Wednesday, January 17, 2007

The (Rump) Group of 88 Strikes Again

Two hundred ninety-five days after issuing their statement, the Group of 88 has re-emerged, in a defiant statement posted yesterday.

Operating under the moniker Concerned (of Being Sued) Duke Faculty, the 88 is now 87. Though losing more than two dozen of its members, Group leaders somehow rounded up an almost equal number of faculty members who hadn’t signed the original ad. That such a cohort would, after the fact, affiliate with a widely discredited and discreditable statement might be the most amazing thing we’ve witnessed from the Duke arts and sciences faculty over the past 10 months.

It was fitting that the Group of 88 made its re-appearance on the same day that one of its most prominent members, Karla Holloway, released scurrilous fifth-hand gossip to the local media.

The rump Group contains many familiar names. Alex Rosenberg again signs on (even though the new statement, just like its predecessor, contains no mention of his favorite issue, alcohol). Bill Chafe (who contended that the whites who lynched Emmett Till provide the appropriate historical context through which to interpret the lacrosse players’ actions) is back. So too is CCI gender co-chair Anne Allison and Mark (“thugniggaintellectual”) Neal.

In April, the original statement’s author, Wahneema Lubiano, wrote, “Regardless of the ‘truth’ established in whatever period of time about the incident at the house on N. Buchanan Blvd., the engine of outcry in this moment has been fueled by the difficult and mundane reality that pre-existed this incident.”

In other words, why should the Group of 88 have to worry about inconvenient facts, or even seeking the “truth,” if doing so might frustrate their ideological crusades?

Lubiano’s thesis permeates the rump Group’s statement: though the case upon which their original ad was built has collapsed, the signatories show no repentance. They categorically “reject” all “public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it.” The Group, in short, did no wrong—as Karla Holloway said last fall, they’d do it over again, in a “heartbeat.”

The signatories do concede that “pain” was “generated” by events surrounding the Group of 88’s original ad. The culprit? Not Mike Nifong, whose conduct receives no mention. The Group still can’t bring themselves to condemn the prosecutor who targeted their own institution’s students, or to issue a public demand that Duke students be treated according to the same procedures as all other residents of Durham. Instead, in the Group’s eyes, the real culprits in this affair were those who have “intentionally” misread the ad.

Intriguingly, the rump Group’s statement links to a Google archive of their own ad posted by one of the blogosphere critics they so vigorously denounce. While the critics have regularly quoted from the text of the ad itself, Group members have acted (for good reason) as if they were ashamed of their springtime statement. After they started receiving strong criticism last fall, the original ad suddenly vanished from the Duke website.

The new statement echoes the line of Bob Ashley’s Herald-Sun and the transparently pro-prosecution NAACP: “We reject all attempts to try the case outside the courts, and stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence.”

It’s ironic that a statement signed by more than 70 percent the African-American Studies Department would implicitly rebuke the civil rights movement of the late 1950s and early 1960s, in which activists recognized the need to mobilize the public, “outside the courts,” to protest rigged local procedures in the Deep South.

Continuing one of the most troubling aspects of this case—the sense that some Duke professors just don’t like many of their own school’s students—the rump Group portrays the Duke campus as beset by problems of sexism, racism, and sexual assault. Without citing evidence, the authors decry the “atmosphere that allows sexism, racism, and sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus.”

Many of the new statement’s signatories have worked at Duke for decades—Chafe, for instance was dean of faculty, others have served as department chairs or in important administrative posts. And yet a prospective parent who reads the statement might seriously believe that Duke is awash in “sexual violence.” If true, this claim raises serious questions about the performance of the institution’s faculty in mentoring its students. If false, the claim raises serious questions about the willingness of some faculty members to make reckless, unsubstantiated assertions about the students they teach.

The new statement also contends that the original signatories merely wanted to “give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real.” Yet neither the original Group nor its new, rump form has demonstrated any interest in trying to “give voice” to Duke students since March 29, when Lubiano came up with the idea for the original statement. Indeed, signatories Karla Holloway and Grant Farred have explicitly attacked Duke students, while a third signatory, Kim Curtis, went so far as to suggest that students in her own class were accomplices to rape.

In the end, however, the Concerned (of Being Sued) Duke Faculty seem most “concerned” with trying to limit their liability for the most indefensible element of the Group of 88’s statement—the decision of its signatories to say “thank you” to the “the students speaking individually and . . . protesters making collective noise.”

The new statement’s signatories state the following:

We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time. We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence.

Does this assertion mean that the Concerned (of Being Sued) Duke Faculty approve of the potbangers’ protests? It would seem so. While they make no attempt to describe the demonstrations of which they disapproved, they are clear in what they appreciated—“those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence.”

Manju Rajendran, an organizer of the potbangers’ protest, was explicit on her stated intention: “We are here to break the silence around sexual assault and violence.” A few days later, she described the effort (which, of course, included signs stating “Time to confess” and “Castrate”) as a fight against “institutionalized racism and a whole culture of sexual violence.”

Just what the Concerned (of Being Sued) Duke Faculty expressed their appreciation for in their most recent statement. At least no one need doubt any longer where they stand.


1 – 200 of 202   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Excellent post, KC. Please keep up the good fight.

Anonymous said...

A social disastor of their own making. Funny how they act like they were watching this from the bedroom window instead of inciting the freak fringe with their babble.


Chicago said...

The Group of 88 is like a bad cold that never seems to go away. What a complete liability they are.

Anonymous said...

I see Rachel Sullivan from Rachel's Tavern is posting on this blog. Since you are both professors in the NY area why don't you give her a call. I'm sure you would have a lot to talk about.

Greg Toombs said...

The day to fight back approaches... Soon after all charges are dismissed it is time to go head-hunting in the PC community and the grievance industry.

Cry "Havoc!" and let loose the dogs of war.

Anonymous said...

I will grant them one thing. Yes, Colleges do tend to have race and gender problems as well as booze and parties that spiral out of control. It's a no brainer and it's no slap against the defendants to point out the obvious. The 88's moral offense -- if you take them at their word here -- was to exploit the long term problem ONLY when this case emerged.

Thus, we are to believe 1) only with the Lax case the 88 became aware of it? Come on. Many make their living out of capitalizing on these problems. 2) the language with clear correlations to "noise" (i.e., the pot bangers) was NOT a sanction of the ugliest of protests and certainly not part of the rush-to-judgment protests? and 3) that anyone of consequence among their critics and in the broader community is going to believe that ONLY now after their favored case dissolves and they are getting criticism, that they NOW decide to "clarify" their statements.

Didn't they get a clue from the frosty reception of Davidson's N&O piece? Their own colleague in Electical/Comp Eng didn't buy it and made the impact of their former "adamant silence" very clear shortly after in the same paper!

Anonymous said...

All of you should read Mitch Alboms article posted today on, a great read.....just an FYI....

Anonymous said...

They've already started running from their comments made yesterday. Their website is unavailable.

It's really too bad 200k of my parents money went to pay these worthless professors. Good thing I was an engineer and didn't have to deal with this S*** every day in lecture. Engineers (as you have seen from Prof. Gus.) are a little more logical.

BSE '05

Anonymous said...

If you are a Duke student, alumni, faculty or staff, please sign the following petition to show your support for Reade, Collin, and Dave.

Concerned Duke Alumni

Anonymous said...

"All of you should read Mitch Alboms article posted today on, a great read.....just an FYI...."

URL please? (the search on the author comes up blank.)

Anonymous said...

"These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman and to themselves"....."We’re turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait."

-Group Haty Hate's presumption of innocence.

Duke is a joke, but the funny ending has yet to come...


Anonymous said...

...and this is probably also in response to the grade discrimination lawsuit. They know they're in trouble and have helped create a very serious breech of trust between them, the students, "town" and board of govs (or whatever they have at Duke).

Anonymous said...

Manjuu Rajendran still has pictures of the 610 Buchanon protest on her myspace site. I assume we will not be getting an apology from her.

Anonymous said...

These professors have to go. It's not about intellectual diversity, or freedom of speech. It's about integrity, moral turpitude, and pure incompetence. These 87 bozos have no business instructing young people.

They are spoiled children, who've gotten away with their bad behavior because they throw loud tantrums and have over-indulgent parents (i.e. administrators).

Get a mop, Brodhead, and start the house-cleanin'.

Anonymous said...

I like the "Concerned (of Being Sued)" moniker...keep up the good work, KC; keep fighting the good fight.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

The Mitch Albom article.

pantapon rose said...

I can see the value of my Duke degree plummeting before my eyes.

Michael said...

Just saw on LS that Leno made a joke about CGM. Leno is a milestone.

For those trying to post links:

See this link for directions on doing an a href link here.

Anonymous said...

I am feeling uneasy about the city. I think there might be a riot, an attack, encouraged by people like Karla, the New Black Panthers, Cash Michaels, and others. Apparently 4th degree hearsay of whitey saying a nasty word is "news." I'm afraid of what will happen when the case is dismissed.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting the URL, I did not realize the article was tucked away where it was.....Inside Lacrosse has done a good job of posting many articles related to the case and has been admirable in their analysis, not quite KC, but they have stood by the kids.....

Anonymous said...

First, the race debate that Cash and Zahn etc. are trying to keep alive grows boring and seems very desparate (See KC's previous post). It's niether thought provoking or entertaining.

Second, if this awful environment has existed at Duke, why haven't these 80 odd professors brought it up before? They talk to administrators and other falculty. I would like to see one example of what they have done before this.

Anonymous said...

For those of you who would like to read a little more about today's faculty meeting at Duke where Provost Lange (a name not seen before in this blog) and President Brodhead addressed the group's concerns about the electronic media, go to:

Anonymous said...

Mitch Albom's article can be found on the Detroit Free Press website.

Anonymous said...

This group has two schizophrenic goals: first, to stoke the coals of racism in order to legitimize it's April '06 actions (weird but true), and second, to create a smoke screen drawing attention away from their poor judgement and liability. Dangerous stuff. I hope these kids understand what they are playing with.

Anonymous said...

I am very close to pulling my two kids out of Duke University. What a waste of very, very hard earned money. These 88 professors are plain simple in the head. Was there any reason the new ad did not say "We are so sorry that our first ad was misunderstood, and we feel terrible about this. We did not mean to inflame this situation and we apologize for being misread. It is a sad situation, but we are sorry for our role in making it worse."

