Thursday, February 15, 2007

The Potbangers Airbrush the Past

Yesterday’s post traced the first phase of the potbanger movement—from March 24 through March 30, when the potbangers, approaching the issue from an ultra-feminist angle, expressed certainty that a rape occurred. Today’s post examines the movement’s second and third phases, in which the potbangers continued to denounce the players, though now for different offenses.

The second phase lasted from March 31 through April 10. Recognizing that a rape might well not have occurred, the potbangers refused to abandon their denunciation of the lacrosse players, and instead began to stress the team’s alleged racism.

The third phase spanned from April 11 onward. After defense attorneys revealed that no DNA match to any lacrosse player existed, the potbangers shifted wholly to claims that they were never seeking punishment for the lacrosse players, but were merely addressing the broader societal issues of racism and sexism. This approach was coupled with defiant refusals to apologize for their rush to judgment and a rationalization of their actions by stressing the drinking habits of the lacrosse players.

Phase Two

While ideologues, the potbangers were among the closest observers of the case. They understood that two events of late March (defense attorneys’ predictions that there wouldn’t be DNA matches, the Herald-Sun’s belated concession that the captains had fully cooperated) made it uncertain that a rape occurred.

But, they were determined, the crusade would continue. It would need a new focus—racism, not rape, would assume center stage. The potbangers took their cue from two people: Mike Nifong and Group of 88 member Mark Anthony Neal.

On March 28, the day after Nifong began his procedurally improper publicity barrage, the potbangers took notice. Rejoiced potbanger leader Rann Bar-on, “I think that these statements from Nifong can create a shift in the tone of those who think we are going after way too wide a target.” Duke graduate Sarah Ogburn agreed, wondering if there was “any way to have some of Nifong’s statements added to [the group’s] materials,” since “his statements are extremely powerful.” Ogburn noted that when she posted Nifong’s remarks “on the TrinityPark listserv, a lot of people either spoke up when they had not before, or seemed to shift their thinking.”

The D.A.’s comments so celebrated by the potbangers emphasized the racial element of the alleged crime. “In this case,” declared the district attorney on March 27, “where you have the act of rape—essentially a gang rape—is bad enough in and of itself, but when it’s made with racial with racial epithets against the victim, I mean, it’s just absolutely unconscionable. The contempt that was shown for the victim, based on her race was totally abhorrent. It adds another layer of reprehensibleness, to a crime that already reprehensible.”

Meanwhile, Mark Anthony (“thugniggaintellectual”) Neal, soon to be a member of the Group of 88, gave an interview to NPR. He suggested that for the African-American community, the allegations of racism were attracting much more attention than the claim of rape. He also wondered whether the “privilege” of some protesters had caused them to downplay the racism angle and instead focus on the alleged sexual assault.

For a group as politically correct as the potbangers, Neal’s assertions aroused enormous concern. Christina Headrick, a former N&O reporter who had opened up what she described as the “unforgettable scrapbook store,” confronted the issue head-on. She fantastically wondered whether the potbangers could “have a ‘Talk-In’ or some kind of discussion about racism in Durham,” perhaps by setting “up six chairs under a tent on the sidewalk at Buchanan and go for as long as we can get participants. Or would that just be a bunch of guilt-ridden middle-class white folks sitting around? I don’t know . . .” (Headrick declined comment for this post.)

Bar-on concluded that Neal was correct: “since we are more non-religious/leftist/liberal/progressive (pick one that applies), we focus equally on the sexual assault and the race issues, whereas much of the community around us focuses on one of the two rather than linking them.” But, he added, “If our position is indeed privileged, is that a positive use of privilege?” In other words, the potbangers would lead the masses to revolution.

In any event, race assumed a much greater role for the potbangers by the end of March. (Reconsidering their initial certainty that the lacrosse players were morally deficient appears not to have been an option.) On March 30, the daily protests shifted in tone, to take note that “women, especially women of color, have repeatedly stated to President Brodhead that they do not feel safe on Duke’s campus or its surroundings.”

Despite this assertion, the protest announcement maintained, “We are not prejudging the outcome of the criminal case, but we demand measures be put in place to ensure that we never see this again.” What, precisely, was “this”? A false allegation?

The group also started shifting its demands. They still wanted the season canceled and Coach Mike Pressler fired. But according to a March 31 memorandum prepared by Headrick, they now also demanded “creation of a huge, multi-million dollar fund to address racial inequities/issues by Duke”; “improved educational programs to combat racism at Duke”; and an “educational scholarship fund to be created at NCCU.”

Headrick* explained the issue to a Duke student who had worried about having rushed to judgment. The real enemy, she declared, was “white people who are incredulous and skeptical that racism exists at all and attribute claims that racism does indeed exist to some sort of enigmatic and massive hallucination on the part of people of color.”

Potbanger Jacob Remes, a Duke graduate student in History, had come to Durham after serving as a coordinator of the “Yale Social Justice Network.” A sharp critic of Yale athletes as an undergraduate, Remes concisely explained the new approach on March 31. Activists, he maintained, should use the allegations “to examine the cultures of white, male, class, and athlete privilege in their own communities.”

No longer should the focus be on getting the season canceled or the coach fired—although Remes and his colleagues would have no problem with these outcomes, either. In a letter to the New York Times, he blasted the Duke administration for allowing the players to continue to practice in the days before the cancellation of the season. “I fear,” he asserted, “that the practices continue in order to build up and maintain team solidarity.” (Privately, Remes claimed that he received this information from a male History professor who taught several lacrosse players: Peter Wood?) “This is exactly,” he continued, “the opposite of what the university should be doing. Instead, it should be trying to isolate the players in the hopes of getting one of them to tell the truth.”

I e-mailed Remes to ask if, in light of recent events, he had reconsidered his springtime actions or his astonishing recommendation that the University act as Nifong's deputy. He replied, “I have had no role in any criminal case against Duke undergraduates, and I have expressed no public opinion on the guilt or innocence of any accused individuals.” (Some might consider having urged the administration to “isolate the players” or belonging to a group that used slogans such as “castrate” and “time to confess” as having adopted a public opinion.) According to Remes, he continues “to believe that all charges of rape and sexual assault deserve full investigation and hearing, especially when the victim is less privileged than the accused attacker . . . and that Duke’s particular combination of athletics, fandom, and alcohol use promotes a culture of violence, misogyny, and abuse of privilege that corrodes the university’s intellectual community and academic mission.”

