Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The Group of 88's Latest Defense

Yesterday’s Chronicle of Higher Education—the most widely distributed journal among academics—has a lengthy, fascinating, and well-reported article (available here for subscribers) about the Group of 88 and the campus reaction to them. Authors Thomas Bartlett and Sara Lipka allow members of the Group, plus two of the “clarifying” faculty, to speak in their own words. Most would have been better advised not speaking at all.

The summary:

1.) Duke’s Pauline Kael Moment

A (perhaps apocryphal) story regarding the late New Yorker film critic, Pauline Kael: after Richard Nixon defeated George McGovern in 1972, Kael supposedly said, “How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon.”

Here’s Wahneema Lubiano on the Group of 88’s ad: “In the moment when the ad came out, I did not hear from one colleague that there was something wrong with the ad.” All controversy, she claims, came from meddlesome bloggers after the fact.

Those who live in a groupthink atmosphere, as Lubiano appears to do, rarely encounter anyone who disagrees with them. In this case, it appears Lubiano didn’t even read the campus newspaper in which her ad was published.

Six days after the ad appeared, Stephen Miller observed in his Chronicle column:

Friday, a full-page ad ran in the paper repeating the charge that the situation would be handled differently were the accused not a bunch of white lacrosse players. This absurd ad, which levied the untrue and indefensible charge that Duke is filled with racists, was officially endorsed by 20 of our academic departments and institutes and about 90 individual professors . . . [Signatories] make a very different case—one for protecting, at all costs, our system of justice from the passions and prejudices of the people.

The next day, the Chronicle editorialized:

Campus groups, in attempting to respond to these issues, face a difficult balance between constructive dialogue and one-sided dogma. In many cases, they cross that line. An advertisement for a forum sponsored by the African-American Studies department proposes the idea that Duke is a “social disaster.”

This is but one example of the instances of radical, inflammatory discourse that obscures what should be our true aim: reasonable discussion.

But Lubiano didn’t hear from anyone that “there was something wrong with the ad.”

2.) Imagined Reality

Holloway claims that the ad was almost routine, and simply reflected a professor’s job to “give voice to student concerns.”

Who, exactly, does Holloway think she’s fooling? The market for the Chronicle of Higher Education is almost exclusively academics. It’s hardly routine for random groups of professors to take out full-page ads in the campus newspaper to “give voice to student concerns” with which the faculty happen to agree. If this were true, there would be dozens of such ads that appear in campus newspapers every day, all over the country.

I’ve taught at four very different types of institutions: Arizona State, Williams, Brooklyn, and (as a visiting professor) Harvard. In 13 years, I can’t recall a single instance at these schools when dozens of professors believed it was their job to “give voice to student concerns” by taking out full-page ads in the campus newspaper.

3.) The Sloppy Wording Rationale

The Bartlett/Lipka article reveals that Holloway, with a Ph.D. in English, and Lubiano, whose Ph.D. came in Literature, were the driving forces behind the ad. Denying that the ad constituted a rush to judgment, Holloway suggested that the drafting professors (which, it appears, were Lubiano and her) were not able to choose language that conveyed their true meaning.

For instance, Holloway stated that the ad’s wording “what happened to this young woman” does not necessarily refer to a rape. “Something did happen on Buchanan . . . A party happened. Drunkenness happened. If you want to read ‘happening’ in one particular way, that’s the bias you bring to your reading.”

In other words: a woman made a highly publicized allegation that she was raped by Duke students, an allegation that leads to the cancellation of an athletic team’s season. Professors, in their own voice, signed a statement speaking of “what happened to this young woman.” But they really meant that “drunkenness happened” to the woman.

By that criterion, the Duke Chronicle will be running dozens of full-page ads from Duke professors in just about every edition for the foreseeable future.

(Holloway, of course, doesn’t explain why the ad didn’t read “a party and drunkenness happened to this young woman” if the signatories wanted to make that point.)

The appropriate retort to this argument comes from Michael Gustafson, who notes—given the extraordinarily charged atmosphere of last April—that “it’s hard to believe that none of [the 88] would have said, ‘You know, we need to be clearer about this aspect.’ The ‘until proven guilty’ was cast as a fait accompli.

4.) No Transcript

The Bartlett/Lipka article solved one of the many mysteries of the Group of 88’s ad: why the alleged quotes from students were anonymous. I had—quite erroneously—assumed that at least these quotes were legitimate, taken from a transcript of the session.

In fact, these “quotes” came from “notes” of the event taken by Lubiano. It does not appear that she verified their accuracy with the speakers. Indeed, we have no way of knowing whether the speakers were even Duke students, or were potbangers or other habitual protesters who happened to show up for the event.

This revelation yields some intriguing questions:

  • What steps, if any, did Group of 88 members other than Holloway or Lubiano take to ensure the accuracy of the student quotes to which faculty allegedly were “listening”?
  • Did other Group of 88 members ask Lubiano how she obtained the quotes, and whether she had received students' permission to use their words in such a fashion?
  • Did they even read the final text of the ad, with the 11 “quotes” ultimately selected, before signing?

As Steven Baldwin stated in the article, “My personal view is that their social agenda was at the forefront of [the Group’s] thinking. I think there was a collision between political correctness and due process, and I think political correctness won.”

5.) The “Clarifying” Faculty Don’t Inspire Confidence

The article contains three quotes from “clarifying” faculty—the roughly two dozen professors who didn’t sign the Group of 88’s statement but did affix their signatures to a January open letter that purported to “clarify” the Group of 88’s meaning.

Here’s clarifier William Reichert, a professor of biomedical engineering and chemistry: the ad was “pretty balanced and reasonable . . . a sincere attempt to make a point that there are real victims here, not necessarily the lacrosse victim.” (emphasis added) The ad was so “balanced and reasonable” that the finest defense attorneys in the state cited it in a change-of-venue motion.

And here’s clarifier Kenneth Surin, explaining that athletes do not enroll in his courses: “I do not give quizzes . . . I give very hard reading.”

6.) Cracks in the Group of 88

A few Group members (Literature’s Frank Lentricchia is probably the biggest name here) chose not to sign the clarifying statement, and one explains why.

Math professor Arlie Petters said, “Whenever something causes undue pain to people, then of course that isn’t something I would want to be a part of.” It disappoints me that more signatories--people who, after all, have chosen a career of teaching students--do not feel as Petters does.

The article continues, “In private, according to a number of professors, colleagues have questioned the wisdom of the original ad.” It’s unfortunate (if understandable) that so many professors appear intimidated about making this point publicly, and that a few Group members appear reluctant to dissent from the pack.

For instance, it’s my understanding that several lacrosse players had taken courses from one member of the Group of 88, and had tried to reach out to her in recent months to explain how the ad affected them. Yet, far from “listening” to her students, she proudly signed the clarifying statement anyway.

7.) The Voices of Reason

The article discusses the Economics professors’ courageous January letter, which endorsed President Brodhead’s call for an investigation of Mike Nifong’s conduct, and also stated, “We regret that the Duke faculty is now seen as prejudiced against certain of its own students . . . We welcome all members of the lacrosse team, and all student athletes, as we do all our students as fellow members of the Duke community, to the classes we teach and the activities we sponsor.”