We starting saving money the day each one of these children were born to pay for this nonsense. My fury at paying for this lack of quality is so amazing that my blood pressure pills are going to have to be adjusted. Please get rid of Steel, Brodhead, the goofball AD who crashed his boat, the 88, Holloway, and all of these other nincompoops. I will retire at age 75 to pay for that?

What are they thinking? Do they understand the responsibilities of working as an employee of an organization? Is it really legal for them to continue to run up legal bills for Duke just because they continue to run their mouths? Are we as parents going to have to pay their salaries and their legal bills with our high tuition? If they kept their mouths shut or else apologized, would the legal bills be less for Duke? Does Duke have to pay for their bills when they continue to publish their drivel elsewhere?

Enough already with being misunderstood. I as a parent feel really misunderstood. Big time.

Newyorkstateofmind said...

Along with the usual academic Stalinism--which at this juncture makes the latest G88 statement look like an exaggerated version of the looniest and most malicious rantings and ramblings of the academics David Horowitz so aptly exposes, Looks like the G88 defiance is animated by a "Teflon Don" complex, which under any of the following several scenarios would at least rationally explain their patent irrationality.

They have received elaborate legal advice from a sympathetic mole at the Duke Law School who assures them that for a variety of reasons, including up to a formal coordination with the Admin, Daddy Duke will pick up the tab for any and all civil suits which are directed at G88, or any of its members. A variation of this is that they've made their own arrangements for these types of assurances from the Duke admin. Or, they simply believe Duke will pick up the tab regardless, in order to avoid even more bad publicity if any of these suits go to trial. As I've pointed out elsewhere, Duke parents and other potential litigants need to stand firm (and avoid being seduced by big dollar signs offered to settle to keep the case from court--major fortitude test for the best of us) and have their attorneys--whoever they may end up being--refuse to settle any claims they themselves bring--which settlements doubtless will be entrusted with the usual weasel language that "defendant in settling admits no liability." Duke admin have a huge incentive to bundle literally every suit into a structured settlement, class action or not, whereby Duke ponies up millions, in return for no courtroom time for anyone connected to Duke.

Another possibility: the G88 are happy to continue outrageous comments because they have some other arrangement with Duke admin, or simply the arrogance of an abuser who knows his prey will never fight back, whereby Duke will not claim when the suits come down that G88 were ranting solo voce, and all their nonsense was "outside the scope of their employment at Duke." To wit, if Duke admin made and then prevailed in such an argument, they would then guarantee that various G88 who are sued would have to organize a defense committee, or take out yet another mortgage on that vacation home on the Outer Banks, to cover legal costs. And Duke admin would thereby be risking that any number of those cases end up in court, and the negative publicity for Duke would then be amplified dramatically.

Don't see it happening.

Anonymous said...

"These 88 professors are plain simple in the head."

If ONLY! Their problem is that they are all too complex.... afterall... they are insisting we understand what they wrote was not what they wrote.

Anonymous said...

Alex Rosenberg (

What a character.

Anonymous said...

I guess the question I would have is, "Have any of these guys heard of the 'reasonable person(s)' principle." In this case, thousands of reasonable persons who are not part of their little PC party had the very response/interpreatation that they purport that they did not convey. To give an example of a somewhat (loosely)parallel situation:

An honor guard commander in the Marines who yells, "Fire!!!" at a military funeral would be understood by all present to be giving a command to his guard to fire an honorary fussilade. However, if he went to the movies in civilian clothes that night and yelled the exact same thing in the exact same voice, he will have committed a crime. Why? Because reasonable persons would almost surely misinterpret his statement. The point is that context, timing, and appearances are everything in the legal liability situation here. I suspect they will find that out in spades once they are in a courtroom.

Anonymous said...

I heard my friend Jane, who heard from her teacher Bob, who heard from Inspector Gadget that Prof. Alex Rosenberg appreciates receiving emails from those who follow the Duke lacrosse case.

Anonymous said...

"It has been broadly, and often intentionally, misread."

Could they at least admit that it was poorly written?

Anonymous said...

Professor KC,

Hey, honkyballs, it be Wahneema

Howdy doody to y'all

You done and made a BIG mistake, Mr Honky

You sayin' I's got a big booty?--that be racist

You sayin I's a Hottentot?

Prepare for a wackin, Harvard-educated cracker

Wahneema Lubiano

Is Rump Group redundant?

Jamie said...

KC: "At least no one need doubt any longer where they stand"? Wait - not so fast! They claim their last statement didn't say what it clearly said, so maybe this one doesn't either.

Geez, it could mean anything. Just hope we don't have to wait for months until they translate it for us.

Anonymous said...

This thing just goes on and on and on. I read that Nifong is severly depressed and possibly suicidal. That would not surprise me. I think he really thought he was invisable.

Anonymous said...

1:37 AM

He ought not feel too's not like he's facing 30 years in prison - for something he did not do!

Unknown said...

I am heartbroken by this continuing madness.

Dan McGurn

Duke Class of 1983

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

I would have thought the parents talking on CBS would be the biggest hit Duke would take all week and I guess it still is. But this statement certainly undermines any excusing the Duke faculty with a claim that it was a one time error in justment.

Face it, if you send your kid to Duke, a major portion of the faculty will hate them for whatever you have earned in life so that you could afford to send them there, their race and their sex.

january said...

Is Brodhead NEVER going to get the courage to disclaim this group? I cannot believe he wants the world to think they speak for Duke!

Anonymous said...

I have to admit that the list of professors who signed this statement really left me pretty taken aback. It includes the two professors who I asked to write my recommendations when applying to grad school and the first professor that I hugged after I received my Duke diploma. I have to say that they were three of my favorite professors and I respect all three immensely. There are other names on the list that have always represented intelligent, decent people in my mind.

The events surrounding the case and the actions and reactions by Duke and its faculty have troubled me as much as anyone. Statements by professors such as Karla Halloway and Waheema Lubiano have left me with a constant source of outrage.

Seeing names of people that I have profoundly respected sitting beside them in support of a letter which I disagree with is very disconcerting. However, it's impossible for me to brush aside what I already felt about these people and it gives me pause when villifying the 88 and the most recent letter.

I can't help but caution myself to try to slow my anger towards Duke and its faculty. I feel like a lot of people on this message board would like to see Duke fall to nothing because of the mistakes made in this case, but the most important thing to me, after completely clearing the names and doing right by the three accused, is getting Duke back to what it can and should be.

I still disagree with much of what is written in this recent statement, and I really can't help but want the fullest punishment for Nifong, who is really the the root of all of this, but I think that those who share my resentment of everything that has happened in this case might pause before they, too, seek to villify many who they largely know nothing about or desire a final result to the case that seeks little constructiveness.

Duke '06

Anonymous said...

To Duke '06:

I hope the despicable Duke administrators reading this blog tonight and tomorrow (Lange, Burness and Davidson) take your words to heart.

By encouraging this most recent obscenity from their faculty colleagues, they are most to blame.

Anonymous said...

I have to wonder if the new and old members of the Duke 88 knew that Karla Holloway was releasing a gossip item as the statement was being published.

Did she sandbag all the signers by releasing her story (with the gossip) on the same day as the statement? She timed it a little too well. The other profs will know they have just been used.

Now one has to link the two events (Holloway gossip & the new statement). Did all the members of the new statement know that Karla was going to throw more racial hate on the fire? Attack the Lax players again with unfounded charges?

Anonymous said...


Have you heard anything about the G88's classes being boycotted? reactions of students when a G88 member enters the classroom? whether alumni are plotting to remove trustees/Brodhead?

This info would be most appreciated.


Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re: Duke '06

Sorry but unless you belong to one of their approved groups, they would turn on you in a heartbeat like they did your classmate Mr. Evans. I don't care how nice they seemed to you in class or while at Duke. I don't care how nice the letters they wrote for you were. They have by signing on to this statement revealed more about themselves than they ever apparently did while you were in contact with them at Duke.

And yes sometimes you have to cut out the rotten wood before you can repair a structure. Duke has a lot of rotten wood to cut out.

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't Holloway quit and move to NCCU to teach if Duke is so white bred elitist? She could have a bigger impact at NCCU. Maybe because her salary would be less.

My wife is a Duke Alumnist. Most Alumni think that Broadhead has let this fiasco get out of hand and that applications are going to take a hit.

Early admission applications are down, but it's because Harvard and the other Ivy's are doing away with early admission all together as I understand the situation.

But, there will be an effect. Hopefully, Bill Gates, who is the biggest living donor because Melinda is a 86 grad, will jump in.

The 88 legal targets have crossed the line in creating this overhyped atmosphere as much at Ms. Mangum. They are so worried about justice. Let some of it be served on them in a subpoena.

by they way, Duke has a large endowment, so the financial pain could take awhile.

If the Lacrosse Coach is dismissed for running a wreckless program. Broadhead fits that defination.

Anonymous said...

I guess these faculty members have never heard the old adage, "When you are in a hole, stop digging!"

They seem to live in a beautiful big pink plastic bubble above mere mortals, casting judgment, maintaining their self-righteous attitudes in the face of overwhelming evidence that they were wrong, while never having a minute of self-doubt or appraisal of their own motives. (To their dismay, they might find that a few people own pins.)

PS to Michael aho posted at 12:44 re the Leno joke on CGM. For those who are not as obsessed with this case as others, CGM = Crystal Gail Mangum = "the victim" = the soon to be legally discredited accuser.

Leno, Letterman, Jon Stuart, Colbert etc are (unfortunately) the leading news sources for many people who no longer read newpapers or watch TV news. When they start piling on, you know this case is in trouble.

Anonymous said...

the only victims of racism here are the boys.

this claim of institutional racism is as tired and worn out as reparations. the mere fact that holloway and lubiano are on the faculty at duke shows that whatever the state of institutional racism, it doesn't impact blacks. lubiano and holloway have their jobs because of being black, not in spite of it.

i think this case is a poster child of sorts. it is a poster child of the fraud that has been perpetrated on guilty white liberals for years. wake up folks. you bought the farm. it was never a a problem.


Anonymous said...

