In a recent Duke Chronicle article, Group of 88 member Ronen Plesser maintained that the new “clarifying” statement would form a “basis for a conversation on campus . . . a conversation that will eventually lead to some understanding.”
In that light, ten questions for the (Rump) Group of 88:
1.) In your new statement, you decried an atmosphere that allowed “sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus.” What statistical evidence do you have to substantiate that assertion?
2.) Given your claim that Duke has an atmosphere that allows “sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus,” would you recommend that female students accepted to the Class of 2011 attend Duke? If so, how could you support their entering an environment that you have publicly described as so dangerous?
3.) To what specific acts/cases of “racism and sexual violence” that occurred on the Duke campus before the lacrosse team incident does your statement refer? Could you spell out what individual or collective action you took in those cases?
4.) In your statement, you wrote, “We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time.” Could you say which demonstrations you did not support, and why you did not support them? Why did you not spell this matter out in your statement?
5.) Do you agree with the late March assertion of your colleague and fellow signatory, Bill Chafe, that the whites who lynched Emmett Till provided an appropriate historical context through which to interpret the actions of the lacrosse players?
6.) Do you agree with the claim of your colleague and fellow signatory, Wahneema Lubiano, who told the N&O that “people can’t imagine that the woman could have made a false rape allegation”?
7.) Do you agree with the claim of your colleague and fellow signatory, Karla Holloway, that the lacrosse case could only be “assessed through a metric of race and gender. White innocence means black guilt”? And do you think Professor Holloway acted properly when she passed on fifth-hand unsubstantiated gossip about Duke students--gossip that appeared in the press, coincidentally, just hours before your "clarifying" statement saw the light of day?
8.) In your statement, you wrote, “The ad has been read as a comment on the alleged rape.” Since the ad discussed “what happened to this young woman” and contained several quotes from alleged Duke students discussing the alleged rape, did the ad’s primary author, Professor Lubiano, misinterpret your sentiments in the language she used and the quotations she selected?
9.) In your statement, you wrote, “We think the ad’s authors were right to give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real.” Could you spell out what individual or collective action you took in the cases of other Duke students “whose suffering is real”—such as, for example, Duke lacrosse players who were harassed on campus last spring, or Duke students whose voter registration effort outside the football stadium was improperly shut down this fall? Is the “suffering” of some Duke students more important to you than that of others?
10.) Do you believe that Mike Nifong acted properly when he went to the grand jury on April 17 to seek indictments against Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty?
In addition to commenting, I invite readers to ask their own questions of the (rump) Group of 88 in the comment section. I'll be amending this post throughout the day to include the best additional questions in the main text.
Some added questions, from the comment section, with more to come:
1.) Does race and class require automatic judgements or are we to be judged as individuals?
2.) Do you believe the initial statement has caused harm to Duke?
3.) Will you document the methodology used to obtain a representative cross section of campus opinion for the listening statement?
4.) If you believe that exculpatory DNA results should have had no impact on how professors viewed the lacrosse case, what is your attitude toward the release from prison of numerous Black inmates based on similar results (Project Innocence)?
5.) With respect to the Listening Ad quotation that “I can’t help but think about the different attention given to what has happened from what it would have been if the guys had been not just black but participating in a different sport, like football, something that’s not so upscale,” what impact do you think the January 2006 Virginia Union University/University of Richmond rape case, detailed here, has on that view?
6.) You have just been transported back to April 2006, and you have been handed the original Group of 88 statement in draft form, with a chance to revise it so that it will avoid generating accusations of prejudgment or other misperceptions. Please re-issue the statement in its entirety, reflecting all such revisions.
7.) Would you be willing to sign a statement, such as that of the Econ Professors, that all students, including lacrosse players and other student athletes are welcome in your classes?
8.) Do you agree with John Kenneth Galbraith's opinion that "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof"?
9.) The lacrosse case revealed the students and paying parents have a significant lack of protection of their interests as both customers and new members of the Duke community. News that Duke supported police singling out Duke students for arrests they would not make on Durham residents. News of alleged grade retaliation on accused students or other forms of in-class harassment. News that one prominent professor, Houston Baker, demanded summary expulsion from school based on group membership. In response to such problems, do you favor a stronger student union and council, so that the student body may be better able to defend itself?
10.) If you, as educators, wrote a statement which was as you claim misunderstood by every person who read it, does this fact not pose significant questions as to your competence in guiding young minds? Have a similar proportion of your students left your classes also totally misunderstanding what you taught them?
11.) Do you believe that professors have an obligation to speak out on behalf of due process, as defined by the Constitution and subsequent jurisprudence, when you see due process rights publicly abridged?
12.) Are there certain groups or individuals who stand accused of crime against whom it is appropriate to lend your voice in heightening public condemnation?
13.) In your statement, you contended that sexual violence is “prevalent” on the Duke campus. Are you familiar with the Oxford Dictionary’s definition of the word PREVALENT as “most extensively used or practiced; generally accepted; of frequent occurrence; extensively existing; in general use”?
14.) Could you spell out what individual or collective action you have undertaken since issuing the first statement to rectify the sexist and racist culture on campus, other than issusing another statement?
15.) Since you are college professors and some teach English, are you embarrassed that your first statement was so widely misinterpreted?
16.) Regarding one of the anonymous statements from an alleged Duke student in your first ad, have any of you approached the Duke police force to ask if they have a policy of slowing down when they see a Black man on campus? Have any of you experienced or observed this phenomenon?
17.) Does the racist culture on the Duke campus extend to religious views? For example, are Muslims, Jews, or other religious groups treated unfairly?
18.) Many of you have been at Duke for many years; some of you have been or are in positions of administrative authority. When did you first notice the sexist and racist culture on campus, and what actions did you take to remedy it?
19.) In your original statement, you explicitly thanked people for not waiting. The fundamental question is what was not worthy of being awaited. Time for reason to assist emotion? Time for evidence to be gathered and assessed? Time for a defense to be made? If you were so attuned to due process, why did you fail to mention it in your April 6 statement?
20.) In addition to Cathy Davidson, who and how many of the ad's signatories have been advised by legal counsel of the potential civil liability they each face for the publication of the Ad based on the content that they pretend has been misread?
21.) If you believe this alleged white on black rape is symptomatic of a larger culture of racism and sexual violence on campus, how do you reconcile this with the fact that the vast majority of interracial rapes involving whites and blacks are black on white?
