Friday, February 23, 2007

No Surprises from the CCI

In perhaps the least surprising development at Duke of the past year, the Campus Culture Initiative, whose leadership was dominated by extremist critics of the lacrosse team, has produced a report recommending the agenda of . . . extremist critics of the lacrosse team. (The Chronicle obtained a copy.)

There never, really, was any doubt about what the CCI would produce, with Peter Wood and Group of 88 members Karla Holloway and Anne Allison chairing or co-chairing three of its four subgroups. As a Chronicle editorial noted a few weeks back, “The composition of the CCI’s steering committee has hurt its credibility . . . Stacking the CCI with critics of ‘white male privilege’ suggests that the initiative was created to pacify countercultural professors, rather than to shape a new and improved campus culture.”

The recommendations include:

1) A mandatory “diversity” course for all Duke students. This proposal could be called the “Group of 88 Enrollment Initiative,” since Group members disproportionately teach such classes.

2) Residential changes to prevent “the practice of assigning housing to selective living groups and social/affinity/interest groups.”

3) Reducing time athletes can spend on travel and practice—a proposal, as one Chronicle commenter observed, effectively demands the withdrawal of Duke from the ACC. The report does not appear to have demanded a reduction of time that non-athletes are allowed to spend on extracurricular activities.

4) Raising the “low end of the admissions standards” to ensure a better-qualified student body—a fine idea in theory, but one that almost certainly seems to be hypocritical, since advocates of “diversity” in admissions almost always advocate broadening the range of admissions standards.

One of the few CCI members not tainted by connection to the school’s response to the lacrosse case was Elliott Wolf, president of Duke Student Government and a member of the CCI committee. His comment? “I think the CCI has come to a premature conclusion on the matter. I also think that anything that is implemented in an academic setting has to be backed with legitimate arguments and data and different alternatives, and that just hasn’t been done.”

As Wahneema Lubiano has written, the crusade will continue “regardless of the ‘truth’” in the lacrosse incident. Will Duke students and—especially—alumni sit idly by?


Anonymous said...

Can anyone explain what this means:

"2) Residential changes to prevent “the practice of assigning housing to selective living groups and social/affinity/interest groups.”

My college years are well behind me, in "The Before Time". You know, "Pre-PC". I always lived off campus, so I'm really confused. Does this imply that Duke wants to dictate more directly who students live with?

Anonymous said...

nThis using of the Duke Hoax to advance the Group of 88's agenda via proposals for mandatory changes reminds me of a recent incident in my town in New Hampshire.

The local state college displayed a provocative wire-mesh sculpture about 15 feet high portraying a woman being hung. The theme was violence against women. The sculpture was removed the very next day under the guise of improper signage describing the art work.

A "controversy" ensued with cries of insensitivity, censorship etc. A conference on the issue was instantly set, proposals for more women-created architecture, more sensitivity training- the usual feminist agenda. The truth was that the statue was purposely created and then displayed to provide a pretext to advance the proposals.

In relation to the Duke Hoax, obviously the Group of 88 didn't create the initial story - the accuser did. But ever since, as KC has so brilliantly illuminated, The 88 have used it as a vehicle for their political advancement along with their corresponding agenda. A vehicle, I may add, that's wheels have falling off making this like those slow-speed chases seen on reality shows like COPS.

Anonymous said...

Would the residential changes preclude affinity groups like the black student housing, vegatarians, gays, etc? I don't know specifically about Duke but I know many colleges have affinity groups such as listed above.


Anonymous said...

As you stated, the recommendations by CCI were predictable. I hope that Duke parents, students, and alumni bombard the school with objections. The reason my daughter's college decision came down to Duke and Stanford was the unique ability of these schools to combine successful athletic and academic programs. The ability to have success in both arenas is a quality that separates Duke from many other elite schools.
The idea of limiting the athletic teams' travel time is laughable. As a member of the ACC, the teams have an obligation to the conference. A team can't just play the games that are convenient. It is quite obvious these professors realize this. Their true objective is to rid the campus of the "hooligan" athletes.

Anonymous said...

"Selective living groups" are groups of students who have a housing section devoted to them and who evaluate applicants like a "rush" in fraternities without the greek system. They take in as many rising sophomores as they have available beds in their housing section. They have oddball names, like "Maxwell House" and "Wayne Manor". Some of them may be organized around an affinity for something, like art.

Anonymous said...

The scariest proposal is the idea of a required course emphasizing race, social and gender etc., etc. differences in American society.

What ever happened to "created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"?


Anonymous said...

Residential changes to prevent “the practice of assigning housing to selective living groups and social/affinity/interest groups.

Dean Sue Wasiolek has been waging a 20 year campaign to destroy the frats. First, most of their housing was banished to remote corners of the campus. This new proposal is meant to be the final stake through the heart (you should pardon the expression) of the Greek system by getting rid of frat houses altogether.

She apparently won't be satisfied until the place is a monastery. I had occasion to be on campus one Friday night recently and the main quad was DEAD. Formerly there would have been students all over the place. But they would have been socializing and drinking beer. Well, we can't have that can we? Now they have their parties in Trinity Park and look where that got us.

BTW, just so you know where I'm coming from, I never joined a frat because I thought they were kind of dumb but I didn't begrudge them their fun, unlike SOME prudes. I happened to like the life and activity they brought to the main quad.

