Monday, February 26, 2007

More from Stephen Miller

Today's Chronicle features the latest first-rate column from Stephen Miller, who today explores the wildly disparate reactions between the lacrosse case and the 2007 off-campus rape report.

The history:
[In 2006,] Protesters swarmed our campus and the city streets, they screamed vulgar condemnations, they tarred the whole team as complicit in a stonewall cover-up, they put up wanted posters, banged pots and pans. They cried out for justice and vengeance, demanded suspensions, expulsions and incarcerations. Worst of all, as they feverishly disregarded due process, they helped create an atmosphere of hysteria and madness which could only serve to embolden an unhinged district attorney who had the power to breathe life into the fantasies of the growing mob.

But when a black man was recently accused of raping a white Duke student at a party hosted by members of a black Duke fraternity, suddenly these great defenders of virtue fell silent.

There have been no protesters, no signs, no one chanting and screaming in front of the house where at least one member of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. live demanding they "come forward" with what they know. No one is demanding President Brodhead take action or that we cure a sexist and racist campus culture in response to these accusations. No professors are running ads that convey guilt or claiming, as they did before, to know the alleged crime was racially motivated. (To quote professor Mark Anthony Neal's repulsive statement: "regardless of what happened inside of 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., the young men were hoping to consume something that they felt that a black woman uniquely possessed.")
Read the entire piece here.


Anonymous said...

So far as Leftists, ultra-Liberals and race/gender fanatics are concerned, Blacks are victims. Period. Well, except for the parasites who feed on victimhood.

If something happens to a Black, or is purported to happen (current Duke lax case), there is no question that the accuser is innocent and a victim of [your preferred establishment terms here].

If a Black is accused of a crime, their behavior is the fault of [your preferred establishment terms here].

Under no circumstances is the Black individual involved personally responsible, because victims are absolved of all such responsibility - else they could not be lifelong victims. And if designated victims were to accept personal responsibility for their lives, what would all the victim advocates and race activists do for a living? And where would the Democratic Party turn for victim bloc votes?

It's all simple, really, and not subject to change or rational debate. Too many people have too much invested in the status quo.

Augustinian said...

Are you ever going to write a book on the whole story? If you are, I have suggestion for the title. You should call it "whether they did it or not".

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see the response to Miller's piece. I imagine the most interesting of them may not be accessible.

Anonymous said...

Miller simply is good. I wish I had enjoyed that kind of insight when I was his age. There is no doubt that this young man writes with more maturity and thoughtfulness than many of the tenured mob of the professoriate at Duke.

Perhaps, one of the campus cultural initiatives might be to help students be able to construct complete sentences. Mr. Miller is exempt, since he already knows how to use words correctly!

Anonymous said...

"Under no circumstances is the Black individual involved personally responsible, because victims are absolved of all such responsibility - else they could not be lifelong victims"

I don't think "victims" and their defenders even know how insulting they are to blacks who DON'T commit crimes, or get ahead because of their skin color. It must be very embarassing to those who don't embrace their "victimhood."

Anonymous said...

I am hoping that the powers to be in all catagories are wiser now. The pot bangers - exposing their pictures and names may have been enough for them, Where is Sam? Bet his pot banging days are over. They are no longer annonymous. I don't want anyone else to be subjected to what the team went through last spring. Maybe we are learning about a rush to judgement.

GS said...

Expect the reaction of the group of 88 and others in this latest rape be used in a lawsuit to show bias.

I guess a white student, not in the sex industry, is not worth the protest marches or statements?

What about the illegal drugs found outside the house? Underage drinking is a problem at the lax house, but underage drinking and drugs (3 different ones found dumped outside when the police arrived) are not an issue at the Black PHAT house?

Anonymous said...

As an aside, the CCI proposal for a required "diversity" course is essentially in place today. All freshmen are required to take a course in the University Writing Program. My (admittedly, limited) experience is that these courses are, in large part, directed toward the same ends.

Further, the core curricula requirements are very diverse academically and it is the case that most undergraduates study different cultures, languages, periods, disciplines, etc. And, yes, the campus is quite diverse as is.

In particular, nearly all living arrangements for freshmen are set out by the school. If students choose living arrangements after first year that differ from these initial assignments, what of it?
After all, it is hard to imagine (at least for me) being able to house every white, straight, male student with another student who is sufficiently diverse, unless someone is going to start mandating co-ed roommate assignments.

All sorts of programming, events, support systems, and the like are in place (how many students do you suppose could be described as fans of "Common"?) for the express purpose of encouraging "diversity".