Mostly, however, Remes wants the potbangers’ critics to butt out, so the group can champion its agenda free from criticism. He told me, “I believe that these important questions about the university’s ‘campus culture’ (although I am deeply suspicious of that term) are primarily relevant to the Duke and Durham communities, and I am frankly perplexed by your ongoing efforts to involve yourself.” As John in Carolina has noted, this sentiment seems quite prevalent these days among the rush-to-judgment constituency.

Phase Three

The racism storyline encountered a major obstacle on April 10—the defense lawyers announced that no DNA matches occurred. Potbangers debated whether they should apologize for having presumed guilt, an option that most rejected.

Serena Sebring, a Duke Sociology grad student who focuses on “the convergence of race, gender, sexuality, identity, and the law,” explained the rationale for refusing to apologize. As of April 11, she saw no reason for anyone to say they were sorry:
Regardless of the end result criminally, I have a problem with the idea that it was wrong to react to the racial violence of March 13 with anything other than immediate urgency. If that reaction included belief in the word of an alleged rape victim who we know was subject to racial assault, I would say this is not a “rush to judgement [sic],” but rather a logical inference.
In any case, she added a couple of days later, “not having been present in that house on that night, I am inclined to believe the victim.”

Meanwhile, the potbangers reinvented history, suggesting that their earlier protests had focused on the players’ behavior, not on the certainty of rape. (They never revealed how signs saying things like “Castrate” or “Time to confess” reflected the new storyline.) Explained one potbanger, “I’ve said it time and again... even if they didn’t commit sexual assault, the behavior of these guys was absolutely unacceptable. Concentrate on that; let the legal system deal with the criminal charges.” Added another, “I have been saying all along that, even if there was no rape, we know that (1) these guys had an underage drinnking [sic] party (2) strippers were hired (3) they hurled racist remarks at the strippers and possibly others (4) they have been terrorizing the community for quite a while.”

Bar-on took this approach one step further; on April 11, he urged his fellow protesters to deny that their focus ever was on the lacrosse players themselves.

He predicted (incorrectly, as it turned out) that the “media will turn to a pretty harsh, but pretty short-term, assault on us (the people who ‘jumped to conclusions’...we will see that phrase a lot in the near future).” To avoid the collapse of the movement, he recommended that:
We focus on the notion that this case merely uncovered a far deeper problem, namely the sense of entitlement and privilege so pervasive on Duke’s campus. Duke-Durham relations are tense for a reason: Duke kids are upper-class, rich, entitled, privileged and so on. This case merely highlights their lack of respect for the community in which they live. The players’ guilt or lack thereof has no effect on this. [emphasis added]
Bar-on articulated more bluntly the basic thesis that Group of 88 leader Wahneema Lubiano would offer two days later: “Regardless of the ‘truth’ established in whatever period of time about the incident at the house on N. Buchanan Blvd.” The crusade would continue.

The new line of argument was embraced by Bryan Proffitt, a self-described “Hip-Hop generation white man that writes, organizes, teaches, and lives in Durham.” In mid-April, this co-founder of a group called “Men Against Rape Culture” produced an essay that laid out the group’s new agenda. Group of 88 member Mark Anthony Neal posted the essay on his blog, shortly after Neal’s blog also published Lubiano’s attack on the team.

Everyone, Proffitt wrote, knew the facts of the case: upon leaving the party, “a Black student/mother/daughter/woman/human . . . calls the police, and reports that she and a companion have been racially assaulted, and that she has been sexually assaulted by three members of the team. There is a medical exam that reveals sustained physical trauma.” Actually, of course, all of those “facts” were wrong.

False assumptions, however, didn’t stop Proffitt. The basic issue was simple: “We have a commitment to believing those who come forward with stories of survival first . . . Something dehumanizing, frightening, and wrong happened in that house. Regardless of the specifics, there is healing to be done and justice to be fought for.” In other words, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good crusade.

This case, Proffitt explained, “is the ‘Rape CNN.’ It is the sensationalized version of what happens every single day in this world.” What did the case expose? Among other things, that
America, and the world, is sick with white supremacy and racism; heterosexism and homophobia; patriarchy, sexism, and transphobia; and poverty and capitalist excess. These systems all interact to create a culture of violence that must be changed. We teach our children the lessons of these systems, and they grow up to reinforce them. We must dismantle these systems if we hope to end the onslaught of violence . . . Survivors will create the path forward. In resisting violence, homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, and capitalism, survivors of oppression generate the vision for the rest of us to follow.
Proffitt did not respond to a request for comment.


From firing Mike Pressler and getting the season canceled to overturning “poverty and capitalist excess.” From breaking down the alleged “wall of silence” to resisting “violence, homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, and capitalism.”

The potbangers certainly made a striking intellectual evolution. There was only one problem. The underlying case upon which they built their crusade was a fraud. The Group of 88, of course, has the same problem.

*--This quote actually came from not from Headrick but from another potbanger. I apologize for the error.


1 – 200 of 211   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Fraud describes it. It was a fraudulent case from the beginning. Nifong needs to stand trial. Cooper and Coman need to end the fraudulent case against the lacrosse players now.

Anonymous said...

What the group of 88 is saying, and I'll steal one of the great movie lines of all time, "Facts...Facts...we don't need no stinking Facts!"

Anonymous said...

What I so HOPE to see: Proffitt, Sebring, Hummel and the rest of the potbangers mentioned with merciless lawsuits against them. And I'd love to see them in court, on the stand, where hardcore truth and consistency is forced, so they can't weasel their ways out of the hard questions like they do in public statements and amongst themselves.

Anonymous said...

In the days, they'd say:

"We don't need your kind ridin' into town and tellin' us how to take care of our bidness, you hear?"

Now, they say:

"I am frankly perplexed by your ongoing efforts to involve yourself."

Now that's progress!

Dave in CA

Anonymous said...

oops ... make that "the old days..."

Anonymous said...

Fraud is the pefect word. That's why the fraudulent ones turn their vitriol on KC, they know they've been exposed as frauds, they know the overwhelming majority of Duke students realize they are frauds and now they realize that by being exposed in such a clear and reasonable manner, the rest of the rational worldwill recognize them for what they truly are... frauds.

Gary Packwood said...

Three weeks ago I could not quite understand why anyone would want to write a book about all of this fraud.

Now I understand.

It just MUST be written.

When is the weight of all this silly posturing and academic food fights from Durham and Duke coming off the backs of Dave, Colin, Reade and their families?

Enough Already!

Great Work KC!

Anonymous said...

I wonder if it is possible for no one to sign up for any of the 88's classes? It may not be feasible with requirements for graduation and majors, etc, and a limited number of sections available. It would be interesting to see what would happen though.