They will find some way to NOT mess with other more PC groups.

For some reason that no one knows, Duke has never had sorority houses.

OT: When I was touring colleges with my son we were told at one university in South Carolina that there are no sorority houses in the entire state because under SC law, any group of more than 6(?) unrelated women living together under the same roof is considered a brothel.

Anonymous said...

As the parent of a 2006 graduate, Item #2 deserves consideration. If adopted, it could bring an end to self-segregation of minorities in living arrangements (although the Central Campus apartment ghetto situation would also have to be addressed as part of the new Central Campus plan).

I think that ending the living arrangements would have less impact on Greek life than some people think. The sororities, which are not permitted to have selective living arrangements, are doing just fine.

Chicago said...

I would feel much better if they just came out and said, "Here is our agenda, here is what we want."

If they did that, at least we could conclude they are being honest with recommendations. Instead, we have this linguistic, academic fluff that they refuse to defend as a reason for why they act the way they do. I am telling you, this relatively small group of extreme liberals could take Duke right off the map if someone with authority at Duke does not stand up to them. Brodhead sure as hell is not going to do that so it needs to be someone else.

Anonymous said...

Residential housing changes may be worth talking about. It will be interesting to see what problems with the current system the CCI hopes to solve. Exclusion of certain types of students, self-segregation?

Hasn't there been talk about a residential college system? See this wiki article:
Residential Colleges

Harvard, Yale and Rice have all the on-campus undergraduate housing organized in residential colleges. Yale puts most of the entire freshman class together on the "Old Campus" Princeton is migrating to such a system but the tradition of the Eating Clubs cuts against it. I thought Duke was thinking about it on the Yale model, keeping the freshman on East Campus.

For sure, establishment of residential colleges, with their own dining facilities, intramural sports teams and social (i.e. party) budgets, would stress the current Greek system. For some history of the fall and resurrection of fraternities and sororities at Yale see this:
Yale Frats
"It was in part a dissatisfaction with the fraternity system that led Edward Harkness (Class of 1897) to fund the construction of the first residential colleges in the early 1930s. While Harkness himself had been a member of Psi Upsilon and Wolf's Head, he had been bothered by the fate of other "average" students who were not among the chosen. In Harkness's time, junior fraternities and senior societies ruled extracurricular Yale, as they had for much of the 19th century."

Gayle Miller said...

Okay, I have to weigh in on this absolutely unfathomable ignorance, deceit and stupidity by these so-called college professors (instructors).

All of their posturing and preening and keening is based on an erroneous (and illegal) assumption that says the 3 indicted lacrosse players are GUILTY before they have even been tried and in the face of the mounting evidence that their accuser is deranged, impaired or just plain untruthful - or all of the preceding. If your entire argument is based on FALSE premises, it is specious at best and fraudulent at worst.

The Group of 88 aver that EVEN IF THE ACCUSER IS LYING AND THE LACROSSE PLAYERS ARE INNOCENT (which it is more and more evident they are), still "something must be done"! WHY? Because these ignorant babbling fools say so? Whatever happened to majority rule? Didn't that used to be one of our societal bedrocks?

As to the residential changes, it would seem to me that off campus housing is out of their control or ken (it certainly ought to be) and if they are truly seeking to control who lives with whom in that area, they will find themselves skiing down Bandini mountain in short order.

Given the anti-anyone-who has worked hard and saved their money attitude of these 88 peabrains, what they are targeting is fraternity and sorority houses (all of which are generally privately owned by the various Greek organizations and good luck with trying to control THAT) and dorms where for reasons of the special needs of the athletes, only athletes reside or residential units reserved for married students or graduate students. When I was in graduate school, I sure as heck had no desire to live in an undergrad dorm with all the turmoil and noise that accompanied that - nor should anyone be forced to live in a living situation that is offensive to them.

This bunch of miniscule intellect, false grievance nursing would-be little tin gods are doing more to reduce enrollment (and income) and credibility for Duke than any so-called scandal involving the lacrosse team could have done even if the accusations had not been false as they certainly have appeared to be for many months.

Anonymous said...

I am completely in favor of significantly raising the "low end of admissions standards" ... FOR PROFESSORS!

None of this garbage is going to happen! If there is a mandatory "diversity" class at Duke, I will never give another cent for the rest of my life. These are not hate group members that we are attempting to rehabilitate. These are some of the brightest, most driven, most honest and most true young people country.

I notice that recommendation 2 makes no mention of racially selective living groups, which only exist in "all black" form on Duke's campus.

In response to "chicago" above, deception is the only currency this group has. They must package their persecution carefully in unnecessary programs that keep them close to the action. Otherwise, they cannot thrive within a normal academic environment, and they become completely unnecessary.

Unknown said...

I agree with 3:08 that even a group with the composition of the CCI may be capable of emitting one or two worthwhile proposals, though the idea of a mandatory diversity course is transparently self-serving.

Anonymous said...

"Duke must do better in learning how to engage difference constructively."

Notice how it's "Duke" that must learn to engage differences, as if a university is a single, homogeneous body that thinks and moves as one.

Was it constructive when 88 professors signed a statement that condemned three falsely accused students?

