Sunday, January 21, 2007

Sunday Roundup

The last week has featured several extraordinary articles from the mainstream media. In addition to the must-read Charlotte Allen article in Weekly Standard (highlighted yesterday by Liestoppers), begin with a two-part commentary from John Podhoretz in the New York Post, “Senseless” and “Orwell University.”

In the first column, Podhoretz offers a compelling explanation of why this case has attracted so much attention: “that at every turn, simple common sense was overcome and discarded due to an intoxicating cocktail of raw political calculation, shameful butt-covering and self-righteous political correctness that was ingested by nearly every authority figure and political actor in this homely city of 272,000.”

What was more important than adhering to common sense—or, of course, to due process? For one, “the political career of District Attorney Mike Nifong, who just happened to be in a tight re-election campaign.” For another, “the ideological reputation of Duke University as a wondrous place where diversity-mad gobbledy-speak, not English, is the mother tongue.” Everything seemed to be designed to railroad a conviction—except, of course, for the facts of the case.

Podhoretz then sets his sights on the Duke arts and sciences faculty, and especially the Group of 88/87. As he notes, though Richard Brodhead asked professors to withhold judgment until the facts were clearer, “this was not acceptable to the 88 profs.” Their statement thanked the “protesters” who refused to wait.

As a result, Podhortez correctly argues, “At a moment when Duke students were being shadowed by a rape accusation, one-ninth of their professoriate had effectively declared that those students did not deserve the presumption of innocence - primarily because so many of their fellow students were supposedly being victimized by the atmosphere of ‘racism and sexism.’” Stephen Baldwin presents a good summary: “There was a collision between political correctness and due process, and political correctness won.”

The rape claim has collapsed but, Podhoretz asks, “do the Gang of 88 care? Tuesday night, they released a new statement (or most of them did, anyway). And while complaining of being misunderstood and misperceived, they find after seven months that . . . they were right all along.

“You might call,” he notes, the new statement “Orwellian if you wanted to put a highfalutin name to it. Here’s a better word: Bulls--t.”


Podhoretz and Allen aren’t the only widely read figures to have dismissed the (rump) Group of 88’s “clarifying” statement. Dan Abrams did so as well. The Duke graduate and general manager of MSNBC has generally avoided criticism of Duke over the past several months, but he let loose this week on the (rump) Group.

Last week, Abrams noted that try as hard as they might, the Group “just can’t get away from some of the language in their original note.” In his opinion, “They simply can’t back out now. They are not willing to say, ‘You know what, now, based on everything we have learned, we are sorry. We put it out at the wrong time. We should not have said it in the way that we did.’ They are unwilling to just say we blew it.”

And, Abrams pointed out, it’s important to “remember, it wasn’t just this ad.” Professors such as Houston Baker, William Chafe, Karla Holloway, Thavolia Glymph, Peter Wood, Orin Starn, and Wahneema Lubiano aggressively pushed the administration into a harder line against the lacrosse players in order to forward their own personal, pedagogical, or ideological agendas. Months later, Abrams lamented, “you don’t hear that those professor out there publicly saying, ‘You know what, I’m sorry. We shouldn‘t have pushed the way we did.’”

Abrams predicted that once all charges are dismissed, the University will make some sort of statement acknowledging the misconduct of its faculty. I hope he’s right.


Judging from the spring course catalog, Abrams might have spoken too soon. A few weeks back, I posted on a course offered by Group of 88 member (and CCI gender subgroup co-chair) Anne Allison, placing the lacrosse case in the context of "hook up culture at Duke."

Captain's Quarters has taken note of this peculiar offering, with a scathing commentary:

Students at Duke would be better advised to ask what the "lacrosse scandal" (as opposed to the Nifong scandal?) tells them about Duke University and its loyalty to its students. The answer appears to be that they will throw students to the howling wolves at the first opportunity to appease locals on the thinnest of accusations, even before the evidence has been evaluated.

What I find fascinating about this course, offered in this semester, is that instructors Anne Allison and Margot Weiss believe that they can reach the conclusions they imply in the synopsis. New courses have to win approval from a faculty committee, which usually means at least a few weeks of preparation before the deadline for inclusion in the semester catalog. They will have already set their instruction before such developments as the discovery that Nifong conspired to hide the DNA evidence from the defense and knowingly misrepresented the case to the media. The pair have reached conclusions far ahead of hearing all of the evidence; is that the standard of education at Duke? It certainly appears to be the standard of administration there.

Mostly, though, the spectacle of Duke attempting to sit in judgment on a scandal in which it acted so badly is little short of despicable. Duke and its faculty and administrators should be ashamed of themselves.

Students who so desired could have taken a year-long seminar in "The Group of 88 and Why We Were Right," since a fall-term seminar co-taught by Thavolia Glymph (things were "moving backwards" when the DNA tests came back negative) and Susan Thorne placed the case in the context of gender and race issues.

In an earlier e-mail to me, Thorne stated that she had taught some lacrosse players, and seemed to suggest that she had a good experience with them. I wonder whether she thought of any of her former students when she affixed her signature to the recent "clarifying" statement, or whether she reflected on her former students' experiences as she remained silent while evidence of Mike Nifong's mistreatment of them mounted.


I recently received an e-mail from Cash Michaels, announcing that a “coalition of social justice groups coming together Feb. 10 to march on the Legislature are a diverse mix of people and communities who all believe in the same goals.” He didn’t say what those goals were—repealing the recommendations of the Actual Innocence Commission? Public funding of the Mike Nifong Legal Defense Fund?

Michaels’ paper, the Wilmington Journal, published an editorial last week containing a thinly veiled threat to Roy Cooper, that unless the AG brought the case to trial, he would face political ramifications from black voters.

Michaels is, alas, misdirecting his anger—he should be fuming at Nifong. Had Nifong turned the case over to Cooper sooner, rather than attempting the December 21st frame, perhaps Cooper might have bowed to such political pressure.

At this stage, however, bringing the case to trial would amount to suborning perjury from the accuser, since her latest tale (we’re now, of course, into double digits for the number of versions the accuser has offered) directly contradicts the April 4 lineup used to identify the players Nifong targeted, as well as myriad other unimpeachable electronic evidence.


A fascinating thread on the Liestoppers discussion board calls into question Michaels’ journalistic fairness. Last week, Michaels published sixth-hand unverified gossip, forwarded to him via a Karla Holloway e-mail. He also quoted from a John Burness e-mail that seemed to imply that Burness opposed Brodhead’s decision to readmit Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty.

The entire Burness e-mail, however, is now posted at LS—and it says exactly the opposite of what Michaels implied. In fact, Burness goes out of his way to defend Brodhead’s action. I wonder why Michaels didn’t quote the entire e-mail.


Those who watched the recent Paula Zahn CNN special got to hear from, among other figures, a Wheelock College American Studies professor named Gail Dines. (Dines is right now busy organizing a conference entitled “Pornography and Pop Culture: Reframing Theory, Re-thinking Activism.”) On the program, Dines waxed rhapsodic about the “victim” and appeared unaware of many of the central details of the case. Accordingly, Zahn spent most of the segment questioning another of the panelists, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.

Dines has shot back with an essay that (unintentionally) explains why Zahn shied away from her. To prepare for the broadcast, Dines says that she did some reading (what she read isn’t clear) and consulted with a handful of colleagues, among them Mark Anthony (“thugniggaintellectual”) Neal. She complained that she wasn’t on additional segments—she wanted to be on at least two, and perhaps three.

Perhaps Zahn was concerned that Dines didn’t know some of the basic facts of the case (or what she prefers to term “the so-called ‘facts’ of the case.”) These “so-called ‘facts,’” reasons Dines, “have mainly been planted by the defense as a way to spin the case.” This certainly is an ingenious interpretation of Dr. Brian Meehan—he’s a defense plant, out to destroy Nifong!

In compiling her own facts, Dines states that she relied on what “law professor Wendy Murphy has pointed out.” How reassuring.

Dines’ “so-called ‘facts’ of the case” include the following:

“This obsessive focus on the woman is not particular to this case; routinely the media focus on the women victims, with a certain prurient interest. Instead, we should put some of the focus back on the men in this case, as we know much about their behavior that night that is not under dispute.”

  • In fact, Newsweek plastered two of the players’ mug shots on its cover. The accuser’s name, on the other hand, has not been revealed even once by the mainstream media.

“They saw the hiring of two black women to strip as a legitimate form of male entertainment. They didn’t see the commodifying and sexualizing of black women’s bodies as problematic in a country that has a long and ugly history of racism.”

  • In fact, the captains specifically requested white strippers.

“Later that night, 911 got a call from a black college student out walking with her friends who was called ‘nigger’ as she walked past the team’s house.”

  • In fact, the call came from Kim Roberts, as she admitted on 60 Minutes, and was in response to a racially charged argument that Roberts herself initiated.

“And to top it all, not one lacrosse player has come forward to express any regret at that night’s events or offered any apology for being part of a drunken strip party that humiliated and degraded two black women.”

  • In fact, the captains issued a statement of apology on March 28.
Upon viewing the entire broadcast, Dines admitted that “I appeared as not just a gullible fool, but even worse, a gullible fool with a feminist agenda.” Hard to argue with that analysis.

Dines actually managed to appear thoughtful in contrast to Tom Ehrich, a Durham religious figure who pens a nationally syndicated column, and who decided this week to write on the lacrosse case. He argues that the dropping of charges would be a "tragic outcome"--and, Herald-Sun style, even registered his concern for the accused players, who without benefit of a trial "would carry into adulthood and every job interview unanswered questions about their actions and character."

Since a trial seems unlikely, Ehrich decided to fill in those "unanswered questions" himself. The lacrosse players' behavior, he argues, "has been a lens into larger cultural issues that are corroding our common life," revealing "the same kind of attitude" as corporate bosses who bankrupted Enron, the leadership of the Catholic Church who attempted to cover up for pedophile priests, and all other "citizens who think dishonesty is a clever strategy instead of a moral failing."

Indeed, Ehrich contends, the likely dropping of the charges is part of a pattern that includes "the national reassessment that could have happened after 9/11 -- squandered. Reassessment of corporate ethics that could have followed the Enron scandal -- squandered. Reassessments of foreign policy, military strategy, global economic policy, oil dependency and religious extremism that could be happening now -- all squandered."