The good news is that we are slowly gaining ground. If each succeeding manifesto is reduced by but a single signer, the field should be clear by, say, about the time that Social Security goes bankrupt. In the long meanwhile some bloggers may be puzzled by the somewhat eccentric interpretation that Manifesto II seems to place upon Manifesto I. The difficulty may arise from the unfamiliarity of some bloggers with certain modes of literary criticism much in vogue at Duke. You see, there are no “authors”, only “texts”. Hence the list of names attached to Manifesto I were not authors but parts of a textual “construct”. On the other hand the list at the end of Manifesto II shows dangerous signs of aspiring to authorial status. These names may correspond to actual people who are trying to teach us to read Manifesto I. Only an English professor could come up with mushy idea that their text was “widely read”—meaning that a lot of people read it. The idea of intentional misinterpretation, on the other hand, is “widely” and enthusiastically taught in English Departments. The concept of intentional misinterpretation is a kind of inscrutable literary adaptation of a possible concept of an incomprehensible French philosopher. In its canonical formulation by a Yale professor it is called the “strong misreading.” Hence when you read in “Hamlet” that
There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will—
you have the opportunity greatly to improve that non-existent author with the “reading”
There’s a divinity that shapes our ends rough,
Hew them how we will.
The philosophy of the “strong misreading” of course antedates its explicit articulation in the twentieth-century academy. This kind of “discourse” was once called “Humpty Dumpty talk,” after the usage of one of the characters in this blog’s favorite book: “’When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'”
One must read the flight of fancy known as Manifesto II rather in the spirit that the immortal (and of course deliciously immoral) Byron approached the Teutonic philosophical lucubrations of his contemporary Coleridge. Since these authors are no longer “widely read” in North Carolina, let me supply the text.

And Coleridge, too, has lately taken wing,
But like a hawk encumber'd with his hood,
Explaining Metaphysics to the nation--
I wish he would explain his Explanation.

Anonymous said...

what the hell is a social disaster anyway - sounds like the homecoming queen did not show up.

Anonymous said...

"Concerned (of being sued)" ... is that even English?

Anonymous said...

Dear 1:00 a.m.,

If you pull your kids out of Duke, where could you send them? To Harvard, where the Crimson version of the GO88 got Larry Summers fired for politically incorrect comments? Princeton, home of Cornell West? Or staying in the south, Vanderbilt (the new Home of Houston Baker)? Shine a light on any prestigious university in this country and these are the types of people you find.

Anonymous said...

Why is anyone surprised anymore that Karla "I'm a Victim!" Holloway would do something stupid -- again? Every time she opens her mouth or picks up her pen, Karla Holloway merely reaffirms that she is a talentless racist of dubious intellect. She is the perfect illustration of why affirmative action (in university admissions, as well as university hirings) MUST end.

Anonymous said...

I have never commented here before, but this all brings me back to my wonderful days at the U of Texas in the late 80s. i kept a low profile and told my profs exactly what they wanted to hear. (A mastery of very vulgar marxism did wonders for my GPA.)
This whole affair could have been invented by Tom Wolfe, assuming he totally lost his sense of humor.

Anonymous said...



This stuff can't be made up! It is classic.


PS Still laughing on my way to work...

Anonymous said...

These people are destroying Duke University and the administration is standing by watching it happen. All of this on the eve of application notifications. When their classrooms are empty, Duke will wake up.

Anonymous said...

Remember, last spring Lubiano declared that The Ad would drive a spike "through the collective heart of the lacrosse team," so it is clear that she and "Bodies of Evidence" Karla Holloway are lying now.

Furthermore, William Chafee likened the lacrosse players to the murderers of Emmett Till, so he cannot come back now and say that he was only speaking in general terms. Once you declare some individuals basically to be murderers, and you are specific in your accusations, as was Chafee, there is no turning back.

As a CYA gesture, this was pathetic. It seems that Holloway and company are desperately trying to seize the LOW Ground. In Durham these days, that is difficult to do.

Anonymous said...

By the way, it would seem that this CNN faux poll would be the final nail in the Change of Venue coffin. With the majority of blacks in Durham now "officially" declaring the young men to be rapists, there is no longer any doubt about the possibility of a fair trial in Durham.

Cash Michaels has tried to play both sides on this one, and one of this things has been to insist in the Wilmington Journal that Durham could host a fair trial. It was a bait-and-switch, of course, but by insisting via CNN that Crystal is telling the truth, he has finally stepped into it big time.

Anonymous said...

They'll never see the classrooms empty; all they have to do to maintain enrollment levels is lower the standards for admission, just as they lowered the standards for hiring faculty.

Anonymous said...

Duke very much in self destruct mode!

Brodhead better wake up and reign in this bunch of left wing turkeys. It obvious he is impotent to stand up to these thugs.

Goodbye Duke , Hallo Stanford!

Anonymous said...

Postmodernism means never having to say you are sorry.


M. Simon said...

re:“atmosphere that allows sexism, racism, and sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus.”

Have they considered banning rap music?

Anonymous said...

"We stand by the claim that issues of race and sexual violence on campus are real

Where is the evidence for this claim? What is the evidence of sexual violence on campus? Like the many other ideologues they are making huge exagerations. In this case to cover their own tracks.

G88 memmbers are like other radical ideologues: They tend to become what they hate and then prove it through their actions. Can you say "power and control?"

M. Simon said...

Bill 12:16AM,

Drinking problems have been reported in Universities almost since their invention.

I believe it can be contained, not cured. Prohibition never works.

Anonymous said...

Haven't these Professors ever heard of Google? I want to thank them for revealing themselves as bigots. We all can now read the works of the 88!

Whose idea was it to hire these individuals? Duke does had a problem of Institutional Bigotry in their Professors, at the Hope Franklin Center!

"MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2006
Forum: Thinking About This Social Disaster
African and African American Studies at Duke University


Thinking About This Social Disaster

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Franklin Center, Room 240

Wahneeema Lubiano (AAAS and Literature)
Thavolia Glymph (AAAS and History)
Serena Sebring (Sociology)

The presenters will talk about what has happened, what is happening, and what is coming together in the framing of the incident and its afterlife.

There will be plenty of time for audience members to be part of the discussion.
posted by MAN @ 9:05 PM"

BTW Bad form using Grad Student Serena Sebring.

"MAN" is Mark Anthony Neal

Jay said...

Forget that it's weaselly and motivated by fear and not's an apology...know it doesn't sound like one, but it's as close as they're ever going to get.

Anonymous said...

bill said:

Yes, Colleges do tend to have race and gender problems

I have no idea what you're talking about. What schools? Who has problems? No, colleges do NOT tend to have these problems, colleges tend to have lunatic professors who claim these schools have these problems.

Saying something that is an indication of someone's sex is not sexism, saying something that's an indication of someone's race, is not racism. It's a matter of observation. If someone called someone else fat, does that mean they hate fat people? I know I've used slurs in my life, it doesn't mean I hate all people of that group.

Even as level headed as your post was, it still attempts to portray an environment that doesn't exist on all college campuses, not even most. IMO.

M. Simon said...

anon. 5:48AM,

I think your refrence to Humpty Dumpty should be to the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.

Anonymous said...

Is it written that a college faculty must have an assortment of hare-brained faculty members?

Brings to mind Ross Perot's reference to the "crazy aunt in the attic".

M. Simon said...

1:00 AM, 6:31AM,

May I suggest the University of Chicago?

Anonymous said...

All I can say about the 88 wanting to clarify what they meant to say is... Oh brother!!!!

Anonymous said...

When do you people sleep???!!!

M. Simon said...

kilgore 7:54AM,

I resemble that remark. LOL.

Thanks for the laugh.

M. Simon said...

ano. 8:27AM,

I notice that anon. never sleeps.

Could explain the psychosis we see in some of your posts.

Anonymous said...

Humm... The statement reads, "woman hired to perform at a party." Was she a juggler? Did she recite poetry? Play the clarinette? Do dramatic interpretation (well, this could be argued!)?
Just curious. The LAX players at this woman's clarinette recital should not have behaved in such a manner!

Anonymous said...

That guy Cash is stating the FA is telling the truth. Which version?

Anonymous said...

The Group of 88 make outlandish accusations about sexism, racism and violence on campus all without a shred of evidence to back it up. These slanderous comments seem to be getting the approval of the administration. When will this Administration be reined in and by whom?

Anonymous said...

If Duke has so much racism and sexual violence who is to blame?
Did Duke admit students with high SAT prone to sexual violence and racism? What has Duke done to decrease these problems? If these allegations are true then admissions procedures need to be changed. The administartion needs to be cleaned out and one installed that would institute change. It seems this is a separate issue. The facts support the innocence of the LAX players of this felongy. It seems all college students drink, hire stripers and have sex

Anonymous said...

Left wing faculty nutjobs will be found at most elite private schools and some state schools like Michigan and Berkeley. The more elite the school, the more off-the-wall the faculty and the more anti white male and anti Christian they will be. Send your white male offspring to a midwestern or southern land grant school with a large agricultural and engineering presence if you wish them to be treated fairly.

Anonymous said...

As a 3rd Generation Duke Grad I am deeply disturbed by Duke's mounting troubles. Sadly we are only in the 4th Inning of this game and I fear it will get alot worse as a result of Mr. Broadhead's complete lack of leadership. It is now clear that the tone and tenor of the Duke University Administration and the 'Group of 88' is defensive in nature, spreading their spin and 'leaks', in the anticipation of the Libel & Slander Civil Suits etc. Let's all hope that those suits are filed and pursued vigorously to trial. Only then will the American principle of Freedom of Speech be applied equally to all; that the pendulum will swing back to the center from this lunatic left wing, PC fringe (the new communism), that thrives on social extortion in pursuit of their goals.
Sadly it will be years before Duke recovers but I look forward to that day.

Anonymous said...


I have noticed several times that you have referenced the G88 wanting to avoid additional public scrutiny by pulling the original ad off the server where it was posted. I would be careful drawing conclusions from that action.

I am frequently in the John Hope Franklin Center, where a number of the G88 faculty have offices, and on casual inspection you can still find the "Listening" statement posted on a number of doors there, including Wahneema Lubiano's door as of yesterday. At least within the comfortable environs of that building, they never felt like they had to take anything down.

Anonymous said...

I hope one or two of those scumbags reads your post. A Duke diploma in the Arts and Literature is useful for lining bird cages or a cat's litter box (although cats are probably more discriminating.)

Duke forever!! (a scumhole in my memory)

Neighborhood Retail Alliance said...