The contrast in tone between figures such as Holloway or Lubiano and Economics Department chairman Thomas Nechbya was striking.

Nechbya calmly noted, “We should all say we regret that there is an impression that has been formed that we are against some of our students. It’s not a comment on whether that impression is valid. But the ad took on a life of its own.” He added, “We are academics, and we should be able to passionately disagree and still be friends at the end. If we lost that in this controversy, then we have really lost something. And there is certainly the potential for that to be lost.”

It’s remarkable that a portion of Duke arts and sciences faculty appear to disagree with the first of Nechbya’s statements.

8.) Defiance

Bartlett and Lipka report, “Neither Lubiano nor Holloway regret signing the ad, and Lubiano says that if she had it to do over again, she wouldn’t change one word.”

Astonishing. But then again, this is the same group that barred all recording devices from last night's event--which was billed, in Orwellian terms, as a celebration of academic freedom.

The article also includes a revealing exchange between Gustafson and Group of 88 member Anne Allison. Gustafson was concerned about Allison’s spring semester course, which explores such issues as, “What does the lacrosse scandal tell us about power, difference, and raced, classed, gendered, and sexed normativity in the U.S.?” Gustafson’s worries seemed more than justified, given that one of three required books in the course “updates the incidences of fraternity gang rape on college campuses, highlighting such recent cases as that of Duke University.”

At the suggestion of Provost Lange, Gustafson contacted Allison and spent an hour with her talking about the course. He said, “It was better to actually communicate with each other.”

Here’s how Allison described the matter: “The very query seemed hostile. I mean, I’m not asking him about his class.” Once they met, “he heard me but did he really hear me? I don’t know.”

It’s clear Allison didn’t hear Gustafson: the article reports “she is teaching the course as planned,” complete with a book whose author treats the lacrosse case as if a gang rape occurred.

To use the language of clarifying signatory Reichert, which of the duo seemed “balanced and reasonable”?


Anonymous said...

Should the Duke trustees and Broadhead be embarrassed by the Group of 88? Are they?

Anonymous said...

Lubiano and Holloway...the sickly, stunted offspring of affirmative action and postmodernism.

Anonymous said...

Hope the heat on these unrepentant cretins keeps increasing.

Lubiano and Holloway should be forced to address the FODU questions -- with recorders running.

They hide in their ivory towers, determined to hold themselves to a separate standard.

Anonymous said...

1. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

2. "If you want to read 'happening’ in one particular way, that’s the bias you bring to your reading."

Discuss. Show your work.


Anonymous said...

Duke is still being used.

Anonymous said...

Brodhead is stuck between two schools of thought. One says that a rape occurred since it fits in nicely with their social theories and social theories trumps forensic evidence and logic. The other group says you must first determine the facts before you try to fit them into a theory.

I have yet to see someone who has tried to use logic, probability and reason while exploring the facts of the case and reach a dramatically different conclusion then KC’s version of events. On the other hand I don’t think that logic and facts will persuade some members of the Group of 88.

Brodhead is trying to reconcile two irreconcilable positions and one side is not going to be happy.

Anonymous said...

As George said on Seinfeld "its not a lie if I believe it."

Anonymous said...

JLS says:

Surin shows himself to be a bigot in his comments. Just how many of these bigots are there at Duke?

Anonymous said...

Marx appears 11 times on Surin's publication page. Yes, professor, that's "hard reading" indeed!


Anonymous said...

Polanski said

I'm losing my patience with the yammers.

Robert Johnson: We need to start compiling all the data about the Group of 88 [N.B. I loathe that term. "Tenured Racists" is much more effective, given the obvious fact thay we should ignore the untenured. I am convinced that the imetus for the listening statement was racist, not sexist]

Find a Duke donor. Publish the info as a Memorandum of Defunding Antimale and Antiwhite Academically Obsolete Courses. Demand that the president and board of trustees respond to the memorandum.

Use a Duke donor to fund a thorough cost analysis of the salaries, buildings, pension plans, etc that are wasted on the untalented.

Suggest alternate uses for the funds allocated on the crap.

This is a start. KC, good luck with your book, but it's not going to defund Untalented Studies.


All affirmative action recipients should have their names published, as well as the combined income of their parents. I am convinced that 98% of affirmative action admits at Duke hail from comfortable households.

All this info should be published, along with the circus that is Gratuitous Studies.

Let's get started so that we can fuch them when Duke gets a dose of lawsuit enemas.

Kill him for me, Marv. Kill him good!

Anonymous said...

I'm not hearing much support for the G88 from other corners of academia. Do others have them same perception? I'm guessing the spotlight directed at the G88 burns a little too brightly and other radicals want to sit this one out.

kcjohnson9 said...

This is my sense as well.

What makes the 88 unique is that they went after their own students--and that's not an approach with which most professors, even those of the far left, will go out of their way to associate themselves.

Anonymous said...

KC, would you work this comment into a letter to the editor of "The Chronicle of Higher Education." I think your thoughts would help "clarify" the "Chronicle" article for those readers not familiar with the Group of 88, the Listening Statement and its aftermath.

The Random Rambler said...

Reading this and what the professors think and their supposed justifications just make me want to cry. I just graduated college and cannot stand what is going on. If something like this ever happened at my alma mater, you would all hear my voice loud and clear.

Anonymous said...

Account of the "Shut Up and Teach Forum"


Anonymous said...

JLS says...

That is my sense of the 88 gangsters. As I have said before even the worst racists of Jim Crow were racists but generally the black people they knew well were to them exception. That is they were racist but the woman who raised them, their empolyees ect were exceptions to their beliefs about all blacks.

The 88 gangsters are so biased, such racists that they don't even see their own students as exception. They are racists through and through and worst racists than the worst racist of the Jim Crow era.

Anonymous said...

Polanski said...


Please cease and desist from soliciting apologies from the Tenured Racists. Their so-called "rush to judgment" was really a rush to get whitey at his most vulnerable.

Any "apology" you extract from these bums may end up hurting the lawsuits of the injured parties agaist the 88 and Duke itself.

The more money the plaintiffs receive, the more vulnerable is the viability of Untalented Studies.

Think of it this way, Jason: Brodhead, the G88, et al are getting their ribs punched so hard they can't breathe.


Anonymous said...

Holloway is such a blockhead she can't even figure out what exact part of the wording in the listening statement ("What happened to this young woman...") she has to squirm out of. Her attempt? "Something did happen on Buchanan . . . If you want to read ‘happening’ in one particular way, that’s the bias you bring to your reading.”

Lame, worse than lame. Anyway, it's actually the "something" part that's causing you to have to come up with your pitiful excuses, Ms. Holloway. It's the ominous "what", that unanswerable "something" that makes your gang's statement so scummy, so cowardly. That is what emboldened Nifong, validated the castrate-them-protesters, and got a whole lot of Durham muttering "Well, something happened in that house, I know that."