Anonymous said...

Not just "frauds". Malicious and hateful people, who are also frauds.

Anonymous said...

KC I just read the new artice by Dahlia Liswich (Slate) - talk about airbrushing. A disgrace to herself and journalism. She crucified the boys in her April artice. In the current one, she tries to explain away everything. by giving new meaning. It does not work, but I guess she thinks so. Why can't she just say "I was wrong?"

Anonymous said...

Dave in CA,

That's the first thought that crossed my mind when I first read professor whatshisname's account.

It sounded eerily like the "outside agitators coming to town and tellin' our nigras they aint got it so good."

Amazing that folks who wanted to expose to the WORLD the horrific nature of misogyny, racism, sexism and classism at Duke, are now shocked that the world took a look and came away shocked at the cowardice of those who used the plight of three innocent men to advance an agenda that turns the stomach.

Where are all the "leaders" now?Where's Reverend Al? Oh Jessie, your people are being called out for ignorance, come on down and give us a lecture on family values, just make sure to leave the mistress at home (it may appear to hurt your credibility).

On that thought, Reverend Al, you had better leave your Tawanna Brawley history at home also, for it seems, yet again, that fantastic stories of gang raping white men targeting young innocent black women just isn't panning out the way 'Neema and professor Pious, oops, I mean Piot, claimed.

Now all you outside yankee agitators can just take your facts, and your rational arguments, and your respect for due process and head back on home, we don't need ya down here.

Anonymous said...

Brayan Profitt of MARC wants a stage to say something. Look at the Marc website with it's two entries. This poser uses it as a seal of aproval to speak as a rape expert. I wonder if his high school students know what a carny barker this fool is in his other life.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

Another day and these charges are not dropped? Where is the AG's office. It does not take this long to review a case.

Anonymous said...

In other words, "Move along...get going...nothing to see down here."

Anonymous said...

The shifting focus of Gang 88 outrage was certainly necessitated by the crumbling of the original case, but my read is that it wasn't exclusively a CYA move. It was desperate, but not entirely cynical. Right now many of the "airbrushers" probably truly believe their own shifting stories.

Gang 88 abominates many things about the LAX players -- their whiteness, maleness, "privilege", etc., etc.; but nothing infuriates the 88 more than the insistence that these players are -- or even could be -- innocent. This is simply not possible, so there will never be apologies or admissions of error from this group. Forget the charges, those were always just an excuse -- albeit at first a seemingly beautiful one -- to attack this hated enemy, embodiment of every frustration the ultra-fems and race-baiters have ever had.

Could white privileged heterosexual male athletes be innocent? Never. No, the 88 see clearly that LAX innocence means thugniggaintellectual guilt; LAX innocence means Wahneema ignorance. LAX innocence means their irrelevance, their shame. To accept the innocence of these male accused requires acknowledging that sometimes rape claimants lie, and that absolutely cannot happen. Soon (if they haven't already) these people will again take up the mantra that women never lie about rape, that white men often force themselves on black women, that Duke is a hotbed of patriarchal capitalistic hegemonistic...etc., etc. They will do it, repeat these things, teach them, because they have to. Because, in fact, they have nothing else.

Anonymous said...

The deafening silence of the now infamous gang O'88 regarding allegations of another rape in town only serves to hammer home this point.

A Duke fraternity is involved (hell, my "Uncle" Rog was a Q-dog), a Duke student is the alleged victim, you would think this is just the ticket for the teachers of intolerance and hate to add another feather to their collective cap and expose, yet again, the culture of misogyny and sexism that exists in the polluted atmosphere that is the Duke campus.

But nary a peep do we hear. Nary a pot banged, nary a sign carried, nary a call for students who didn't wait to be heard, but instead, made themselves heard.

Where is the outrage?

I guess we can't count on the ol' gang anymore, things just aint what they used to be.

Anonymous said...

We can now clearly see that the 88 believes that when the going gets tough, that the tough start yelling,"it's racism, it's sexism and mommy always liked you best."

Anonymous said...

This is off-topic, my apologies ...

Gary Packwood ... this made me laugh out loud (in a good way) because all I could think was, 'well, that makes you old'

"I saw Jimmy Morrison and the Doors... LIVE...Twice. How about that?"

No slur intended sir, I'm a huge Doors fan myself, albeit, far too young to have seen them in concert, much less twice.

... And we now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if any of the attendees at the party (scene of last week's alleged rape) were from NCCU.

I understand the fraternity has chapters at both schools. Not much has come out about the 50+ in attendance.

If so, it would be interesting to see the other school's response to this event.

Anonymous said...

In the meantime,
another alleged rapist
runs loose in Durham-
the "Gattis Street Doo-rag".

Intelligent people know
the difference. Get a move
on "Downtown". The Yard.

These pots are worn out.

Anonymous said...

Joe T,

The greatest damage here is that women in this world do suffer at the hands of abusive men (and other women for that matter, for the child prostitution rings of southeast Asia involve as many women as men), in all socities, in all nations, and yet, the actions of the gang O'88 and their race hustling enablers makes a mockery of that plight.

It fouls even the good souls with a cynicism and a "boy who cried wolf" mentality that makes us turn away in shame, in embarrassment.

They've done themselves no favor here, and they've exposed themselves and their adherents, both willing and unwilling, to well-earned ridicule.

And in the end, three innocent young men will be stained by false allegations and 'Neema, and Piot, and Holloway and the rest will go back to teaching their garbage to another class of unsuspecting kids, in the hopes that maybe one or two will swallow the kool-aid and follow a course of study that turns victimhood into a saintly virtue.

Anonymous said...

Have a friend who is bookmaker. At the end of the week, one of his players calls up for his figure. He's told that he's minus 12,000. The player says that can't be, that he only made two bets and they split so he's only minus 1,000. No, my friend tells him, you made a third 10k bet and I have it on tape. The players tells him that he wants to hear the tape but not over the phone. My friend drives one hour to meet him. After listening to the tape of himself making the bet, he tilts his head to the side, looks my friend right in the eyes and says, "That's not me." Well the group of 88 made a big bet and they too don't want to admit they lost big.

Anonymous said...

Excellent analysis, 12:50: "...nothing infuriates the 88 more than the insistence that these players are -- or even could be -- innocent. This is simply not possible, so there will never be apologies or admissions of error from this group."

But I think it goes one step futher: the 88 will never apologize because they don't think that they are capable of doing wrong. Despite ritual protestations to the contary, they see the world in stark moral dualities: they are on the side of good; we (meaning the mainstream of American society) are on the side of bad. Good is always right, bad always wrong. So why -- ever -- should they apologize?