Perhaps one of the departments that formally endorsed the Group of 88's statement can bring Ehrich in as a visiting professor next fall.


The Winston-Salem Journal has an interesting profile of David Freedman, Mike Nifong’s new lawyer. Freedman specializes in cases dealing with misconduct by lawyers.

His peers have good things to say about him: District Court judge William Reingold remarked, “There is no bigger compliment that a lawyer can get than to have another lawyer hire you when there’s trouble. What that means is that you’re the lawyers' lawyer.”

Freedman is going to need every ounce of his talent to help Defendant Nifong prevail.


Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson: Why won't the bitter-enders, who have been proven wrong at every turn, concede their mistakes and apologize? What drives them to continue to deny the obvious?

Anonymous said...

Finally, FINALLY, Face-Off Lacrosse showed up at the local Borders.

Duke enters the pre-season ranked #6 (Maryland #7) and the Blue Devils travel to College Park on March 3rd.

1st Team Preseason All-American honors to :

A Matt Danowski (Duke)
A Zack Greer (Duke)
D Tony McDevitt (Duke)
D Ray Megill (Maryland)
D Steve Whittenberg (Maryland)

2nd Team Preseason All-American honors to :

M Peter Lamade (Duke)
DM Nick O'Hara (Duke)
D Casey Carroll (Duke)

Honorable Mention Preseason All-American honors to :

A Max Ritz (Maryland)
D Joe Cinosky (Maryland)
G Harry Alford (Maryland)

Anonymous said...

My wife sees me glance at the clock. The time is 10:01PM. She rolls her eyes and then says,"Tell me what KC is up to tonight." Your getting to be a habit!

Anonymous said...

“I appeared as not just a gullible fool, but even worse, a gullible fool with a feminist agenda.”

Gail Dines
Wheelock College American Studies professor

Got to admire the honesty.

Anonymous said...

I am trying to figure out why Freedman, who makes his living as a lawyers' lawyer, would make the statements he made about Nifong last summer.

Is this profession devoid of professionals? Could he not imagine, with his particular expertise, that he might become intertwined in a case where a lawyer made, in his words, 'potentially unethical statements'?

Props to KC for the prescience of 'Wonderland' -- "It would be so nice if something made sense for a change."

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

re: Anon 12:27

I agree I have been trying to think why an attorney with a history of taking on such cases would agree to go on a tv show and comment about such a matter?

But it did not cost him this client and what he is going to do is plead Nifong out. That is why he got Nifong off the case right away. I am sure he read the riot act to Nifong.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

re: Anon 12:27

I agree I have been trying to think why an attorney with a history of taking on such cases would agree to go on a tv show and comment about such a matter?

But it did not cost him this client and what he is going to do is plead Nifong out. That is why he got Nifong off the case right away. I am sure he read the riot act to Nifong.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

Professor Johnson have you counted up:

1. The total number of separate people who signed the Gang of 88 statement or the rump Gang of 88 [87] statement?

2. Have you counted up the number of Gang of 88 members who did not sign the second statement and especially the number who did not sign the second statement who are still at Duke.

3. Have you counted up the total number of current Duke faculty who signed either statement?

Anonymous said...

As a native of Tennessean, I am keenly aware of the sad history of racism and bigotry of Pulaski, TN and the organization that it conceived. It would seem that black North Carolinians are soon to be welcomed into the community of citizens, saddened by the history of ignorance, racism and bigotry which is veiled in the social acceptance of the time but contradicted by all measure of logic and empathy. If this manner of behavior continues, Durham, NC and Pulaski, TN will be forever linked as the twin cities of bigotry. Thank you Karla Holloway, et al for bringing the peoples who admired Dr MLKJr and other great civil rights leaders down to the level of others who must forever feel shame that they're associated with such a despicable and reprehensible group as the KKK and the Group of 88. "Castrate" and "confess"...indeed!

Anonymous said...

I watched Dines' segment...she truly epitomized the average out-to-lunch women's studies professor. As John Turturro assaying Jesus Quintana once put it:

"Laughable man! Ha-haaaaaaaaaaaa!"

Anonymous said...


Love to agree with you, buddy, but Dines can write and hold her own. Visit Liestoppers. She authored an article. She's no wacko, which makes her the ideal person to invite to this site.

I wish there was more diversity of opinion. I'm tired, so I didn't give article a close read. Check it out. You might be pleasantly surprised.

BTW, Jesse Peterson is a bit much.

Barack Obama

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

Well I read part of the Dines' online article. When she got to the part where she talked about the people she consulted about the case she said the were all, "activists and academics."

I don't know how Professor Johnson or Professor Anderson feel about this but I would be pretty insulted to be described as an activist first and then an academic. And if these people are activists first, CNN should have introduced them as activists not professors searching for the truth. Did CNN introduce Dines as an activist?

Anonymous said...


I read Dines' article anent the CNN appearance...and while she can write, she sure-as-heck can't hold her own! Oh mercy, they make it too easy for folks like KC!

Anonymous said...

Re: The Rev Tom Ehrich
I sent him an email intended to help him see this case in a better perspective. I said, "Imagine you found yourself accused of child rape by a 12 year old boy in your congregation. Imagine also that you could prove that you were not even there when the accuser said the crime occurred but the local DA had his own agenda and refused to listen to you. Meanwhile, your picture appeared on the cover of Newsweek and your Bishop decides to start talking about how "whatever you did was bad enough" even while knowing that you were basically innocent...
Tell me, Rev. Ehlich, how much like fairness would that seem???

Anonymous said...

Another day, another great piece...thanks for another thought provoking article.

What will we all do when the case finally comes to a close?

What will KC write about next?

Let's hope this travesty for the three Duke students ends soon.!

Anonymous said...

The January 20 issue of the Baltimore Sun contains an article stating that the LAX team parents are angry at Duke for not speaking out more aggressively on behalf of the players. The article contains the following comment from Duke law professor James Coleman:

BEGIN SUN ARTICLE: Duke law professor James Coleman Jr., who led a university review of the lacrosse program, said that he is sympathetic but that parents and alumni might not realize what Duke was up against.

"It is much more complicated than the families appreciate," Coleman said.

He said the bitterness is "understandable."

"I can't imagine I would not feel the same," he said. "But I feel it's somewhat misdirected."

Coleman suggested that the parents' anger might be better directed at Nifong.

"The question is, what was the obligation of the university when a district attorney is saying a gang rape occurred?" Coleman said. "He basically invited the public to condemn the whole team. I just think the university was in a difficult sort of place and had to be very careful and very measured." END SUN ARTICLE

As usual, his comments are right on target. In hundreds of prior posts and comments, K.C. Johnson and others have described Professor Coleman as a person of great courage and intelligence and have cited his comments about the LAX case as support for their own positions on the case. In fact, numerous commenters have stated that the trustees should make Coleman the next president of Duke. Now, Professor Coleman has stated that President Brodhead and the Duke Administration did the right thing in not speaking out aggressively on behalf of the players because the entire situation was much more complicated than the families appreciate. So I guess the question that arises at this point is whether K.C. Johnson and the LAX team parents will show the same respect for this newest comment by Professor Coleman that they have shown for his prior comments about the case, or whether they will just blow him off now that his comments do not correspond to their own biased view of the case.

Anonymous said...


Did you ever hear back to your Ehrich email? If and when you do, be sure to keep us apprised...

I think we would all be interested to hear how he responds to your point so persuasively posed...

Anonymous said...

you people are so running out of topics. rehash, reruns, revisits and any other ways to keep the conversation going. meanwhile with every single mention of these professors don't you realize that you enhance their citation counts, prop up their careers, and push for fewer students in their already underenrolled classes so they get to teach even less for all that money. so where's the sense in this? none. whatsoever. foolish folks here.

Anonymous said...

KC "Hard to argue with that assessment" is the funniest thing you have written. Here are these poor guys at a stupid beer drinking stripper party (better to get a film, its cheaper and more professional). Now the entire great events of the world are squandered because ot them. You could not dream this stuff. I don't believe anyone is writing them hate mail - they want to be bigger than they are. Rev. Jesse is a proud educated black man, who trying to help lead his people out of the wilderness. Dimes is mad because he did not ask for her help. What did she expect getting involved with Paula Zahn and CNN.

Anonymous said...

When I attended Columbia, I dated a lot of feminist activists.

They all swallow.

Barack Obama

Anonymous said...

J Elliot has a good post over at TL:,1091.msg51777.html#msg51777


The Duke case could prove to be the nightmare that motivates a turning of the tables. Duke would be smart to realize the parochial aspect of this mess. The last thing Duke needs is for parents in northeastern states to gell against the school, and decide to hold Duke's feet to the fire and get some backbone in dealing with their Arts & Sciences professors.

I haven't read many articles, yet, describing northeastern parents as beginning to feel some animus toward Duke over the Northern/Southern angle. But it could happen, and if it does, we should all expect to see the northern families coalesce from a regional allegiance.

Northern parents might well decide to boycott this school if this mess really gets ugly. Duke would suffer greatly if they do.

Caution - for those of you unfamiliar with TL... read J Elliot's post and leave. Be afraid, be very afraid. lol

Anonymous said...

Damn it, sorry for the too-wide post due to that long URL!

KC - feel free to delete it and I can repost it w/ better formatting.

Anonymous said...

What does Nifong's attorney, David Freedman, know about funds from influence peddling case?

Anonymous said...

Prof. Johnson:

Please accept this as a respectful observation from one of the people whose questions made your supplementary list today, but Ehrlich does not say that dropping the criminal charges would be tragic; he says it would be tragic "if the whole matter vanished."

Not only is he right, but I think your entire effort on this blog embodies the same view, albeit from a rather different view of what constitutes the "whole matter."

Ehrlich wants to keep the focus on the players, on what he believes they represent, and on the "unanswered questions" specifically about them that will supposedly remain after the charges are dropped.