And you know many of them will continue to say that, no matter how the LAX players' innocence is proven. In fact, it will never be proven to them -- nor, I'll bet, to you either. You are unreachable.

That, one supposes, is your victory. So congratulations, Ms. Holloway, Queen of the Blockheads.

Anonymous said...

For the record, what Pauline Kael actually said about Nixon was:

"I live in a rather special world ... I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."

In other words, Kael understood that there were Nixon voters somewhere out there even though they weren't among the people she regularly interacted with.

M. Simon said...

Cornered Duke Faculty.

M. Simon said...


No one book will do the job.

This is going to require unrelenting effort and hundreds of books.

KC's book will shine a little light in a dark corner. It is a help.

M. Simon said...


Lie Stoppers

Here is how you make permalinks:

<a href="url">text to display</a>

replace url with:
leave the quote marks

replace text to display
Duke Fever

Duke Fever

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


I have a different effort I'm perrsonally engaged with. I have science on my side. I have been at it for about 4 or 5 years now. People are hard to change.

One book will help. It will not be enough.


Camille Paglia has been on the case of Angry Studies for years. Yet when I posted her stuff here a while back it was new material for most people.

Change is hard. The universe is full of inertia. And people who are either stupid or not interested. Sometimes both.

Unrelenting effort is required.

M. Simon said...


If the effort of one person was enough shouldn't you be able to accomplish what you want with your own efforts?

Anonymous said...


15 years is not a long time.

All I'm saying is this:

stupid, racist faculty +
stupid, ridiculous courses +
the cost of major lawsuits agaist the G88 and Duke =


The alumni and Duke parents will get onboard.

Simon, you have to understand that the racist rantings against DUKE'S OWN will demand revenge.

And revenge is most sweet when it's moral and logical.

Black studies belongs at traditionally black colleges.


Anonymous said...

the group of 88 have been proven correct as there has been another rape at duke at an off campus apartment with underage drinking and drug use. they are correct about there being a social disaster at duke and the need to stamp out both racism and sexism.

and to JLS, what you wrote about the the group of 88 being worse racists than white racists under Jim Crow shows how much you do not know about Jim Crow. Whites DID NOT treat the blacks they knew any better than the blacks they didn't. Under Jim Crow, white people routinely:

saw their black aquaintances, neighbors and even family members
forced off sidewalks so whites could pass

showed blacks the entrances to segregated waiting rooms in the bus stations, train stations and even in medical waiting rooms and bathrooms and water fountains

told blacks they could not try on clothes in most department stores

cheerfully( and not so cheerfully) pointed out that blacks could go round to the back door at a white restaurant and get a take out paper bag because they could not sit down and eat

routinely told blacks to get to the back of the bus

told blacks they could not vote unless their grandfather did; depriving them of their voting rights but taxing them and enlisting them in the armed services just the same.

and guess what? Whites watched all that and did all that and got a good nights sleep! They did not make exceptions because they might know a black person!! they rigidly held the color line. Segregation would not have been possible without mainstream everyday whites supporting the system.

there is no way in hell the group of 88 are more racist than those Jim Crow whites; there is no comparison whatsoever and trying to state that is a lie plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

It would not surprise me to learn that most, if not all, of the "student quotes" in the April "Listening" ad were fabricated.

Can anyone locate the "big black man" who supposedly said he was uncomfortable with the Duke police shadowing him on campus? I would be willing to bet that this is a fictional character created by Lubiano.

This case only emphasizes one of the chief dangers of allowing radical idealogues to gain control. With them, truth has no meaning... except for what you fabricate it to mean.

I expect that any thorough examination of Lubiano would find much about her world that has been fabricated.

M. Simon said...


I think what Black studies needs is intellectual rigor. All the "studies' need it.

If it was rigorous it would be good for Duke.

It is the agenda driven clap trap we need to get rid of. You may be correct that the best way forward is to gut it all and start over.

I'm not very revenge driven. Probably a personal defect.

However, in this case I'd like to see the boys gut Duke. Pour l'encourager les autres.

The real blows against Angry Studies will come with the law suits. And K.C.'s book. And other books.

I wonder if any of the 88 are planning to write books?

We will not reverse the Long March Through the Institutions over night.

Ward Churchill is gone. Others are being attacked but Harvard's new President is an Angry Studies Master. Gains and losses. However, the fight is on.


I always did like a good fight.

M. Simon said...


The difference is that the Gang of 88 ought to know better.

My mom wouldn't let me drink at a "blacks only" water fountain when I was 5. Did she believe in Jim Crow? No.

Then why did she do it? There were laws. It was the culture.

Now we have speech codes and quota laws. New laws. Same old racism.

Anonymous said...

When one is working with a meta-narrative, "truth" is relative. It does not matter whether or not someone actually said those things that were in the ad. The "truth" of the sayings is that Karla Holloway declared them to be so, and that is all it takes.

After reading Surin's comments, all I can say is that these people really have become the caricatures of what people on the outside think of those who teach in higher education. What pathetic, snobby, and, yes, stupid and vain little people.

While there is an adage that "fights in academe are so vicious because the stakes are so small," in one sense, the stakes here are very high. The G88 and their allies across the academic spectrum want to change law to where all it takes is a female's accusation of rape to send someone to prison.

These are not "good people" who simply have a "different" outlook. These are small, smarmy, and extremely dishonest people. Like Karla Holloway, who as a dean "investigated" the sexual assault charges against Houston Baker and made sure that everything was stuffed into the Orwellian Memory Hole, they are people who have a crabbed and dishonest view of the world, and crave power over others.

Anonymous said...

Holloway and Lubiano, with their pathetic and dishonest attempts to rationalize away the racist and unjust sentiments expressed in their despicable "listening statement," demonstrate yet again why they are the poster girls for those who believe we should end all affirmative action in university admissions and hirings.

Anonymous said...

Commenting on recent allegation by Duke student that she was raped: "We're still trying to sort out what happened and all the other details before we act any further," said Larry Moneta, Duke's vice president of public affairs. Priceless.

S.G. said...

A telling post Bill

" bill anderson said...

When one is working with a meta-narrative, "truth" is relative. It does not matter whether or not someone actually said those things that were in the ad. The "truth" of the sayings is that Karla Holloway declared them to be so, and that is all it takes."

Anonymous said...

12:17 You really should consider recasting you comparison of these two marxists to someone sickly,and stunted.

Most all that I know with varying disabilities, particularly derived at birth or an early age, are true inspirations, productive members of society, and add value. Generally they've beat the odds with intelligence, humor, attitude, and faith. None of which the Gang of 88 apparently hold dear.

These are deconstructionist Marxists - no more, no less.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon. Thanks. I know how to write html but at 1:30 in the am I was too cross eyed to try it.

Anonymous said...

2:03 I agree...further, everyone is at one time or another a racist, bigot.

The big difference is that very,very few act on their bigotry, especially on an individual level. The Gang of 88 and those that associated with them are the true racists/bigots because they consistently act of their bigotry. Worse yet, they teach it and project it to the world at large. Where roles reversed (gender/race) their actions would be considered criminal and I suspect the only reason that will not be tested, is because of the civil trials to come.