22.) In your statement you claim to "stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence." What then did you expect readers of the ad to infer from your reference to "what happened to this young woman"? Given that she had accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape, isn't that the obvious inference, carrying with it implied guilt of some members of the lacrosse team?
23.) Do you agree with the claim of your colleague and fellow signatory, Karla Holloway, 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"? Please state your view of the relative threat of abuse toward women posed by team sports compared with the threat posed by rap music.
24.) Have you ever taught any of the 46 lacrosse players who were targeted by Mike Nifong? Did their behavior in your class conform to the stereotype that Nifong and the media offered last spring? If not, why did you not speak out publicly to set the record straight about their character; or just to demand that the be treated according to the same procedures accorded to all other Durham residents, and spelled out by the ethics canons of the North Carolina State Bar?
25.) Your recent statement makes no reference whatsoever to departments or programs at Duke University. Department affiliations of the signers of this statement are not even given. This is in striking contrast to the original ad/listening statement specifically listing 15 Duke University Departments and programs that had signed on. Why are there no departments or programs signing onto this statement? Has the original ad, with its apparent sanction by 15 Duke departments and programs, possibly implicated the university in making prejudicial statement against defendants -- who are incidentally its own students?
And, the extra credit question, for amusement:
If a stripper is coming at you from NCCU at 40mph, and Defendant Nifong is coming at you from downtown Durham at 80mph, and you have already done the Elmostafa to Wachovia to Burger joint to Dorm room time-travel-while-talking-on-your-cellphone race, how many lies will it take for you to continue to remain under suspicion of rape/sexual assault/kidnapping?
Alas, the two Math professors from the Group of 88 did not sign the "clarifying" statement.
299 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 299 of 299Precious is a sleazy sociopath. Her mental problems are ancillary.
RP
I am a professor at Duke. I was in the closed door meeting with President Broadhead and Provost Lange. I am thus an eyewitness to the fact that 1, 2 and 3 in the 1:59pm post have already happened. And yes, concerns were expressed by some writers/signers of the statements of 88/87 about potential pressure by the trustees on the administrators to take action harmful to their careers due to the activities of blogs like this one. So, to the extent that you wish to upset that particular group you have succeeded. I hope, however, that this is not the only purpose of this blog. There are greater issues at stake and Duke is definitely much more than the 88/87.
For obvious reasons I can't and won't say more on what was said in that meeting. The very same reasons induce me to post this anonymously. Duke does not need tension and controversy within the faculty and between the faculty and the administration. The majority of people on campus - administrators, professors, students - are trying to get through this mess preserving the dignity and reputation of the institution. And this, by the way, is the reason why most of us are perceived as silent: fact is, reasonable people think twice (often, thrice) before speaking out about things about which they feel they have insufficent knowledge. And if one thinks that one cannot articulate one's views without letting emotion, anger, confusion or frustration get in the way, then it is better to keep silent and think some more. I take pride in seeing that so many people on campus are putting thought ahead of activism. I admire those articulate faculty like Prof. Coleman and Prof. Gustafson, who manage to speak and write clearly, thoughtfully and without prejudice. Please consider, however, that many of us do not feel that that is the only way to help our community get through this difficult period. Carrying on one's work in a quiet, thoughtful, dignified manner in the face of adversity matters too, and might in fact benefit students even more.
Now, I think that Professor Johnson is doing a necessary and commendable job covering this case. I wish the media displayed the same integrity, professionalism and intelligence. And it is precisely because I do not expect things to change on that front that I decided to post here.
Please, keep digging for information, keep exposing false statements, keep asking hard questions. Do not, I beg you, attack individuals personally or indulge in statements that can be construed as racist, sexist or whatever. I can testify to the speed and effectiveness with which those attacks and statements are exploited to divert attention from the issues that you want Duke to address. Questioning the scholarly qualifications of those faculty is particularly counterproductive since it forces the administration to defend them. Moreover, it upsets those faculty, like me, who disagree with their actions but understand that it is a very hard to evaluate a scholar's contribution to a field outside one's expertise.
Keep the pressure on by all means, but be sure to maintain the same kind of dignified composure that the families of the two accused players displayed on 60 minutes and that Professor Johnson displays in his posts.
Thank you for caring for Duke.
“You can’t play games with this, Mr. Cooper. Those boys must talk if you’re doing a full and transparent investigation. You have to be willing to also charge anyone else who may have committed a crime (like who went into the accuser’s bag and took the $400.00 in cash she was just paid? After careful and deliberate research of laws in at least 80 nations, including this one, we believe that that’s generally called a ROBBERY!!!”.
I imagine Roberts must be very concerned ... One of CGM's many and varied stories made the claim the Robert's stole her money, if I am not mistaken.
4:14PM,
Are you telling me that the dignity of the pot bangers needs to be preserved?
Let me give it to you in Marxist terms:
The whole university system in America is being ripped apart by internal contradictions.
Sorry Duke had to be first.
Most unfortunate.
Bob Wilson said -
In my Army days, old-timers on the rifle range would say, "Lock and load one round of ball ammunition."
Sadly, the actual meaning of that phrase is unknown by so many.
I am a professor at Duke. I was in the closed door meeting with President Broadhead and Provost Lange. I am thus an eyewitness to the fact that 1, 2 and 3 in the 1:59pm post have already happened. And yes, concerns were expressed by some writers/signers of the statements of 88/87 about potential pressure by the trustees on the administrators to take action harmful to their careers due to the activities of blogs like this. So, to the extent that you wish to upset that particular group you have succeeded. I hope, however, that this is not the only purpose of this blog.
You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.
If you wish to make a truly great omelette, you have to discard the rotten eggs also.
To Duke Prof 4:14
You said: “And yes, concerns were expressed by some writers/signers of the statements of 88/87 about potential pressure by the trustees on the administrators to take action harmful to their careers due to the activities of blogs like this one.”
In the REAL world, people bear consequences for their actions. In academia, it seems that people think they can do anything, to anybody and simply skate.
You then said: “And this, by the way, is the reason why most of us are perceived as silent: fact is, reasonable people think twice (often, thrice) before speaking out about things about which they feel they have insufficent knowledge.”
After 10 months, one cannot get “sufficient knowledge”? That’s an excuse. Earlier in your posting you said that you would not talk more about the “closed door” meeting because, to paraphrase, Duke needs “healing”. That’s another excuse.