Remember: they see everything as part of an Ideological war, one pitting the "anti-hegemonic forces" (the academic far-left and its domestic allies, Hugo Chavez and Company, Hamas as other Islamicts) against the "U.S. Empire." One doesn't apologize to one's enemy when one loses a battle. One prepares a counter-strike.

Expect them to keep fighting.

Anti-Leftist Liberal (or perhaps "Dead Centrist" is a more apt description of my evolving political position)

Anonymous said...

“We are not prejudging the outcome of the criminal case, but we demand measures be put in place to ensure that we never see this again.” What, precisely, was “this”? A false allegation?

Thank you Professor Johnson!

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

The marxist potbangers and Gang of 88 thought they could repeat history. Just like Stalin, they attacked the innocent to satisfy their political agenda. And just like Stalin's crimes were ignored by the old media, the potbangers and Gang of 88 thought their crimes would be ignored by the new. For a few weeks last year, they almost were.

Except KC Johnson isn't Walter Duranty and he doesn't work for the NY Times. (Damn! KC, you are wonderful!)

Anonymous said...

How satisfying it is to have these potbangers exposed with their own words broadcastedin this blog.

Anonymous said...

What's happening with the Dowd v. Kim Curtis case?

Anonymous said...

Poor little Jacob Remes, why did you select Duke to do graduate studies if you hate athletes so much?

Anonymous said...

Polanski said

re "The Potbangers Airbrush the Past"

I wish that were true, but it isn't.

As I've said countless times, Duke's problem is affirmative action and its concomitant Silly Studies programs. And this is a national problem.

These so-called potbangers are really hoping a black woman was raped so that their crappy programs will continue to be financed, and that the cognitively unprepared rich black will sail into Duke's liberal arms.


They're losers, society's parasites. If they are not admitted, they will not bang pots. The white pot bangers were showing their "solidarity" with the blacks, but know this: the entire fiasco was the brainchild of AAAS.

It's fuck'n ridiculous to discuss pot banging without addressing affirmative action. The cognitively unprepared faculty and students have no business being at Duke. Let them pot bang among their cognitive peers--Morehouse, NCCU--wherever.

Anonymous said...

The G88 probably had no idea of the ramifications of their actions last spring. Not only has every word and action come into the lens of the blogosphere, but we have also seen commentary in the main stream media which questions the need for the psuedo disciplines from which they launch their attacks.

We read that many of their academic departments were created to promote diversity among the faculties. Call it professorial affirmative action.

We all took a few of these "soft" classes in college. They were seen as easy "A"s. While we were working our gluts off in our hard core subjects, all that was required in these fake disciplines was a temporary absorption of the propaganda which was the bent of the particular professor and a parroting of it back in an altered form. In some ways we were probably prostitutes.

These "libby" professors likely got the satisfaction of believing that we were being indoctrinated to their perverse views of society.

However, looking back 30 years on my own undergraduate experience I cannot remember one significant concept that came out of these classes. I believe that the lack of memory is not a function of having not used the knowledge because I remember many things from hard core classes that I do not use today. For example, the Pathagorean theorem, or how to differentiate an equation.

No, I think that I do not remember concepts from the soft classes because I did not have to work for them.

I graduated in three years. These soft classes allowed me to carry 24 to 27 units per semester while maintaining a GPA high enough get into law school.

And as for the indoctrination, I walked away with absolutely no respect for the professors who shared absolutely none of my values.

Mike in Nevada

Anonymous said...

Nice article in the WSJ today on campaign bloggers. Mentions Amanda Marcotte, though not her comments on the Duke Lacrosse case in particular. Received an email from her today, I suppose in response to my multiple posts on her personal blog and the John Edwards campaign blog. The email read simply, "Please leave me alone. I'm sorry this case is so important to you." It seems that she, much like the Group of 88, is blissfully unaware that the method is in fact primary to the madness.

Anonymous said...

With respect to the Potbangers' Ball, does anyone know who the guys banging the drums were; they seemed almost like a professional unit.

Anonymous said...

Polanski said

Bravo to Mike in Nevada.

Once the boys are fully exonerated, I think it's time Friends of Duke and like-minded folks form an ad hoc committee to:

1. examine racism and sexism in Angry Studies
2. defund same
3. end ALL affirmative action at Duke
4. develop a profile of typical affirmative admit
5. determine the academic damage Crap mStudies wreaks on universities like Duke


I can get the funding to do it as a documentary. I bet I could get Christopher Hitchens involved, as well as PJ O'Rourke.

Let's give these bastards a cognitive rectal exam.

Anonymous said...

I believe that some full-scale, pot-banging protests at the homes of some of these pathetic people would be in order. It would be good to give this rotten scum a taste of their own medicine.

Unfortunately, these people really are the face of higher education, and especially elite higher education. They are incapable of having a serious thought or speaking in terms of anything other than the academic nonsense of their faux scholar professors.

People at times have emailed me or posted on the blogs saying that since I do not teach at an "elite" university, my comments do not mean very much. To be honest, I am quite glad not to be teaching at a place like Duke where the dregs of academic thinking are given a place of honor. I can only feel sorry for the real scholars (and Duke has plenty of them) whose voices of reason are drowned out by the scum of the G88 and the potbangers. What pathetic people.

Anonymous said...


re "teaching at an elite university"

2 geniuses I have collaborated with/collaborate with (Donald Barthelme, Guy Maddin) did not attend "elite" universities. To my mind, there is only elite cognitive ability.

These Silly Studies bastards are academic frauds: they should be forced to wear FDA stickers on their foreheads.

Karla Holloway, Wahneema--bad times are ahead for the affirmatively acted upon black middle class.

Yep, your victim privileges are about to be revoked.

Welcome to the real world, bitches!


Anonymous said...


By the way, I saw a Youtube video made by the potbangers at the end of March that declared in no uncertain terms that the lacrosse players beat and raped Crystal for 30 minutes.

In other words, there was not backing off the claims at that time, so this notion that they never were about accusations of rape is yet another damned lie being told by despicable people. I think that their videos need to be seen by everyone interested in justice in this case to see just what liars -- and despicable liars, at that -- these people really are.

Anonymous said...

So perceptively and well said by anon at 12:50 a.m.