Was it constructive when pot bangers took to the streets calling for castration, the firing of coach Pressler and the demand that the "blue wall of silence" should lead to the immediate expulsion of the entire team?

"Mandatory re-education" is the term used in Michigan State's speech code, that's what Lubiano and her ilk want, mandatory re-education, but not for everyone, just the white kids.

Because we're all aware that all the white kids who attend Duke are from the wealthiest of families and therefore are "perfect offenders."

Just what and who they are offending remains a mystery, however, unless of course, the only ones offended are the professors whose jobs rely upon villifying wealth, capitalism, athletics and frats.

There is no surprise here, the Gang O'88 made it quite clear in their responses to criticism surrounding their initial and ill-advised "listening statement," that they weren't targeting the lacrosse team, heavens no, they were just aghast that students attend parties where alcohol is served.

Anonymous said...

Relax. If there is a new CCI requirement, rest assured that the creative minds in the Economics Department will see fit to create a course on "The Economics of Diversity". Topics might include measures of diversity, black/white income differentials, the economics of immigration, gender and earnings, cost-benefit analysis of social policy legislation, college financial aid and cross-subsidization, etc. There might be enrollment numbers in the range 500-800 annually.

Anonymous said...

the freshman on East Campus

That's a fairly recent development. Formerly, "House P" was on main quad west and was a frosh only house. It was a bit of an honor to live there even though the upperclassmen rubbed it in by chanting "House P sucks!" They used to all go to basketball games together wearing Duke horny hats which were blue beanies with little horns sewn on the front.

Other frosh were integrated amongst upperclassmen. I personally benefited termendously from the associations I formed with the upperclassmen during that first year.

Isolating the frosh on East campus was the administration's social engineering (as an engineer I really hate that term) attempt to break the cultural cycle by isolating the frosh from the upperclassmen. That way they could be enculturated by the programs run by the administration. Kinda' like the Communist Chinese took the kids away from the parents to education camps.

I think it's pretty clear that it's the mission of Brodhead (Yale) and Keohane (Wellesley FGS) before him, to remake Duke in the image of the Ivy league schools. The recent CCI just confirms that.

Anonymous said...

In large part this is an attack on athletics. As to practice time limitations...the NCAA has limited practice times for years now. Student-athletes, in fact, spend less time on the practice field than I did in the '80s. The thinly veiled suggestion of lowering the numbers of students allowed addmittance "low end of admissions standards" is simply a way to lower the numbers of quality athletes who fail to meet the profile of the average student. It will also have an adverse effect on the African-American population at Duke as well. Doubtful that is an outcome the CCI would hope for.

Gary Packwood said...

Alumni can eventually help with recommendation # 2

"2) Residential changes to prevent “the practice of assigning housing to selective living groups and social/affinity/interest groups.”

When most of us were in college, the office of student affairs was the dean and several housing 'ladies' and all types of clerical people.

Just think of business organizations before the 'professional' Human Resources people.

Now days the office of student affairs at Duke is a $10 Million a year operation with many employees with advanced degrees in Leadership Studies or Student Personnel or Higher Education Administration. These people are looking to make a name for themselves and move on into executive positions within a college or university.

The creation of selective living groups gives many of these new student affairs people something to do and offers the perfect opportunity for them to create student constituencies for themselves.

The short solution is to know that all of this has been studied before...many times.

Alumni should demand that 'best practices' studies of student living arrangements be place on the table and evaluated with particular emphasis on what is good for Duke and what the competitors is doing that ... works well.

Anytime a group is suggesting Recommendation # 2 you can be certain that someone is going to try and change the rules so that a privately owned apartment complex and be constructed near the campus. A very expensive privately owned apartment complex.

Such apartment complexes become ...home for groups... just as they do in our own communities.

These apartment buildings become almost a second university environment for faculty and staff who have their own agendas.

The rule that should be passed is that Duke courses can not be taught in private apartment facilities and faculty and staff can not live in such facilities.

Somewhere in Durham there are people or agents who are either buying the property or have bought the property and are ready to build...those apartment complexes.

Duke alumni can be helpful with this issue thought the study of student living arrangement in your own communities.

The Random Rambler said...

As much as a select group of faculty members hate athletics, it makes me wonder when these people will realize athletic success=more publicity=more and better students=more money=some of these people being hired?

I dont condone athletics before academics. However, you are kidding yourself if you do not think Duke athletics is the "get your foot in the door" with admissions. A lot of people inquire further with Duke because of athletic success.

I wonder why hits on the Gonzaga web site went up after reaching the Elite 8?

I wonder why George Mason reported requests for admissions and Alumni giving were way up after the basketball team made the final four?

I wonder why the men's basketball team winning under K is when Duke started in earnest transforming from a regionally based school to having more of a prescence on the national scene?

What about the kids who sit and play WOW all day? What about the kids who are antisocial and stick their noses in books all day?

I wonder what the group would have said to me when I was taking extra hours in college and working 350+ hours in 4 and a half months for the SID office at my school because our SID left and undergraduate students had to run the office? Sleep, eat, classes, eat, work, repeat for 4 1/2 months.

james conrad said...

the duke case has been transformed into a national shame, one wonders when or if adults will finally wander on the scene to stop it

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer / retired professor: Imagine if your son or daugter was required to take a class on diversity from Professor Curtis who allegedly engaged in grade retaliation against LAX players?