An apology is not enough, they need to go find real jobs. Its time to quit funding these frauds.

Anonymous said...

"...a party happened...drunkenness happened..." Um...outraged professors and potbangers over parties and drinking in the 21st century?
"...what happened to this woman...does not necessarily refer to rape...if you want to read ‘happening’ in one particular way, that’s the bias you bring to your reading.”

Karla, do you mean like the bias we bring to our reading of MAN (Mark Anthony Neal),when he writes, "...a self-described "ThugNiggaIntellectual",
takes the place of disciplined study and trenchant scholarship..."?

Perhaps replacing disciplined study and trenchant scholarship with a "ThugNiggaIntellectual" approach isn't such a good idea after all.

Anonymous said...

Is it really that unusual for professors to go after their students in such a fashion? Fifteen years ago, we were inundated with stories of professors and administrators using speech codes to chase away students who didn't fit their mindset. (You nicely alluded to same in a post this past weekend.). What is unusual in this case is that the professors are seizing upon a criminal prosecution to advance their agenda rather than using their own farcical speech codes and campus disciplinary procedurs to enact their form of social justice.

This is just how many professors at modern institution are. So insulated and isolated are they from "the real world" that they truly believe their own propaganda. When an opportunity arises for them to put their indignation on display for all to to see, why not do so, they think?

Anonymous said...

3:32 M.Simon, I didn't know you knew my ex-...

"Change is hard. The universe is full of inertia. And people who are either stupid or not interested. Sometimes both."

Anonymous said...

Textbooks $450
Tuition $45,000
Endowment $4,500,000,000
G88 Defense? Priceless!

Anonymous said...

I think the original ad was not as unusual as KC thinks, and I've said so here before. It didn't seem strange for Duke dialogue, which is why most people (the stray Chronicle piece notwithstanding) shrugged it off. I've also defended Cathy Davidson's apologia, which I think KC is misreading.

I cannot, however, defend the statements of some of this group since then, nor can I defend the "call for dialogue" that is clearly anything but.

I do see a lot of people -- not so much KC, but his disciples -- who are giddy with the prospect of taking Duke down a peg. It saddens me that some professors are so inept in the ways of the real world that they're just giving these people ammunition. (Or, to use a different analogy, they're taking too much rope.)

Anonymous said...

"I think what Black studies needs is intellectual rigor. All the "studies' need it."

Last night Lubiano was very specific that this did not apply to AAAS.

Anonymous said...

8:37 inre:"...taking Duke down a peg".

Of course, the other way to look at it would be that we're concerned with the lack of transparency, governance, leadership, and the mush that is being taught by the Gang of 88 (class warfare, race, gender) frauds.

The light being shown on these places Duke in the uniques position to raise the standard od care and differentiate the school from all of the others that are equally sinking into mediocrity.

That, it seems to me, is raising the bar and helping Duke. What am I missing?

Anonymous said...

This travesty has brought the Stoopid 88 a world of publicity, and they will benefit from it. Students who seek the kind of garbage that passes for coursework in their disciplines - most especially the class/race/gender refuse - will flock. I guarantee their course enrollments will go up. It's the rest of the university that will suffer. These fools will just add a line or two to their CVs.

Anonymous said...

LB @8:42,

Lubiano's admission, as you reported on Liestoppers, was the most remarkable thing about the forum. Other than the fact that no students asked any sharp questions, not even to ask them to respond to any of FODU's suggested questions.

I had asked my son to report back to me if he found the time to go to the forum. Hopefully, he had better things to do, like drink a couple of beers (at age 19) and watch the 2 hour episode of "24".

Somebody early in this thread said:
"Brodhead is trying to reconcile two irreconcilable positions and one side is not going to be happy."
I agree he's trying to do this but the result will be that neither sid will be happy.

Chicago said...

It is beyond clear that certain members of the G88 need to exit Duke ASAP. If Brodhead, Lange etc do not see this, then who does? Specifically Hollaway and Lubiano must go.


Anonymous said...

Broadhead is getting much too easy an out in this ongoing tragicomedy. He ought to be hung from the flagpole as an example of how not to administer. He won't be, of course. Poor man. His job is just so difficult. What's a helpless executive to do? And isn't there a Board of Trustees lurking somewhere? I am tired of hearing that no one is really in charge of the inmates.

Anonymous said...

So the story is out in the most widely distributed paper for academia. What can we expect from university professors and administrators nationwide? My guess - nothing. Some will approve of the 88/87, many will be scared of words (i.e. being called racist or sexist), but most will be just apathetic. Not exactly the inspirational motivators we might want teaching the next generation.


Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re: 4:29

You are making that elementary mistake in confusing racism and discrimmination. No where did I say the current discrimmination that the 88 gangsters are able to foist on the groups they are biggotted towards is as bad as Jim Crow. So quit pretending I did.

No where did I say that most or even many racists in the Jim Crow era bucked the highly entrenched system of discrimination for blacks they thought were different. I merely claimed thought were different, ie that Jim Crow racists were not as racists as the 88 gangsters because they view at least some of their black associates as exceptions to the general rule.

So don't lecture me out of your ignorance. Learn the difference between racism and discrimmination. And then try to contribute to the discussion here if you can.

Anonymous said...

It is not an exercise of free speach to frame a class around a rape allegation that has been shown to be so weak as to render it unbelievable; it is an exercise in irresponsibility. Unless of course the class was going to examine how the allegation got so far or why a false allegation would be made in the first place.

Michael said...

I assume that as reasonable people, we all apologize for our mistakes once someone points them out. I would hope that your average middle-school kid would have this concept down.

We may get all upset and try to protect our egos at first but when you actually do apologize, it can be amazing how others think more highly of you for doing the right thing. When someone digs in, though, all respect is lost over time.

These folks have a comfortable living, are looked up to (I assume by someone) and have the critical job of raising our leaders. I wish they would take their responsibility one-tenth as seriously as parents take their responsibilities in raising the next generation.

Anonymous said...

Keystone Kops, Keystone Kounsel...now Kampus Klowns...

Anonymous said...

Can anyone here imagine the answers these "educators" will give in their depositions?

Anonymous said...

I do see a lot of people -- not so much KC, but his disciples -- who are giddy with the prospect of taking Duke down a peg. It saddens me that some professors are so inept in the ways of the real world that they're just giving these people ammunition. (Or, to use a different analogy, they're taking too much rope.)

8:37 AM

I can say that my intention has not been to take anyone down a peg. Duke has had a great reputation, and there are legions of very loyal Duke alums. What is sad is that Duke University gave the finger to its most loyal alumni, and it did it with impunity.

I have communicated with many LAX family members and all of them are very loyal to Duke. They are not interested in suing the university to get rich or to destroy anything. However, because of what Duke did, their sons were placed in grave danger.

As we can see from the university's reaction to the lastest rape allegations at Duke, this situation is being handled much differently. In the lacrosse case, the powers that be at Duke (with the exception of Peter Lange) obviously were not interested in the truth. They were interested in using the allegations to make political statements.