Just when are we, as Duke "family" going to get off of our duffs and march on the campus demnding that the administration begin to clean house of all of its detritus? The fact that these professors have no sense of shame speaks volumes about their sense of ideological entitlement. I'm only glad that, after receiving my PHD, I went into the real world of politics and have not had to associate with these self-aggrandizing,anti-intellectual midgets. The race and gender based departments are a complete academic fraud and the actions of the faculty in these departments only serve to reinforce how low standards have gone since intellectual rigor has been replaced by ideological conformity. As a parent of a former student (who is now thankfully being taught by Professor Coleman in the law school) I am embarrassed by all of this and am wondering when all of us are going to stop yacking and START DOING SOMETHING that will help rekindle Duke's spirit of excellance. WE should convene a seminar of our own at the university with a press conference that calls on Broadhead to begin to examine the intellectual bankruptcy in a number of Duke's departments. We should also demnd that the school assert that the due process rights of all of its students should be inviolate and those in the Duke community that gratuitously violate this principle should be censured. Finally, every single current Duke parent should be solicited to join with us in demanding that those of us who pay the university's bills should not have our children treated with such contempt! KC, let's start organizing this.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Orin Starn, not a Group of 88 member but a snarky dweeb nonetheless, blasts KC and all Duke lacrosse bloggers in an op-ed (not online) in The Herald-Sun this morning. Some excerpts:

The most prolific lacrosse blogger is K.C. Johnson, a Brooklyn College history professor with plenty of spare time and a worshipful following among thos wh think that Mike Nifong will go down as one of world history's most evil men.

Johnson is a good storyteller who emplots (sic) the lacrosse controversy as a great moral parable of reason and civilization threatened by the dark forces of racial pandering, blind ambition, and the sinister machinations of tenured radicals and university political correctness run amok. ...

I'm glad K.C. Johnson and his Sunshine Band of Duke lacrosse bloggers have found a way to keep busy over the long winter.

When the books close here in Durham, they'll doubtless find some new cause to embrace with the same strident, self-righteous, and loose-with-the-facts crusading fervor.

Blog on, dudes.

Starn is the Sally Dalton Robinson Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Duke.

Jon Ham

Anonymous said...

If you pull your kids out of Duke, where could you send them?

I propose the MIT. Not much of humanities there.

Anonymous said...

At least within the comfortable environs of that building, they never felt like they had to take anything down.

Wow. You said a mouthful there.

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer/retired professor: I find it interesting that Professor Davidson's name does not appear on this latest document. Remember that Professor Davidson authored an opinion piece for the NewsObserver on January 5 titled "In the aftermath of a social disaster" which was the topic of discussion on this blog. However, she did not endorse the statement of the economists. Bill Anderson had noted that he was in touch with her, and he was castigated by some of his fellow bloggers for keeping such company.

AMac said...

The anti-due-process caucus of Duke's faculty is taking a page from the Creation Science playbook. The starting place: confronting a historical record that rebuts your own dearly-held beliefs.

For creationists, the answer was to create their own peer-reviewed paleontology journals.

For the Re-Group of 88, it's to generate a literature of alternative explanation, including Cathy Davidson's N&O Op-Ed and the statement.

The goal isn't to win an honest debate. It's to throw up enough dust so that people inclined to take a split-the-difference approach to controversy will be able to do so. "On the one hand, this, but on the other hand, that."

A quick way to spot the intellectual frauds: which side highlights and engages the best arguments of their opponents; which doesn't?

Are there any Re-Group of 88-style essays that Prof. Johnson, Liestoppers, etc. have ignored?

Are there any pro-due-process posts that the 88 Regroupers or their pals have hyperlinked and thoughtfully rebutted?

Another question.

In the past nine months, about one hundred Duke faculty and visiting faculty have stood up in the public square to make various statements that helped the D.A. to violate the due-process rights of Duke students. They've expressed a rich diversity of views--check the contrast among Baker, Lubbiano and Holloway, Wood and Starn, and Davidson.

On the pro-due process side, I count twenty-two hats in the ring, 17 of them worn by the signers of the economists' terse petition. That leaves five who have spoken as individuals--Coleman, Gustafson, Kimel, Baldwin, Munger.

Where does the rest of Duke's faculty stand? Why such silence in public?

Anonymous said...

In response to 1:31 AM

Send your kids to Notre Dame. You can feel as comfortable as you do on Christmas eve with a warm fire and a bunch of cookies and milk. They may coddle their students too much, but this looks very good compared to a sizable element of Duke's hatred for their students.

Great job KC. I am just amazed that the Group of 88 is doubling down on their idiotic and inflammatory statements.

Anonymous said...

Why stop there? How about running this ad:

We are listening.
We are hearing your cries of embezzlement, fraud, money-laundering, immigrant-smuggling, amphetamine manufacturing, double-parking and homicide at Duke University. Your battle against animal abuse, shoplifting, insider trading, assault-with-a-deadly-weapon-ing, incitement to riot and genocide is an ongoing struggle and a heroic one.
At this critical point in the history of this University, let us not be swayed by our lack of proof nor by our reluctance to site actual instances of any of these, or other, alleged offenses. Let us simply continue to believe "something is happening" and forge on with our smear campaign against the very institution that harbors us and our hate-think.
Yes, those stolen towels from the guest faculty bathroom will neither be forgiven nor forgotten.
We are listening.

Group of 87. Oh, and Bob wanted to sign, too, but he overslept.

Anonymous said...

K.C. "blog-slapped" Orin on Sunday, September 17, 2006
The Arrogance of Starn

Starn promises to remain “vigilant in ensuring that both [the players] and their accuser receive fair treatment from the justice system.” A tenured professor who conflates the rights of an accuser in the “justice system” with those of defendants needs a refresher course on the Bill of Rights.

Anonymous said...

These porefessors are creating a hostile enviroment for the students at Duke and therefore impeding learning.

Anonymous said...

Was this letter poorly written or is it just me?

Anonymous said...

I am just a "regular joe". When this incident came to national attention, I was struck by the fact that the university "hung the students out to dry". I was then shocked to discover that there are so many problems between the university and the people within the town. The university seems to have kept this a secret. Students engaged in the college process have been advised to "avoid Duke". I wonder if anyone has documented the effect of this debacle on admission's applications.
Duke fancies itself in a league with the "Ivies". I think not, as their handling of this situation was decidedly minor league.

Anonymous said...

To yesterday's commenter on "Telephone" who believes the DIW community has become a "self referential cult":

Most of us are reading a wide variety of sources on the LAX case, including the official reports that make up the evidence. If you have information that would help us see things differently, you should include it in your comment.

To the "Agent Provocateur" (no offense intended):

You certainly challenged our thinking, I just did not follow your argument. Ms. Holloway's "counteroffensive" seems pitifully weak, although I am sure some in her community felt an "Aha" moment when reading her 5th or 6th hand hearsay from an unidentified source, who was probably our completely unreliable, not credible, thoroughly discredited accuser. Maybe this story was what Cash Michaels had in mind when he said back in December that other information would surface soon that would make all of us want a stiff drink. Apparently, this story disturbed some. But try as I may, I cannot muster much reaction besides amazement that Ms. Holloway and Mr. Michaels would consider this information worthy of passing along to the general public.

Finally, while any group is at risk of becoming a "self referential cult," I would suggest that the Group of 88 is perhaps in the greatest immediate danger of such a fate. One has to wonder HAVE they actually followed this case and WHAT are they reading about it? Regarding the "Open Letter," this sounds very much like Cathy Davidson is trying to help make peace/apologize (sort of)/reduce potential liability. It's not very likely this effort will take them where they need to go.


As to the subject of today's

Anonymous said...

I'm amazed that 87 supposedly educated "professionals" would a)put their names to another crazy inflammatory public notice, and b) allow phrases such as "[sexual violence].....which is so prevalent today" to be bandied about with their permission.

According to crime statistics published by Duke in accordance with the Clery Act, there were eight incidents of forcible sexual assault there in 2004 (the most recent figures available). There are 6400 students at Duke. Allowing for 55% of the students being female, that means that about 0.023% of the female student population has been a victim of "sexual violence". If there was ever any doubt about the militant feminist dogma at work beneath the rest of the assaults on all sensibilities, this is it. How on earth could a "professor" ever allow their name to be put to an article like this. I'll say it again, any male even still considering an academic upbringing at Duke, get a hold of the names of the original Duke 88 "educators", and now the bungling new Duke 87 names and ensure your path never crosses them whilst at Duke.

Unknown said...

I would like to read the entire editorial by Orin. The exerpts are dripping with sarcasm, arrogance, and elitism. Perhaps he is responding to KC's blog slap, or perhaps he really sees himself perched above all the little creatures in the real world.

As to this branded "worshipful" member of the "sunshine" band, I found Orin's attempt at metaphorical humor, humorless.

"When the books close here in Durham, they'll doubtless find some new cause to embrace with the same strident, self-righteous, and loose-with-the-facts crusading fervor"

Pot meet Kettle.

DaveO said...

Anonymous at 8:56AM, it sounds like you're talking about a place like Clemson University. It might not be an "elite" private school like Duke, but at least Clemson tries to teach you how to think, not *what* to think.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that Starn has to resort to ad hominems and accusations (that he does not back) in his screed in the Hurled-Scum. Guess he is too busy to research the facts, being the Great Scholar that he is, you know.

Anonymous said...

The statement seems to be saying that even if they don't win this case and the students are eonerated, their claims of racial and sexual violence and intimidation are still valid.

The new statement produces no evidence for such a claim. In fact, the claim itself suggests that the group doesn't believe that evidence makes any difference.

This means that there are close to a hundred people on the Duke faculty who believe that their personal prejudices trump reality, a fatal flaw for anyone posing as a teacher. Of necessity professors have a great deal of authority in their classrooms. This group show many signs characteristics that suggest that they systematically abuse this power.

It is interesting but not surprising that many of the signees have held administrative posts of one sort or another. College administrators are notorious for spinelessness in the face of pressure groups but relentless bullying of underlings. The role is almost self-selecting for academic incompetence as it attracts people who have lost the interest or ability to pursue their chosen field but maintain the desire for the power and prestige that comes from scholarly accomplishment. They often get satisfaction from lording it over their former colleagues who continue to struggle to create new ideas and knowledge.

It is also not surprising that so many of the faculty come from the identity and advocacy departments. These departments were created to improve diversity and to serve as protection against charges of discrimination of the sort advanced in the latest letter.