Further, there is freedom, opportunity, and a lack of responsibility and accountability that is rare in life. Duke has a healthy mix of all of this. If anything, one could make the case that things are already distorted, but the extent to which participation is required is a critical point. It is one thing to be in an environment permeated with diversity -- quite another to lose the freedom to choose not to be graded for regurgitating someone else's naked propaganda.

It really is hard to see what more could reasonably be asked. The hypocrisy is truly monumental.

It will be really interesting to see if the full report makes any substantive arguments or helps to show how there is such a huge problem. It will be interesting to see what becomes of the report and what, if any, changes happen in how people think and in decisions that are made.

Unknown said...

Well put - should be mandatory reading on dook's campus. Broadhead should have to read this piece daily.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that Mr. Miller decided to confront the uncomfortable fact that interracial rape is overwhelmingly non-white on white, rather than the other way around. That is one of the huge failures of the media on this one. When this story broke, the racial motivation of the alleged sexual assault was part of the coverage, but nowhere did the news media point out that, statistically speaking, non-Hispanic white on black rape is exceedingly rare. Facts are facts. That they may make people uncomfortable is irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

It's all about victimization with the left. What a sad time we live in.

Anonymous said...

very well written. Here is the money quote:

"The lacrosse allegations provided a fantastic opportunity to advance a social agenda and to keep the distance between the paranoid delusions of widespread racism upon which so many of the careers and the lives of the activists have been built ...."

Anonymous said...

"But the racial left is quite right about one thing-there is racial disharmony in our society. And if they want to know the cause, they need look no further than the mirror."


Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

I would have given my right arm to write this well when I was a university senior.

Anonymous said...

Once again, the gang is ignoring the fact that white on black rape is almost nonexsistent per DOJ.

Anonymous said...

p. rich, your post is insane.

I'm a democrat and a pretty liberal guy. I don't think blacks are victims -- unless the situation dictates.

In this case, it looks like the white men accused of a crime are the real victims.

Everyone can see that, except illogical zealots like the Group of 88 (or they probably do see it, but are too embarassed/vested to admit they were wrong, without all the caveats).

I hate to bring it up again, but your post about how all liberals view blacks this way is the SAME THING as me saying that all Republicans are the most hideous type of hypocrites, like Ted Haggard.

Both are unfair generalizations. They are both ridiculous, too. That means not only are they OVERgeneralizations, to make those broad statements in and of itself is unfair.

It doesn't make sense. Fine, you want to claim that all liberals look at race that way, give us some quotes, other than the Group of 88.

Anonymous said...

p. rich:

Are you saying that black people are too stupid to realize if they were being taken advantage of by the Democratic party?

Your post seems to insinuate that they are used for votes and never get anything back for their votes. That would make them stupid.

I think that -- just like Republicans can win elections by putting ballot initiatives on useless issues like gay marriage, which pleases religious zealots -- Democrats can win for constituencies that find the Democratic ticket much more valuable to them.

That is the democratic process in America. Do you think religious Republicans are too stupid to realize that the gay marriage amendments are only put to paper as referendums right before elections for the reelection of a highly ineffective President?

Anonymous said...

Sadly, Miller won't be scouted by MSM for one very clear reason: he writes clearly and logically, eschewing the usual PC shorthand and failing to arrive at the "appropriate conclusions." He writes like NYT newsmen USED TO write when that paper was the leader. The only publications Miller stands any chance with would be National Review and The Washington Times. How I miss the days when both sides had articulate writers and one was presented with actual arguments instead of leftist tantrums.

Unknown said...

What a sad commentary in racism in America.

Anonymous said...

So Mr. Neal believes that the LAX players wanted something that only black women possess? I guess that would explain why the LAX players requested a white woman and a hispanic woman when they booked the strippers for the party. Oops, that wouldn't make much sense, would it Mr. Neal? Like so much else you say, it's demonstrably false.

Anonymous said...

Wow! What a well written piece.
It nails it.

Anonymous said...

4:43 I understood the point to be in reference to the Gang of 88 and those who abet them. Those are the ones who clearly benefit from race baiting and secure their academic positions in creating crisis where none exist.

His quote was qualified by saying "fanatics", "ultra", "Leftists". I didn't notice him saying liberals and looping everyone else into his narrower qualifiers.

P.Rich. said:
"So far as Leftists, ultra-Liberals and race/gender fanatics are concerned, Blacks are victims. Period. Well, except for the parasites who feed on victimhood."

As for others who have created cottage industries with negative results, I'd say these two guys jump to the front of the line. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made comfortable livings, have they not? What about the NC NAACP?

All have the national media stage as well as speaking slots during national political conventions.

If you get a chance read,” Hating Whitey" by an ex-member of the Black Panthers, who by the way was shouted down by Duke AAAs faculty, and "Shakedown; Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson."