What you really mean is that most of the faculty is a bunch of scared pansies. They’re scared of getting on the wrong side of the loud mouthed radicals who would then hurl their usual “sexist – racist – etc” trip at anyone who dared bring them to task.
Your post could have used far fewer words. You simply could have said: “We, the Duke faculty, don’t have any balls.”
To the 4.14:
Many thanks for the kind words.
As a professor myself, of course, I understand the natural defensive reaction when scholarly credentials are called into question. I've done it, therefore, only in four cases, which seemed particularly egregious--Curtis, Lubiano, Farred, and Glymph.
Lubiano, in some ways, is less a question of credentials than integrity--she's listed works as forthcoming that she then failed to produce.
Curtis seems to raise a problem that's unusual to Duke, at least among elite universities--the semi-permanent "visiting" professors.
With Farred, I think the post stands on its merits, in part because he was writing about a subject that many people are familiar with. His argument was so outlandish as to call into question his overall approach.
As for the 88/87: I certainly disapprove of anonymous emails sent to them. I also disapprove of anonymous emails sent to me, or to anyone.
Beyond that, in the end, they--and Duke--will have to live with their conduct. Most clearly aren't going anywhere. The near-unanimous reaction against the "clarifying" statement suggests that these people are, in some ways, divorced from reality.
What saddens me is their incredible unwillingness to acknowledge they did anything wrong--and the apparent unwillingness of anyone else at Duke to encourage them to acknowledge what they did. As I've said on many occasions, their behavior is that of a profession I simply don't recognize.
4:14
Excuse me for sounding sceptical, but if you are indeed a "Duke professor," why did you misspell Brodhead's surname? That's no typo--get my drift?
You state that "questioning the scholarly qualifications [of the rumpty dumpties] is unproductive because it forces the administration to defend them...it's hard to evaluate a scholar's contribution outside one's expertise".
Are you referring to me, the person who coined the term, "academic welfare"?
Any discussion of academic incompetence and fraud is a good thing. A little air tends to wake you up. The better the argument, the more pathetic the administration will appear. Soon the alumni will demand changes, including defunding politically motivated crap like women's and black studies.
So, it's "hard to evaluate a scholar's contribution outside one's expertise"? Are you kidding me? A cursory look at the ridiculously poor prose that obtained in the Listening Statement alerts me to the simple fact that Wahneema Lubiano is a very stupid person, totally unqualified to teach at an elite institution.
Look up the Latin derivation of the word decision.
Appreciate some feedback, Professor.
RP
Courage seems to be in short supply on the Duke faculty; it is, however, refreshing to hear from one of the silent ones.
To 4:14
As a current Duke parent, I appreciate your position in this matter. Thank you for suggesting all of us think more than once before reacting. The manner in which you are carrying yourself is both appreciated, admired and truly represents the best of Duke.
4:14
Duke G88/Administration clearly sided with the Criminal Element (Nifong, FA, etc). That is at the hear of the matter. They ignored Due Process.
Not even a "whoops" from anyone except Coleman, Gustafson, and a few other non-G88. The silence is NOT out of academic prudence, but rather out of shame and liability exposure.
Bob Wilson at 1:25pm---Great post.
4:14: Thatnk you for your thoughtful response. It has been ingested and noted. I can appreciate that Duke University is under pressure as a result of the G-88's actions.
I do, however, take particular offense at your request that the blogging community not make comments that can possibly be construed as "sexist or racist."
If it has not passed your attention, ANY comment that criticizes the positions of the faculty, their statement, their thoughts, and their attitudes is considered by them to be "racist and/or sexist." This reflects their ingrained pavlonian response to any criticism. It's not that they were wrong ethically and morally in what they did, it's because the person criticizing them is motivated purely by their ingrained "racist and/or sexist" attitudes. It merely acts to cement their worldview, which is, IMHO, at odds with reality. It is a mechanism used time out of mind by the fringe to marginalize their opponent's opinions by ascribing intent, and avoiding substance.
Further, I note with some amusement how you try to set apart the "dignity" of only two sets of parents in the 60 Minutes interview. I see that Mrs. Evans's statement has been cast aside. That is an extremely unfortunate oversight, because if my child were placed in a situation where his physical safety were at stake, with the express blessing of 88 members of a university's faculty, then falsely charged with three felonies, and further subject to a Brady Violation, I would have used far harsher words than Mrs. Evans.
And if you think all three sets of parents won't be coming after Duke for what it has allowed to happen, please be advised that you are probably mistaken.
You want to guard Duke's integrity? Try restoring it. Smack the proper authorities around, issue a formal reprimand to the 88 idiots that made you all look like fools, apologize to the players, and vow to respect the rights of your own students, who now have doubts that their interests are really respected by Duke University. Oh, and put a muzzle on Karla Holloway. Every time she opens her mouth, the nation cringes in response. She is, IMHO, a mental case and makes Duke look awful.
-Esquire-
-Maryland-
Certain faculty are partisans of "sensitivity training" where students are subjected to being re-educated as to their supposed racist, sexist and homophobic thoughts. Will the Rump Group of 88 be willing to attend sensitivity training on the US Constitution as it pertains to Due Process, the Fifth Amendment, and the Presumption of Innocence?
To: Dukeparent'10
From: Duke Prof 4.14
Thanks. As Prof. Johnson points out, faculty have a specific responsibility toward students to act thoughtfully and responsibly. We lead by example more often than we realize, especially when it comes to issues that are beyond our expertise in the classroom. If our purpose is to educate your children, that purpose would be defeated by starting an internal war that would take Duke apart. I am happy and relieved that those that I care about the most - students and parents - understand this.
Dear Professor 4:14
This comes from a colleague at a peer institution. First of all, congratulations on writing. It's a great first step. I have no special Duke connection, but I have spent my life in higher education, so that I think I can appreciate in a special way the motives and concerns from which you write. This blog receives so many comments that many of them are inevitably silly, misinformed, or annoying. A few I believe to be intentionally provocative. Some have been grossly uncivil, racially prejudiced, or obscene, though the blog administrator (who appears to be doing this as a full-time job) does his utmost to maintain coherent and dignified threads. On the whole, however—and it has been a very large whole—the work of the blog has been outstanding. I cannot say the same of the public statements coming out of the Duke campus.