Could white privileged heterosexual male athletes be innocent? Never. No, the 88 see clearly that LAX innocence means thugniggaintellectual guilt; LAX innocence means Wahneema ignorance. LAX innocence means their irrelevance, their shame. To accept the innocence of these male accused requires acknowledging that sometimes rape claimants lie, and that absolutely cannot happen. Soon (if they haven't already) these people will again take up the mantra that women never lie about rape, that white men often force themselves on black women, that Duke is a hotbed of patriarchal capitalistic hegemonistic...etc., etc. They will do it, repeat these things, teach them, because they have to. Because, in fact, they have nothing else.

(During the early 70's working with a bunch of young black radicals - each attempting to start his own version of the black panthers - one of my Caucasian associates would walk around saying,
"Let me say it loud, I'm white and I'm proud." It was pretty funny and every body actually got along well - except for the minor verbal skirmishes between the individual wannabe black revolution leaders.)

Anonymous said...

Polanski said

Can we stop bullshitting?

What we have at Duke, like other elite institutions, is the problem of a black, "aggrieved" cognitive underclass demanding--and receiving--overclass goodies.

I don't want to hear any more crap about pot banging. Treat these creeps like individuals, which means most will be fired for gross incompetence and racist tendencies.

Anonymous said...

A friend that has been a Southern Lawyer for 30 years said that this case won't go to trial because Cooper, the new Prosecutor, is used to dealing with overworked Public Defenders, not multimillionaire real lawyers who will so out class him that he would be embarrassed in (a very public) trial.

Anonymous said...

As others have postulated; this case is a political hot potato for the Durham's prosecutor and state government - Easley et al.

I do think the black people in the area want a trial; whatever their reasoning. I think the NAACP wants a trail; whatever their reasoning.

I believe the Democratically controlled offices and officers are afraid of a black backlash if they don't have a trial.

HOWEVER, the prosecutor's office must be aware there really is no good case. RAPE has been dropped. Assault is still on the books but you have the huge problem of no DNA. Kidnapping? maybe slightly more prosecutable but still dependent on Ms. Magnum - a very dubious witness.

Cash Michaels brought up THEFT.

Possibly the LAX team wanted their money back and maybe that happened but it's highly unlikely that the 3 players under investigation were specifically guilty of that; if indeed it took place.

But I don't think you can over estimate the fear the politicians have of Durham/NC black backlash if they just announce "there is no case and there never was a case."

I'm guessing their ultimate statement will be something to the effect that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with the case. With that statement they are NOT clearing the LAX team of all wrong-doing but hoping they will placate the black power structure of Durham who can then spend the rest of their lives moaning how the elite, white, privileged males of Duke got off scott-free because of their whiteness and their money.

I could be wrong

Anonymous said...

proffitt article

These marxists live such a demanding life...

"...Those of us living here, and those of us struggling to end violence: we've been busy. Many of us are survivors and supporters of survivors, and this has been the perfect recipe for a few weeks of nightmares, flashbacks, anxiety, and despair. We've been working to heal ourselves and each other, and building strength and strategy for the fight ahead..."

Someone mentioned that this deconstructionist teaches high school, is that accurate? If so where?

Anonymous said...

4:02 Do you suppose a Freedom of Information Act request would allow access to the admissions profiles? Do any of the lawyers know?

Or for that matter, the hiring practices too. One has to shudder when one considers who didn't get the jobs that the Gang of 88 hijacked.

Anonymous said...

Bryan Proffitt said in his post:

"9) White people find solidarity in violence."

Hmmmm, is dat so?

Anonymous said...

9) White people find solidarity in violence.

I say we beat his a** for even suggesting that.

Anonymous said...

For $46,000.00 per year we could all take, in order to become better listeners:

EDUC 150S-01, Gender, Politics, and Higher Edu

"The evolution of North American colleges and universities as gendered institutions, the demands of women for higher education access, and the organization of disciplines in the contemporary university. The roles of multiple actors (faculty, students, administrators, publics) as well as the dynamics in different sectors (academic, student affairs, athletics, fund raising)."

Quite ironic that fund raising is mentioned...

These frauds need to go, and new administration need be formed. There is a lack of leadership.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the Freedom of Information Act applies to non-governmental agencies. I may be wrong.....

Anonymous said...

I do hope they are named in so many lawsuits,that the are tied up in litigation for years and they go through their little nest eggs, which many of us have paid for.

Anonymous said...


You are way to kind in using the phrase "Airbrush the Past". How about Obliterating the Facts in the best tradition of totalitarian regimes and despots.

What is truly amazing to me is that they are so BLATANTLY lying to themselves and no one, not one of them says "Hey, we were wrong, let's move on." That sound you hear is my head banging against the wall.

Mr. Piot: Everyone on this blog has a connection to Duke: we are fighting an epidemic of fraud in the academy. You can circle the wagons but you're still going to have to face the music.

Anonymous said...

After beating Proffitt's a** we white people can all gather around, hold hands and bond to the tune of Kumbi-ya.

Anonymous said...

The article is a fresh reminder of how cruel the behavior of some faculty, administrators and students has been at Duke. It makes very clear why this case has aroused so much public attention.

But is equally important to recognize that much of the problem still remains.

The students are still facing a trial with serious charges that could result in long prison sentences.

The families of the students continue to have their life savings depleted by continued legal expenses.

The group of 88 and their sympathizers continue to have considerable power at Duke, including a monopoly on defining the terms of the discussion of race and gender.

The vast majority of the faculty is completely silent in the face of the now widely accepted innocence of the accused players. The faculty voice has been mute in all of the following ways.

There is no clamor to drop the charges.

There is no acknowledgment of a rush to judgment.

There is no remorse for the harm done to the accused or the rest of the lacrosse team or to its coach.

There is no demand that the accuser be held accountable for bearing false witness.

There is no complaint about the transparent lies of the group of 88 in denying that their letter embodied a presumption of guilt.

There is no criticism of the pot-banging mobs that paraded outside the houses of the clearly innocent players.

There is no sign that there is any willingness to hold the members of the group of 88, and in particular the members of AAAS and women's studies, accountable for their outrageous public statements.

It is impossible to believe that all this silence reflects support for the prosecution of the students and their on campus demonization. They must have known early on that the charges were false but have still not been able to publicly defend the players and demand the prosecution be dropped. To admit that the players are innocent is to acknowledge their own complicity in the entire frame-up and admit their own cowardice in not opposing it.

One of the real horrors in this whole situation is that the Duke community has put itself in a situation where the innocence of the players is an indictment of the community. So the case drags on and their is no relief for the wrongfully accused.

The shame for Duke continues.

Anonymous said...

How can people like the 'Gang' and the 'bangers (pun INTENDED) NOT realize that clinging to such obvious falsehoods as are rife in this mess seriously undercuts any credibility that they (or their causes celebre) may have had?