I tend to lose you when you bring up Haggard for comparative purposes. That man has no standing in the political arena and a very small voice before his scandal. I'd never heard of him until you mentioned him several days ago.

In this case, the far left, including the AAAs, the Gang of 88, the pot bangers, and some of the media are abetting an already deplorable situation. They qualify under the P. Rich qualifiers above. We've not seen the same from any others, liberal, centrist, or on the right.

Anonymous said...

Do you people always have to turn this into liberal v. conservative?

Anonymous said...

Stephen Miller has an excellent future as a writer if he is given a chance. I fear, however, that the PC-soaked inhabitants in the field of journalism will not welcome someone who is so articulate in presenting a view that doesn't fit their agenda. Keep on keeping on, Stephen! You speak for us.

Anonymous said...

An outstanding effort Mr. Miller; well done!

"...Professors and student activists directed their screams and cries toward bullying Duke into ever more institutional backing for their pet agendas, the first product of which was the backward Campus Culture Initiative..." caught me eye.

Whose was the radical leftist, maybe Gang of 88, who characterized, was it the lack of DNA, as a step back, or backward step? I think Mr. Miller binding that comment to the CCI is right on point regarding which is a true backward step.

Anonymous said...

Plain English/

I came across this today and immediately thought of Ms. Lubiano, Mr. Baker, et al. Maybe they would consider incorporating this as a remedial primer for the faculty?

"Plain English - fighting for crystal clear English since 1979."

Brilliant! Smashing!

Anonymous said...

I said it before and I'll say it again, this case is about race. It was not about Nifong, it was not about gender and no, it wasn't even about class.

I have become completely discouraged that people like miller continue to try to make logical arguments in response to what we've seen from the leftist. stop. its not worth the breath (or keystrokes). you're on the right track when you say they are pushing a pet agenda. you're on the wrong track when you compare the response to the most recent accuasations to those of a year ago.

this all reminds me of the Leninist approach. All is justified in the name of saving the revolution. And so all is justified in equalizing the races. The means are not as important as the end of racial equality. If you want to understand this social disaster, read about VI Lenin.


Anonymous said...

Why call these absurd race-gender-class pimps leftists, and thereby insult leftists? Well, it's probably shorthand -- or rather a reaction to the shorthand used by the agendists. After all, when the 88 and people like Ms. Marcotte want to slag all who oppose them, they often refer to them as "right-wingers" (although admittedly, Marcotte seems more and more to be identifying her special hated ones as "libertarians").

Right winger, it turns out, is a very elastic term. Thus KC Johnson, Obama supporter, a naïf surprised to discover the agenda of the New York Times, became a right-winger. Because he dares criticize Duke faculty, Johnson is also an anti-intellectual.

Admittedly "right", "left" and "intellectual" mean nothing to such people. In fact, words lose all meaning when facts are disposable, and truth can be so easily engineered. Thus white students who would vote Nifong out are "secret racists"; whoever disbelieves a female accuser becomes a "rape-lover"; any black who dares disbelieve is a "race-traitor"; a drinking party is "perverted", and so on.

What can one call these people instead of leftists, even if they self-identify as such? Liars, I suppose. Amazing, utterly unjust liars, who seem to lack even a smidgeon of basic decency.

Anonymous said...

Accuser supposedly grilled!

Anonymous said...


Thats what I'm saying!!! Who cares what END of the spectrum these people lie on? Yes, I do cringe thinking they probably vote for the same people... but I vote based on which candidate represents MY views more than the other -- they are usually Democrats -- and I really kind of hate campus liberalism myself.

Campus liberalism is much different than being a normal, American liberal. I mean, Democrats won the election this time around -- and they swept. Does that mean that the majority of America is like the G88, or just that this time around, liberals seemed to be the more appealing candidates -- THIS TIME around.

I take the latter. If the candidates running ran on a G88 platform, they'd have been destroyed. They are Democrats just like Neo-Nazis are probably Republicans of the Libertarian variety. Yes, Republicans are associated with racism more than Democrats... but I'd be ridiculous to use a fringe to represent the majority.

Finally, p. rich's language did NOT segregate "leftists" from the majority. On the other hand, the way he wrote it, "leftists" seems to represent left-leaning people, distinguished in his own post by "race/gender fanatics", who in his post -- like "leftists" -- consider blacks to be "victims".

I don't think it can be read any other way. He himself distinguished "leftists" from "ultra-liberals" and "race/gender fanatics", and lumped them all together with regards to this case.

And please, KC and everyone else... yes, I've engaged in a lot of these arguments, but please understand that as a liberal Democrat posting here, I take a lot of unfair garbage... and the fights over politics are nothing more than my defending myself, which I shouldn't have to do when I come on this site to help these boys!