No, Duke University did not control the Durham police or Michael B. Nifong, but the university made it clear that those people were free to do whatever they wanted and to say what they wanted. Duke made no effort to stop Sam Hummel and his gang, nor did it stop certain professors from abusing their students.

I have no particular interest in Duke University. I have no ties to the place, but can see how important it is to the LAX families and others, and I have no intention of trying to do things to bring harm. No, Brodhead, Burness, Moneta, and the G88/87 have managed to do the damage themselves, all the while blaming everything on some kids who had an off-campus party where what they did was no different than what the G88 did when they were undergraduates.

Gary Packwood said...

The G88 are ballast in the hold of a rather large ship.

Not much there to talk about.

Ballast is Ballast.

Anonymous said...

10:02 said:

"Can anyone here imagine the answers these "educators" will give in their depositions?"

I posted this last week:

Bailiff: Please place your hand on the Bible.
Lubiano: Judaeo-Christian textual constructs are misapplied and are derived from a semiotic, fascist theory and have epistemological implications which transcend my existence.

Judge: Fine, but we must know if you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Lubiano: Truth is nothing more than a phenomenologic praxis whose diasporic cultural critique sublimes the feminist aesthetic and subalternity conceptualization.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't ballast keep a ship from sinking or listing? I'm not certain what the opposite of ballast is...maybe air, but these radicals are certainly causing the ship to list.

Anonymous said...

You provide Lubiano with a vocabulary that far exceeds the wisdom imparted thus far. Nice parody, though.

Anonymous said...

From the Duke Chronicle:

"Charles Piot, associate professor of cultural anthropology and AAAS, devoted his presentation to criticizing "Durham-in-Wonderland," an ongoing blog by KC Johnson, a history professor at Brooklyn College who is highly critical of the endorsees of the April 6 ad.

Piot called it "a voluminous and incessant commentary" on the lacrosse case that is "obsessively preoccupied with the so-called Gang of 88."

KC, you must be doing something right to merit such wrongful criticism from thede pseudo-intellectuals. Keep up the fight!


Anonymous said...

Lubiano conducted a scientific poll of one hundred students and found that none of them have ever heard of KC. Charles Piot then devoted his entire segment to this same obscure blogger. This in the context of a forum about academic freedom which was called to discuss whether criticism coming primarily from blogs is having a chilling effect. So we are asked to believe that 90 or so people show up to a forum to discuss academic freedom but Lubiano can't find a student who has ever heard of KC.

I would conclude that Lubiano was less than truthfull (lying) when she made this statement.

Anonymous said...

The extensive handwritten account of the meeting, reproduced on Liestoppers, is both revealing and depressing. It was typical of so many such forums on college campuses.

None of the panelists addressed the question of the innocence of the accused or the ongoing suffering that has been imposed on three of their students and their families. Nobody in the audience questioned the G88's transparently dishonest recounting of the events of last spring. And the audience sounded as if it was primarily G88 fellow travelers who never hold anyone accountable if they position themselves as victims of racism or gender bias.

It would be good to have an honest discussion of what happened at Duke and what are the implications for the university. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen.

None of these professors is going anywhere. Mobility is not available to most people in academics. Tenure is a life sentence since it is extremely difficult for associate and full professors to obtain a tenured job at another university.

So Duke is probably stuck with a group of people who will be blathering their rants about sex,race and class in the dialect of post modern deconstructionism and forcing their bigoted ideas on generations of Duke students.

Future generations of Duke faculty will wonder why the university was so eager to hire a professor who in all seriousness describes himself as a thugniggaintellectual. Whatever possessed the school to hire Superfly, the fictional gangster from one of the black exploitation movies of the 1970s, and give him a job for life.


Anonymous said...

Kc and Bill A .. I hope that the different handeling of the new rape alligation means they have learned their lesson. Should we not be applauding the change instead of comdeming the authorities? They are doing what we hoped they would have done with Lax. I hope this is permanent. It seems to be the lawful way/

Anonymous said...

I wonder what "ThugNiggaIntellectual" Mark Anthony Neal thinks about rape when he listens to some of the lyrics from rap artists on his friend Jay Z's Def Jam label?
Ambassador Role Model Lauren Ricks says about rap songs: "Nothing in these lyrics or images convey respect, appreciation, honor and love for women. These artists and image-makers, mostly male, seem to despise and exploit, rather than to appreciate and honor women’s sexuality."
Wonder if any of these rap song lyrics could have an effect on the way women are treated?

Anonymous said...

re: 10:22

Bailiff, escort the gentlemen to a cell for contempt.

Anonymous said...

Could not find the essay by A. Huffington supporting Ms Zohn in the Huffpost. Anyone have a link to it?

Anonymous said...

I think the word is "bilge" not "ballast". And bilge they are...

Anonymous said...

11:14 said...None of these professors is going anywhere...it is extremely difficult for associate and full professors to obtain a tenured job at another university.

But Duke could cover their salaries as long as another "university" would take them -- UC Santa Cruz, if these profs were free, would probably accept Holloway, Wahneema, and the ThugNiggaIntellectual. What would it cost -- $5, $6 million? That's cheap. Offer 'em 10 million if they'll also find a room for Brodhead.

Anonymous said...

By now, I guess I shouldn't be astonished....
But it certainly is a spectacle, seeing people like this thinking anybody believes them.
What world are they in?

Anonymous said...

"What happened to this young woman."

Of course, that has always been the issue. Until informed by Dr. Holloway, I had not been aware that "parties" happened to young women. I can see why that would indeed be a disaster: young women are suddenly teleported into the midst of young, unknown men drinking alcohol and reeking of testosterone. What must make a "party happening" particularly horrifying is the UTTER DISORIENTATION: at one moment, you are grinding out your standard lap dance in your nice familiar strip joint, and the next you are in an unknown building in an an unknown part of the globe that might be Kansas (or even Oz.)

I shall also accept Dr. Holloway's professional opinion that "drunkeness happening" is a felicitous use of the English language. The locution, however, leaves quite indistinct certain relevant issues about how drunkeness happens to young women in specific cases: had this particular "young woman" voluntarily consumed too much alcohol or was it force fed to her by blond, blue-eyed fascist beasts of American privilege. But at least Dr. Holloway has vouchsafed to the rest of us the hitherto unknown information that drunkeness happened to this "young woman" in the LAX house rather than elsewhere.

But, of course, it is merely Dr. Holloway's personal bias that the "what" in her statement had no reference to rape. Her reading of a text has no claim to deference: an author's reading of a text is merely the reading of one of many readers, no more, no less.


Anonymous said...

Salting our victim queens away in dim dark recesses of the academy, nay, the more useless parts of the academy, represents, in some sense, the triumph of reason over irrationality.

They toil away spewing forth their tired old messages upon a bunch of people who are generally as worthless and who will not make much of an impact on society.

They leaves the rest of us with plenty of time and energy to get on with the business of succeeding and remaking society in the fashion that we desire.

Anonymous said...