I realize that President Brodhead did not choose this battle, and I feel sorry for him. But he must be aware of the very substantial damage that the affair has done to Duke’s reputation. What he seems to be unaware of, or at least incapable of addressing, is that his own performance reeks of fecklessness, timorousness, and inefficacy. The schadenfreude in his old stomping grounds in New Haven is six inches deep.
In the absence of presidential leadership, the faculty need to take the lead. I realize the protocols that make it unwise for faculty like you to engage the gang of 88/87 in adversarial confrontation. But couldn’t a group of faculty make a public statement to the effect that they are delighted that rape charges have been dismissed? They might even add that the charges have been dismissed as a result of public revelations that fully vindicate the “assumption of innocence” at least formally voiced by Broadhead. If they wanted to go way out on a limb they might even opine what the rest of the world already believes—that the remaining charges have no evidentiary basis and should be, and soon will be, dropped. Isn’t anybody at Duke HAPPY about the development? The impression the world gets from the 88/87 is that they are bitterly disappointed that a rape did NOT happen. Such a statement would not need to trash Ms. Magnum (or even mention her for that matter). It would not have to lambast the district attorney. It would not have to lament the want of universal health insurance in the land. It would not have to mention the Scottsboro Boys, Scarlett O'Hara, or the Beach Boys. It would not have to comment on the nature, quality, or even existence of race and gender studies or those who pursue them. It would not have to mention any other faculty at all. But couldn’t at least a FEW Duke faculty make a statement in support of their own students? For the clear impression that most of us now have is that large numbers of the Duke faculty--and by implication faculty at similar places--are predisposed, on the basis of “class, race, and gender”, to despise the students whom they should be nourishing.
Professor 5:03
You're a troll.
RP
Troll Alert
5:06 and the "Professor" are the same person.
RP
Duke prof 4.14 said
"issues that are beyond our expertise in the classroom."
You mean "life?"
RP, crawl back under your bridge. Borrow a dictionary too.
Duke Prof: Tough choices lie ahead. Doing what is right and doing what is easy sometimes conflict.
Do what is right. Reprimand them publicly, no further action required. Let them freak out, let them stomp their feet like children. They'll live.
It will restore Duke's image nationally, and the storm clouds will begin to break. It will reassure your alums as well. Don't think of it as tearing Duke apart, more like cutting out a cancer. And if anyone leaves, oh well. I don't think Duke is hurting for qualified applicants for faculty positions.
-Esquire-
-Maryland-
Take that back--5:06 on level
5:06 PM - You Rock!
R.I.P., RP. You know not of what you speak.
5:06 - Curae Personalis.
Well stated.
-Esquire-
-Maryland-
5:06
Given your condemnation of Brodhead's limitations, wouldn't you agree that, for the common good of Duke, Brodhead has to go?
Professor, I'm curious: If the politically correct roles of victims and perps were reversed, how do you think Brodhea would have reacted?
How:
would he have dealt with the Listening Statement pimps?
Nifong?
the boys?
Please answer these questions.
RP
RP - It's Brodhead. Remember?
5:24
When do you want to schedule that sword fight?
We will be getting snow, so try to remember not to eat any snow that appears yellow.
RP
Dear Professor 4:14pm---While your post is most welcome and is genuinely thoughtful, with due respect, this fiasco cannot be resolved without some bloodletting.
I realize that in your world things can be kept neat and tidy to avoid biting realities; however, we are dealing with the refuse and mayhem created by a rogue district attorney.
Sadly, members of your faculty are all too joyous about the travesty and wish to continue it. No matter the facts.
While I'm sure you mean well, in the real world things are messy. Your fellow faculty members will have to get their hands a little dirty and decide to speak out against those rogue professors before any progress can be made.
Real people have been damaged for the rest of their lives. Stepping outside the comfort of a university campus might do all of you some good.
Your suggestions should be given the same consideration as Duke's administration gives to ridding the university of the those who have no respect for it.
5:27
A Voice of Reason
RP
If the lacrosse party was the catalyst for the 88 to express their dire concerns about long term racial, sexual and other social problems that were referenced in their published essay, why did any of the 88 accept a position, join the faculty, participate in the academic community and remain at such a prestigous university to advance their career under such socially disaterous and non-acceptable conditions.
One of the things to remember is that the "isms" faculty, which include the AA studies, Women's Studies, and the like, are fashioned on victimology. If you read anything by people in these departments, they always cast themselves as victims.
Thus, it is not surprising that they return to that same formula again. Here are "concerned faculty" being subject to "racist abuse" and blah, blah, blah. Here are people demanding that they be protected, yet they THANKED people who gave death threats to the lacrosse players.
But in the mind of the "isms" faculty, because the lacrosse players come from a "dominant" and "oppressive" class, then nothing can be construed as threatening these young men, since they do not deserve protection in the first place.
If, indeed, Kim Curtis DID flunk Kyle Dowd because of his lacrosse affiliation, she was fully justified in her mind, since SHE was HIS victim. Thus, she was fighting back against oppression by giving him a test of his own class dominance.
For those of us who live in the real world, this is jibberish, but it is very real with the Karla Holloways and the other PC profs.
By the way, I do think that the Duke professor had a thoughtful email, but there is one thing that he did not say. The other faculty are silent because anyone who does speak out is going to be subject to horrendous abuse from the "isms" faculty, and there are no guarantees that the Duke administration will do anything but look the other way.
After some on the economics faculty sent out their letter, they began to receive abusive emails from the "isms" faculty. I will guarantee you that some of the "victims" in that closed door meeting have been some of the same people who have verbally abused others for the "sin" of disagreeing with them.
I cover some of this in my article on race and elite college campuses. Duke struck a devil's bargain with the Karla Holloways of the world, and we see what happens when the devil gets a foothold someplace.
RP: I think the prof. is trying to state what is happening by giving an in-depth analysis of what is actually at stake. He is right to fear that the Duke academic community is at risk of a back stabbing free-for-all, which is what the admin. is trying to avoid. This will definitely happen if the faculty puts on a divided face, particularly within the humanities dept. The Engineering Department was one thing, but if you start open warfare within the History Dept., for instance (and they are not all Liberal, contrary to some opinions I have seen), it will definitely spin out of control. The peer review from another scholar makes the good point that in order to avoid this situation, a cheerful "Huzzah for Innocense" statement should be made to counter it sans criticism of other faculty members. There are also other reasons, including contractual rights of faculty, that restrain Duke's actions in this case towards individual faculty members. Bill further makes a great point on this issue.