Anonymous said... Duke LAX celebrated for wrong reasons

[there is] no reason to celebrate the [LAX]team...While the cancellation of the season may have been premature, plenty came to light when they left the field. Too much to be ignored.

The ad hoc committee...found that lacrosse players were involved in 36 separate disciplinary incidents in the last three academic years, including destruction of property on campus, public urination and numerous alcohol-related incidents.

... Have people forgotten about the claim by Kim Roberts, one of the dancers hired that evening, that the players hurled racial slurs at her? Or the report in the Raleigh News and Observer that one partygoer told one of the dancers to "thank your grandpa for my cotton shirt," an obvious slavery reference?

...the overall body of misbehavior of this team wasn't the reflection of a few people. That track record was built by several players over a span of years -- too many sins over too much time to be written off as anything isolated.

That made Saturday's outpouring public support part of a disturbing trend.

It's highly possible that Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong overzealously pursued allegations that lacrosse players sexually assaulted an exotic dancer.

But Nifong's actions don't make the lacrosse players heroes, nor do they make the program a collection of martyrs. At best, they are a group of young men with a documented penchant for bad behavior.

...Even if the accusations against Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans are false, so many transgressions have been confirmed, while others have not been denied. Those mistakes should not be praised.

Neither should this team.

Editor's note: Bomani Jones lives in Durham, N.C., attended the University of North Carolina from 2003-05 and worked as a teaching assistant in a summer program at Duke University in 2005 and 2006.

Anonymous said...

To 4:49:

Yes, yes, and yes.

Anonymous said...

Although it is true that this is event is not necessarily about Republican vs. Democrat, and it is also certainly true that "liberal" and "Democrat" are not interchangable terms, I also find it far from genuous--as one of my colleagues used to say--for people to start trying to redefine liberalism in the way that Moslems try to convince us that jihad is really some kind of inner struggle. Frankly, as a Victorianist, I wish more people would read and quote John Stuart Mill, but the problem is last time I saw anyone do that in public was a university professor, I believe from Duke, quoting him to prove that Republicans are too stupid to succeed in academia--hence the lack of them in humanities faculties.

The fact is that on college campuses, everything is political, as I'm sure the Gang of 88 has taught many times in their various classes. Not who-did-you-vote-for-for-President political--although that's in there too--but political in terms of how you are defined as a human being. And in that sense, campus culture--in the Humanities, at least--is dominated by liberals, and the Duke lacrosse case is simply a great many of our chickens come home to roost. Campus liberals have tolerated and encouraged flawed psychological studies that "prove" conservatism is a mental illness; have tolerated and encouraged the ostracism of Israeli scholars from international conferences; have tolerated and encouraged professionally sanctioning scientists who don't support theories of manmade global warming; have tolerated and encouraged forcing students to pay for political causes they do not support, as long as those causes are liberal; have tolerated and supported biased class assignments and the punishment of students who don't conform; have tolerated and encouraged the most draconian speech codes; have banned conservative student organizations from campuses, and I could go on and on. (By the way, consider this an unabashed plug for the group, FIRE).

Anyway, Stephen Miller spoke of "Leftists, ultra-Liberals, and race/gender fanatics," and he is exactly right. Those groups are responsible for what is happening to these lacrosse players, and their behavior in this case is, I'm afraid, "political."

Anonymous said...

"...the young men were hoping to consume something that they felt that a black woman uniquely possessed."

Professor Neal;
Definition of Racism: "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."

Anonymous said...

10:25 Campus liberalism:

It's not liberal, as it is about control - language, thoughts, and actions.

It's not progressive, as they do not advance society.

It's not intellectual, as they do not support their positions with facts, rather lies and fuzzy language.

It's not tolerant, as they stack-rank their hate and will even eat their own. They have no big tent and they do not tolerate differing views.

It's not inexpensive at $46,000 per year, but it is cheap since the shelf-life typically lasts until one leaves the room, if it is not rejected outright immediately.

It's does not lift the human condition or spirit, as most involved appear to be bitter and angry. Is there a happy leftist in the house?

It refuses to take accountability for action/inaction, as it is all collective in nature; the individual is no different than a rock.

It is not just, since the end justifies the means, which is why we all ended up on this blog.

As such it (they) is evil. All ideas are presented and expected to have equal standing; the reality is that some ideas are really, really bad.

Anonymous said...

"I’m not sure which option is more frightening: that a tenured Duke professor would intentionally mislead a reporter; or that a tenured Duke professor would make a statement that appears to have no basis in reality."

How about four tenured Duke professors that have done both?