You, on the other hand, have worked tirelessly to put the focus instead on the accuser, the DA, the G-88 in its various incarnations, their assorted enablers and apologists, on what you believe they represent -- and on a completely different set of unanswered questions that would not be addressed in the context of a criminal trial. In fact, we all spent most of yesterday helping to compile a list of such questions for you, in the hope that we can actually get some of them answered.

As a lawyer who is not always successful in resolving cases before trial, I know that the process of jury selection is all about identifying what Charlotte Allen calls the "metanarratives" that every person carries with them. It strikes me as a just a fancy word for the sum total of life experiences (perhaps including learned, exaggerated or imagined substitutes for life experience) that influence our judgments when it comes to what inferences we might draw from a piece of evidence, or what kinds of people we are more more likely to view as credible (young or old, black or white, supervisor or subordinate, male or female, cop or defendant, you name it).

This case began with the G-88 side playing the ever-popular metanarrative cards of race, gender, class, and associated victimhood. Your blog may have focused more narrowly at first on the ever-growing defects in the legal process, as if dropping the charges really was the finish line you were trying to reach. But it has become very clear that your side (what the hell ... our side) of the case is now very much into metanarratives as well -- prosecutorial power, political ambition, journalistic license, academic arrogance, deference to pressure groups, the behavioral psychology of simply hating to lose, as cited in a posting I made the other day -- the list goes on and on.

So it would indeed be tragic if the end of the criminal case meant the end of the discussion you have so ably encouraged. Regardless of what the case means for the future of your own pursuits, there are some far-reaching lessons to be learned here, and I have a feeling that the conversation has barely scratched the surface.

By the way, I also do not believe that the end of the criminal case should mean the end of questions about the lacrosse party. After all, exoneration on criminal charges will not retroactively turn that event into a good idea, which means that even without chargeable crimes there were still lessons worth learning and mistakes worth trying not to repeat. (Think about it -- how far down the list of comforting explanations would your son have to go before he would get to "the captains specifically requested white strippers"?)

It's pretty clear that our list of unanswered questions is not the same as Ehrlich's list, but it would be intellectually dishonest to say that the people who have promoted an unjust prosecution are the only ones whose conduct deserves to be examined in the interest of doing better next time.

Oh, and while you're obviously right about poor Prof. Dines, did you look at the comments on her own site before you posted? After what got dumped on her there, your points look like overkill to me...

Best wishes,

Dave in California, where we get to enjoy your daily bulletin at 9:01 p.m.

Anonymous said...

To Mr. 1:15.
It seems to me that by allowing so many of its faculty participate in the public condemnation of the students without publicly reprimanding that premature activity Duke's administration, in effect, endorsed that conduct and left its students to twist in the wind. Moreover, it neither strongly supported their students' rights to the presumption of innocence nor acted to provide for their safety--particularly in light of threats contained in the activities of Duke faculty and students, as well as outside parties.

Anonymous said...

1:35 (Dave in California) wrote "By the way, I also do not believe that the end of the criminal case should mean the end of questions about the lacrosse party. After all, exoneration on criminal charges will not retroactively turn that event into a good idea, which means that even without chargeable crimes there were still lessons worth learning and mistakes worth trying not to repeat."...
I think the intentional harm intended by Nifong, the false accuser and the Group of 88/87 far outweigh any youthful errors made by the lacrosse players and deserve all of our attention. Let the parents of each team member teach their kids themselves. Let's focus instead collectively on the criminal hoax that was attempted to convict three innocent young men in order to promote the reeleciton of a corrupt DA, the shakedown by a hustler and the political agenda of a self-serving group of deluded professors.

M. Simon said...

I read what Dines had to say. KC has been extremely generous towards her.

What she laid down was a steaming pile of.....

However, the commenters at the link posted by KC have set her straight.

Anonymous said...

To 1:35
Get your head on straight. 30 years in prison is not a metaphor, especially if a crime has not even been committed. Getting these guys safe from a corrupt local legal system is the first job. It is a better thing if that can be done without bloodshed; but that part is not essential, imho.
Have you ever been held up at gunpoint? I mean, some crazed DUDE aims a 9mm at your head and "asks" for money??? Experiencing that is a highly relevant background for grasping what is at stake here. I have been there. It is nothing like the movies, For one thing, NOTHING matters except getting away from the gun aimed at your head.
30 years in felony prison. On the other side of the scale, they went to a party where there were strippers. If you think one thing should lead to the other -- get your head on straight.
Or would you rather explain to the parents of the innocent kids why their kids lives should be terminally mutilated?

Anonymous said...

1:55 AM

Agreed, no comparison-

"By the way, I also do not believe that the end of the criminal case should mean the end of questions about the lacrosse party."

False criminal accusations, a corrupt judicial system, railroading people into 30 year prison sentences, and tenured faculty jeering the circus on is everybody's business because these specific acts threaten all of us and test our fundamental laws.

That there was underage drinking of legal alcohol and legal hiring of strippers in this specific situation is none of my business and I cannot see the need for this level of effort to resolve the minor infractions.

The comparison is absurd.

M. Simon said...

Could some one post a link to Dines words on Liestoppers?

You know the stuff she was so courageous to write.

I couldn't find it.

Anonymous said...

2:24 AM -

"And of course, within the framing of the show, I appeared as not just a gullible fool, but even worse, a gullible fool with a feminist agenda."
CNN’s “journalism” is a fool’s paradise

M. Simon said...


If that is it I read it.

I was looking for the "courageous" piece that "Barack Obama" refers to at 12:59 AM .

You know the one where she holds her own.

As I said in a previous post:

That is a stinking pile of.....

Barak said: "She's no wacko, which makes her the ideal person to invite to this site."

Actually she is a total wacko. Just another soon to be refugee from _________ studies.

M. Simon said...

Camille Paglia wrote about what a pile "Women's Studies" was 10 or 15 years ago.

Check out her "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders" which just evicerates all this crap.

It is an long essay and may be online. Well written. An engaging read. And full of vitriol at the debasement of the academy.

She had the disease down, but the cause was not obvious at the time. - The need for a place to park under achievers.

M. Simon said...

Feminist ideology has totally failed to deal with humanity's instinctual drives. No matter what garbage you hear from Foucault's minions, sex is ultimately about procreation. It's in the best interests of the species for fertile women to mate with the strongest, most vital and resourceful males.

Paglia Speaks

Anonymous said...

Comments from:
Nifong Staff

Nifong's out, but heat's still on

M. Simon said...

In my 1991 academic exposé, "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders" (reprinted in "Sex, Art, and American Culture")....

I used to have a copy.

She goes on in the above piece (linked above) about Oprah as a role model. (she says it came out of "Junk Bonds..) So I'm not going to vouch for everything she says. However, academic exposé it is.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon -

You keep posting my thoughts seconds before I do.

But you write them so much more lucidly than I would have.

In reading this woman's essay I'm drawn to the ubermetanarrative. Beyond race, gender, class, sexuality, style, weight and haircolor there's a deeper truth that we, Umarekans, refuse to confront.

And that is that 25% of the population is batshit crazy.

Dine is an apparently lucid person, she can construct a gramatically correct sentense. She apparently is able to hold a job. But when presented with simple, undeniable facts she prefers the comfort of her previous fantacies.

She's not alone. 22% want the US to loose in Iraq. 26% think Elvis is alive, and 12% think they've seen him.

It's the root of the basic tension in our society. The people who look at a fact and say "Oh, that's a fact. I'll have to keep that in mind the next time I make a decsion" and the rest, who look at a fact and try to stomp it like a cockroach, because it's getting in the way of their party.

M. Simon said...

Foucault's analysis of "power" is foggy and paranoid and simply does not work when applied to the actual evidence of the birth, growth and complex development of governments in ancient and modern societies. Nor is Foucault's analysis of the classification of knowledge particularly original -- except in his bitter animus against the Enlightenment, which he failed to realize had already been systematically countered by Romanticism. What most American students don't know is that Foucault's commentary is painfully crimped by the limited assumptions of Saussurean linguistics (which I reject). As I have asserted, James Joyce's landmark modernist novel Ulysses (1922) contains, chapter by chapter, far subtler and more various versions of language-based "epistemes" inherent in cultural institutions and epochs.

I'm afraid I bring rather bad news: Over the course of your careers, your generation of students will slowly come to realize that the Foucault-praising professors whom you respected and depended on were ill-informed fad-followers who sold you a shoddy bill of goods. You don't need Foucault, for heaven's sake! Durkheim and Max Weber began the stream of sociological thought that still nourishes responsible thinkers. And the pioneers of social psychology and behaviorism -- Havelock Ellis, Alfred Adler, John B. Watson and many others -- were eloquent apostles of social constructionism when Foucault was still in the cradle.

Catching on are we?

Paglia on "Junk Bonds..."

M. Simon said...

Foucault-worship is an example of what I call the Big Daddy syndrome: Secular humanists, who have drifted from their religious and ethnic roots, have created a new Jehovah out of string and wax. Again and again -- in memoirs, for example, by trendy but pedestrian uber-academics like Harvard's Stephen Greenblatt and Brown's Robert Scholes -- one sees the scenario of Melancholy, Bookish, Passive, Insecure Young Nebbish suddenly electrified and transfigured by the Grand Epiphany of Blindingly Brilliant Foucault. This sappy psychodrama would be comic except for the fact that American students forced to read Foucault have been defrauded of a genuine education in intellectual history and political analysis (a disciplined genre that starts with Thucydides and flows directly to the best of today's journalism on current events).

When I pointed out in Arion that Foucault, for all his blathering about "power," never managed to address Adolph Hitler or the Nazi occupation of France, I received a congratulatory letter from David H. Hirsch (a literature professor at Brown), who sent me copies of riveting chapters from his then-forthcoming book, The Deconstruction of Literature: Criticism After Auschwitz (1991). As Hirsch wrote me about French behavior during the occupation, "Collaboration was not the exception but the rule." I agree with Hirsch that the leading poststructuralists were cunning hypocrites whose tortured syntax and encrustations of jargon concealed the moral culpability of their and their parents' generations in Nazi France.

American students, forget Foucault! Reverently study the massive primary evidence of world history, and forge your own ideas and systems. Poststructuralism is a corpse. Let it stink in the Parisian trash pit where it belongs!