8:37 said: "I do see a lot of people -- not so much KC, but his disciples -- who are giddy with the prospect of taking Duke down a peg. It saddens me that some professors are so inept in the ways of the real world that they're just giving these people ammunition. (Or, to use a different analogy, they're taking too much rope.)"

SteveDinMD: No one here is taking Duke down a peg. The Gang of 88 and other vacuous faculty members, administrators, and academic departments had accomplished that feat long ago. That fact is only now gaining widespread recognition, however. "Carry on," I say. There can be only honor and good that issue from publicizing the truth.

Anonymous said...

KC, I would assume that blogger.com provides you with stats on your site. Could you post information on total hits, average hits per day and total unique visitors as a blog post? Those comments from the 88 that noone from their scientific survey knows about your blog are annoying.

Anonymous said...

Those comments from the 88 that noone from their scientific survey knows about your blog are annoying.

Well, they wouldn't bother to attack it if no one knew about it, would they?

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, seems that Amynda Marcotte is getting the sort of hate mail that was formerly sent to Michelle Malkin.

You can see it at Pandagon seems to be down.

Here is a small example:

Romanco De Leone was also moved by Donohue's poignant claims about insulating the Catholic church from legitimate criticisms.


While Amynda said some nasty things, I deplore such vitriol sent to anyone.

Anonymous said...

Well, yes--how can the blog have a "chilling effect" on anyone if no one knows about it? (Just like the "listening" ad supposedly had no effect because no one paid any attention to it before KC focused on it. Hmmm. . . )

Anonymous said...

Kc and Bill A .. I hope that the different handeling of the new rape alligation means they have learned their lesson. Should we not be applauding the change instead of comdeming the authorities? They are doing what we hoped they would have done with Lax. I hope this is permanent. It seems to be the lawful way/

11:15 AM

Ordinarily, this would be a valid point, a university "learning" from its mistakes. However, no one in authority at Duke is admitting to any mistakes the first time. Second, we are not dealing with mistakes; rather, we are dealing with a willful response to a non-event.

The people at Duke who were so outspoken did not want to know if there really was a rape. They just wanted to have an excuse to run to the barricades and to spew out their deconstructive language. The lacrosse accusations were a convenient excuse for them to make the usual charges of oppression.

Does anyone at the G88 really care that there was not a rape? Karla Holloway herself said that the issue of guilt and innocence really was about race. The lacrosse players were guilty whether or not they were actually guilty.

Duke is handling this situation differently because the accusation is being made against a black male. There is nothing politically correct about accusing a black male of rape, so Duke is now suddenly "discovering" responsibility. That is all that it is. Don't give Moneta any more credit than he deserves.

Anonymous said...

One can only hope that there will be some kind of action against Duke that will put Lubiano and Holloway under deposition. Should it come to pass, I have a feeling that neither one will be able to identify the individuals who were quoted in the ad--for the simple reason that the quotes were probably made up out of whole cloth.

At least they sound that way to me.

Anonymous said...

As for the G88's obsession with K.C.'s blog, I say "good." Hey, I'm disappointed that none of them said they had not heard of me, either!!

If anything, DIW has exposed these frauds for what they are, and there is no greater insult one can lay on an academic than to call him or her a fraud. This is a website that correctly tells us that the Emperor Has No Clothes.

Anonymous said...

One can only hope that there will be some kind of action against Duke that will put Lubiano and Holloway under deposition.

If the sexual assault charges against Houston Baker ever make it into a lawsuit against Duke (regarding how Duke treated sexual assault charges against a faculty -- and G88 member), Holloway will be deposed. She was a dean at the time and was involved in the case from the beginning.

Anonymous said...

What we have here boys and girls is what I term a "Ratherism" - named appropriately, after Dan Rather.

OK - You caught me - What I have presented to you is not based on fact or any truth. But that is not what is important - What IS important is that I believe it COULD have happened. I believe it MIGHT have happened. And that justifies me overlooking clear factual evidence to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

re: 12:19

There are those articles in campus papers that turn up here and there and I think that they've mentioned this blog.

There are several blogs hitting the 88 but their specific naming of this one indicates that they feel most hurt by this one. Even if they've never visited it, posted here or if it is undetectible by scientific methods.

AMac said...

So we discover from "Locomotive Breath's" account what whe had already deduced: that some of the Group of 88 are peeved by criticism read at Durham-in-Wonderland.

Commentary that they cannot regulate or control.

An unprecedented circumstance--providing the appropriate metanarrative to the critiques serves only to attract additional attention to them!


But what many Hoax Enablers should be worried about are still ... depositions.

Anonymous said...

If the members of the G88 were interested in the truth, they would wear wigs, facial make-up, red balls on their noses, baggy pants, and shoes 10 sizes too big. They would dress like the clowns they are so EVERYONE else would know they are not to be taken seriously.

Right now, with their faux credentials, they are able to fool stupid people into thinking they are saying something that is worthwhile listening to.

Anonymous said...

Karla Holloway: The State of the Humanities
The Duke dean of humanities and social sciences says universities run the risk of allowing their values be overwhelmed by money issues.
By Geoffrey Mock
Monday, February 24, 2003
This talk was given Feb. 11 as part of the Wednesday Conversations series sponsored by the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute.

Anonymous said...

I think the G 88 is too funny! Like Elmer Fudd taking himself seriously when he chases that "Wascally Wabbit."
You don't give someone who is a "fraud" enough credit when you compare them with Lubiano and Holloway. HEY DUKE! You all can KEEP them. Hummm... so much for the "Yale of the South."

Anonymous said...

2 things: One, the persona of thugniggaintellectual, is described as MA Neal's alter-ego. He 'transforms' into this persona from time to time to do his scholarly bidding. This is a scenario directly lifted from comic books; Spiderman, to be precise. A tenured guy at at a top 20 University is creating a pseudo-biography based on the template of a comic book.
Two, there is a story in today's Philadelphia Inquirer about an HIV-positive prostitute plying her trade in the dorms at Cheney State, a traditionally Black College. Judging from the reactions of student to the presence of the reporter, I think Chan Hall has many more idealogical sympathizers than we would ever think. The story can be found at philly.com. Most of the commentary was typical racial victim vitriol, neither new or enlightening. The stunning part is the depth of the level of victimhood expressed by theses students. Angry studies are everywhere.

Anonymous said...

Amanda and her gang are sending emails to her - no one writes such vile language except them and uneducated folk. The people on this blog except for the occasional troll don't write cuss words. Liar, Liar - pants on fire.

Anonymous said...

11:44 Ah bilge...makes much better sense, though that is being too kind. I think raw sewage more accurate.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if professors were required to post their published work/articles so students/parents/administrators/trustees were able to consider their work? What's unreasonable about that?

Anonymous said...

12:03 "They toil away spewing forth their tired old messages upon a bunch of people who are generally as worthless and who will not make much of an impact on society."

How does Duke recruit/accept students into programs such as the race/gender/class warfare department(s)?