Anonymous said...

LB said, "Isolating the frosh on East campus was the administration's social engineering ... attempt to break the cultural cycle by isolating the frosh from the upperclassmen. That way they could be enculturated by the programs run by the administration. "

A rare instance where I disagree with LB. My experience at Yale 35 years ago and the experience of my son and others of his friends I talk to was that putting all the freshmen together enhanced their cohesiveness and identity as a class. Enculturation and indoctrination was not a part of that at all. Communication to a group as large as a college class is not enhanced by location these days anyway, not with email being the primary mode of student/administration interactions.

Back when I was college surveying for both my kids, some people I discussed Duke with liked the all freshman campus concept, some did not.

Anonymous said...

Diversity lesson #1 for all Duke students:
Never allow yourself to be alone in an elevator, an office, a parking garage, a bus stop, a class room...with any of the 88.

Anonymous said...

Just a few questions for the CCI?

1) A mandatory “diversity” course for all Duke students.

Will students who are not white be required to take a class to learn about white culture? Will White Studies and Mens Studies be added as majors available?

2) Residential changes to prevent “the practice of assigning housing to selective living groups and social/affinity/interest groups.”

Will all Greek societies be eliminated? Will students who just like each other be allowed to live together? Will students (whose parents pay for the housing) have input into where and with whom they live? What will be process of working out differences because students who live together without sharing common friends/intrests/activities tend to not get along? If you are assigned a living arrangement you find you disagree with, can you appeal the decision? For example, if you are a religious woman who believes that women should not have premarital sex and you are assigned to live the student who helps with the hook-up course, can you request a new roommate based on moral reasons or will you be required to take more diversity training?

3) Reducing time athletes can spend on travel and practice.

Will students who play club sports be limited to the time they are "allowed" to devote to training? Will students who just like to run/lift/workout be limited? Will students who travel for pleasure or to visit family or friends be limited in the amount of their travel? Will Duke institute a curfew for all students? Will there be a light-out policy? Will students be limited to the amount of time they can spend in labs or in the library? Will the debate team/chorus be limited to a specified amount of travel and practice? Will students who play musical instruments be limited to the amount of time they practice?

4) Raising the “low end of the admissions standards” to ensure a better-qualified student body.

Did the Admissions Office have input to this? Will a hard line be drawn for admission based on scores? According to the Admissions information on the web:

In assessing individual applications, the Admissions Committee considers a variety of factors, both academic and personal, for each candidate. Certainly, academic ability and enthusiasm for the intellectual challenges presented by Duke's curriculum are among the first factors we consider. Beyond that, however, the Admissions Committee looks for students who will bring a variety of experiences and opinions to campus, who will be energized by ideas, and who will contribute to and benefit from the active co-curricular life here.

Because there is no formula for admission to Duke, it is impossible to predict a candidate's chances of admission by looking at the academic record and test scores alone.

Thus, this recommendation seems to contradict the current process.

Looking forward to some answers.

Anonymous said...

There are about 600 student athletes at Duke which would be considered a minority. Maybe there should be a required coarse for all incoming students to take that would bridge the gap between athletes and non-athletes. Or maybe it should be covered under the term "diverstiy".

Anonymous said...

“Reducing time athletes can spend on travel and practice—a proposal, as one Chronicle commenter observed, effectively demands the withdrawal of Duke from the ACC. The report does not appear to have demanded a reduction of time that non-athletes are allowed to spend on extracurricular activities.”

I wonder if the Group of 88 have really thought this one out. From a pure economic standpoint Duke Basketball brings in lots of money. The alumi are more likely to give when the basketball team is doing well. Additionally there is the revenue from ticket sales and Television.

Perhaps without these types of revenues Duke would have to drop some of its less viable departments ie Women Sutudies and African American studies.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

KC - You ask "Will Duke students and—especially—alumni sit idly by?"

They don't have any choice. If Brodhead and the Board of Trustees choose to sit 'idly by' over something far worse than the stupid CCI report - i.e., Duke professors demanding castration of innocent students, sexually assaulting a grad student in NY, deliberately flunking students they don't like, etc., and the profs are neither fired, sanctioned, nor even reprimanded, then it's clear the students and alumni are powerless.

The only choice students and alumni have at this moment is to leave and never return. It's a stinking lousy choice - but it appears to be the only one Brodhead and the Board of Trustees have given them.

Anonymous said...

Oh Please, why Duke keeps these racist morons around is beyond me. These people WANTED the accusations against the LAX players to be true, come on, who would want that to happen to anyone, black, white or any other color for that matter. These people have ZERO credibility in my book, and If I were an athlete at Duke, why in god's name would I want to take one of their classes, how fun to be in class where your professor openly dislikes you and would turn on you faster than a cornered rattlesnake...


Anonymous said...

Enculturation and indoctrination was not a part of that at all.

Well all the arguments you are making were given as justification at Duke too. But the larger conversation (which also involved banishing the frats) was that the admin was trying to prevent the frosh from picking up bad habits or feeling social pressure from upperclassmen.