See above for link.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Johnson;

Contrary to your erroneous and reckless assertion that I was "implying" that John Burness of Duke University opposed the reinstatement of Seligmann and Finnerty, I did no such thing for one very good reason.

That wasn't the subject of the story. I used only the passages relevant to giving context, clarity and confirmation to the story's focus - namely that Burness, the school's official spokesman, received information from Duke Police (who were working with Durham police in the beginning of the Duke case probe) pertaining to alleged remarks made at the party.

To publish both Burness' entire correspondence to Holloway, and hers, in turn, to him and her colleagues, would have been, in my judgment, irresponsible. These were private communications between two colleagues. I never asked Burness for his. he sent it because he didn't want to answer any further questions beyond confirming what he was told by Duke Police.

Beyond that subject, there was no need, on my part, to go further.

Now Burness has seen fit to release his entire letter for publication somewhere else, which is his right. The charge has been made that i took things from his letter out of context.

Since I was addressing only one subject - the information given to Burness by Duke police - and I went to great lengths to generously quote both he and Prof. Holloway so the context PER THAT SUBJECT was complete, I'd be quite curious for someone who has made the scurrilous charge to give me examples of my alleged "dirty deeds."

So far, I've been accused to implying something about Burness that I actually wrote about Holloway, and clearly stated such.

So how about it Prof. Johnson and WTS over at Liestoppers board? I realize you didn't like my reporting the story. But to charge that I misrepresented Burness in it per a subject I never attached to him, is evidence that your disdain for me is getting the best of your judgment, because you're literally seeing things I didn't write or imply.

Talk about fairness and ethics. Show me where yours are in greater supply as it pertains to your erroneous and reckless allegations about my story and intentions.


Cash Michaels

Anonymous said...


I am surprised you did not get a by line on The Weekly Standard article. Did you assist the woman who wrote the article? Did you contact her to suggest that she write it?

M. Simon said...

As I said in another thread. We have the French to thank for the mess our universities are in.

M. Simon said...

3:11 AM,


Anonymous said...

To gprestonian:

I had to laugh at your suggestion that parents in the northeast might get mad at Duke and send their kids elsewhere for college if Duke does not get tough with the left leaning members of its faculty. Where are those parents going to send their kids? Harvard? Yale? Princeton? Do you think those schools have eradicated the left leaning members of their faculties?

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re: Durham Herald article

GS thanks for the link. The last lawyer quoted had a very interesting theory. He felt that since an AG's employee had obstructed justice once they could never prosecute anyone including Nifong for obstructing justice.

That is an interesting theory that an employee of the AG committing a crime repeals the statute making that act a crime??? I wonder what the NC Supreme Court will think of that. It is a good thing that no employee of the AG has committed a murder or by this theory it would be open season in NC to kill whomever you wanted? Afterall he could not see how the AG's office could prosecute afterall someone there had committed the same offense? Where does the Herald get these deep thinkers?

M. Simon said...

How should the humanities be taught, and how should scholars in the humanities be trained? These pivotal questions confront universities today amid signs of spreading agreement that the three-decade era of poststructuralism and postmodernism is over.

It remains my position—as detailed in my long review-essay, “Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders,” published in Arion in 1991—that Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault were false gods, created and promoted by secular academics who might have been expected to be more skeptical of authority. As it became institutionalized in the undergraduate and graduate curriculum, poststructuralism hardened into dogma, and many humanities professors lost the ability to respect, assess, or even recognize any hypothesis or system outside their own frame of reference. Such insularity has little to do with genuine intellectualism and is more akin to religious fundamentalism.

Most seriously, poststructuralism did manifest damage to two generations of students who deserved a generous and expansive introduction to the richness of the humanities and who were instead force-fed with cynicism and cant. I fail to see that American students are emerging today even from elite universities with a broad or discerning knowledge of arts and letters. Nor has poststructuralism produced any major new critics—certainly none of the towering scholarly stature once typical of prominent professors who had been educated in the first half of the twentieth century.

I bolded the bit above.

Duke - are you listening?

Post Post Modern Camille

Anonymous said...

The failure to deal with the substance of what Burness heard from the police reflects the disinterest in the details of this case that will live forever with the three. Charges dropped? yeah,sure and oj was found, in criminal court, not guilty. Who believes it? Probably people just like those who will insist the boys have been found not guilty because they didn't go to court.
My question: what were they doing in the bathroom? brushing their teeth? I don't think so, and those questions about wonder what really happened will rightfully follow them the rest of their lives. They oughta choose a trial if they want people to believe something other than they got off without having to withstand the scrutiny of a courtroom. but oh, I forgot, that's been their effort all along. Scream and whine about prosecutorial misconduct so nobody looks at the event itself. Michaels is a hero for publishing the comments that implicate the truth.But you people can't handle the truth so you go after the messenger. Wrong target folks!

Anonymous said...

Paglias advice to students:

"This is a time of enormous opportunity for you. There is an ossified political establishment of invested self-interest. Conformism and empty pieties dominate the academe. Rebel. Do not read Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, and treat as insignificant nothings those that still prate of them. You need no contemporaries to interpret the present for you. Born here, alive now, you are modernity. You are the living link between past and future. Charge yourself with the high ideal of scholarship, connecting you to Alexandria and to the devoted, distinguished scholars who came before you. When you build on learning you build on rock. You become greater by a humility towards great things. Let your work follow its own organic rhythm. Seek no material return from it, and it will reward you with spiritual gold. Hate dogma. Shun careerists...Among the many important messages coming from African-American culture is this, from a hit song by Midnight Star: "No parking, baby, no parking on the dance floor." All of civilized life is a dance, a fiction. You must learn the steps without becoming enslaved by them. Sitting out the dance is not an option."

Anonymous said...

4:51 Scream and whine about prosecutorial misconduct so nobody looks at the event itself.

The ONLY event is prosecutorial misconduct. There is NO evidence of any other crime.

It is only the race-baiters and _______ studies academic frauds that think otherwise.

Vitruvius said...

I think it is important when considering this situation to keep in mind that there are a number of related systems failures in play here. Remember, a disaster is a bunch of particular problems that happen in just the right order. Yes, I realize that's what you would expect from the way an engineer like me analyzes failures, but this is my comment, so here I go...

In the matter at hand, first, there are the basic "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" due-process methodological issues, regarding such things as statements, and line-ups, and DNA tests, that have been so egregiously violated under constitutional law in this case that I think this case must be considered a failure to the degree that the charges must be dismissed with prejudice, if the undergirding methodology and its practitioners are to remain credible.

Second, there is the matter of state-based prosecutorial misconduct -- with electoral implications -- that needs to be addressed. The narrower failure of prosecutorial misconduct is now in the process queue; we shall see. The broader issue involves questions like whether or not state attorneys should be elected in the first place, which is a separate complicated issued that is beyond the scope of this comment, but which goes to the heart of the axiology of democracy.

Third, there is the argumentum ad misericordium industry, also known as the ambulance chasers, race baiters, and professional victims. These people are a perennial problem; snake-oil is just another kind of fraud. They are never going to go away, we're stuck with dealing with them each by every.

Fourth, there is the matter of the marxist Gang of 88 ± Δ and related enablers. These people are part of the third problem, but due to their direct association with the institutions involved in the matter at hand, and the legacy of their failed utopian dreams, they have a unique degree of culpability.

Fifth, there is the matter of the degree of complicity by some organs of the media, regarding their perpetrating of selective coverage of the issues at hand, which fortunately, if nothing else, is starting to seriously damage their brand value.

When discussing the relationship between these failure modes and our model of good, I think it is important to keep in mind the scope of the combined failures. If only one or two of these failures had happened, then for better or worse, the whole matter probably wouldn't have risen above the signal to noise ratio. Yet as it stands, this is, indeed, a classic failure. This we need to study if there is any hope for us to learn from our mistakes.

Anonymous said...

"Scream and whine about prosecutorial misconduct so nobody looks at the event itself. Michaels is a hero for publishing the comments that implicate the truth.But you people can't handle the truth so you go after the messenger."

4:51: Exactly what "event" are you referring to? The sixth-hand hearsay "event" that Karla Holloway claims she heard Burness say that he heard someone else say that he heard someone else say? That alleged "event" was an alleged racist insult at the beginning of the party -- at a time when Sherwood, the LAX team's sole black player was present. This alleged "event" has never been confirmed by anyone at the party, including Kim Roberts. Yet you claim Cash Michaels is a "hero" for publishing this unsubstantiated rumor? Get real. You're the one who can't handle the truth. "What happened in the bathroom. They weren't brushing their teeth." Please point to even one piece of evidence that supports your contention that the three defendants were ever in the bathroom together, or that they were ever alone in any place in that house with Crystal Mangum. The only "evidence" of that is the repeatedly contradicted word of a drug/alcohol-addled stripper with a history of dishonesty and mental illness who has told so many different versions of the "rape" --no wait "assault"-- story that no one can keep them straight anymore. Why don't you take off your racist blinders and look at the actual facts in this case -- you know, that stuff that is supported by actual evidence. Oh wait, you don't want to do that, do you? That would burst the little fantasy bubble you and your kind live in.

Anonymous said...

The Cash Michaels comments -- if they come from Cash Michaels -- really make me sick. Here is someone who all along has gone with whatever new story was cooked up. $2 million payoff alleged? That one never had a ring of truth to it, but guess who promoted it?

Reade Seligmann came back to the party so he could rape Crystal? That was was laughable on its face, but guess who promoted that through the NAACP?

Brutal rape? Cash Michael's by-line is in all of the Black Press USA pieces in which he writes that Crystal suffered a "brutal rape," when we know that the medical evidence said no such thing.

Wendy Murphy? Here is someone who advocates rape theories that are based on lies. Here is someone who was front-and-center in the Amirault case in Massachusetts, a case in which numerous legal experts have declared to be a "travesty." (Dorothy Rabinowitz received a Pulitzer Prize for exposing just what a travesty the Amirault trial really was.)

But who gives Wendy Murphy a huge space to spew out more lies? Oh, Cash Michaels.

Now he threatens the North Carolina AG with basically this statement: The black community of North Carolina is entitled to a trial because we want a wrongful conviction if at all possible.