Are under qualified students taking slots of qualified students in the name of diversity? I haven't considered that they may really need to dumb-down the admissions process to find students who would enroll and take these coures.

That process is of course pushing better qualified prospective students to other schools and lowering the bar.

To think my child was wait-listed and some other accepted that would buy-in to that pap allows me the satisfaction in knowing that we dodged a bullet.

Anonymous said...

8:37 AM
Bill Anderson
I can say that my intention has not been to take anyone down a peg. Duke has had a great reputation, and there are legions of very loyal Duke alums.

I don't know if it has been your intention, but it has been the result.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Are under qualified students taking slots of qualified students in the name of diversity?


Anonymous said...

This web link takes on new meaning in the context to the drivel the Gang of 88 spew and the way the University has responded...

Extremely scary when considered in that the meaning may well be defined by those in the race/gender/class warfare department(s). It sure runs contrary to what was presented at the Gang's love fest last night.

Applying to Duke:Who We're Looking For

"Duke enrolls multi-faceted, multi-talented students...

...But we're most interested in those students who will challenge us, make original discoveries, use their leadership skills in new venues, and take advantage of the depth as well as the breadth of this university's offerings...

...We want to find the ambitious and the curious, students who want to tackle issues head-on and are open to change...

...We want some bumps. We want some students who are well-rounded, some with sharp edges. We want people who are not afraid to undertake things that are messy, complex, and extremely difficult to do...

...We like students who make intelligent and interesting mistakes, students who understand that only in risking failure do we become stronger, better, and smarter...

...Are you ready to take on challenges that you aren't quite sure you can meet?

...We want you to make real discoveries, ...

That kind of openness provides the most valuable undergraduate education and it's part of what we look for in our applicants."

Anonymous said...

Many thanks, Locomotive Breath, for your extensive notes on the meeting last night. You have the distinct advantage of being in Wonderland; many of us can only experience the phenomenon through the media and blogs. Thank you for giving us a word portrait of the evening. The event surpassed my greatest expectations in its absurdity.

Anonymous said...

African African American studies (AAAs) at Duke University

AAAs Projects and Research

Curriculm project - "...using the expertise of Duke faculty and affiliates (one wonder who), which represent one of the country's deepest pools of knowledge in the areas of race, ethnicity, and gender..."

JHF Scholars - none listed

Working Papers - none listed

Student Highlight - none listed

Annual Speakers Forum - none listed

Where does one begin...? For once, I'm stumped for words.

Anonymous said...



One of the reasons the G88, et al, are winning the culture war is because we parrot their words and terms without even thinking. In a way, we're cultural coconspirators.

The pseudoconcept "diversity" represents 1 of the tools of the G88.

Allow me to elaborate on what "diversity" really means, and to expound upon its concomitant agenda:

1. "Diversity" is the fascist system rubber stamped by private institutions and the US government by which society stelthfully rewards the untalented--ie, those races and ethnicities that are cognitively unable to compete with Europeans and Asians for intellectually rigorous awards, jobs, and entry into our finest academic institutions. It's as simple as that.

Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans are by far the least intelligent groups in the US, so "the powers that be" demand, in any number of coercive, fascist ways, to make it a "good" thing to invite them to places like Duke because they enhance Duke with their respective inferior cognitive ability.

One way to hide their cognitive deficiencies is to create departments sui generis to their low IQs and instill in them racial animus agaist the majority culture.

THE AGENDA: I understand that Duke spent millions of dollars on a building named after John Hope Franklin. Does anyone know what his cognitive pedigree is in the chain of being? HE'S A LIGHTWEIGHT. Think of a friendly, avuncular Houston Baker, and there stands Franklin. He has the brains of an average black minister, someone like Jesse Jackson. He is a racist, a lousy scholar--he's a joke.

Simon, no disrespect, but you wrote that "black studies should have more intellectual rigor."

How can you have rigor when, comparatively speaking, there is no genius.

Eg: One of the great BS stories you'll hear in the AAAS dept is that Ralph Ellison's novel "Invisible Man" (by the way, his entire reputation is based on this single novel) is a masterpiece. Masterpiece? It has no artistic invention whatsoever. What it is is a good read. I urge everyone to read the definitive critique of the novel by Norman Podhoretz, originally published in "Commentary."

Take a good look at the crap they teach at Harvard, Princeton, Penn--IT'S NOT WORTHY OF FUNDING. What little that is could easily be subsumed under other, legitimate departments.

Angry Studies is a form of reparations, and reparations have already been paid in full.


PS--the poster whose child was wait-listed at Duke should immediately commence litigation.

Anonymous said...

2:52 "Are under qualified students taking slots of qualified students in the name of diversity?


More specifically are they recruited directly into the race/gender/class warfare depts? If so I would really like to see the applications relative to those admitted into other depts., regardless of race/gender.

Anonymous said...

lol, is it just me or is there intent behind the AAAS website not having white text or graphics? The text/background appear ecru.

One would guess that even David Duke, Robert Byrd, et al use black text in their publications.

Again, the sign of a true racist/bigot is how overt they are...

Anonymous said...


I have forgotten until now to thank you for putting your name at the top of your posts. Now I can skip right over your posts

Anonymous said...

"Many thanks, Locomotive Breath, for your extensive notes on the meeting last night. You have the distinct advantage of being in Wonderland; many of us can only experience the phenomenon through the media and blogs. Thank you for giving us a word portrait of the evening. The event surpassed my greatest expectations in its absurdity."

You're welcome. I had hoped to not insert myself into the discussion because my meager words cannot come close to describing the event. I had hoped to simply take a faithful and accurate recording of the event but was prevented from doing so. Perhaps they will learn the lesson that it's never good to allow someone else to insert themselves when it's unnecessary. I hope they will release the video they took so the discussion can be, properly, about what they said rather than my interpretation of it.

Anonymous said...

This suggests, they say, that in a strictly biological sense, rape is a successful way for a man to spread his genes.

Who knew.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 2:23 PM
Polanski at 3:34 PM
and myself at 1:33 PM with link to Karla's 2003 presentation

.....institutions would benefit from the employment of our particular talents to remind it to say our names, to pronounce us within and into its institutional conversations and priorities. ............ A pronounced absence is a silence that is unacceptable. This is, after all, the critical work that many of us do --

It may be that my ruminations on these matters are a consequence to an office location that some of you know I am not particularly fond of -- the basement in the Allen Building. In my office late one night not too long ago, it occurred to me that I could entertain, even though I admit the resemblance is somewhat meager, a key moment in the masterwork of writer Ralph Ellison, "Invisible Man." ......................Undoubtedly the basement does have its own problems with field of vision, perspective, and prejudice. These have surely not escaped me...............

We've work to do, colleagues .... especially in training our students to understand and to appreciate the ways in which our work and support matter... And it is precisely in the same ways in which we must claim for our own interests the financial cultures which are at work within our fields.

To remind it that we are listening, is the way in which we might energize a political presence that has considered the cultures of our work and placed them, with both considered and informed judgment, more strategically into the space where that work must happen.

Anonymous said...


Don't mention it, 4:24.