Do not underestimate the pressures building as a result of this case, RP, which comes from without and within. He cannot answer that question, or he will be guilty of doing what he says he wants to avoid in the first place.
-Esquire-
-Maryland-
To the Duke Prof
There are multiple issues, but the very least of them is protecting the dignity, honor one poster said, of the minority of the Duke faculty who made what was at best a badly timed and poorly drafted statement, and was more probably, on a quite reasonable reading, a call for unspecified "action" without due process.
It is unbelievably unfortunate that the rump (nice old fashioned word KC) of the 88 and Ms. Davidson saw fit now to try to justify their statement. Duke would do well as an institution if more faculty at Duke would sign on to the statement issued by the Economics Department. Duke would do even more for itself if the administration made clear that the statement of the 88 is repudiated by the administration. It should have been done at the time, but better late than never. Academic freedom does not require that every inanity uttered by a faculty member be given deference.
I appreciate your desire to help Duke, but silence implies assent so, respectfully, I disagree that silence is warranted by any who have the interests of Duke at heart.
JeffM
BA,
Well said. Does anyone have the foggiest what it costs Duke alumni and parents to support unproductive lightweights like Karla Holloway?
I need to see some figures. Guarantee it that if these data were made public, the shit would start flying.
RP
Esq,
I agree with the spirit of your comments, but it seems to me that Duke is in crisis management mode, as opposed to solving the problem mode. If you fail to define the problem--affirmative action, quotas, antiwhite and antimale bigotry, unrigorous BS studies, feckless administrators--you end up accomplishing nothing. Worse, you end up expanding the AAAS dept. What will that "cost"?
This PC maelstrom cannot be negotiated through politics.
Duke alumni, parents--the stakeholders--have to begin to examine the worthiness of the racists and crap-dwellers at the heart of the G88.
RP
Dear Prof
Unless you are willing to take the plunge and reveal yourself you lack credibility.
Question
The Listening Statement said, "To the... protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard."
The new letter says, ""We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time."
Do you endorse or condemn the highly-publicized protest that took place on Buchanan Blvd. on March 26th?
Background
Videos of the protest can be seen on YouTube, at http://tinyurl.com/37a76f and http://tinyurl.com/2wts2j .
On screen text: "In the early hours of March 14, two black women went to work as dancers for a Duke Lacrosse Team party. The women were surrounded and had racial slurs flung at them by the aggressive men. The two dancers tried to leave but were coaxed to return. One of the women was pulled into a bathroom and raped, sodomized, and beaten by at least three white men for over half an hour."
The Duke Chronicle's account is at http://tinyurl.com/2gn29s .
"Keep the pressure on by all means, but be sure to maintain the same kind of dignified composure that the families of the two accused players displayed on 60 minutes and that Professor Johnson displays in his posts.
Thank you for caring for Duke.
4:14 PM"
Care for Duke ? Sorry I think not. I do however care for due process, justice, the idea that a man is presumed innocent prior to being judged by a jury of his peers.
To gain respect you must earn respect. The Duke administration and the Group of 88 have done neither. What galls me is that the Group of 88 used the black community, the NBPs, NAACP, the DAs office and the media machine to let slip the dogs of war. Now that they have been all but discredited, they beg the bloggers to be "dignified". Instead of conducting a full institutional review, Brodhead and most professors are strangely quite. Hunkered down (I had to use that phrase) hoping that everything will blow over. It won't. The first admendment right to free speech is a sharp sword that cuts both ways - I think that Duke adminstration and the group of 88 have recently experienced that fact and will continue to do so until they admit what they did to the LAX players.
Duke will eventually be forced to conduct a full internal review and will change the way they treat students. The large civil judgements will surely change Duke. So Brodhead, et. al. can hide and wait for the other shoe to drop and the blogs demanding justice will continue.
Orange Lazarus
Perhaps we were hasty in condemning Chafe's lynching reference. We should inquire of him whether he thought the Till case was relevant because here we have an attempted lynching of lacrosse players, supported by a hysterical mob which has been blinded by prejudice.
To Esquire 1:34:
Well said !!! I could not agree more. The fear and anguish these young men have had to endure is beyond belief. I pray each day that all the people responsible for that are punished in one way or another. The list is a long one too !!
R B Day
To All:
I have taught my sons about bullies: they intimidate until you stand up to them. Punch them in the nose, and they run away as the cowards they are.
The above is a perfect metaphor for the 88/87. If you can't stand the heat, get the f*** out of the kitchen.
How dare they obfuscate the facts? How dare they dissemble? How dare they exist?
dl
In regards to the comment that Duke is in crisis mode...
Either Duke has a tremendous leadership void and/or are getting some very questionable advice regarding damage control, or they are in denial that they are in fact in a crisis.
Any company in America would be out front and not holed-up in silence. When a plane goes down the company is out front, not hidden behind closed doors.
What about transparency? What about governance? Who is running the show? Not only at Duke, but at all Universities?
6:56PM,
I plucked out one of my comments and turned it into a short post. It speaks directly to your point:
The Whole University System
6:39: Thanks you.
Respectfully,
-Esquire-
-Maryland-
Duke Professor,
1st, I at least commend you for trying to protect the University perhaps you seemingly, greatly admire. Hence, it is your duty, to then take action to make it such. The group of 88 have made so outrageous error, that it needs to be corrected, and individuals within that group need to be removed from Duke, they are harming its credibility as an institution of higher learning. So, yes, it is appropriate that we (bloggers, citizens, concerned parents, etc) expose INDIVIDUALS for their obscene actions, and their names are all over this blog. What the group of 88 did was simply wrong, it goes against all that is just and fair. I can only hope they suffer 1/2 as much as the 3 young men they scorned so hatefully.
R Bart Day M.D.
If the Duke Lacrosse players were black and the stripper white, would you have published an ad in support of the "black" Duke Lacrosse players based solely on their skin color and black history instead of facts?
If you believe there is a "racist" environment at Duke,do you make this clear to students who want to attend, parents who foot the bill and faculty who seek employment there?