Admitting that there was no rape nor racism in this one instance need not deter them from their crusade on broader social issues. Failing to do so bleeds the "BS" ishness of the Durham follies over onto their crusade as a whole,

Alas, these creeps have placed their pride above their alleged isssues ... which demonstrates that the issues themselves are not that deeply important to them after all! What a bunch of losers!

Anonymous said...

The potbanger’s fixation on “privilege” has always rubbed me the wrong way. The idea is that if you were born white and middle to upper class, then the world is handed to you on a silver platter. I’m sure that minorities can relate, but it’s insulting to have all of your hard work and accomplishments dismissed because of race. I don’t dispute that there are real tangible and intangible benefits that come from being born into the dominant race and class, but 90% of the kids who get rejected from Duke (and from the lacrosse team for that matter) have all of the same advantages. Admission to Duke is absolutely a privilege, but for an overwhelming majority of the students the potbangers criticize it’s a privilege that’s hard earned.

I know the potbangers hate that Duke students feel entitled to good times in college and bright futures thereafter, but that’s why students go to Duke! Hard as it is to believe, students don’t pay 40K a year for the learned insights of the group of 88. (After all, they teach the same subjects out of the same textbooks for a quarter of the price down the road in Chapel Hill.) Students pick Duke for the prestige, opportunities and (gasp) privileges that a Duke diploma confers. And if the group of 88 was in any way honest, they’d admit that they teach at Duke for exactly the same reasons.

Anonymous said...

Hey any lawyers out there...If someone parades in front of your house with a sign calling for your castration, is that not assault?

Anonymous said...

There’s a lot in play these days in NC politics that will affect how the LAX case is handled. The NC Dem. Party has always relied heavily on the black vote and special interest groups to maintain power in state government.

The resignation yesterday of one of the state's most powerful Dem. officials will ensure that the remaining ‘leadership’ treads lightly not to ‘alienate’ their core constituency.

Former Dem. House Speaker Jim Black quit the state legislature Wednesday as he prepared to plead guilty today to a felony public corruption charge in federal court. The scandals involving Black included behind-the-scenes deals to help a major lottery company win the right to run NC's new lottery.


Anonymous said...

"Cash Michaels brought up THEFT.

Possibly the LAX team wanted their money back and maybe that happened but it's highly unlikely that the 3 players under investigation were specifically guilty of that; if indeed it took place."

The theft argument is such a stretch. I really hope they don't take this route. Even if the LAX players took back $200 bucks (and there's nothing in the way of evidence suggesting this), at best it's a contract dispute that belongs in civil court.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, K.C., for dragging the creepy crawlers out into the light so that everyone can see them in their ugly, squirming, squalor. All of the 88 and the potbanging simpletons are pathetic mediocrities who couldn't think their way through a middle school science project. That includes their star, the backstabbing, lying, bitter old queen, Chafe. sic semper tyrannis

Anonymous said...

You can't stand outside of someones house whether is rented or not, whether they are college students or not and publically slander them, terrorize them, threaten to burn their home down so they have to leave town in fear of their safety. The police did nothing to stop these terrorists, the DA did nothing to stop these terrorists. There are consequences for those actions and I hope to God that all of those people who were involved pay the price for their actions. These families and these young men had had enough of this garbage.

Anonymous said...

Jacob Remes has been a socialist for a while now. I wonder if any Southern white racists in the '60s ever said to the predominantly Jewish and Northern Freedom Riders: "Frankly, sir, I am perplexed by your involving yourself in our local affairs." I guess ol' Jacob would be sympathetic to that kind of argument.

Pity is, he's probably gonna end up a teacher, too.

Anonymous said...

Mike in Nevada said,

"In some ways we were probably prostitutes.

No, you were Johns.

Anonymous said...

These clowns have nothing on Winston Smith.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the assault question, this is a crap answer, but it should give you the basic idea:

There are two ways to show criminal assault in North Carolina. State v. Roberts, 270 N.C. 655, 658, 155 S.E.2d 303, 305 (1967). The traditional common law definition of criminal assault is an overt act or attempt, or the unequivocal appearance of an attempt, with force and violence, to do some immediate physical injury to the person of another, which show of force or menace of violence must be sufficient to put a person of reasonable firmness in fear of immediate bodily harm. Id. The focus of this definition of assault is the intent of the person accused. Id. By contrast, the other rule, the so-called "show of violence" rule, places the emphasis on the reasonable apprehension of the person assailed. To prove an assault under this rule, the State must demonstrate some show of violence by the defendant, accompanied by reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm or injury on the part of the person assailed, which causes him to engage in a course of conduct which he would not otherwise have followed. Id.

Under either standard, the “Castrate” banner isn’t a criminal assault. The banner fails under the first definition because there was no overt act overt act or attempt with force and violence (words alone, even on a banner, aren’t sufficient to constitute an act with force and violence). And even if carrying the banner was an overt act or attempt, the threat wasn’t sufficiently immediate (the lacrosse players weren’t even present). Never mind that there’s nothing to suggest the protestors intended to actually castrate the players. The issue of immediacy also kills any charge of assault under the second definition (i.e. the "show of violence" rule). Even if carrying the banner was a show of violence (and it’s probably not), a reasonable person wouldn’t feel an immediate threat of Castration. Maybe if someone were in the house and the protestors were banging knives on cutting boards instead of spoons on pots, but as things actually happened the apprehension of bodily harm just wasn’t immediate. (waving a knife in someone’s face creates an apprehension of immediate bodily harm, threatening to stab someone by sign or phone creates an apprehension of future bodily harm and isn’t assault).

A lot of the same problems are going to come up with a civil assault charge. There may very well be other claims, but assault won't really work.

Anonymous said...

Hey any lawyers out there...If someone parades in front of your house with a sign calling for your castration, is that not assault?

No, it isn't.

Also, forget about any idea of FOIA requests. FOIA doesn't apply to Duke.

Anonymous said...

My great-nephew is athletic and extremely intelligent. He is being recruited by a number of schools across the country, both athletically and academically. He was leaning toward Duke. I pointed him to this case so he could consider whether a minority of irrational but vocal faculty had created a hostile environment for white male athletes. He is no longer considering Duke. Why take the chance of being hassled?

Anonymous said...


Right on! The truly advantaged group, as this whole scenario has proven, is the Group of 88 faculty. Where else but in a university could such a motley crew of insulated and institutionally-protected employees go on a hysterical and potentially libelous rant against students, and the only consequence to their action is some criticism from outside the academy? That's real privilege. In any other business setting, anyone who made such false public allegations -- particularly against their own clients -- would have been reprimanded and forced to apologize, if not fired outright. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to slander, nor should it be to denegrate. An institution that tolerates such speech is not a champion of freedom, but a facilitator of mean injustice.