Does any reader -- any reader -- believe that Cash Michaels would remain quiet if a black defendant were accused of these crimes, and the evidence against him was what we see in the lacrosse case?

Did Cash Michaels argue that the Innocence Project was wrong in seeking release and exoneration for Darryl Hunt? Did Cash Michaels write something akin to: "We don't care if Hunt's DNA was not found ANYWHERE on the body of Debra Sykes. There was an eyewitnesses, and so an eyewitness testimony MUST ALWAYS trump real evidence."

You see, that is exactly what Michaels is arguing. He wants the Big Lie to continue because he and so many other people invested so much into it, and now he does not want to face up to the fact that he all along has been pushing the Big Lie.

Yes, Cash Michaels now gets to play the role of Al Sharpton and Alton Maddox in Tawana Brawley II. Great role, huh?

Anonymous said...

My post will be a plea for a return to the micro-narrative. If you’re wondering what that is, I can perhaps do no better than to quote Jack Webb (Sergeant Joe Friday) the famous detective from “Dragnet”, a blockbuster radio and television series from my youth: “The facts, Ma’am. Just the facts.” This blog has perhaps introduced some of its participants and visitors to the concept of meta-history, a conglomeration of individual “meta-narratives”, or simply “metas” for purposes of economy. A meta-narrative is the big story that the little story exemplifies. Let me call that little story a “micro-narrative”. Our micro-narrative is the tale of a beer party and its aftermath. The meta-narrative now made internationally famous by several Duke faculty is a vast allegory of race, class, and gender throughout the course of American history. The meta-narrative was summarized in the memorable if incoherent prose of Professor Houston Baker as “abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us.”

Your average Duke professor never met a meta she didn’t like, and the idea of “drunken white male privilege” racing through the community like the bubonic plague or perhaps a California brush fire is a powerful one. Countering it with a mere fact, especially one so paltry as the fact that there actually was no sexual assault, abhorrent or otherwise, has barely slowed its forward progress. Perhaps that is why so many DIWers seem tempted to come up with metas of their own. Hence the real story of the Durham Rape Hoax is the State of the American Academy, or the Post-Modernist Mind, or the practice of academic appointment on continuing tenure, and so forth. Some of this “so forth” part is getting pretty arcane. I should not be obliged to read Michel Foucault in order to know right from wrong. I cannot deny that a number of the meta abstractions are of possible interest and eventual relevance. Yet I doubt that the movie version of “Foucault in His Own Words” would be a box office match for “Drunken White Male Privilege on the Loose”. Our meta simply lacks the sex and violence required for popular artistic success.

Hence my plea to return to the micro-narrative. Three young men (two Duke undergraduates and one recent alumnus) have been indicted on serious criminal charges. The indictments themselves are a near-scandal, since there is no credible evidence that the crimes even occurred. That is to put matters in most cautious terms. Known facts in the public domain make the defendants’ legal innocence manifest. Their continued prosecution is unjustified. These are matters of basic truth, fairness, and constitutional legality. Those, I would submit, are the facts, Ma’am, just the facts; and you don’t really have to express an opinion concerning the relative merits of Max Weber and Emile Durkheim in order to grasp them. Dismiss the case. Then, when the corpse has cooled, we can perform the post-mortem and meta to our hearts’ content. In the meantime let’s not try to pull stumps until we have cut down the trees.

Anonymous said...

Don't you just love it when the NAACP speaks up? Threaten all you want. If Cooper bends to your wants instead of doing what is RIGHT, he's as guilty as Nifong. I wonder why he put an ex-coworker of Nifong on the case anyway.


Anonymous said...

Hey KC,

Here's another article (from today's NY Post) to add to the roundup:

Phil Mushnick Post Article


Anonymous said...

Well done 7:43!!

Re: Prof. Coleman--One can tolerate the University not "speaking out on behalf of the LAX players," it's the failure of the University to speak out regarding (1) the due process violations and (2) the Group's harebrained "Listening Statement" and the Rump's "Open Letter" that are the big problems...along with misrepresenting the level of cooperation of the defendants, allowing the warrantless dorm search, restricting voter registration on campus, and directing the defendants to the University lawyers first, rather than their own parents and counsel. Whatever "complicated" matters inhibited the University did not inhibit Prof. Coleman, thank God. But it would be helpful if he (or someone) could detail what the complications were and why they prevented the University from acting morally and responsibly.

About J Elliot and the Northern families--As Vitruvius ably points out, it's not just the looney left marxist fringe faculty that created this problem. There were systems failures on many levels, the most important of which was the North Carolina justice system. That creaking, antiquated system has had a very unattractive debut on the national stage, and you can bet it's raised some eyebrows among Northern parents of college bound kids.

To 1:17 who is bothered by rehashing--this case is not resolved, yet, and many of us are still completely engaged in this discussion. You, of course, are free to move on with your life.

Dave in California, I am with HMAN and 2:11. We cannot continue this case in which there is NO, repeat NO, credible evidence against the defendants so everyone can follow their metanarratives a little longer. This is a CRIMINAL case with serious potential penalties for the defendants, not a vehicle for society to play out its interesting, even compelling, metanarratives. With all due respect to The Reverend Tom Ehrich, HE can start a blog, write articles, and preach about Enron, Iraq, and Duke LAX, or whatever else bothers him, but this case is
about FACTS and EVIDENCE and there, it fails totally and completely.

M. Simon, I think RP is teasing us with the Barack Obama comments because we responded seriously to the alleged Duke and Peer Institution Profs yesterday. I could be wrong...

Thank you very much for the Camille Paglia quotes and link. I am extremely interested in college curriculum choices and how to make sure your college student's class choices add up to a meaningful educational experience in the days of fewer core curriculums.

Finally 3:11, I think you are right. A significant portion of the population believes lots of ridiculous stuff, and, amazingly, professors are no exception to this general rule. It's been suggested to me by former professor at an elite institution that something in the process of getting that Ph.D. actually warps the thinking of the student! Would love to read any comments on that.


Anonymous said...

to HMAN at 2:00 - Absolutely brilliant post - sums everything up. Thanks


M. Simon said...


Micro-narritives. Interesting.

In any case I have no say in the cutting down of the trees. That is the job of the defence team. And, a mighty good job they are doing of it. The case, after ten months of focusing on facts, is in shreds. Now is the beginning of taking stock of the institutional failures. Stick to the micro-narritives? How pomo of you. It is not about narritives. It is about evidence and the truth as best as we can figure out. Now here comes the tricky part.

My take is that you can not figure out what went on until you understand the motives of the people involved. To understand the motives of the 88 +/- you have to understand what they believe. What is the filter they use to see the world? Foucault and the rest are elements of that filter. It revolves around power issues. Not just individual power. Class power. The 88 because of their theories belive they are involved in a class struggle.

What the 88 have done is to ascribe differences in outcome not to natural variations within and between groups, but to some overarching theory. Racism, classcism, sexism, etc. i.e. the MAN be holding us down. Pure Foucault.

Think: how did the Soviets mesmerise the people of the Soviet Union for so many years? The rulers had a theory that justified their behavior. And, the people bought it for a very long time.

What we have in the 88 is a group blinded by theory. Not one they invented. One they picked up from some French guys. Why? Well plain vanilla Marxism doesn't have the oomph it once had. Why is that? Well, Marxism had a theory. It was logical and it could be checked against the evidence. The evidence of failure became overwhelming. The USSR is gone.

What the pomo folks have done to avoid the evidence going against them at some future date is to state as theory that evidence has no utility. That pomo stuff is at the heart of where this case went bad. None of the perpetrators of this travesty had/have any use for facts. Facts are inconvenient. What we want are stories. However, stories people understand. So we won't call them stories, we will dress up that pig and put lipstick on it. We won't call them stories, how pedestrian. We are the bearers of high holy theory. We will call them narratives.

Which is why taking a look behind the curtain at Foucault and the rest gives insight into what is going on and why.

M. Simon said...

Observer 9:05AM,

Honored to be of service.

I find it interesting that Camille predicted the failure of the "studies" 15 years ago. Back then, she was speaking only to academics and obviously they wern't listening.

As for most of the rest of us as one poster put it aproximately "why do I have to understand Foucault to know what went wrong?" Pretty simple. This pomo stuff has infected the entire academy. They have physicists talking this trash. Fortunately economists and engineers are not so easily fooled.

Count me among the engineers.


Good job. In social systems, checks and balances take the place of redundancy. Competing interests are supposed to insure that total failure of the system is unlikely. We have a system where those checks and balances have been destroyed by theory. The need to get elected. The prejudices of the electorate etc. As you so ably point out.

Flights of fancy and impossible theories are fine for works of art. They have no place in a real system that is supposed to produce real output, food, clothing, medicine, justice.

Anonymous said...

What will we all do when the case finally comes to a close?

What will KC write about next?

Unfortunately the myriad of professors, academics, administrators that delve in the Durham-In-Wonderland mentality of political correctness, victim politics, collective vs. individual rights activism at the expense of empirical analysis could keep Professor Johnson busy for, oh, it seems...eternity.

Anonymous said...

To alleged "Anonymous," aka alleged "Observer" at 9:05. I am "alleged peer professor" to whom you allude. I don't know who alleged "RP" is, but I presume the abbreviation stands for "Royal Pain."

I have spent most of my life training young Ph.D. students. I can assure you that there is nothing in the process itself that leads to the curious results you have observed. There is a very simple explanation. The American professoriate is a self-perpetuating bureaucracy whose operations with regard to hiring and advancing their colleagues are subject to very little external control or even influence. Academic departments, sometimes already intellectually parochial in conception, are further divided into increasingly specialized sub-units that are effectively autonomous. Furthermore most graduate professors think that their primary duty is to redupicate themselves for future academic generations. It thus takes no conspiracy to arrive at the results you have observed--if indeed you are an observer and not merely an alleged observer. Faculty selection committees do not meet in dark alleys where they whisper about the best way of hiring another Schnackelfussian deconstructionist for the department. They don't have to. All the candidates are Schnackelfussians. Any others were persecuted or bored out of graduate school long ago. Under these circumstances the committees can concentrate on the very important question of "diversity" I am sure you must be familiar with the academic meaning of "diversity". It means "more people just like me except for the hair-do." A truly diverse instituion will have one or two Greater Crusted Schnackelfussians as well as the more commor or garden varieties.

