conductof the potbanging lynch mob, the betrayal by the 88, the decline of academic standards of scholarship and integrity, the ineffectual response of the Duke administration etc. -- should not be "right v. left" or "liberal v. neocon" issues. There's nothing liberal about NIfong, the mob or the Holloway/Libiano crowd. And one certainly doesn't have to be a right-winger or racist toapplaud the stands which KC has taken in this admirable blog. It's a shame that this site has attracted the attention of one or two Coulter-esque liberal-haters, flat-out racists and one self-styled "minor celebrity" loony. (I sometimes wonder if it's not all a Macchiavellian strategy by KC's foes to discredit his blog.) But that's free speech web-style.

A message to the 88 from the Duke family is overdue. I hope it will be delivered emphatically when the students return. But it should be a broad-based message supported by everyone -- liberal, moderate or conservative -- who remains outraged by the 88's betrayal of Duke and its students.

Anonymous said...

To Duke JD---

You have deposited a very provocative post. Care to elaborate? I mean, in detail....beyond the usual stereotypes?

Why is it that no matter how dirty and repugnant a far left position is, it is never "racist" to people like you? Is there a special recipe which allows a leftist to hate other races, yet not be called a "racist"? (Ex. many of the Gang 88 "professors").

You see, in my world, all those people who have threatened the lives of these lacrosse players, fabricated falsehoods, and who have worked to harm them because they are white.....knowing that there is no evidence that they committed a crime.......

......are the most vicious racists on the planet. And I don't care what color their skin happens to be.

I can agree with the poster above who believes that sitting back singing "kumbaya" won't cut it when dealing with the brand of black racism that exists among many in this country today.

This case has been an eye opener for some of us who thought we had moved beyond such events.

BTW.....Ann Coulter is an excellent writer and bomb-thrower. LOL!

Are the words of the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman just delicate little pearls of wisdom in your book?

Krugman is just as much a flame thrower as Ann Coulter....and the left has many more like him; however, Coulter is more attractive and witty so she gets more attention.

Try not to make my points for me regarding hypocrisy next time.


Anonymous said...

Hi jc (aka Debra)

I'm afraid I see little future in a dialogue with anyone who thinks the cadaverous Coulter is "attractive."

Happy New Year

Anonymous said...

Dear Duke JD---

I don't know how to break it to you, but I'd be afraid if I had to rely upon you to break a case.

No, I'm not the poster "JC".

Bill Anderson and Bob Wilson know who I am.....if you need some help.

The humorous "JC" may have some aliases; however, I'm not one of them.

Try again, Clarence Darrow.



Anonymous said...

Dear Duke JD----

Post Script: Regarding Ann Coulter.....she can be a little odd......a bit too conservative for me......however, she's an excellent writer.

I'd much rather listen to her than say.....Rosie O'Donnell.....or Jeanine Garofalo......or Barbra Streisand spouting unresearched BS in between "entertaining" an audience.

And what's wrong with Coulter's physique? I'd rather be too thin than an obese hog like half of the population today.


Anonymous said...

It is really quite simple. President Brodhead needs to go back from whence he came asap. All untenured of the 88 need to be fired. Those of the 88 (87, thank god we lost Baker) who are tenured need to be marginalized so that no one has to take their courses-although from what I have heard, no one does anyway. The remainder of the excellent faculty need to issue a public statement of support for the young men and damnation for their 88 peers. Those on the 88 who do not formally apologize to the young men for assuming guilt need to be left on the sidelines as Duke rebuilds its highly damaged reputation. Lastly, an investigation of those faculty who were given tenure based on "forthcoming" books that never were published need to also be fired. When all of the above happens, I will resume my annual donations that have regularly been given for 25 years or so. Until such time as this occurs, then there will be no payments to Duke from me. Nor will I evaluate a major donation upon my death unless this terrible travesty is revisited in a serious and very vocal way on the part of my University. I never in a million years thought that I would be embarrassed by my University, but today I am ashamed of Duke. It might help if Duke got a PR firm- Burness is a complete idiot on a world class level.

Anonymous said...

10:19am--- Bravo!

Agreed. Burness is a useless ho',

Anonymous said...

They have no honor - they made their bed and need to lay in it. bring the cannoli

Anonymous said...

Betrayers of Duke

The infamous Group of 88

Shame..shame...shame on you

and Brodhead too.

proposed posters and tee's for the spring fests