Anonymous said...

9:43... That's a shame. It's just as bad if not worse at most of Duke's "sister schools". In fact, I'd say Duke is perhaps the best place to go right now, because only at Duke is the bright light shining and forcing the cockroaches to hide from the bright light of public scrutiny. At the other schools, the loony members of the faculty (which are a small but loud minority everywhere) are free to terrorize without anyone paying attention.

Anonymous said...

In 2006, Jacob Remes said,
“I believe that these important questions about the university’s ‘campus culture’ are primarily relevant to the Duke and Durham communities, and I am frankly perplexed by your ongoing efforts to involve yourself.”

In 1964, Governor George C. Wallace, in this letter,

Montgomery, Alabama, 14 April 1964.

Miss Pamela Martin
79 East Beech Street
Cedar Springs, Michigan


"Dear Miss Martin:

This will acknowledge and thank you for your letter of April 8, 1964, in which you request
literature on the subject of segregation in the South. We have no material on this subject in our office. As a matter of fact, we have never had a problem here in the South except in a very few isolated instances and these have been the result of outside agitators."
(emphasis mine)

Wallace's letter

Anonymous said...

There is a quiet rumbling beginning in this country. People are tired of the "race card" being played at the drop of a hat and the Group of 88/Potbangers are symptomatic of that rumbling.

People as a whole are tired of race/gender (or whatever other stupidity) being a determining factor in anything whether it be a job, an education or a used car loan. As long as people like this group of professors continue to espouse a divisionist country, there will continue to be problems. I think that very divisionism is about to come to a boil and not in their favor.

I am frankly tired of hearing "excuses" for people based on race, religion or gender. It is time to judge based on personal actions, accountability for those actions, character, integrity and honor.

We, as a country, are wasting millions of dollars on these "soft" programs that do absolutely nothing to empower, educate or advance anyone. These programs should be terminated immediately in favor of actual education.

There is a backlash starting in this country, but the like of which this group of professors never imagined.

They need to take their "victimhood" and stop using it as an excuse.

As my Grandmother used to tell me, "There are reasons and there are excuses and there are rarely any good reasons."


Anonymous said...

This link gets you to the story in Slate referenced by 12:34 AM. The story also provides a link back to her earlier April story, so you can determine for yourself how Dahlia has contributed to the brouhaha that has become the LAX Hoax.

My take is her April 2006 story has a few points that we know to be false (such as "mounds and mounds of evidence ..."), but that she is not one of the ones who should be focused on as having an over-the-top agenda such as G88, Rann Bar-on, Headrick, Remes, Sebring, and Proffitt as outlined in this latest post. Those are the wackos that deserve to be hounded as the frauds that they are. Not forgetting of course Nifong, Wilson, Durham PD, Herald-Sun and other media outlets.

General question to the group ...

Exactly how big a hell-hole is Durham?

Michael said...

re: 9:43

It's not just inside which you can probably find everywhere else too. But the environment of Durham just seems horrific.

Sure, there are problems in every city and town and college campus but it's hard to come up with one off the top of my head that is so dangerous and corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Good Post.

"One of the real horrors in this whole situation is that the Duke community has put itself in a situation where the innocence of the players is an indictment of the community. So the case drags on and their is no relief for the wrongfully accused."

I believe that the relief will come later and I hope it to be true. Because it seems to me the only way we'll see "justice" is to sue the crap out of the enablers.

Gary Packwood said...

Humboldblue 1:03 AM

Re: The Doors

As my friend Linda and I were walking out the door after concert # 1, we agreed that we needed better seats due to the fact we had trouble seeing the Doors on stage through all the Marijuana smoke that was floating around the concert hall.

I'll not EVEN trouble everyone with my observation about the Janice Joplin concerts and her bottle of Jack Daniel's (Black Label of course).

And there are people here in Texas today that think the phrase "Keep Austin Weird" is over the top.

We were the G88 in those days but we had a real plan with real objectives to do good works.


Anonymous said...

10:25: That's ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

The alleged victim of this new rape claim at the all black Frat house should take a poly graph test for her own sake. It would put to bed from the get go any questions if she is telling the truth. She should request a line up and make sure it is proceedurally correct. If she was attacked my heart goes out to her. But she must for her own protection from the nasty AA press and community protect her rights. Only blacks in Durham have rights the whites they are out to persecute.

Anonymous said...

9:43: That is too bad. I can't blame your nephew, though. Almost every school has its group of Liberal Arts faculty who shout "victim" at the drop of a hat but what makes this case so bad is the way Duke's president and administration prematurely passed judgment on the Lacrosse program, coach, and players rather than rationally confront a group of irrational prima donnas. Perhaps the administration will finally quit giving the Gang of 88 a free pass and call them out for their egregious behavior, in time for your nephew to reconsider. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Sadly, if top athletes begin to bypass Duke because of real or perceived lack of support, the Gang of 88 may eventually succeed in their goal of removing "athletic privilege"--by replacing it with mediocrity. Let's hope they fail.

Anonymous said...

You miss the entire point!! Yes certainly other "sister schools" are equal to Duke in their wack-o faculty. What is different is the setting. Stop asking if the schools are different and ask if the towns are different. Ask if you would want your child in trouble with the local authorities in Durham - or at cities and towns around the "sister schools". To me that is a real NO-BRAINER! Remember, the locals RE-ELECTED Nifong after alot of his faultys were very public. This is the kind of local authority your child could expect to face there for many years to come!

Anonymous said...

Exactly how big a hell-hole is Durham? at 10:07 AM

WARNING this is coming from a woman of (the wrong) COLOR (olive green) My experiences are small potatoes, nothing important, I am not a victim. (I did feel like an alien in Houston when some people would ask if I spoke English before they delivered their message though.) I lived in the Triangle for many years. I felt the separation of the colored, non-colored, and wrong-colored, was an accepted norm. I came from the frozen north.

Non-licensed workers and an occasional licensed one, who happened to be of color, at Duke Hospital, talked in a dialect that seemed to set them apart. If I could not understand I asked for clarification. Many of the people who happened to be not of color commented on my great "tan" and "shiny straight hair" and never invited me to lunch either. When I was with the NCSPS people of color were the majority and I was apparently the wrong color, because conversation aimed at me often contained 'not because you're white.' At another facility, one of the frequent donors asked me this question at each visit while shaking his nappy head in disbelief, "They haven't run you off yet?"