It is inaccurate to refer to members of the 88(87) as "liberals." Read their writings, or listen to their lectures, and you will find that they detest liberalism and everything it stands for. Unfortunately, they know how to manipulate liberals, and thus have corrupted the entire liberal movement. It is a sick "love-hate" relationship: liberals love radical leftists, who in turn hate them. Unless liberals can realize the intellectual, moral, and political depravity of radical leftism in all of its varied forms, liberalism itself is doomed.
Most members of of the 87, perhaps all, are firm supporters of Hamas. Hamas is a hyper-conservative organization dedicated to Sharia law. Under Sharia's hudud ordinaces, a rape case cannot go forward unless there are four reputable male witnesses. In the current case, under hudud, CGM would herself have been charged with violations of sexual law, and severely punished -- even if she had indeed been raped and DNA evidence proved it. There are indeed countless horrific examples of male sexual violence against women happening every day throughout the world, yet in general Duke's radical leftists are political allies with those who justify such violence in the name of religion.
Why would that be? Because jihadists, like marxists and radical poststructuraists, want to destroy Western, capitalist society. They are thus allies of convenience. Genuine liberals, on the other hand, want to reform that society -- which is precisely why radicals hate them. But since most liberals have been hoodwinked by the radical left, they are unable to see this. They have betayed their own political philosophy. Nowhere is such betrayal more evident than in universities -- Duke above all.
What liberal faculty members should do is first apologize to Duke students in general and lacrosse players in particular, and then tell their radical leftists colleagues that henceforth they will be regarded as the moral equivalent of Nazis. Then, perhaps, healing of the legitimate Duke community can begin.
KC,
Here is my contribution to the pool of questions to be asked--as least here in cyberspace--of the rump G88.
BTW, your idea of garnering questions to "ask" the rump G88 to explain themselves is brilliant, witty, and much to be commended, not least because it shows again the Power of the Blog to clarify important issues and questions, and elucidate what truly matters re those issues and questions.
I frame my question around the following quote from your original post.
"In a recent Duke Chronicle article, Group of 88 member Ronen Plesser maintained that the new “clarifying” statement would form a “basis for a conversation on campus . . . a conversation that will eventually lead to some understanding.”"
Here follows my question:
Is it honestly useful, not to mention sincere or credible, to issue a clarifying statement to form a "basis for a conversation on campus...a conversation that will eventually lead to some understanding," when to the interlocutors whom you hope to assuage--those who support the Duke Three and the Duke Men's lacrosse team--and bring to the conversational table, you essentially say to them: we've heard your plaints, and we still believe virtually everything we've claimed and done before was totally justified.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If your only paradigm for understanding human behavior is race, sex, and class, everything looks like racism, sexism, and classism. You start with the answer to your research question and then look for proof by example. That is a very poor approach to discovering empirical reality.
anti-leftist lib said...
"But since most liberals have been hoodwinked by the radical left, they are unable to see this."
So most liberals are what Lenin described as "useful idiots" of the radical left. Who would have thunk it?
ALL: I agree with you. The G-88 is not a group of Liberals, I would classify them as simply the "Fringe Left." And yes, this group has hijacked Liberalism in this country by and large, transforming it into a freak show.
-Esquire-
-Maryland-
bill anderson 5:32 said
"After some on the economics faculty sent out their letter, they began to receive abusive emails from the "isms" faculty. I will guarantee you that some of the "victims" in that closed door meeting have been some of the same people who have verbally abused others for the "sin" of disagreeing with them."
The temerity of the academic leftist truly knows no bounds, ignoring in the most hypocritical manner possible the most basic strictures of public dialog and conduct that the vast majority of the rest of society at least modestly and occasionally abides, relating to qualities like decency, proportion, mutual respect, integrity, and fair-dealing.
One of the best aspects of KC Johnson's following and documentation of the case history is his wide coverage of all the actors. He hasn't run out of steam, even following Nifong's recusal under pressure - rather, he has kept scrutiny on all the enablers and abettors of the lynch-mob atmosphere of the MSM, the Duke faculty and Administration, and yesterday the NAACP. None of these survive his spotlight, despite their loud but flawed claims to virtue as defenders of civil rights.
If anything, Johnson has opened a huge breach in the fortress surrounding the practitioners of political correctness in general. By documenting the egregiously flawed behavior of these 'protected' groups, he has busted wide open the concept that they are entitled to any more respect from society at large than any other political advocacy groups with sinecures at stake.
For they turned their supposed sensitivity to injustice on its head by their lynch-mob behavior. They did not act as defenders of victims of injustice; they instead used a stereotype of 'black female as the unquestionably virtuous victim' to demonize members of a class they wanted to oppress, and used their self-reinforcing rhetoric (and a lot of drums, megaphones and kitchen pots) as war cries to proceed with the oppression.
A few members of the MSM have dismounted from this mob movement, although without a hint of self-criticism for early sensationlism and parroting of Nifong and the potbangers. But the PC professoriate for which Duke is famous continues unrepentant (I do not include therein the non-PC members, among whom Doctor Coleman stands out in primacy). And the President of Duke who slagged the lacrosse players, and canned the coach summarily before any evidence had been considered, apparently shares the opportunistic morals of Mr. Nifong, using weasel words to paper over his initial gross misdeeds.
Civil actions may humble some of these players, but it will take a long time. And Hell will apparently freeze over before the harpies of political correctness give up on their class warfare against democracy, due process and all those evil humans not 'of color'.
Insufficiently Sensitive
The Harpies of Political Correctness. What a succinct decription of that crowd.
I have to remember that one.
-Esquire-
-Maryland-
KC-
I've taken the liberty of posting the 4:14 pm comment and some replies on the Liestopper Discussion Board. A poster there questions the authenticity and suggests 4:14 could be a troll. Can you verify by ip address that the poster is legit?
sceptical
sceptical
As a Duke parent, I want to know who we can get to SHUT this group of 88/87 professor's mouths. They are taking Duke down daily minute by minute.
sorry about that
message got cut off
AD refers to activist departments
skeptical,
On blogspot unless you catch it at sitemeter while the poster is on verifying ip addresses is difficult if not impossible.
Dear Richard Brodhead,
God bless you, sir, for defending victims of racism, sexism, and gender-orientationism. Hurrah for you, sir, you are truly my hero.
I'm a senior in high school, and I can't wait to hear what Duke has to decree about my application. I'm graduating in the 60th percentile, and my SATs reflect my quite respectable 96 IQ. I know certain victims can gain entrance to your university with such qualifications.