In December 1994, the Board approved the plan unanimously, and with it authorized planning to move all first year students to East Campus by the fall semester, 1995, with the establishment of a "first-year program". (Exceptions were made for two varsity teams in that first year; however, all first year students now live on East Campus.) Included in this comprehensive plan were strategies to enhance and improve housing assignments, support systems, and programming; dining; faculty student interaction (Faculty-in-Residence, Faculty Associates, Pre-Major advising; courses taught in residence halls); facilities enhancements (auditoriums and lecture halls, classrooms, recreation facilities); support enhancements (libraries, technology, public safety; and communication); and assessment.(37) The goals were ambitious: to reduce the dangerous and debilitating behaviors associated with alcohol use and abuse; to create focused attention on orientation and the first-year experience; to create more equitable options and choices for those students opting not to join selective groups; to build a more inclusive community; and to honor valuable old traditions while providing opportunities for new traditions to emerge.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to do an apples-to-apples comparison about what's best for the frosh but Duke's agenda in isolating the frosh is clearly stated. It obviously didn't work. So if the medicine doesn't work? Double the dose.

And I do think it's true that, given where the last two Presidents have come from, Duke is imitating the Ivies in every way possible.

Anonymous said...

I'm a really old guy, 73, and I was knee deep in union activities when both the John Birch Society and the Communists (real ones, not the one from "Reds"). We were being blown out by these people before we finally figured out that they came to meetings after they had their own private meetings at which time they set their agenda and the way to impliment it. The simply hit an unprepared board with a fully prepared agenda. At the next union meeting, an already board passed total union horror that had to be presented to the full membership. So it was read....and then...the president of the union opened the floor to debate with a three minute time limit. Well there were thousands of guys at the meeting, many with mental problems (even back then), alcohol and drug problems, weird people, etc. Well with absolutely everybody allowed to speak exhaution set in after two and a half hours of mostly nut case talking. Finally the president asked for the floor on "a point of order" and suddenly called for a aye or nay vote. Another member of the board supplied the second. All in favor etc. and the really bad piece of legislation went down to horrible defeat. Did they protest? Yes, but when they were told about the new strategy for facing outside groups they shut up and NEVER returned.

You can bet these "88's" meet beforehand and simply jam a planned agenda through and since they obviously are a majority, I doubt you can do much other than open that CCI to 75 or 80. Won't be done because the horses are out of the barn. But it's nice to know how you've been had. Solution: form a different group with the same mission but demand open debate that is recorded. You have to understand that you are in a war. Your rules mean nothing. They will use your rules against you. You gotta fight these kinds of people, and fight them every day because they will not go away. Ever.

Anonymous said...

2:30 Of sorts, Title IX has already partially achieved that end (eliminating NCAA athletic teams) with the demise of men's baseball, wrestling, track & field, etc. at many schools. Some programs were quite noteworthy; the SMU track program comes immediately to mind.

Of course it was at the expense of many minorities, so the law of unintended consequences raised it's ugly head.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for moderating this forum, KC. It is now much more readable.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Could not be the least bit subtle about grabbing something for themselves.

These people have lifetime job security in a recession proof business. They are openly disdainful of many of their customers and some clearly don't even want to provide the primary service that their business is designed to offer.

Now, they expect Duke to create an artificial market for their services by making kids take their classes. I think about six mandatory classes should do the trick -- that will cover the key "isms" as well as Islamophobia and perhaps some new area of scholarly thought control yet to be created.


Anonymous said...

Joe Smith just got accepted to Duke with a Lacrosse scholarship.....

"Welcome to Duke Mr. Smith, your cultural diversity class will be taught by Kim Curtis, we have assigned a Miss C. Magnum as your roomate, she is an exotic dancer and works vastly different hrs. than your practices, but we are trying to push cultural diversity on you. As part of this program, Miss Magnum will travel and play in some of your away Lacrosse games to help you keep grounded on campus."

Karla Holloway to President Brodhead.. "You know, these tougher admissions standards are not working out, too many privileged athletes with good grades and well rounded lives are getting accepted. I think we need to switch to a double standard."


Unknown said...

What troubles me the most is the attempt by faculty or administration at any university to legislate non-academic student behavior. Its one thing to have rules about cheating, plagerism and the like because they go directly to the teaching activity of a University. But, to legislate where students ought to live and who they should eat with is Orwellian to say the least. I think the same is true for forced indoctrination on "diversity." Reminds of the Borg from Star Trek: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!"

Neighborhood Retail Alliance said...

Why, dear God, is anyone listening to the ravings of these fools? What is chrystal clear is that the goals of this faculty group is antithetical to the existing Duke mission (or, in their words, "narrative"). Do they not see that their privilegd status is correlated to the abilty of the college to market itself in the particular way it is currently doing? Oh, sorry, marketing is a concept that Comrade Lubiano wants to "dismantle," along with the economic system that is, in her eyes, the "perfect offender."

Anonymous said...

The administration has learned nothing from this travesty.

The group of 88 and their allies have taken an accusation that both the second stripper and the original police on the scene took to be transparently false and blew it up to a full scale mobbing of the accused lacrosse players and their team mates.

Now we see that the university has rewarded the aggression of the group of 88 by allowing them to set the student agenda including a mandatory course in diversity. These kinds of manipulations have been going on campuses for a long time and the more success they have the more powerful become the manipulators.