The truth is that most faculty, including many in the identity disciplines are reasonable academics but unfortunately the most influential are the ones who have seized on political correctness to advance their careers. And because faculty don't have time to fight with such people and don't have all that much power anyway, most campuses are dominated by groups of faculty and administrators similar to those who signed the two letters.

The hopeful side of this is that what really matters is what goes on in the classrooms and the faculty offices. And while it is sad that so many concede power to a self-aggrandizing collection of ideologues, the power they have is not that relevant to what a university actually does. So in spite of all that has transpired, Duke undoubtebly remains a very good school and most of the students are largely undamaged by the group of 88 and their friends.

It is awful that the accused lacrosse players, their team mates and their coach got screwed by the PC crowd and it is disappointing that so many otherwise decent colleagues sat around and let it happen. But at heart most of the faculty are decent people and the school community will eventually deal honestly with the problem in their midst.

Anonymous said...

"It's only a flesh wound"

Black Knight, Monty Python In Search of the Holy Grail (1975)

Anonymous said...

Hey, I'm in the Sunshine Band!!!! Thank you Orin "Bone Head" Starn.

I like how he says "we" play "loose with the facts" when the only reason these blogs started in the first place was because a crazy women and a politically driven mad man with prosecutorial powers concocted a fradulent hoax. How can a professor at Duke University end up so far on the wrong side of this case?

It really boggles the mind.

Anonymous said...

whatever happened to Duke Nukem then?

Anonymous said...

Rob: Enjoy the continuing dysfunction of the American University system, as personified by Duke University at the moment.


Anonymous said...

Re: anon 2:07 AM aka Duke '06

You've only been out in the real world for about eight months and you are becoming quite wise. I graduated from Notre Dame in 1985 and over the years I have cringed upon reading or hearing statements from professors whom I had admired during my years under their tutelage. They remain in the academic bubble while we go about developing careers, raising families, paying taxes, and navigating through all b.s. that we are bombarded with daily. Being a very recent Duke grad, you are receiving the fasttrack version of what I have learned over 20 plus years.

Anonymous said...

No idea why, but this passage comes to mind:

"Abhorred and despised by even the few who are cognisant of its miserable and disgraceful
existence, stifled by the very filth it so profusely scatters, rendered deaf and blind by
the exhalations of its own slime, the obscene journal, happily unconscious of its
degraded state, is rapidly sinking beneath that treacherous mud which, while it seems to
give it a firm standing with the low and debased classes of society, is nevertheless
rising above its detested head, and will speedily engulf it for ever."

The Posthumous Papers Of The Pickwick Club

Charles Dickens

Anonymous said...

Starn is the Sally Dalton Robinson Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Duke.

I assume that Starn practices an entirely non-empirical form of "Cultural Anthropology". What a maroon--and what a terrible writer he is.

Anonymous said...

Starn's remarks in the Herald-Sun regarding KC and the bloggers are amusing. He doesn't give any facts to support his statement that K.C. has been "loose with the facts." Evidently, these Duke professors have been able to spew their garbage to a captured audience (their students who fear their grade will suffer should they disagree). They aren't used to their remarks being questioned for accuracy, so they respond like children in the form of whining. Unfortunately, for these professors the internet has opened up an entire new line of communication where lies are quickly exposed.
Again, his remarks regarding KC having "plenty of spare time" and the bloggers "have found a way to keep busy over the long winter" are just childish. (By the way, we haven't experienced a "long winter" - it has felt more like spring/summer here for months.)
I think it just irks him that the bloggers actually examine the "facts" of the case. To this day, Starn and his group avoid "facts" like the plague and continue with their emotional, whining, tantrums.
By the way, after taking the time to make sure my daughter was not enrolled in any of the "88" classes, NOW this new list appears. Sure enough, she is enrolled in one of the "new" "87"'s
classes. At least the statement appeared before the end of the drop/add period.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon said...
Bill 12:16AM,

Drinking problems have been reported in Universities almost since their invention.

I believe it can be contained, not cured. Prohibition never works.

Yeah... Prohibition is a joke. The old line at BYU was that their favorite drinking game was "don't get caught!" At my undergrad there was acutally a club called Bacchus whose "mission" was to advance responsible use of alcholol. They held parties that were pretty wild (on par with some frat parties I've been to) but they were always well managed and no one was allowed to go home drunk. Oddly enough administration hated them - REALLY hated them.

Anon: 8:21 AM
"bill said:

Yes, Colleges do tend to have race and gender problems

I have no idea what you're talking about. What schools? Who has problems?"

At both school I went to (BS and MS) I saw low level racist incidents (white on black, black on white and "Toming") as well as both male sexist and "womyn-gone- wild mysandry including the false libel we've seen here (I sure as hell count the "left wing" misconduct in the same bucket as the "right wing" misconduct and I've seem probably more of the former). We're not talking about cross burnings on the quad or anything like that but for the single studnets it affected it's sure as hell is a major problem (one Af-American girl left the following week) problem for the students involved to be sure. And yes, radical faculty do a major job of playing up these incidents (they did little to help retain that one girl which enrages me to this day because she was damn smart). That the Duke 88-or-so are PART of, exploiting, and exacerbating the problem (because it's pretty much in their job description)

Anonymous said...

GAH!!! Retype that didn't make the word edit (which was sloppy enough!):

...We're not talking about cross burnings on the quad or anything like that but for the single studnets it affected it's sure as hell is a major problem (one Af-American girl left the following week even when they nailed the b@st@rd who hurt her, and it WAS racist, he used the N word called her a "ho" (heck she was a sweet baptist girl) and everything) problem for the students involved to be sure.

Anonymous said...

rob mcnish...
Of those seven incidents of forcible sexual assault in 2004, how many were cross-racial, and of those, how many were white-on-black or the reverse?

Anonymous said...

(Oh POOP! and I still screwd it up... whatever, time for coffee!)

But hopefully you got my point. The 88 want to "globalize" such specific incidents into "broader" issues forgetting that every one of these affected students that are affected are individuals and unique. I will never forgive the lead AA prof who was the diversity czar for not working more on her (she was my friend). But then again... She was also an engineering studnet so it was no big loss to him.)

Sorry for the botched posts and the screed but I am still mad as hell over this after all these years.

Anonymous said...

Really sad that these faculty are so adgenda-driven that they cannot look back at their listening statement and the actions it supported and acknowledge they were part of the problem.

I suggest everyone write them (again) suggesting politely that they their revisionist view and their lack of contrition does not bode well for Duke.

''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''

Anonymous said...

I think it is important to note that there was NOT a social disaster taking place.

They created it.

Anonymous said...

The Duke 88 are a bunch of morons. Really, who do they think they are. They have proven by their statements they are not intelligent. They have proven they are racists and bigots of the worst kind. Do these people really think that all the Americans and International Academia who read their garbarge are impressed. We are disgusted, outraged and insulted. Duke better get rid of this group as they will be Duke's downfall in history for a long time to come.

Anonymous said...

How about this for a headline:

"Social Disastor - When Racial Stereotypes and Inuendo Trump Justice and Evidence in American Society."


"The Bastardization of the American Justice System in Durham - Social Disastor."


"Social Disastor - When Michael Nifong Hides Brady Materials to Keep his Pension Intact, Justice Becomes a Tool for Racist Stereotypes by the Black Community against White Lacrosse Players."

The list is endless.


Steven Horwitz said...

A few comments on this thread:

1. 9:57 is right on about the way in which the most radical among those involved in identity politics are often those who make the most public noise. The vast majority of faculty in those areas *are* reasonable people. I think the explanation here seems to be that Duke either has an extraordinary number of such folks and/or they really are in a bubble about the facts of this case.

2. Sexual assault and race problems on campuses ARE real. Those of us who work on campuses as administrators see it all the time. And yes, a few of them come from the faculty! But student-student problems are quite real, although mostly low-level: name-calling, bad jokes, etc.. Cleary data do not tell the whole story because many cases of sexual assault go unreported precisely because it means acting against a fellow classmate with whom one must continue to be in contact with on campus, not to mention the problem of mutual friends taking sides (and because often alcohol is involved). I have no doubt Duke has the same sorts of problems as other campuses, and that the G88 knows it. But to hang those problems on three *innocent* young men, with no concern about procedural justice, is a mockery of justice.

3. You all have given me two great lines today:

a. Postmodernism means never having to say you are sorry.

b. A quick way to spot the intellectual frauds: which side highlights and engages the best arguments of their opponents; which doesn't?

Both beautiful and true. The latter is a concise summary of the problem of the academic left in general. Many of them have never encountered the best arguments of those with whom they disagree, and a good number do not ask their students to do so in the classroom.

Confronting the best arguments of your opponents is what it means to be an intellectual and asking one's students to do so should be a central task of a liberal educator.

Anonymous said...

"Arts" faculty are demonstrably Left on the political spectrum. Several surveys have confirmed this, and I apologize for not having references. Within that group we have a sub-group I refer to as victim specialists, headed by ethnic and women's studies departments.

The "faculty" in these departments (spare me the occasional exception) are fueled by anger, and they do not in any way represent true academia - though they will of course be "appreciated" by the other liberal faculty. Broadhead cannot and will not EVER make a negative statement about this group. It would be politically incorrect squared, and the effect would be identical to stepping into a pen full of starving pit bulls and trying to reason with them.

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. said...

Could the Group of 88 be utilizing Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?

This one leaps out at me:

"RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)"

Anonymous said...

"And yet a prospective parent who reads the statement might seriously believe that Duke is awash in 'sexual violence.'"

The 'Studies in Women and Gender' department at UVA and its radical adherents have been promoting this same misconception for a few years now.

There are some real dangers to students in Charlottesville, as I suspect there are in Durham. This politically correct approach glosses over legitimate concerns and draws attention to a virtually non-existent problem.

Anonymous said...

BTW I think Prof Davidison just named the crew at the Hope Franklin Center! Of course she is talking about a larger national project but since she is profiled on the Blog Roll. However I think I shall learn something from the Prof. I christen the the Hope Franklin Crew, the Skunkworks!

One of the things I find most exciting about the MacArthur Initiative in Digital Media and Learning is that it is itself a “skunkworks.” (If you don’t know what that is, please go back and read my last Spotlight blog entry!) By putting its name and its funding behind an initiative so innovative, MacArthur, in one stroke, gives credibility to those who have been slogging along in this field, often to the incredulity of our colleagues.