I read "The Nation," "The American Prospect," and "Blacks in Higher Education."

I doubt you read "City Journal" or "The New Criterion."

Admit it, you see my name and you have to read it.

You just can't help yourself.

Anonymous said...


meant 4:05

Anonymous said...


Polanski said

The job of a great university is to rigorously challenge the most cognitively prepared students with the best and the brightest, not the worst and the stupidest.

Anonymous said...

Nice to know Polanski that you are such a well-read racist. Surprised you did not cite de Gobineau.


Anonymous said...

"I don't know if it has been your intention, but it has been the result."

Don't blame Bill A., or KC, or anyone else for that matter, because if Duke has been brought down a peg, the blame lies squarely at the feet of men and women who eschewed good judgment, turned their backs on their students and are no mired in a morass of silliness of their own making.

Every university has its loopy-left professors -- Ward Churchill anyone? -- but what is interesting about this case is that the profs came out publicly against their own.

That the university shall suffer is a direct result of these actions, not the actions of bloggers, or shadow racists trying to keep good men and women down.

No, the words and the actions of Hollaway, Lubiano, Thugniggaintellectual and the rest have exposed the real social disaster here -- that using divisive and inflammatory language even when couched in the fine cloth of academia, against your students is a quick way to get the attention of those who pay to send their sons and daughters to a university.

If Duke is down a peg, look no further than Duke.

Art Deco said...

What makes the 88 unique is that they went after their own students--and that's not an approach with which most professors, even those of the far left, will go out of their way to associate themselves.

Is it not true that those who signed the original and clarifying advertisements outnumber those who have signed contrary statements by four or five to one? The faculty at Trinity College, & c. are not making much of an effort to disassociate themselves from such activity.

I should note, sir, that obsession on the part of faculties with the ethnic composition of student bodies and their extra-curricular hobbies and social life is indicative of a rejection of the sort of student the market hands them. It is reasonable to infer that institutional policies are what they are because faculties are embarrassed to be teaching the children of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie.

Most professors of my acquaintance are dismissive of their students.

Imagine all the man-hours which are poured into faculties' schemes to recruit manipulable students and students whose ascribed traits have cachet were devoted to serious institutional efforts to assemble a sensible core curriculum and graduation requirements or assess how well professors teach or how much students learn. Ain't gonna happen, anywhere. (So many political deals upset, and so much authentic self-criticism required).

Anonymous said...

Wow, so many comments, but I wanted to throw my hat into the ring...

You said in this post that, "It disappoints me that more signatories--people who, after all, have cho-sen a career of teaching students--do not feel as Petters does."

The problem, I think, is that most professors did not choose "a career of teaching students," and that many of them, in fact, don't particularly like students. For as many dedicated, talented *teachers* there are at universities (and I have known many), there are as many if not more who view their teaching obligations as an impediment to their research, advancing their political/social agendas, advancing their careers, or their lucrative grants and consulting contracts.

This is probably doubly true at an institution like Duke, a veritable factory for ibankers and consult-ants, where many former students will earn significantly more than faculty members their first year after graduation.

--A quiet observer with experience at 8 elite college/universities (including Duke), as a student, em-ployee, or community member.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone take detailed notes on what was said during the rehab tour meetign last night?

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Locomotive Breath, for that informative, and quite witty, post on last night's event at Duke.

The funniest guy, in my view, was the graphic artist, Pedro Lasch. The stilted, dead language he favors, drained of any spark or clarity, perfectly exemplifies the deceptive aspects of jargon. Jargon has its place, as a shortcut in certain technical exchanges or as a way to pack meaning into dense and difficult concepts (eg, in philosophy), but when employed in public remarks, it's a con, or, more than that, a shield and a rampart, designed to defend and conceal a mediocre mind.


Art Deco said...

I do see a lot of people -- not so much KC, but his disciples -- who are giddy with the prospect of taking Duke down a peg. It saddens me that some professors are so inept in the ways of the real world that they're just giving these people ammunition. (Or, to use a different analogy, they're taking too much rope.)

If Thomas Sowell and others who have made assessments of the effectiveness of contemporary tertiary education are correct, the utility of a degree from an elite institution like Duke is not found in the content of the curriculum and the efforts of instructors but rather in what admission and retention say about properties the applicant brings with him to the institution (and which would be made manifest at less selective institutions and which are made manifest throughout his work life). If they are correct, Duke's price tag is a cheat, and the institution needs to be not 'taken down' but ruined by market forces. If youngsters of intelligence equal to the norm among Duke students can attend SUNY Albany and perform just as well in the labor market and if youngsters of like intelligence can attend Grove City College and come away with a greater store of liberal learning than they would at Duke, an institution such as Duke has no purpose of interest to paying customers (it no longer being a Methodist institution in any consequential way). How many liberal arts faculties have not shed any architectonic mission other than the provision of signals to the labor market, the provision of salaried employment to the intelligentsia, and the provision of loci for the intelligentsia to replicate itself?

Art Deco said...

Prof. 8:37, I doubt the problem of the "Group of 88" is merely their insufficient mastery of the art of rhetoric.

M. Simon said...



AMac said...

Randall Parker has some thought-provoking posts about the "Higher Education Market" and market distortions at his web-log ParaPundit. His 'Education' category is here.

(Not too far off-topic; responsive to what "taking Duke down a peg" might mean. Parker is thinking about what students can gain from their educations. Ironically if unsurprisingly, the tenured hard-left faculty represented by the Group of 88 is very conservative on this matter--for reasons of control, and reasons of economic self-interest.)

Anonymous said...


You called me a racist. This interests me. Please provide bullet points.


Anonymous said...

To Amac 7:12 PM
re: Randall Parker

Thank you for the link.

Anonymous said...

It has come to my attention that the murderer in the Salt Lake City mall shootings today is Muslim. I'm curious how the MSM presents this fact. Don't find a description in this AP wire story, but his name gives it away.

Sulejem and the Religion of Peace

I suspect it will be much like the recent Duke rape that didn't mention the suspects race.

PC professors marching lock step and those that embrace them will kill us. We need to eliminate the PC race/gender/class warfare studies now!

My teenage daughter works in a mall. I think it may be time to get her a concealed right to carry permit.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Polanski. High-IQ institutions need not teach the "genius" of sub-Saharan Africa.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Anon 9:44pm
The murderer at the Utah Mall was a Muslim from Bosnia...Aunt is quoted as saying "we are not a violent family"...apparently he is.

GaryB said...

I went through school through PhD in the sciences and engineering -- it's a hard path because often what you think "ought" to be the way nature works "is" not right. There is rigor and and results that eventually speak for themselves for ill or good.

The G88 are irksome boobs but, shucks, part of me wants to go back to school and major in some socio-color-wymon thingy and write a long ponderous dissertation on "Social Class-Construct Dialects Pursuant to White-Black Power Narratives" or something like that. I'd hang out at the student U most daze, ponder various "struggles", take deep coffee breaks, and just protest "the power".

I don't know, seriously, it just seems like such fun. I'm a pretty good drummer too. Maybe when I retire ...