The 88 are entirely shameless. They have taken a false accusation against three students and used it to level an absurd charge of rampant racism and sexual violence against an entire campus and set themselves up to profit from their own false accusations which are predicated on the false allegations against the lacrosse players.

When is the Duke faculty going to grow a backbone and condemn this behavior. There is simply no excuse for either the behavior of the group of 88 or the cowardice of the rest of the faculty.

Anonymous said...

This must not be the final draft ... it doesn't say who is going to be in charge of the string.


Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 5:07 PM

Great comment concerning organizational management with respect to organized labor.

I know what you mean.

Concerning the CCI issue here, there is another way that all of us fought for. Just place a member of the rank and file on the board and wait to see if he or she is ignored.

You would think that the board would never ignore a member from the rank and file.

Well, they did this time believe it or not.

The student member 'dropped anchor' soon after the report was issued. He was apparently not consulted.

The CCI report will go down with the ship as it should.

You are correct. You have to be prepared if you must deal with these people.

Anonymous said...

LB--"Duke's agenda in isolating the frosh is clearly stated. It obviously didn't work."

Not sure what you mean by that. Clearly trying to ban alcohol won't completely work if "work" means no one underage drinks, but if the assumption is that almost all frosh will be under (the ridiculous) legal age for alcohol, then few can complain if alcohol is banned from East Campus. In what way did the plan not work?

The 1999 report you referenced and quoted from was pretty interesting. It concluded, though, that the all-frosh move for East Campus accomplished in 1995 was a success: "Institutional values need to be articulated and consensus sought so that the upperclass plan will receive broad support. This was achieved with the plan for the first-year campus; it is viewed as a successful solution to land use and programmatic problems."

The unstated land use problem, of course, was that Duke had a hunk of dormitories located 2 miles east of the rest of the dorms. Some students had to live on East, so what's a reasonable way of dividing them?

I'm not arguing necessarily in favor of any particular system. My son liked the all frosh concept and as a member of one of the selective housing groups, he likes that. But are independent housing students getting short shrift? Or, are there undesirable social divisions on campus which are perpetuated by the current system? I don't honestly know.

Anonymous said...

I don't even think people like Lubiano know that there is a higher world of scholarship. Maybe she thinks that everyone operates like her and the other "Angry Studies" people - it's all activism and your emotions and your feelings, covered up with some big words (hegemony, heteronormative ...) so that people will supposedly not see how silly most of your statements are when they are pasted over with academic-speak.

She wouldn't understand physics, for example, so maybe she just thinks that they do the same thing as her.

From that point of view, I can see how she would sincerely think that any criticism of her would be racism (or sexism or whatever -ism applies to a specific Angry Studies department).

Another thought: Universities throughout history have had silly departments. German universities in the 1930s had theirs and Russia and the East Block had their departments of Marxist-Leninist thought (which also spilled over to the departments susceptible to current trends, like sociology). The Marxist-Leninist stuff also permeated the whole university. There were required classes for all majors (not unlike "diversity training" today).

People with some brains just realize what is going on and play along. If you are forced to take diversity training, just do the minimum possible, shut up, and get back to your own work. Same as back then with Marxist-Leninist seminars and "self-critical analyses".

Anonymous said...

I think the CCI left out of its report that:

-We should seek out a more diverse staff (in terms of ideology, not race).

-We should not alienate a huge number of potential incoming freshman by immediately throwing white males under the bus in the future as was the case here.

-the Group of 88 will issue a statement at least saying there is a "chance" they "might" have rushed to a conclusion.

Maybe I just missed those...

Anonymous said...

The recommendations include: 1) A mandatory “diversity” course for all Duke students.

This is an outrage because the course will undoubtedly be 99.9% on how "whites" should be more tolerant...when it was the "whites" who were the ones terribly (and still are) violated by so many in this case.

Anonymous said...

In my thinking, the G88 members have no credibility. Thus, any "initiative" that they support always will be suspect.

As I have written before, people like Karla Holloway do not want universities to be centers of real and meaningful learning. Instead, they want the university to be a re-education camp, complete with the infamous "struggle" sessions of self-criticism and badgering from those who are on the "correct" side of the political divide.

And until these people are truthful about their own actions, they have no right telling others how to live.

Anonymous said...

To an earlier comment about lack of sorority housing on campus, at least when I was there (grad in 98), the Panhellenic Council continued to vote against housing. As a male, I don't recall their reasons, but this has definitely been self-imposed lack of housing. Part of it may be numbers -- sororities are generally quite large in numbers compared to most of the frats and living space is difficult to come by at Duke.

My freshman year (94-95) was the last that East Campus was a mix of upperclassmen and frosh. There were 3 or 4 frats there at the time (KA, DKE, AEPi and Sigma Chi -- not sure on Sigma Chi though). Anyway, they all got moved to West Campus the following year for the purposes of keeping East for freshman indoctrination.

Anyway, pulling slightly more on topic again, if they kill fraternities or even selective housing, there will be an uproar from the alums. I don't care how spineless Brodhead and the others are, money talks, and they'll listen. Some of the other crap like diversity classes will probably sail through because all Duke students have to take a wide discipline of classes anyway.