Anonymous said...

I was sexually assaulted at Duke by members of the debate team. These arrogant academics desicrated my body and the administration did nothing.

If I had to do it all over again I would choose three hot lacrosse guys to rape me. At least they have nice bodies.

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting for the Group of 87 to define "sexual violence". I suspect their definition would be much broader than physically forced sexual contact.

Anonymous said...

This new "Hate Group of 88" claims that the issue of sexual violence on campus (Duke) are real.

They should be made to substantiate that comment.

Duke University should be made to release all data on sexual violence over the past five years. If the problem is in fact rampant... all (including new applicants to Duke and their parents) need to have this information.

If the problem is being blown out of proportion for the purpose of advancing the Hate Group of 88's agenda, then that too should be made obvious.


Anonymous said...

Sexual assault in the university setting is a trap for the unwary.

Let me show you what I mean. Once upon a time, there was a young man attending a school in Western Maryland (yes, Bill). He goes out one night, and hooks up. The next day, the young lady he hooks up with leaves. She then starts calling him .. oh, about seven times the next day. He does not return her calls, yet she continues calling. She then starts trying to "see" him. So, she starts roaming around his place, figures out where he hangs out, and keeps, oh what's that word, oh yes, "stalking" him. Naturally, the young man realizes he has hooked up with a woman of psycho tendencies, and does what any self respecting man who does not want a dead bunny cooking on his front porch would do - He avoids her like the plague.

About two weeks later, she is feeling all depressed, when in pops her short haired female DA to see what's bothering her. Quickly, after talking with the short haired female DA, she then says she was "raped" by the young man in question. They take the matter to the administration, and to the police.

The police quickly figure out, after talking with his housemates and people around the area, that she's lying, and say they will do nothing, case closed. The administration, however, is caught in the vice. They bring the matter before the "honor" board for a full hearing. The "honor" board is made up by, among others, the head of the Black Student Union, the head of the Women's group, and other just lovely people from the left handed fringe of the student body. Though no evidence exists whatsoever, and his housemates testify that she was creeping outside of their house like a puppy dog peeking into windows, they make an actual finding that he "raped" the alleged victim, and demand that he be dismissed from the school. Luckily, the presiding head of the school recognized that the young man had been judged guilty by a kangaroo court, and refused to dismiss him. Eventually, after counsel got involved, the young man had all reference to the alleged incident stricken from his records, and quickly transferred schools. The young woman was treated as some sort of local hero by the local feminists, and probably received "counseling."

However, I am quite certain that this little incident is still reflected as a sexual assault at the institution.


Anonymous said...

I wonder if the esteemed not-a-full professor brings his clubs to Peru. Isn't 14 years long enough to rise to the pinnacle of full professorship?

Maybe he should consider avoiding such trivial subjects as the "cultural politics of golf at Pinehurst." What a lightweight.

From a program announcement:
Orin Starn is an Associate Professor in the Cultural Anthropology Department and has been at Duke since 1992. He works on questions of history, culture, and politics across the Americas, especially in the Andes and Native North America. His latest book is Ishi’s Brain: In Search of America’s Last “Wild” Indian. He is also the author of Nightwatch: The Politics of Protest in the Andes, and the co-editor of The Peru Reader: History, Culture, Politics and Between Resistance and Revolution: Cultural Politics and Social Protest. Starn is beginning research on two new projects, one about Machu Picchu, the famous “Lost City of the Incas,” and the other about the cultural politics of golf with a focus on North Carolina’s own famous Pinehurst resort.

Anonymous said...

Starn is beginning research on two new projects, one about Machu Picchu, the famous “Lost City of the Incas,” and the other about the cultural politics of golf with a focus on North Carolina’s own famous Pinehurst resort.

I wonder how many times he has to play Pinehurst to complete his research.

Anonymous said...

So who thinks it's an coincidence that Holloway drops a hearsay, 9 month old piece of racial hatred, just when the new Duke 88 statement is released?

Anonymous said...

Thank you Esquire of Maryland for telling that story. I am a therapist in Maryland and have seen similar stories but many don't have the "happy" endings of yours. The boys are often not believed by the police or the campus officials. The default is to believe the accuser no matter what and to disbelieve the accused just as we have seen with the lax players. It is a set up.

On a slightly different note, there is a young man accused of rape in Maryland who had consensual sex with a woman (he was a minor and she an adult) and during the sex she said she wanted to stop. He stopped within 10 seconds of her request. He was charged with rape, convicted and is appealing.

We are living in a crazy place.

Anonymous said...

In its first paragraph, the original listening ad focuses directly on the Duke "Rape" case:

"Regardless of the results of the police investigation..."

That statement isn't nebulous. It refers directly to the events of March 13th.

For any of the G88 to subsequently say the "listening" ad was "a call to action on important, longstanding issues on and around our campus" is literally incredible.

Additionally, the same line, "regardless of the results of the police investigation", contradicts this assertion in the new G88 announcement: "We reject all attempts to try the case outside the courts".

Isn't "regardless of the police investigation" an attempt "to try the case outside the courts"?

It certainly appears to be.

Chicago said...

I am a proud member of the Sunshine Band.

I have sat on this comment for a long time in an effort to stay some what PC. With the recent statement by the Group of 88, I no longer can.

It is well known Karla Holloway's son was a mentally ill (Like CGM) convicted rapist (something she alleges happens at Duke on a regular basis) who died trying to escape from prison. Does this fact not scream of irony in the face of her accusing her own students of similiar behavior while she defends a woman who is, like her son, mentally ill?

Holloway probably did all she could for her son, I truly feel sympathy for her and her husband. However, I can not help but wonder if she added fuel to his rage if she raised him with the principals she seems to promote. I lived in Durham for 3 years and spent plenty of time at Duke. I never saw any racism. And I most certainly never saw or heard about any sexual assaults or rapes carried out there.

I do remember one student being dismissed from school after claiming she was raped. However, that student admitted she had made the story up.

Holloway needs to take a long hard look in the mirror and direct her anger and bitterness over the life her son led in the right direction. Regardless of mental illness, Holloway raised a man who grew up and raped a woman. The anger is looking you in the mirror Karla, it is not in the eyes of Duke students.

Anonymous said...


I am familiar with that story. There also is another one in which a male student went before a kangaroo court and was kicked out of school just before he was to graduate.

However, he appealed and one of our top administrators was able to find out the girl was lying (it did not involve sex, but sexual assault -- which did not happen), and the young man was permitted to walk the graduation line.

What happens is that feminists and racialists often worm their way onto these disciplinary boards so they can dispense their version of "justice."

I still don't think we have anything quite like John Burness and the Former G88, now G87. We had a recent campus incident that almost surely would have blown up much more so at Duke than here. It was handled pretty well -- a hoax, of course.

Anonymous said...

Bill: No, your situation is much more tame, and your administrators have some sense. But as you say, we have been scarred by reality. It happens at the USNA all the time. Get caught in the rack with a guy, oh, he raped me. Good new, though, is that the new Commandant is a female, Class of 1981 I believe. In an odd way, that's good news for the men around the place. She's not the sort to believe this at face value and she would come down like the wrath of God if she is lied to.


Anonymous said...

The only thing worse than stupidity (and that in people whose stock-in-trade, theoretically, is there intelligence) is ENTRENCHED stupidity.

Duke can either keep these people...and Brodhead....and lose any claim to beint an institution of knowledge and integrity, or they can dump these fools and hire more reasonable people.

Duke is scarcely the Harvard of the South, with idiots like these on its faculty. Hell, unless it fires these fools it's hardly even the Harvard of Durham......

M. Simon said...

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. 10:48AM,

Isn't that just another way of saying (in this case) keep handing your opposition more ammunition for their law suits?

The only thing the defence of the Duke 3 is reeling in is a higher pay out.

Alinsky's prescription is fine if a situation is being tried in the press. It is dangerous when it is being tried in a court of law.

Chicago said...

I have a story as well. While I lived in Durham I heard on the Chicago news a leading story about a rape at the small school I attended (Elmhurst College). When I heard the story, I figured it had to be BS. Here is why. The alleged rape had happened in a co-ed dorm on a co-ed floor by someone who was not a student. It was the same floor and dorm I lived in. You need one key to get into the building, another to get into the stair well, another key to get into your individual floor and another key to get into your room. Additionally, the floor had boys and girls living right next to each other. The alleged incident happened at 6am. At 6am, most college students are in their dorm getting ready. Any male who heard a rape on his floor would certainly come to the aid of a female on his floor.

Sure enough, a week later the woman admitted she had not been raped and had been trying to get back at a guy who had broken up with her. She was expelled and prosecuted. Sadly, real rapes do occur. Cases like this one and the Duke one only make it more difficult for true victims of rape.

Anonymous said...

re: Jerri

I think that the approach of attack, attack, attack is fine when you are young and have a lot of free time. When you are older with more responsibilities and less energy, I'm sure it gets old unless you can influence younger adults to do your bidding for you. If these professors were in attack mode, I would expect them to do so openly instead of hiding behind group messages.

Anonymous said...

-Esquire- Thank for all of your posts- they are always right on the money. My son just graduated from an "elite" university and I am going to suggest he keep more "protection" in his wallet.
1) A release and hold harmless form to be signed by each girl with whom he has a relationship.
2) A card with his lawyer's name, address, and phone# and a disclaimer that he is represented by counsel at all times and invokes his 5th Amendment rights.

If you think of anything else, let me know.

Seriously though, every high school in this country should be REQUIRED to provide to its graduating seniors a copy of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's "Guide to Students Rights and Due Process on College Campuses."
Texas Mom

Anonymous said...

re: 11:35

I'm surprised the woman wasn't charged with statuatory rape herself.

It may sound quaint, but get married first.

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. said...

m. simon said:

"Alinsky's prescription is fine if a situation is being tried in the press. It is dangerous when it is being tried in a court of law."

I sure hope that is the case. I'm concerned about where the civil cases are going to be tried. If NC law requires trial in Durham, should we be worried about the jury?

Michael said:

"I think that the approach of attack, attack, attack is fine when you are young and have a lot of free time. When you are older with more responsibilities and less energy, I'm sure it gets old unless you can influence younger adults to do your bidding for you. If these professors were in attack mode, I would expect them to do so openly instead of hiding behind group messages."