Anonymous said...

The fact that Cash Michaels has to resort to obvious threats to Roy Cooper to lose the black support shows how twisted and desparate they are. What he is really saying is that Cooper will lose the support of the racist, bigotted, ignorant black vote. No loss for Cooper. The entire world is watching extremely closely for all those in charge to do the right thing. At this point Cooper can't bow down to the black vote like most of the NC elected have done (Congressman Jones is the execption). The black supporters have lowered themselves even lower,using bullying tactics. "If you don't do what we want, we will hurt you (hopefully they only mean politically) The way I see with all the international coverage, Cooper can only be made to look like a hero for doing the right thing to all the reasonable people in the world. I'm sure the DOJ doesn't want to have to clean up the mess in his state that should have been cleaned up long ago. So to all the supporters who use their blackness to bully, you are nats on an elephant of a case, insignificant at this point.

Anonymous said...

OP:Hello,911,what is your emergancy?
KR:Somebody just called me the N-Word!
OP:(pause)...ok,do you want me to send an ambulance or a firetruck?

Anonymous said...

I expect the reason Mr. Freedman volunteered an opinion as to Mr. Nifong's early statements was that he had no inkling the NC bar would file, prior to the trial, a complaint based on the statements. As a long-time follower of judicial and prosecutorial ethics, I have never know of such a filing prior to the trial, nor of a DA continuing such a stream of grossly improper claims. Additionally, given the NC bar's past performance of little action against transgressing prosecutors, Mr. Freedman had an additional reason to suspect that no action would be taken.

In the normal course, if the defendants were tried and found not guilty, the NC bar then might have considered the ethics complaints , but the public interest would have moved on to other things. If the defendants were convicted, and even if the trial had been moved to another county, the making of the prejudical statements would have been one of the many, many issues for appeal.

Further, in providing his early opinion, Mr Freedman could not have known of the continuing revelations of Mr. Nifong's gross misconduct. Those, in my opinion, provided a strong impetus of the action by the NC bar.

The lengthy and detailed ethics complaint against Mr. Nifong is drafted in such a way as to appear nonsensically tedious. However, assuming the same rules apply in NC as in other states, Mr. Nifong must file a written response to each of the numbered paragraphs. It is a common trick of lawyers responding to complaints, ethics and otherwise, which combine several allegations into a single paragraph, to answer in a vague fashion or respond only to some of the claims. However, the very pointed allegations in Mr. Nifong's complaint make it very hard to answer either "yes" or "no," a position defendant's hate to be in.

In making his case against Mr. Nifong, the lawyer representing the NC bar may subpoena records of ethics seminars attended by Mr. Nifong, and then get copies of the seminar handouts. Anything on permissible pre-trial statements of a DA would roast him on cross-examination.

Was there not another NC bar meeting this week on other of Mr. Nifong's conduct? Has the result of that been announced?

Anonymous said...

Three comments...

- Vitruvius: Another engineer here. Yes, any disaster (car crashes, 911, Katrina, and on) is almost always the result of a number of oversights occuring in just the wrong order. If we could just convince the public that "The Sons of Martha" isn't just a poem, the world would be a safer place.

- Dines is a *professor*?? Damn, it's worse than I feared.

- "Meta-narrative". Can somone explain how this is significantly different than "conspiracy theory"?

Anonymous said...

Dear m simon,

I agree wholeheartedly with your ideas on this case. I do have one small complaint. Don't make Foucault some kind of singular boogeyman for these left wing academics by just quoting a bit of Camille Paglia, whom I admire for her courage to stand up to this nonsense. There are many others, many French, but others who are not. Gramsci comes to mind; he just prefers the overthrow of western civilization. The list would be quite long and boring. I suspect you haven't read Foucault. I've read two of his books: Discipline and Punish and The Order of Things. Foucault was not a raving Marxist, although he was influenced earlier in his life; he was a goofy, narcissistic, post modern homosexual. He was opposed to gay rights for a curious reason; he enjoyed the anonymous, dangerous, titillating promiscuity of the gay scene, which of course led to his demise. San Francisco bath houses were a favorite of his, and he wrote about this; it's no secret. He used the term "other" in a crude and obscure way to refer to experiences like his and to attempt to somehow justify them. Postmodernists as we all know love to make language incomprehensible, it keeps them from dealing with reality. Didn't Karla Holloway get "othered' or something.

Anonymous said...

academics have pet-theories that generally conform to their personal viewpoint.that's what the group of 88 are guilty of:bias in the face of overwhelming evidence,insular solipsism at its worst.
but let's be honest,if 3 black students were(wrongfully) accused of raping a white stripper these guys would already be behind bars doing life and the news media outside durham probably never would've reported it once.

Anonymous said...

It is not surprising that the year seminar on the Duke lacrosse case got approved so easily. Courses and programs with a victim spin are not subject to the same rules and scrutiny as more traditional discipline based offerings.

The unwritten and often unstated assumptions of curriculum oversight committees is that the act of questioning the content of the course or program is an act of race/class/gender bias so people simply let their questions go unasked.

This suits the interests of the college administration because the point of such programs and courses is to get a measure of immunity from endless charges of racial, gender and class bias.

The Duke faculty and administration like similar faculty and administration at other campuses have been practicing this kind of gender and racial deference for the last twenty years. They have learned the behavior of genuflecting to accusations of racial or gender bias through hundreds of small compromises with their own better judgment.

Ten months and two sixty minutes programs later it seems shocking that so many generally reasonable people could have stood idly by as a runaway prosecutor, encouraged by a group of faculty ideologues and pot-banging students carrying a "castrate" banner, tried to railroad three students to prison on a transparently fake accusation of rape. But to anyone familiar with academic governance over the last twenty years, caving in to unsupported claims of racial and gender bias should come as no surprise. They have had lots of practice and it has only come to public attention in this case because it such an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

Anonymous said...

Hi posted on LS the full original exchange between Burness and Holloway is posted thereby enabling readers to review your "article" and compare it to the original - and form their own opinion. Fair and ethical in my book.

M. Simon said...


Foucault is just an exemplar. Short hand if you will.

I type one handed (because I never learned two handed). So I try to do a lot of thinking before I start clacking at the keyboard. More time spent thinking. Less time clacking.

And yes the Gramscians play a part too. And all the New-And-Totally-Revised-Marxism load.

And don't forget Orwell's New Speak. Where critical means uncritical. etc.

Good points.

And no, I haven't read any Foucault books. Couldn't see wasting my time. However, a long ways back (in blog time) I read some of his shorter pieces on line. I must tell you I have totally forgotten anything about them except that I did look into him. The vague memory I have is - turgid prose - which given his sexual orientation seems apt. Although it seems the turgidity could have been put to better use.

Anonymous said...

10:18 said,
"Didn't Karla Holloway get "othered' or something."

From DIW, 09/20/06:

"Holloway contends that Duke must exploit the lacrosse affair to “recognize that sports reinforces exactly those behaviors of entitlement which have been and can be so abusive to women and girls and those ‘othered’ by their sports’ history of membership.”"

Anonymous said...

4:51 AM
"Michaels is a hero for publishing the comments that implicate the truth.

Thank you 4:51. You prove 3:11's well spoken point:

"there's a deeper truth that we... refuse to confront. And that is that 25% of the population is batshit crazy."


Anonymous said...

I'm 10:18. I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Professor Holloway's appication of original thinking, right.

M. Simon said...

I decided to have a look again at Foucault.

From this piece (if it is representative) I gather he belives in the exaltation of reason without recourse to evidence.

This is useful if we want to design a system of logic. It is useless for testing that system.

Reason beyond authority is Foucault. Questioning authority is good. However, the question must be testable to provide a useful result. (the engineer in me speaks)

We have rules for building bridges. That constitutes authority. What is the purpose of the rules? To see that bridges do not fall.

Foucault is beyond all that. Which is why you get stupid ideas like "science is just the white man's narrative used to oppress the oppressed classes". And, besides it uses math and that is hard and just another way for the white man to keep the oppressed down.

He uses reason to deny reason. Which if taken to its logical conclusion leaves us with Foucault and his ilk are lousy reasoners.

I think that has been well documented in the Duke case.


Anonymous said...

It's in the best interests of the species for fertile women to mate with the strongest, most vital and resourceful males
how many vital and resourceful males has camille paglia mated with?
last time I checked Paglia was just playing Martin Luther to Gloria Steinem's pope.

Anonymous said...

10:21 AM
"but let's be honest,if 3 black students were(wrongfully) accused of raping a white stripper these guys would already be behind bars doing life"

That may not be the case. Probably would have gone to trial, but even an average public defender could have successfully used the available evidence to convince a jury to acquit. The world is not Selma in 1954.

M. Simon said...


Camille decided to forgo breeding to focus on scholarship. She talks about that in one of the links I provided.

That does not deny the truth of her point.

And as I pointed out above - she is not immune to going off the rails. Which does not negate the fact that academia (other that the hard sciences) is in sorry shape because natural philosophy has been divorced from science and has become self referential.

It is CP Snow all over again.

Physicists (in general) know more about art than artist know about physics. (and phuleeeeeeze no math).

My first mate is an artist and we can have interesting conversations about art. However, science is not a strong part of her background. In the case of science she defers to authority (me). LOL

My #2 son could have gone into either science or humanities. He chose humanities. His take on pomo? Something you regurgitate to get your grade. Don't mean nothing.

Good boy.

M. Simon said...

Pomo is at the stage socialism was in in the USSR in the 1980s. Every one mouths the pieties. No one believes it (well not many).

Which is what is called in laser physics a population inversion. A lot of particles are not in their lowest energy state and insufficient energy is coming into the system to maintain the high energy state.

The least trigger (random noise) leads to spontaneous decay to a more stable state (called the ground state). Which is not a rigorous explanation, but it does make the point.

Duke could be the trigger for getting us grounded in reality. It has enough energy to get us over the potential well. (to mix in physics metaphors again)

Anonymous said...