President Brodhead, I too am a victim, and what I would like you to do is create an academic department that refects my philosophy of life. President Brodhead, I am a farter--worse, I love the smell of my own farts. I have no girlfriend, my family treats me like a pariah, and, given my obesity, I look very foolish trying to capture the aroma at ballets, operas, and bars.
Instead of a Listening Statement, I propose for my fellow victims to issue a Sniffing Statement. The good thing about creating a Department of Farters Studies (DFS) is that it will not discriminate against anyone based on superficialities like gender and race.
Gotta go. I'm about to explode.
I admire you so much, and good luck with your lacrosse mess.
Charlie the Farter
The Weekly Standard article brought this to mind. Two or three months ago, John in Carolina had an exchange with the dean of the Duke chapel, in which the good dean blathered on about "narratives." If you want to read some meta-pretentious academic speak, look up the exchange.
The Gang of 88 are apparently prepared to act like idiot children who sh*t in the middle of the carpet when they don't get their way. The Duke Professor seems to be saying, "For God's sake, let's humor them."
What an appealing vision of the modern university.
Question: do you think that the prevalence of "white privalege" might be a tad overstated given that the rush to judgement, premature excoriation, unjust indictment, and massive legal troubles of the lacrosse players originated in the fact that they are upper middle class caucasians?
Bill Anderson has another good piece available:
Racial Diversity and Elite Educational Institutions: Duke’s Meltdown
"For example, any number of college campuses have been the site of "racist" attacks that later were found to be contrived, something I pointed out a while back in looking at what I call "Reichstag Fires" on college campuses. Furthermore, I noted that Duke’s latest episode of angst was another rendition of that famous fire, and the nonsense is not limited to Duke. A few years ago at the prestigious Claremont Colleges, a social psychology professor, Kerri Dunn, returned from a free speech rally to find her car windshield smashed and "nigger lover" and other such things spray-painted on her car.
"Naturally, the campus erupted in mass rallies, where people expressed fear at the racism that was engulfing their beloved campus. However, police and the FBI (yes, the FBI was called to investigate) soon discovered that the perpetrator of this "hate crime" was none other than Dunn herself, who had done the damage before the rally began. (Unfortunately for her, bystanders witnessed the vandalism and told investigators what they saw. Thus, Claremont’s Reichstag Fire went out quickly.)"
Good background on the Reichstag fire is at Wikipedia
Duke professor:
You are indeed teaching by example.
Teaching:
...not to make waves, despite obvious injustice.
...that the good of the institution overides common decency and individual rights.
...that the way to fight militant evil is to "just keep working."
...that dignity is more important than integrity.
You, sir, are indeed a master educator; the kind every college student needs to prepare for life.
Perhaps the most important question:
When is the AG's team going to ask for a cancellation of the Feb 5 hearing so they can protect CGM from herself (and others from anything incriminating she might say)?
Actually what is going on at Duke seems to be fairly common among universities that like to consider themselves 'prestigious.' When granting professorships, they seem more interested in the ideology of the candidate than whether or not he or she really knows the subject matter being taught - or even whether that subject has serious academic merit. This is the whole reason "Activist Departments" even exist.
If I were looking at going back to college... or sending someone, I think I would be staying well clear of ANY university with entire departments that exist for the soul purpose if creating victims where none exist. And let's be honest, that's ALL these departments do. In fact, they do it so thoroughly they frequently find themselves ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING the very problems they claim to be trying to address... they've clearly been exhibiting racism and sexism in their rush to judgment here.
I suppose, if I decide to further my education and go back to college, I will probably find myself limited to tiny schools which don't have space or a sufficient student body to support such activist departments. However, as a white male, I'm sure I'll get much more out of such a place without having to wonder if the militant feminist department is gunning for me.
IMO, such departments bring NOTHING but to their alma maters, and tend to lower the prestige of the universities that play host to them. They certainly don't do anything to further the education of the poor suckers who spend $100,000+ for a BA in "Womens Studies."
In the real world, a relatively dirt cheap BS in Computer Science or Business Administration from ITT Tech, or a correspondence college carries FAR more weight than even a post graduate degree in Activism from a place like Duke... and "prestigious" colleges really do need to keep that in mind as tuition becomes less and less affordable, and the students from those correspondence schools run circles around their graduates.
One day places like Duke are liable to find their admissions dropping off and start looking for departments to cut. Let's hope, for their own good, they don't keep the activists in favor of departments that actually offer REAL educations like Economics, Mathematics, and Business Administration.
-JC
JC,
You seem to understand Duke, et al's parasite problem. I don't mind helping the down and out, but untalented, upper middle-class racists?
This lacrosse mess has spotlighted this social problem.
It must be very weird to be someone like Karla Holloway now. Her "world" has been "colored" by the stench of the Listening Statement. She has been diagnosed, and everyone with half a brain knows the cure. In short, she and her ilk are a joke.
When academic historians write about our era in 50 years, the G88 will be given all their due credit.
RP
Apparently Harvard doesn't like the attention Duke is getting:
Harvard professor: Department is bastion of sexism
To the Profs from Duke and Peer Institution:
I loved reading your comments just for the ideas expressed, regardless of whether you are who you say you are. Thank you for taking the time to contribute those comments.
To the Duke Prof,
I can see why some would think it in some ways best for the students if the profs keep up the routine and work quietly. That is, after all, primarliy why the students came to Duke. But from afar it sure looks like the Group of 88 has emotionally abused their students, scapegoated them, and railroaded them. If this abuse happened within a family, it would be the extremely rare professional who would advise that the family ignore the behavior of the abuser. On the contrary, most, if not all, would advise that the family be candid with the abuser and get him/her counseling, medication...something, do something to acknowledge and address the problem. Sacrificing the emotional and eventually the physical health of those abused in hopes of sparing the feelings of the abuser, maintaining the integrity of the family/institution, and preserving the dignity of the larger group seems ultimately completely self defeating. My personal, non-professional recommendation: if Duke is not going to hold the Group accountable the way the vast majority of adult employees are held accountable (pay, perks, promotions, termination), try complete CANDOR and lots of group therapy. The time for walking on eggshells has passed. That approach is NOT working. It is time to pluck, not smooth, some of those ruffled feathers.