First, I don't like Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. They are ruthless and utilize fallacy as their basis.

I was just wondering if this is what the professors were doing, since I would presume most of them probably imbibed the "wisdom" of Alinsky at an earlier age.

M. Simon said...


Milton Friedman:

"You cannot be sure you are right unless you understand the arguments against your views better than your opponents do."

So that is to say I agree totally with your point.

Anonymous said...

I read the original ad and it appeared to me to pre-judge the 3 LAX players. After reading the latest from the (Rump) Group, I re-read the ad and it still appeared to me to pre-judge the 3 LAX players. I'm sure if I re-read it 1,000 times, I'll come to the same conclusion -- they were pre-judging the 3 LAX players. They can put whatever spin they want to it, but it won't change the fact. If, as they claim, they were trying to make a point about the ONGOING social disaster of racism and sexual violence that runs rampant on the Duke campus, why didn't they include any references in the ad to previous acts of racism and sexual violence that had already been confirmed to have happened? No, it seems that this ONGOING social disaster suddenly appeared on March 13, 2006. This group of faculty has exposed what many of us who have graduated, left the playpen of academia behind and actually work for a living know to be true -- while some college professors are extremely intelligent, it is not a prerequisite to becoming a tenured professor, even at an "elite" school such as Duke.

Anonymous said...

If the original statement was so widely misinterpreted, can't someone at least admit that it was poorly written?

And since the second statement also lacks a universally understandable point, can someone please just say that it too was poorly written?

And if both statements were ambiguous in the context of the greater society, can we ask that they be rewritten by somebody who can construct a basic essay?

Anonymous said...

re 12:25 PM

Sorry, I just realized that they were manifestos.

That's why I stay in the physical sciences.

Anonymous said...

a question for the lawyers: I noticed that Kim Curtis signed this. She is famous or should say I infamous for the allegation (and pending law suit) that she engaged in grade retaliation against LAX player Dowd. Does signing this latest document help or hurt or legal situation? from a non-lawyer/retired professor.

AMac said...

The last of five points made by Duke Prof. Gustafson today:

"I am furious at the personal attacks that the people who signed the Listening ad have suffered. Of late, those have taken on lives of their own, growing and becoming more evil - yes evil - as time goes on. There has been a colossal loss of perspective. I don't know what more I can say to that, other than make a plea for it to stop. Passionate, reasoned disagreement - especially for academics - can form the heart of fruitful and energizing discussions and lead to actions (yes - discussions can lead to actions, even for us academics). Hate mail, threats, degradation, ad hominems, etc - that's eTerror."

Gustafson is one of the few Duke faculty members who comes out of this mess with enhanced personal integrity.

RTWT, knarvil's comment included.

Anonymous said...

Is calling a parasite a parasite a "personal" attack, Professor G?

Professor G, what would you guess Karla Holloway's IQ is?


Anonymous said...


There is a law requiring schools to collect and issue an annual report on crime statistics for the school and for the surrounding area affecting students.

My experience tells me that there are usually fewer than five rapes and these are typically in the surrounding area and are done by strangers.

Probably upwards of 95% citations for students are either underage drinking or drugs. There is virtually no violence reported committed by students.

Anonymous said...

Michael - The woman was 18 and the defendant was 15 I believe. I think that Maryland as a law that says that as long as people are within three years of age that there are no grounds for statutory rape. I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure others will be better at clarifying that than myself. If you are curious about this case you can see some documents here.

Anonymous said...

Kilgore: It's four years difference, thus a Senior in HS cannot go to jail for dating a Freshman, basically. From situations I have seen in Georgia, where some kid went to jail at 18 as a HS senior for 10 years for having concensual sex with a 15 year old sophomore, it's a good law.


Anonymous said...

The pendulum swings.

The Gang of 88 (or 87) are fighting a rearguard action against a swing back to reality.

Anonymous said...

KC -- The Group of 88, 87, whatever is wrong in its assessment of racial issues at Duke.

You're wrong in your assessment of how it applies to this case and how much impact it actually has at Duke and will have in the legal system.

I won't try to convince your commenters otherwise, but seriously, you need to re-examine this. Read the text. Re-read it.

Anonymous said...


Welcome to the board.

1 question: Do you believe that Karla Holloway is a) a racist and b) cognitively unprepared to teach at an elite institution?

I value your input.


Anonymous said...

The rape or "non-rape" of black female by white, rich frat boys (similar to Bushco's rape of America) reaches way beyond the so-called "rights" of the accused. For one thing, the American state, with its unelected president, venal Supreme Court, silent Congress, gutted Bill of Rights and compliant media belies justifications given by the world's leading apologists for the resurgence of White Supremacist ideologies. So far, Bush's parade of lies is solid evidence of the essential Western imperial interests. It is not heartening that the influence of Leo Strauss represents the crushing of internal dissent in order to propagate a humanitarian disaster of unimaginable scale. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, the appropriation of Arab resources leads our attention to the theocrat Ashcroft's suspension of our civil rights. Stop listening to what Karl Rove and Rush tell you. Listen to your heart. These frat boys are guilty...of the rape of America, of colonialism and warmongering.

To quote Matthew Stover ( - "Power will do anything to keep itself."

Unknown said...

The rape or "non-rape" of black female by white, rich frat boys (similar to Bushco's rape of America) reaches way beyond the so-called "rights" of the accused. For one thing, the American state, with its unelected president, venal Supreme Court, silent Congress, gutted Bill of Rights and compliant media belies justifications given by the world's leading apologists for the resurgence of White Supremacist ideologies. So far, Bush's parade of lies is solid evidence of the essential Western imperial interests. It is not heartening that the influence of Leo Strauss represents the crushing of internal dissent in order to propagate a humanitarian disaster of unimaginable scale. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, the appropriation of Arab resources leads our attention to the theocrat Ashcroft's suspension of our civil rights. Stop listening to what Karl Rove and Rush tell you. Listen to your heart. These frat boys are guilty...of the rape of America, of colonialism and warmongering.

To quote Matthew Stover ( - "Power will do anything to keep itself."

Goodness, are you for real? Suffering from a bit of paranoia are we?

Anonymous said...


You are adept at stringing together non sequiturs.

1 question: why did you place non-rape in quotes?

je ne sais quoi


Anonymous said...

"We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time," writes the Rump.

But why couldn't they have written that they affirmatively condemn the potbanging mob outside Evans' house, the 'Castrate!!' and 'Confess' signs, the 'Rapists' chants, the vigilante posters and the other horrors that any fairminded person would condemn? To have done so would have made them seem a bit more balanced and reasonable-looking. Yet they evidently couldn't bring themselves to do even that.

Anonymous said...

2:09 - The post by the Group of 87 is a joke. It plays the "We were misunderstood" game from the point of a world view that one would actually have to advocate to give credence. Namely, that sexism, isolation and racial tolerance are such evil, bad practices in Durham and Duke, that their little diatribe when they threw their own students under the bus addressed those situations, not the facts in this case specifically. Why no, they just meant affluent white males in general, not the affluent white males being hounded by the pot bangers on Duke's campus at the time.

You need to understand the following:

1. I, for one, don't buy it. I think race relations in Duke suck for the simple reason that the race hustlers in your own community have made it suck. I think racism is a problem of the locals towards the students, not the reverse.

2. The fact that they picked this moment to make their little commentary based on the woeful condition of the world at large as they see it is so utterly implausible, it does not generate more than a modest smile.

3. The fact that they are trying to do an about face and weasel out of it sounds like a version of "I did not have sex with that woman." In legal parlance, it's called mincing. But take heart, a jury will get to decide what they meant. I mean, seriously, isn't that what the wacko fringe has been asking for the whole time? There is another lagal term - Statement Against Interest. Changing positions is the most idiotic thing imagninable right now, but perhaps I should not be shocked anymore.

If one of the 87 is reading, take careful note: There is only one smart thing to do right now and that is to keep your mouths shut. You are digging your liability holes deeper every time you say or write anything.


Anonymous said...

"These frat boys are guilty...of the rape of America..."

I suppose prosecutor Stover doesn't need DNA evidence for that either.

Anonymous said...


Appreciate it if you'd stop giving the Rump free legal advice--LOL

Friends of the Rump:

1 question: Isn't the real lesson of the Duke rape hoax the prevalence of, and concomitant excuses for, black-on-white crime?

Crystal Mangum is the predator. The boys and their families are the victims. Gender, racial, and other honky-funded "studies" have nothing to say about the prev alence of out-of-control black criminality.


Anonymous said...

2:19's rant represents another favorite tactic of the Far Left.

You, as a conservative (or as a normal person for that matter who does not keep a dead cat in your fridge), are not capable of independent thought. Your mind is controlled instead by corporations and the right wing media figures through radio beams that eminate from Area 51 by direction of the neo-cons.

Dribble. Recognize it as such. Stay to the facts.


Anonymous said...

RP: I figure not to do so would make it unsporting.

You do realize how much I would dearly love to cross examine these people, right? It would be like a litigator's dream come true. Their responses would be so off the deep end, watching them trying to rationalize their statements and positions to normal Americans, it would be pure courtroom entertainment.


Anonymous said...

By "rump," I am sure KC means, "having only a small part of its original membership and therefore being unrepresentative or lacking in authority."

Anonymous said...


"Friends of the Rump" is priceless.

Let me suggest that you delete "the" and just call them Rump--keep up the good work.


Anonymous said...

Now that the state has taken over does this mean the people of north Carolina is footing the bill and not Durham? lol

M. Simon said...

-Esquire- 2:58 PM,

Dribble is an apt term, however I think the word you were looking for was drivel.

Anonymous said...

The state keeps track of spending and in the end they send Nifong the bill.

M. Simon said...

Speaking of black on white racism I have a piece up that examines such attitudes :

Corruption of Blood

Anonymous said...

Simon: I know the difference in words. It was quite intentional.


Anonymous said...

I have twin boys who are graduating seniors this year. They are honor students with strong SATs, strong school and community service involvement and many AP classes. At this point Duke, which was one of the first places we visted during the summer between their sophmore and junior years is not remotely under consideration as an alternative. We believe Duke still has much that is good, but how can we consider spending 90+K a year for them to enter such an environment.

Anonymous said...

3:57 - Did you know Loyola College, Baltimore cuts breaks for twins in tuition costs?

Check with a school that actually looks out for its students. Good luck.