Bsrack Obama sex:

When I attended Columbia, I dated a lot of feminist activists.

They all swallow.

Yeah, but they were doing it for Bill Clinton, so don't feel too good about it.

Anonymous said...

Some wanker sez:

Michaels is a hero for publishing the comments that implicate the truth.

I have got to wonder where that person was educated given that they can't even use words properly.

Oh, of course, they must be a womens studies or AA studies grad.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

8:08 AM BA-
thank you for not waiting and making hash of cash.

M. Simon said...


Man have you been asleep?

Food stamps are gone.

It is now a credit card like thingy.

BTW as a blog pal may I suggest self medication or meditation?

Being angry ALL THE TIME is hard on the system.

You name is now out there. (if it was you).

Libel is not a good idea. People are watching.

You can throw gratuitous insults with abandon if you are a bit erudite. Try it. Its fun.


Oh, yeah. Go Bears.

Anonymous said...


thank you for your response to 4:51's outlandish post.

I so appreciate your use of facts against delusional misrepresentation of the events of March 13th:

For example to quote:

""What happened in the bathroom. They weren't brushing their teeth." Please point to even one piece of evidence that supports your contention that the three defendants were ever in the bathroom together, or that they were ever alone in any place in that house with Crystal Mangum."

These are the kind of lies swirling among those clamoring for a trial...Each and every lie must be swiftly dealt with before they have a chance to grow out of control.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Dine's essay was thorougly dissected and trashed for its factual errors in the commentary following it. It must be shocking for some professors to have their ideas so quickly discredited. As of this writing I read over 40 comments and none of them were hateful. Many of them were sympathetic to her being misled by CNN while a factual error was pointed out. The power of the internet is striking. That power also means that the undoubted high percentage of people who are "batsh**" will produce hate mail to anyone who expresses an opinion on matter of controversy and attaches a real identity and email account to that opinion.

I wonder if any Duke student will take that seminar and write an essay critical of the Listening Statement or its apologia. It would probably take someone who doesn't care about what grade the prof. assigns.

Anonymous said...


I'm not angry. I'm gonna pound the welfare metaphor all the way.

What we do with our money is the most moral aspect of being a human being. Throwing money away to assuage a few untalented angry studies profs?

I'm quite serious about defunding this crap, and I'm also correct in pointing out that BS and WS have no place in an elite curriculum.

Prediction: The defunding issue will be getting more coverage soon, and I suspect it will be addressed by the trustees who will eventually fire Richard Brodhead.

My 1st publishing job was in Chicago--go Bears. Guess whose book I edited? My 1st job as an editor. Walter Payton. I still think he's gay, but that's another story. Helluva nice guy.


Anonymous said...

Duke09: Yes, you have caught something that boils underneath. Many Professors simply cannot take criticism from mere mortals outside of academia (the "I'm so smart" complex). Karla Holloway is a prime example. She can dish it out, but she sure as hell can't take it. Dine was probably floored that the general public can actually write, much less use a computer - good Lord!!

The power of people to simply point out faults on the web is, as you say, enormous. The best way to avoid this is to stop setting yourself up, but they just keep doing it.


Anonymous said...

10:21 AM
"but let's be honest,if 3 black students were(wrongfully) accused of raping a white stripper these guys would already be behind bars doing life"

Let is think of what that person is saying. He is declaring that a mostly-black jury in Durham would ignore DNA that would be providing exculpatory evidence for the accused. He is saying that a Durham jury would be racist, in that it would convict on the basis of color rather than evidence.

You see, I am getting sick of the claims being made by Cash Michaels and the others that evidence does not matter. Maybe if Cash were on a jury, he would make judgments based solely on race and sex and ignore evidence, but most people I know would not do that. I certainly would not follow Cash's lead.

So, please, please, cut the crap here. Do you think the black community would have stood for the railroading of three black men in Durham for something that everyone knew did not happen? Surely not, Cash, surely not.

Anonymous said...

12:12 - Where did Loyola College rank this year pre-season?

Let me know if you have Face-Off handy.



M. Simon said...

Another nice guy was Gayle Sayers.

Went to high school with him.

Knew his brother Roger better though.

We won the State Champiomship in his Sr. year. I can still remember him making a very long dash down the sidelines. Beautiful. Omaha Central. His football coach was my English teacher. I didn't do well. He would assign 20 page papers an I'd be able to say everything I wanted to say in 5.

Anonymous said...



Whom have I libeled, or did you forget to add a LOL?


M. Simon said...


You still in the publishing business?

I need a publisher or an agent.

Anonymous said...

"The American professoriate is a self-perpetuating bureaucracy whose operations with regard to hiring and advancing their colleagues are subject to very little external control or even influence. Academic departments, sometimes already intellectually parochial in conception, are further divided into increasingly specialized sub-units that are effectively autonomous."

Dear Peer Professor,

This is essentially exactly how my professor friend described the issues with the added comment that the need to be "original" in scholarship drives people to ever more narrow and esoteric scholarly pursuits. So, even in specialized sub-units the soon to be Ph.D. must find a new mini-micro thread, devote extraordinary amounts of time and effort to it, and risk losing his/her ability to even perceive the broader perspective, including everyday reality. Being so focused and devoted separates the student from the broader world for such a long period of time that when he/she resurfaces, he/she is a bit like Rip Van Winkle after his 20 year nap. I very much appreciate your response to my comment.

Alleged Anonymous Observer

Anonymous said...


Sayers and LT are the 2 greatest football players ever, IMO


Anonymous said...


Sayers and LT are the 2 greatest football players ever, IMO


M. Simon said...


Re: libel

You would know better than I. I just thought you got close a couple of times.

A quote from a book review

Kate Figes’s The Big Fat Bitch Book for Girls seems to be packaged as a kind of celebration of bitchery. There are quotations from famous bitches, such as Joan Crawford and her archenemy Bette Davis. There is a priceless e-mail exchange between alpha bitches Julie Burchill and Camille Paglia. “Clever bitching is thrilling,” says Figes, “it takes us to places we feel we shouldn’t go.”

Anonymous said...


Just started my own company, Nighttown Media. I produce for television and print. I'm concentrating on 3 projects now, all dance related.

I'm almost finished with an ambitious photography book on the eroticism of ballerinas and contemporary dancers. The project is killer difficult, but also pretty funny. I'm coproducing a documentary about the creation of the book ("Exquisite Creatures"). There are a lot of famous, choreographers, photographers, and dancers, some of whom are incredibly eccentric, so it should prove to be a good film.

My most ambitious project, also entitled "Exquisite Creatures," is confidential at this time. I can tell you that it will combine dance, creative filmmaking, eroticism, and music. Think of it as high-IQ MTV. Have some incredible directors already attached to the project. I sold it with a 2-page treatment!

Yes, I know a lot of people in publishing. What are you working on?


M. Simon said...


We should take this to e-mail.


Anonymous said...

I see close parallels to the Fatty Arbuckle case and the Chaplin paternity suit, both standard examples of bigotry against privilege driving a gross miscarriage of justice. Do all these "progressive" voices realize how exactly they are following the tune of Hearst-driven mobs of the early part of the last century?

Anonymous said...

Hey KC, which show on MSNBC was Dan Abrams on this week? Dang, I missed it. I want to look up the transcript. Thanks!

M. Simon said...

In an interview with Paglia someone asked her as to where she got her demoniac energy. The answer was vintage Paglia. "From watching football," she said simply.

Book review

I heard an anecdote:

Before WW2 started for America, a German Staff officer watched an American Football Game. When asked what he thought he replied "We will lose the war"

kcjohnson9 said...

Transcript for Abrams; forgot to post it.

Anonymous said...

Professor Dines talking about her recent experience on the Paula Zahn show on CNN:

BEGIN QUOTE: When I got back to the hotel 30 minutes later, I already had a few emails from enraged men informing me that I am a “bitch dyke” , “dumb feminist” and “nigger lover” who is an embarrassment to the academic profession. By the next day at noon, it was a flood of emails, each one more hateful than the next. END QUOTE

Sounds like the LAX team supporters really did a number on Professor Dines.

Anonymous said...

9:05 - "It's been suggested to me by former professor at an elite institution that something in the process of getting that Ph.D. actually warps the thinking of the student! "

I think it results from the concept that your thought processes become credentialed once you get that advanced degree. "Expertise" all too often banishes common sense.

Anonymous said...

Fan Mail to KC

OK so I read your link to this Mark Anthony luminary, a scholar who elucidates hip hop. (What a coup for Duke to have found someone with knowledge so esoteric plus he has these REALLY deep perceptions about strip clubs, whereas I thought they were only skin deep.)

What I did not realize until I read the interview with Anthony was that you had subtly altered his neologism. Some might accuse you of effete political correctness or old-fashioned Bowdlerization, but I claim you were brilliantly Joycean:



Anonymous said...

RP @ 1:23,

LOL, now you ARE being a troll. Sayres the best FB player ever? He was great but not even the best Bear ever.

His Sweetness Walter Payton was.

Anonymous said...

So 2:04 PM:

In other words, if a person believes that Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans are not guilty of the charges, then he is a racist?

By the way, I have received threats to my family as well as me from Nifong supporters. I guess I have to assume, using your logic, that you are threatening me, too.

Anonymous said...

Sorry. I have to go with Jim Brown. He ran for all of those yards in short seasons and on fields that resembled gravel lots.

And, he was a great lacrosse player, too.

Anonymous said...

Walter Payton vs. Jim Brown. Now THAT is a worthy football debate. I was lucky enough to see Brown play in person a few times, though one's judgment of comparative talents is probably more legitimate from videotape.

Brown was the best running back, but he didn't care much for blocking. His talent for pass catching was mostly untested, but since he had a good offensive line in front of him why delay getting him the ball by making him run off to the side somewhere?

Anonymous said...

Interesting that the Group of 88, which refuses to apologize for its wilful distortion of the facts of the Duke rape hoax, probably to a (wo)man was baying for Bush to apologize for invading Iraq.

Anonymous said...

"Off with their heads"!, screamed
the Queen of Tarts as She emperiously
changed into Her newest royal robes.

The 88 rumped professors are naught
but modern vigilantes.
They need more rope with
which to hang themselves.