I just read James Coleman's comments in the Baltimore Sun. I understand that Mr. Nifong's falsehoods and hyperbole were behind much of the initial hysteria, but I cannot think of any legitimate reasons for the Group's failure over the past nine months to apologize or for their continued defiance. When you are really wrong, the best defense is not a strong offense; it just makes you look narrow, shallow and false.
Observer
RP, I can't say I know the problems specific to Duke U. I've never been there... however, this general issue does seem to be fairly common in the academic world.
Now, keeping in line with the questions for the 88, here's mine:
When you see those GEICO commercials with the cave men, do you laugh or cringe?
JC
JC,
Only watch noncommercial TV
RP
I have put up a post on Bill Anderson's latest. With a link to these comments.
I have given credit to anon. for the alert.
RP,
Here's a small sample: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVVSmnnqfvc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVvBXBZEhkw
JC
When PoMos run the show, excellence (just another fraudulent expression of phallic oppression) goes out the window, and third raters like Lubiano, Holloway and Baker flourish. The third raters become boss, speak for the group, and generally spearhead a race to the bottom.
Thus have PoMos sown the seeds of the own demise. To reward mediocrity is to assure extinction.
beckett
PoMos?
What does that term mean?
PoMos = postmodernists; critical theorists; anti-foundationalists; subscribers to the trend in humanities departments to embrace the politicization of all text, and to question the notion of objective truth.
beckett
suggests that these people are, in some ways, divorced from reality.
Yea, that's always a problem with lynch mobs...they get fixated and don't care much about facts or circumstances.
First I would encourage all of you to watch the following video (which had already been posted above). It is by an African American, and it is funny and thought provoking at the same time.
blip.tv/file/134411
(I realize that many are skeptical and afraid of downloading and watching videos. But I believe this one to be totally legit. If you have damages resulting from downloading and watching this video, please contact me and I will immediately call the Geek Squad and put it on my own credit card.)
Secondly, I would like you to imagine that your are the CEO or Chairman of the Board of a major autombile company. A rogue group of engineers or markets or whatever, post a public statement regarding flaws in the vehicle, without providing any hard evident to back their scurrious statements. What would you do as the CEO or chairman?
Please excuse the typos and misspellings above. For some reason I was unable to get back the screen that allows me to review and correct the mispellings.
1:01 Beckett, "PoMo" is not limited to text. Roger Kimball authored an excellend book, "The Rape of the Masters" which deals with the same b.s. in the art community.
Maybe tenure should devolve and we go back to the days of Adam Smith where supply/demand rules dictated professor pay for performance as dictated by those that desire the classes.
4:14 Judging from your stance on this subject, may I conclude that you are a history professor specializing in World War II French Resistance? You seem to be awfully eager to compromise reality for a lowered noise volume.
Bill Anderson 5:32 To further your thought. It should be no surprise that G88 has virtually no leadership skills. These characters have built their academic forts by opposing orthodoxy-not forging new paths. They don't know where to go, they just want to tell the navigators how wrong they are.
Question: How many faculty members in the African & African-American Studies Dept. are fluent in an African language? How many have published works on African history or politics?
Suggestion: Maybe when this thread is played out we could compile a list of questions to be addressed to Mr. Brodhead.
Damn you blog hooligans. Damn you.
Anonymous said:
Some people commenting on this blog are doing all the things they accuse the G88 of doing -- rushing to judgment, failing to listen to all the facts and ascribing motive to people they haven't even bleeping met and don't know a damn thing about.
Actually, I graduated from Duke with an English degree, and in fact I DO know some of these professors. I knew Cathy Davidson and her late husband, for example, quite well. She always struck me as one of the "good guys" so I was surprised and disappointed at the stance she took in this case.
I have a few questions I hope get listed on KC's board.
NCCU student Chan Hall was quoted in several sources as saying that he hoped the lacrosse players would be prosecuted "whether they did it or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past."
My questions:
Do you agree with Mr. Hall? If he were in one of your classes and he expressed this opinion, what would be your reply?
You mention in your clarification letter that the "suffering" of the students you quoted is "real." In the desire to alleviate suffering, do you now acknowledge that you contributed to the suffering of the falsely accused students?
Jennifer M, BA English, '92
Spell Brodhead correctly if you want to claim to be a Duke Professor.
Unlimited Earnings Potential - http://1greatfuture.com
Our company is rapidly growing and offers you an extraordinary income helping others succeed. The primary requirement is to follow up on client inquiries and point them in the right direction. It is stress free, rewarding and straightforward work.
For complete details: http://1greatfuture.com
(Please feel free to delete this post if you don't want it on your blog. Thanks for the informative blog and opportunity to post.)
加气混凝土设备
砌块机
模压瓦机
超细磨
粉碎机
砌块成型机
彩瓦机
木粉机
鄂式破碎机
反击式破碎机
锤式破碎机
破碎机
鄂破
对辊式破碎机
加气混凝土
木屑机
制砂生产线
石料生产线
砂石生产线
加气混凝土砌块机
球磨机
选矿设备
磁选机
输送机
锤式破
烘干机
振动筛
制砂机
洗砂机
榨油机
彩色路面砖机
破碎机
橡胶磨粉机
破碎机
反击破
对辊破
破碎机
锤式破
雷蒙磨粉机
雷蒙机
磨机
加气混凝土砌块
超细微粉磨
液压砌块成型机
皮带输送机
选矿设备
加气混凝土设备
磨粉机
鑫源
漫天飞舞
Thank God for KC Johnson.
Who needs big corporate news.
Does anyone else see the similarities between the Duke case and the VA Tech carnage?
In the Duke instance, a minority accused sons of privilege of a crime that would have destroyed their lives.
In the Tech instance, a minority spewed hated for sons and daughters of privilege and destroyed their lives.
In neither case did the university that was supposed to protect them do its job. And both for the same reason: Political Correctness.
They remind me of the Dan Rather lies. "In his heart he believed that it was or should have been or probably was true."
Hello. I love your blog, it is very nice. You can see pictures of me on http://nudecharm.net - See you soon baby ;)
Hello. I love your blog, it is very nice. You can see pictures of me on http://nudecharm.net - See you soon baby ;)
Almost no one has mentioned anything about the woman who started the bonfire that creatd the Duke LaCrosse Scandal--Crystal Mangum. What is she doing these days? Why hasn't she been charged with anything? I can't believe she's continuing on with her life as if nothing has happened. Maybe she's still pole dancing at the strip joints.
Post a Comment