Anonymous said...

Wow. Leaving out the Lacross Team accusations, we've got 88 professors saying that Duke staff and students are a bunch of violent racists and bigots!

The only reasonable option for those of use outside of the "Duke Community" is to wall ourselves off from these barbarians.

Don't hire, befriend or socialize anyone from Duke--students or staff. They're obviously a bunch of twisted-throwbacks to the Antebellum South!

Anonymous said...

The admin/prof community at Duke University seems to be filled with people who can't write a simple declarative sentence.

Clean prose, people. It is the sign of clear thinking.

Jim O'Sullivan said...

Great news for the three students! The 87 future civil defendants have reaffirmed their slander, long after the time they either "knew or should have known" that the allegations of their original statement were false.

cf said...

How dumb are some college professors? Dumb enough to make a successfull suit against them even more likely.

It would be hard to satirize such a group of degreed nincompoops.

Anonymous said...

"Wow. Leaving out the Lacross Team accusations, we've got 88 professors saying that Duke staff and students are a bunch of violent racists and bigots!"

Well said!!!!

M. Simon said...

esq 3:55PM,

Roger that.

If you know what I mean. LOL.

Any way a nice combination of drivel and drool.

dave in boca said...

What's the old line? "There are some things so stupid that only an intellectual can believe them."

Ditto for the Gang of 88

Anonymous said...

Simon: Not drool, my dear sir. I'm far more dry and satirical than that.

Think about the restroom, making a boo boo, the frantic search for something to dry with, and you'll get the double meaning of the term "dribble."


M. Simon said...


You got me thinking about CGM and her loaded orifice problem. What an ugly thought.

All I can say is "Roger that". Well maybe not.

Anonymous said...

Per Esquire's comment below:

"1. I, for one, don't buy it. I think race relations in Duke suck for the simple reason that the race hustlers in your own community have made it suck. I think racism is a problem of the locals towards the students, not the reverse."

Actually, I don't even think it's a problem for the locals towards the students.

Living here as a 1) White and 2) a Yankee I have never felt any "outsider" racism/regionalism. What I have seen, though (and I am a lefty so listen up) is people who live here who are educated and might be expected to know better (but no luck--guess they didn't go to a Jebbie school) are shockingly naive...comically so at times. There is a super-duper ultra-left contingent here in Durham--some white, some black, and they don't even know how ridiculous they sound. The white ones hate themselves for being white and anyone who's comfortable being white. The black ones (a la KH and her ilk) make their money off of hating the white ones (but exploit blacks who are not of their socio-economic group.)

I could go on with examples but we've seen so much of the behaviour of the 88/7 members of both shades that you get the idea.

Durham Mommy

M. Simon said...

It is not Concerned Duke Faculty.

It is Cornered Duke Faculty.

Benaiah said...

As a Duke recent Duke grad, who lived off campus, who took classes from 3 people who signed the original petition, who partied plenty and was active in the same social scene as the lacrosse players, I can say that the hyperbole surrounding both statements is way out of line. Lawsuit? Are you serious? There isn't a chance that a slander or libel charge would stick in court against the University or the group of 88. Perhaps a few individual professors who really took it to the limit might catch a case, but neither of those ads constitutes a legal payday in and of itself. There is no clear assumption of guilt, and while the timing definitely could be construed as prejudicial, loudly talking about related issues isn't slander.

Further, freedom of speech and expression is probably the most sacred of all ideals in academia and if Duke comes down on the 88, then it will lose far more standing than this scandal cost it. How many big shot professors will want to come to the school that targets its own? Duke was built by aggressive hiring of liberal, controversial liberal arts professors (see the New Yorker feature on the subject), and even now, it needs to keep those departments strong to keep pace with the other half dozen schools jockeying for position behind Yale, Harvard and Princeton.

I am a white, straight man and I lived in that scene. It is horrible to see how racist the supposedly enlightened can be against people like me. However, the real villain in this tale is the prosecutor and to a lesser extent the national media. Those professors expressed the opinions that they have held for years, and while I may disagree with their con, it was their right to point out that Duke isn't particularly well integrated or gender equal. It has been widely known on campus that those things were true, though I think that the issues are self-enforcing, not systemic.

Feel free to email me your angry thoughts about how I was brainwashed or how I fit into the culture of guilt, I'll just brush it off my proud, Duke educated shoulders.

Anonymous said...

As a current Duke grad student, I am ashamed the boisterous actions of this group have overshadowed the enormous amount of support given to the Duke LAX players by both students and faculty since the "event" originally took place. This obnoxious group is only a small radical portion of the generally excellent and sound faculty here at Duke.

duke '07

Dan tdaxp said...

A great post!

I linked to it over at my blog.

Anonymous said...

Someone actually paid $200,000 for an Engineering degree just because it said Doook on it??!!!? Ha ha.

Boycott the bastards - go somewhere cheap - you learn from the books anyway.

M. Simon said...

7:46 PM,

I actually became an aerospace engineer (close to rocket scientist) without a degree. How did I learn all the stuff I needed to know? Books, magazines, and OJT.

Moneyrunner said...

Duke Faculty Claims Widespread Racism, Sexual Assault on Campus. Avoid Duke At All Costs!

Anonymous said...

how does it feel to be such a loser KC? it must hurt to have gotten shafted by the man. to have really thought all those fancy degrees from elite schools would get you everything you wanted. nope. wrong. if you are a idiot which you are then neither harvard or anywhere can help you.

Anonymous said...

10:41 - May the community college Gods be kind to you and bless your future endeavors.


Anonymous said...

How much easier was it for DA Liefong to continue his charade when he saw how the Group of 88 condemned (i.e. presumption of guilt) the whole lacrosse team and the Duke racial environment from the onset and the Duke president showed no interest in releasing to the press the initial, albeit 2nd hand, police report account (via Duke public safety officer that he did not receive until 7 or 8 days after the alleged attack) that would have immediately cast major doubt on the accuser's account from day#1 ?

President Dick is a total wimp. When he was hired I knew his head was in the clouds when I needed a dictionary to understand every 15th word he spoke (YALE speak I guess). Dick will be relieved of his duties once the initial criminal case is resolved. He will need to be deposed for the subseqeunt civil suits from his vacation home in New Haven. Would Dick have ever invited the accused back to school if Liefong's conspiring to withheld exculpatory DNA evidence had not gone public ? Not a chance in hell.

For you legal experts => in an interview with Greta Van Susteren the AV's cousin claims the AV asked Liefong to drop the case 2 times (she did not say when) but that Liefong encouraged the AV to press onward (whom - I wonder why).

Will this be admissible during the possible trial or is it just heresy ?

My prediction based on my total lack of trust in the NC "inverted justice" system. Coman & Winstead determine after 2 weeks that there is no case (of course they do not tell this to anybody). AG Cooper waits until Friday, 4:30 PM, before Memorial Day weekend to announce case will go to trial (they figure they have enough circumstantial evidence to have 50/50 chance of getting the "right" jury to convict). They use the delay tactic in an effort to get the public to lose interest in the case as well as to give the appearance that the evidence was very complex and plentiful. Will the blogosphere lose its edge by that time ? I hope not for the sake of the falsely accused.

Cheshire, et al, beat Coman et al in total smackdown in rematch of Gell case defense vs prosecution matchup.

This whole case is about personal gratification and politics write up the ladder. UNC Chapel Hill Law School graduate got an added bonus by driving a stake right in the heart of the Duke University family (thanks in most part to the fine leadership of President Dick). Not even Liefong could have imagined the implosion that has occurred at Duke as a result of its pathetic leadership.

Goal #1: see that Duke 3 are exonerated.

Goal #2: make UNC Chapel Hill law school graduate Liefong (obviously one of their finest) suffer everyday for the rest of his life.

Goal #3: get a new Duke President to rebuild Duke's fabric internally and reputation externally. Dick is a joke.

Goal #4: hopefully Duke 3 families can recover legal expenses and then some and coach pressler gets compensated for his mistreatment.

Anonymous said...

My daughter is graduating in developmental biology with a 3.96 at a serious university. She scored a 1560 out of 1600 on the GRE exam and has been successful in receiving research grant as an undergraduate.

Prior to seeing how the faculty and administration acted to the accused, she had Duke as one of the top schools to consider for her doctorate work. She never applied to Duke. Liberal she could cope with. Stupid she could not.

Some Ivy League, California or one Texas school will have the opportunity of having a brilliant mind study there. Not Duke. They seem to not be interested in being seen as serious academically anymore.

I wonder how many others they have lost now.

Joe said...

I, for one, was considering going their law school, but now won't (even though they waived my application fee).

I understand that law professors aren't involved with the group of 88. I understand that the school doesn't back the group of 88. But the school's allowing itself to be positioned by these people in a way that nauseates me.

Joe said...

5:34, grats on your daughter's GRE score. That's incredible. I thought my 173 lsat was good, but... it doesn't even compare!

Anonymous said...

Great post, KC. Bill Anderson has a fantastic piece as well.

Anonymous said...

Prof J

I'd be interested in your thoughts on an attempt, at on 1/17/07, to portray the Duke Administration's & its faculty's (other than the 88)actions & inactions as somewhat understandable.

Tom Comerford Dallas

Anonymous said...

I am the parent of two high school students who attend a very well regarded science and tech school. Both children are very accomplished. Neither child will be applying to Duke when they are seniors. According to the gang of 88, Duke is far too dangerous for my daughter to attend. As a woman she is far too likely to be a victim of violence and rape. My son cannot apply because he is white (and Asian) and is too likely to face the hatred and prejudice of the gang of 88.

BTW, we aren't rich and will consider carefully where to send our children and our money. It will not be Duke.

BroadPChead needs to resign if there is ANY hope of Duke regaining the reputation that it once enjoyed as a fine university.

Anonymous said...

Your ad indicates a desire to give voice to students "whose suffering is real." Please indicate all persons who participated in determining that the suffering of the quoted students was genuine and the method(s) used to reach this conclusion.

Laika's Last Woof said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Laika's Last Woof said...

"... the rump Group portrays the Duke campus as beset by problems of sexism, racism, and sexual assault."

They're more right than they know, that is if you consider wrongful allegations of rape to be a kind of sexual assault.

GaryB said...

When is the President of the University going to suspend the humanities department until a committee can fashion a new code of conduct for them?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 202   Newer› Newest»