As an engineering and computer science double major, despite AP credits in European and American History, and English coming in, I still had to take some liberal arts classes to "well round myself". I took a Philosophy class and two Cultural Anthropology classes. I wish I could remember my CA teachers names, as one or both could easily be G88, particularly the one where the course title was something like "The American Myth". She never wore a bra (and her navel/waist would have appreciated the cessation of the knocking with every step) and was clearly anti-establishment, with the classroom discussion always a big debate on how crappy America is. I took that as a senior, and by that point, I had fortunately realized that all that was necessary in such classes was to drink the Kool Aid and regurgitate it. I got a B- on my first paper because I didn't have a big enough swig (I gave a 70/30 split to competing ideas rather than the requisite 100/0), but aced the rest of them once I learned how good the Kool Aid tasted. While some of you may mock the good that courses such as this can provide, this has significant real world application, namely that when your boss has an incredibly stupid idea, you already have a taste for Kool Aid and can play right along! :-)

Anonymous said...

Does the CCI recommendation also require "Anger Management" classes for Waheena & Co. ?

Seems more appropriate than the mind-melding diversity hoo-ha for the students - what a joke !

Anonymous said...

My opinion of Thaviolia Glymph was raised by today’s announcement of the CCI’s recommendations. I was wondering what type of a hyena could take pleasure in the thought that a single mother of two had been raped and sodomized. I couldn’t understand how a human would want a scenario where parents would have to accept that their son was a rapist.

Now I realize that when she said “the case is going backwards” it wasn’t the actual rape Thavolia was speaking of but the agenda of the G88. This case was simply a Trojan horse for the G88 to slip a radical agenda through. The G88 have displayed a willpower G. Gordon Liddy could admire to withstand the criticism of the last ten months in order see their dystopian vision advanced.

Win or loose on the CCI I’m confident Thavolia will never loose a night of sleep worrying about any pain she may have caused.

AMac said...

Via The Belmont Club, here is a suggestion for curricular material for that Diversity Training--Let's support Ward Churchill in his quest for justice.

Anonymous said...

Diversity lesson #2
Some people are more comfortable with silence than others. I prefer conflict to consensus.

Anonymous said...

Alright, it is pretty much clear at this point how absurd the suggestions of the CCI are. It is pretty much clear as to the motivations for the formation of the CCI. It is a complete joke.

I don't know what to say at this point. The nonsense being espoused by elements of the CCI and broader Durham community would stand/fall for itself were it not for the mass delusion that seemingly pervades the hate-filled bigots associated with this social disaster.

Welcome to the true social disaster of the new millennium, Duke University! You are certainly trailblazers.

Anonymous said...

I was in the freshman class of 1995, and I just want to weigh in with a few words on the housing issue. My class was the first one to be housed together on East Campus, and not only did I enjoy it at the time, but looking back I see many positive aspects to the experience.

I got to know just about everyone in my dorm very well, and the fact that we were all freshman meant that those friendships carried us through the rest of our years at Duke. I spent the next three years rooming with a friend from that dorm, and while I did make friends in the upper classes through classes and other activities the freshman friends I made were my best friends, and remain so to this day.

It also made the process of forging friendships easier - someone who I met in a class or other activity who before might have lived on the other side of campus was now no more than a 5 minute walk away. You also had a good chance of running into them at mealtimes in the East Union (and commiserating over the quality of the food was always a guaranteed bonding experience), or studying in Lilly Library. The increased chances for interaction allowed connections to be made and to grow. The administration might have been trying to indoctrinate us with one form of PC nonsense or another, but my friends and I were too busy with our classes, our own activities, and cheering for the basketball team to notice.

Additionally, some of the best friends I made in my later years at Duke were made because I had one friend from my freshman year in the Arts Theme House. Given that the nature of selective housing leads to groupings of similarly-minded students, we all shared common interests and became close friends. My roommate, from my freshman dorm, ended up marrying a guy from the class behind ours whom she met through the friends we made at the Arts Dorm. Losing selective housing would deprive many students of the opportunity to live amongst an extended family of friends - and even though my roommate and I never even applied to a selective house or rushed a sorority, we enjoyed sharing in the society of the Arts Dorm and the other selective houses and the activites they ran throughout the year.

Housing at Duke can be improved - the self-segregation on Central Campus is real, though many of us who moved to Central did so because we wanted kitchens and our own bathrooms and no RA's checking for beer in our fridge - but I think the all-freshman East has been fine, and that selective houses can do as much good for the social scene as ill. Drinking will continue - it's *college* - and attacking the selective houses will do nothing to lessen that, and will only (as other posters have noted) drive the parties off-campus, with all the potential dangers that entails.

The Group of 88 should follow their own advice - shut up and teach. Leave housing and campus life to those who actually live it.

Anonymous said...

It is 12:01 and there isn't a new post. What happened?

Anonymous said...

from Clyne

It would be helpful if all posters ceased using the pseydoconcept "white" to describe themselves. This is part of the G88's game plan--we helpless blacks, whatever against whites.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it, to reference Icelandic privilege, or Italian privilege.

Language is part of the argument.

Let's kill whitey off, and act offended is someone calls us white.

Eg, you bastard, I'm not white, I'm a human being.

Anonymous said...