Anonymous said...


If every single signer of the Listening Statement were to apologize, would that change anything in the real world--and I do mean anything?

Shouldn't the question be, How do we prevent the antimale bigots and antiwhite racists from achieving positions of power?


Anonymous said...

4:27 the G88 can afford to purchase a lot of hemp--doesn't Holloway "earn" over $300K per?


Anonymous said...

KC, thanks for posting the link to the Abrams interview!

Anonymous said...

Neither the 88 nor the 87 should apologize. For what? Free speech? Get over it. Just like y'all get to whine and worry over what happens if whatever--frightened to all heck about what would come out if there were a trial--the 88/7 get to say whatever the heck they like. Here are some words for you. Public arena. Free speech.
These posts reveal nothing so much than your desperation to convince each other you are right. Over and over again with the same arguments. Desperately seeking confirmation from an unchanging audience because you are afraid to that once both sides present, some of this stuff goes with the wind. Whine on DIW folk, entertain each other and us trolls. We think you are hilarious, if not rather pathetic. But not too bad for entertainment value. Could y'all work on varying the arguments a bit? It gets repetitive. But, then you only have so much to work with, huh? Betcha next week when I read through these Sunday funnies, the same comic stuff will appear.

Anonymous said...


Free speech? Now there's a concept the G88 can get behind!

Anonymous said...


I agree with the tnor of your post. Why are you imitating a black man? Not that I'm not amused.

If you examine the threads, I'm sure you'll discover something interesting to comment on.

Here's 1: What's the best way to break the news to Karla Holloway that funds for black studies have been appropriated by Chinese and Japanese ARTS and SCIENCE?

Why not assume a name, so we can say howdy doody?


Anonymous said...

Say Howdy Doody? Geez.

鬼佬 said...

Hi 6:02pm ...

The interesting thing is that the longer we have waited the more the prosecutions case has fallen apart, and with it the Gang of 88/87s cause celebre.

Perhaps if we wait a little longer, we will see Nifong, Durham, the Gang of 88 and CGM get sued.

Won't it be funny to see the three innocents walk away with millions from this. And much of that money will come from Durham taxpayers.

M. Simon said...


Rex IS our quarterback.


Anonymous said...

1:15am---Interesting issue you raise re: Coleman. From the start I think he was given far too many kudos. He spoke out and asked questions about Nifong's methods. Didn't every intelligent person? But what has he done to question the G88 on the campus where he works? Those who share his occupation and his space?
What? He tells the lacrosse parents that their anger is misplaced. What a fool!
Who the hell does he think keeps Duke University operating? The parents and the families do with their very steep tuition payments, etc.......
What does Coleman think his responsibility is? What does he think the responsibilities of the renegade G88 are? And what does he think the responsibility of a university president is?
Coleman has been playing the role of "good cop" to Brodhead's "shit cop" all along. I noticed that a few sharp posters on this board and others have said the same from the beginning.
Coleman and the other profs are most interested in preserving the status quo at Duke, never upsetting their easy and cushy positions.
How dare Coleman give this presumptuous advice to the parents of Reade, Collin, and Dave.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, 6:02. for your insightful new definition: "free speech" means that one should never say "sorry." Or is it just radical leftists who who should never apologize? 88 faculty members act as cheerleaders for a gang urging castration of young men. It turns out that the young men are the victims of a hoax -- but then to request that the faculty member to apologize? No, never that --- that would violate their right to free speech!

I keep thinking that the Nifong-Chafe gang can't sink any lower or say anything more inane, but they keep surprising me. (Focus on Bill Chafe -- of all the members of the rump gang, he's the one with the real power on the Duke campus.)

Anonymous said...

6:02pm must be Crystal Gail Mangum's sistah. Or the bi-cousin Jakkee.


Anonymous said...


the boys are not just victims of a hoax: they are also the victims of Brodhead's fecklessness and the G88, et al's agendas

they were-------------------GANG RAPED

Vote for Barack Obama, defender of penised creatures

God bless Dook

Barack Obama

Anonymous said...

Vote for Barack Obama, defender of penised creatures

Hmmm, that would have to be empenised creatures, surely.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that your dick isn't any longer than an "em" dash. You must be Japanese.

Vote for Barack Obama, friend of the minidick!

Barack Obama

Anonymous said...

I agree with Bill Anderson about Jim Brown being the best running back ever, I saw him play on TV many times.

Also, Brown was a great lacrosse player in high school on Long Island and at Syracuse. Brown's ability to run in the open field with power and deception was even more effective than in football, a pass-oriented game.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Bill Anderson about Jim Brown being the best running back ever, I saw him play on TV many times.

Also, Brown was a great lacrosse player in high school on Long Island and at Syracuse. Brown's ability to run in the open field with power and deception was even more effective than in football, a pass-oriented game.

Anonymous said...

6:02 -

Whether they apologize or not...they were in error:

Is the meaning of words dictated by the objective those words hope to achieve? While the meaning of words is open to some degree of interpretation by the hearer of those words, to say the above indicates that the speaker is insisting that the words be interpreted exactly as he meant them to be, no more or no less. BUT how can this be guaranteed unless the speaker has in some way carefully prefaced the words before uttering/writing them? Does this not then place a higher burden on the speaker/writer to use exacting caution in carefully constructing his phrases to negate or at least minimize the possibility that his words not be misconstrued? If the arrow falls short of the target, is the target or the shooter to blame?
Is the meaning of words dictated by the audience the words are directed to? Possibly. If the words are for a particular audience, then the producer of the words could justifiably say “Well, if you were in this group, you would have understood what I meant.” If the words are NOT restricted to a group but disseminated to the general public, then the producer of the words has, by choosing public dissemination, made such justification impossible. They have then effectively released words as though a) they assume the rest of the world thinks or should think exactly as they do or b) they refuse to arrange, or are incapable of arranging their words to acknowledge any difference in the composition of the world outside their group. In committing b), the producer of words shows a parochial attitude and the words they produce therefore cannot logically have worldly application but should be restricted to the narrow audience. By not doing so, the producer of the words exhibits reckless disregard for the effects the words may have. The words may have little or no effect, but to the extent they do, the producers of the words are responsible if they chose a broad release rather than an appropriately restricted release. Intentional release to a broader audience requires that the words be clarified/modified as necessary to avoid charge of intentional harm, otherwise any negatives arising from those words can duly be laid at the feet of the producers as it was their responsibility to begin with to either choose their audience or choose their words - a decision that everybody has to make on a daily basis or suffer the consequences. Why should the Gang of 88 be allowed to operate on a lower standard than everyone else?

Anonymous said...


I have a law degree from Harvard, and I still don't know what you're talking about.

Vote Obama, friend of the Verbose

Barack Obama

Anonymous said...

9:54 PM
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master— that's all.'

Anonymous said...

Debrah is a bitch in the Joan Crawford mold.

Anonymous said...

re Debrah--I don't get your meaning


Anonymous said...

11:33pm---If I thought you were really Debrah and not the same troll RP, JC, and Roman Polanski, I'd answer you.
Really man, you need to get a life.

Anonymous said...

But 11:33, let me be clearer since you don't understand. Debrah would never be so subdued with that question.
Your impersonations are slipping RP.

Anonymous said...

Hide the coat hangers!


Anonymous said...


I doubt that RP is on the board; you would have been floored by now.

Do you have a thing for him?


Anonymous said...

Clyne, You're a real nitwit, ready for the looney bin, in my opinion. You post as 5 or 6 different people; youre inebriated musings are absurd and mostly offensive. KC, why don't you just ban his IP address? It'll cut the number of ridiculous postings here by at least two thirds.

Anonymous said...

Oh goody, the FOK (Friends of Karla) made the board again.

1. How does it feel to see your female victimhood theories get flushed?

2. Do professors and their cronies always react through body- part analogies when they receive dissent?

We, the normal people, await with baited breath for your response.

Anonymous said...

Barack Obama opined ...

Are you saying that your dick isn't any longer than an "em" dash. You must be Japanese.

Being a bit racist, aren't you?

Besides, you missed the point. Power comes from the penis!

Anonymous said...


I'm not "Barack," but I would guess the Japanese crack is a cultural reference to "South Park," which likes to poke fun at everyone.

I also find it odd that you would bring this up, given RP's support for enhancing Japanese literature department at Duke. I think you must be a member of the Group of 88/87. Are you? If you are, why not announce yourself? There are a lot of kind souls on this blog who would be glad to soberly discuss this case with you.

Be well.

Anonymous said...

12:41am--The correct spelling is "bated" breath in this instance.

Anonymous said...

When is the next major event in this case? Is the February hearing delayed? Or are we just waiting action once Roy's Boys get their hands on the file?

Anonymous said...

"The unwritten and often unstated assumptions of curriculum oversight committees is that the act of questioning the content of the course or program is an act of race/class/gender bias so people simply let their questions go unasked.

This suits the interests of the college administration because the point of such programs and courses is to get a measure of immunity from endless charges of racial, gender and class bias. "

If the 88 wind up costing Duke a lot in legal fees, maybe faculties and administrators will begin to percieve a cost to *not* calling "bullshit" on "victims studies" programs.

Anonymous said...


You are absolutely right. Here are some fine examples:

Channon Christian case, Knoxville,TN

VUU rape case

Of course, in these cases, there is actual evidence of guilt such as being caught in the act by the authorities or having the victim's body in a house rented by one of the accused.
If the only evidence against you is the word of a stripper with credibility problems, why should you sit in jail if you can come up with bail? Especially if your life is more endangered by being in jail than the public is endangered by your presence on the streets. Doubtful anyone could make that argument in the TN case......

Anonymous said...

You make the statement:

"Caroline Dooley welcomed the Economics Department’s statement.
It was about time that the voice of teachers at Duke be heard."

The reason the voices of teachers at Duke have not been heard here-to-fore Caroline is that they have not spoken. The cowardly bunch waited to see which way the wind would blow before speaking. One would not have expected them to speak up for the innocence of the accused at the out-set, but to have spoken up for the right of the accused to a fair hearing before being publically condemned. Now that outrage at the mistreatment of the accused has become popular, the Duke faculty has found its courage and integrity. Disgusting bunch.