As someone who now lives in Asia, no course could have shown me diversity. The only way to learn about diversity is by living life.

I'd be less irritated by a mandatory diversity course if it were limited to being one hour long (total) and at least co-taught by a professor in the hard sciences who could tell the professor in anecdotal studies to be quiet once in a while.

Students in Asia aren't going to diversity courses and aren't taking gender studies classes. Resources are instead being used to teach information that will allow them to get ahead in the world. We are in a competitive world and the G88 are too insulated with grant money and tenure to realize it.

Anonymous said...

At what point will a responsible adult regain control of Duke?

Duke alums should be ashamed and furious.

dhd said...


Anonymous said...

In what way did the plan not work?

They sought to get rid of problems with alcohol, yet that's a major element in the lacrosse incident. They clearly didn't get the teetotaling student body that they wanted.

It concluded, though, that the all-frosh move for East Campus accomplished in 1995 was a success:,,

Well, duh. Having implemented it they weren't going to report anything but glowing reviews.

Anonymous said...

7:54 "...The Marxist-Leninist stuff also permeated the whole university. There were required classes for all majors (not unlike "diversity training" today).

People with some brains just realize what is going on and play along..."

That's the point; I don't want to play along. It's wrong and at $46,000 per year is criminal.

Anonymous said...

This thought might be a little out there, but here goes. Is is possible that Brodhead is smarter than we think? To appease the far left, he gives them assignments that in the long run will have little meaning. Imagine if they had little involvement in these committees. They would be undermining the university in much more destructive ways, much like Houston Baker did early on.

Anonymous said...

Implementing # 1 through 3 of this list of recommendations would reduce interest in various groups considering Duke as their school of choice(people who have no desire to waste their time on a "diversity" course, people with a common affinity wanting to live together, athletes, etc). Over time, less interest = lower quality of student body. Count on a significant number of alumni not supporting these either by withholding contributions. Over time, less money = lower quality of student body.

I don't think any of that bothers the CCI because I don't think they care about Duke as an ongoing institution that much. As long as they have a tenured position, they're content to "stick it to the man."

# 4 is interesting from the standpoint of trying to figure out the true intent of the CCI. Certainly, Wood, Holloway, Allison, Lubiano, et. al. are not suggesting that the very people who take their courses (the low end of the admissions standards)should be eliminated from enrollment. Over time, fewer students who take "studies" classes because they can't handle the work in more rigorous disciplines = fewer professors needed to teach "studies" classes. So what is their intention? How would they manipulate this recommendation so that it benefits the G88 and their ilk when a straightforward implementation of this recommendation would do just the opposite?

Anonymous said...

There is yet another variation on the "not waiting" statement I just saw in the Chronicle. It contains this bit:

"Duke students who experience abusive or irresponsible behavior should feel confident that they can speak out and know that their concerns will be heard and acted upon."

Does no one see the monumental irony here?

Duke students have been the ones who have borne the overwhelming majority of the staggering weight of abusive and irresponsible behaviors the have been visited upon them by criminal sociopaths who happen to either be in a protected category or who are acting in the names of those in such categories. Representatives of the state in the jurisdiction where they live, their own administration and faculty, mush-minded radicals who are organize to reflexively rush out and make as much noise and gain as much publicity as possible at any opening, truth having been pre-judged by their self-righteous group-think wisdom, media who can't be bothered to examine any of the inconvenient truths or do any sort of investigative reporting but who are willing to pile on, to join in on what are indefensible and egregious acts, and on, and on, and on...

It seems clear no one in these groups is "listening" to victims of crime when the victims and offenders are anti-perfect, as seems to be the much more common case.

The latest piece says that it is time to move on. No apology, just an attempt to seize the high ground. Massive hypocrisy. What they don’t seem to get is that their words and actions actually set back the causes they purport to hold so dear. I can only conclude that there are those who benefit by creating either hatred or the perception of hatred – by provoking warfare along any dimension that they are able to discern and exploit.

As I prepare to watch the home opener today, I can’t help but bring to mind all of the harm that has been done in the past year, by the groups that lay claim to wanting to help us to understand each other. I can’t even begin to list the wrongs. It is so very clear who has character and who has none. Yet, see where things stand.

Anonymous said...

No surprise at all, KC. Hopefully these recommendations get insto-burned by the administration. The alumni appear angry already, and this would probably set them over the edge.


Anonymous said...

Anon at 10:02:

Not so far out there. I posted this on Liestoppers yesterday--

"One solution to the problem of a bunch of whiners in a large organization is to appoint them to a committee to study and report on the problems they are whining about. The head of the organization can then thank the committee for their hard work and concern for the betterment of the organization and promise that serious consideration will be given to the recommendations. The wackiest of the recommendations can then be safely ignored or more lip service paid to them if necessary. If by some miracle the committee actually comes up with some useful suggestions, those can be adopted with great flourish, thereby further casting the ridiculous ones to oblivion. In that scenario does the head of the organization deserve praise or condemnation for his handling of the whiners?"

Ebeneezer Flamsteed said...

Did anyone catch the oped by messers Aldrich, Burian, Chafe, Haynie, Nijhout & Wood in the same issue?

"Moving Forward At Duke"

The usual pc drivel, but the comments were smokin' -- I didn't see anyone who agreed with them.