Anonymous said...

I'd rather be in Durham where the spotlight is shining bright than other places which are likely just as bad, but no one notices.

Anonymous said...

Amanda can't take it. Wonderful Japanes joke - Men go into disgraced CEO office handing him a knife saying " Sometimes resignation is not enough."

Anonymous said...

Durham sucks and there’s no getting around that. It’s not a tenth as dynamic as Cambridge, Palo Alto or even Princeton. That said, Duke offers has an amazing student culture and experience that’s unique amongst its peers. In addition to the work-hard party-hard dynamic that most good schools have, basketball (and sports in general) really unites the whole school around a common experience. For most students and alumni the “Duke culture” creates great memories and fierce loyalty. That said, there’s a minority at Duke (embodied by the group of 88) that’s totally repulsed by the fact that Duke students spend more of non-study time partying and loving college life than they do banging pots and pans in social activism. But the fact that they havn’t totally taken over at Duke is a great thing. Even after, and in light of, the LAX scandal, I’d argue that the unique benefits of Duke still far outweigh the unique detriments caused by its location in Durham.

Anonymous said...

7:48 inre FOIA...Duke does receive Federal funding...

Anonymous said...


Do others find this as offensive as I do? Do we want to descend to the level of Amanda Marcotte and company? Can't we follow KC's model of discourse, one based on reason, logic, and evidence, rather than on crude invective?

The 88 and their fellow travellers are terrified by this blog because it brings together conservatives, centrists, and anti-radical liberals, potentially forming a movement broad enough to actually make some changes in the academic environment. The more we strive for reasoned analysis (albeit with a little humor thrown in), the more powerful the movement will become.

Anti-Leftist Liberal

Anonymous said...

9:59 Inre: Wallace's letter.

The Gang of 88, those that abet their actions, the pot bangers, and to a lesser degree those that remain silent have become what they despise. The circa 1950-60's, middle-aged, white male, bigot. They are Archie Bunker of steroids.

Of course the characterization is mythology with few exceptions. I've never met anyone that fits that bill and doubt they have either.

M. Simon said...

ALL 11:52,

Polanski has the brains of an intellectual and the manners of an outlaw biker.

Adjust your windage accordingly.

Anonymous said...

Why are you saying that the accuser is not human?

Anonymous said...

Anti-Leftist Liberal,

I doubt you will affect a hanger-on such as Polanski. He is likely either a troll or just a garden-variety bigot. Tolerating a little filth seems to be one of the prices of having a forum such as this. I appreciate his signing his name ("a name," anyway), so I can just scroll past his sophmoric comments.

Anonymous said...

Photography Contest to Celebrate Duke Women

"The Duke community is invited to participate in a photo contest and exhibit entitled 5 Women @ Duke. Inspired by the discovery of a unique set of archival photos depicting Duke women from two different time periods, 5 Women @ Duke endeavors to visually celebrate the presence and contributions of women to the University. A planning committee, chaired by staff from the Women’s Center and the Mary Lou Williams Center for Black Culture, is soliciting original work that depicts the contemporary diversity of the women staff, faculty, graduate, professional and undergraduate students at Duke."

Gang of 88 being deposed and then contrasted with pictures of them at the earlier rallies?

Pot bangers at the rallies contrasted with female CEOs, charity leaders, clergy, etc.

Angry studies professors contrasted with the women in medical school, hard science programs, engineering, etc.

Gang of 88/Angry studies professors contrasted with those that expose them (Orwell, Hayek, KC, etc.)

Brodhead contrasted with anyone with guts...


Anonymous said...

the cleaning ladies with the group of 88?

Anonymous said...

I think this fairly explains the damage the Gang of 99, the pot bangers, and Duke leadership have rained down upon true victims of rape, and/or race. This is from the Duke Women's Center Q&A page.

Please consider these questions in the context that the three young men are the ones being raped and let's see of the Women's Studies Dept. does...

The damage is done

"What should I do if my friend or family member is sexually assaulted or in a violent relationship?
- Believe them
- Avoid asking judgmental questions(i.e. Why where you drinking so much?). Instead, use non-blaming statements (i.e. No one deserves to be abused.)
- Be a good listener
- Resist your urge to take control of the situation (he/she already had that taken by the perpetrator)
- Encourage him or her to seek support
- Respect the individual’s privacy
- Get outside support for yourself
- Visit the Sexual Assault Support Services (SASS) web site for more information and resources"

This clearly indicates how, explicity so, how they are failures and frauds. One can possibly forgive them for their rush to judge, however reading these questions since the evidence indicate how truely wrong the prosecution is, then it becomes sickening.

Anonymous said...

12:31 I know a cleaning lady with a young child that is studying, at night school, to become a nurse.

All on this board would trust their children with this industrious woman. None would trust the Gang of 88.

Why would you disparage cleaning ladies in such a willful manner?

Anonymous said...

10:25 AM,

"It's not just inside which you can probably find everywhere else too. But the environment of Durham just seems horrific.

Sure, there are problems in every city and town and college campus but it's hard to come up with one off the top of my head that is so dangerous and corrupt."

Auistin, Texas is pretty bad (maybe not as bad as Durham, but bad enough). Folks like Amanda Marcotte come here to go to school, and they somehow find a way to continue a slacker lifestyle after school. Others come because of the large gay population, wierd music (not that all of it is wierd), nonexistent enforcement of drug laws, or just the attraction of being around other slackers and assorted freaks. Lots of them vote and keep electing scum like Ronnie Earle (no doubt Amanda Marcotte loves him). Lots of them serve on juries also.

Anonymous said...

A L L--
Don't fret over Polanski. I would repeat the old adage about not feeding the trolls, but I don't think he fits the definition of troll because he appears to believe the stuff he writes and he doesn't seem to write just to provoke a controversy. I battled with him a few times but at this point we sort of ignore each other. I think his views are extreme and not helpful to the cause of the defendants or the entire lacrosse team. But it's not my blog and it's not up to me to block his posts. I am grateful he usually gives his identifier at the top of his posts, and I just skip over them.

Anonymous said...

11:46 - As one of my old physics professors was fond of saying, "true, but irrelevant".

FOIA requires the government to turn over information to the public under certain circumstances. Regardless of whether or not it receives federal funding for some things, it's still not the federal government.

Anonymous said...

"Photography Contest to Celebrate Duke Women"

Sounds like something devised by Anger Studies to give themselves an award to put on their resumes. They offer the best academic experience possible. If you don't believe me, just ask them!

Anonymous said...

One of the more interesting things about the Potbangers is that they seem well educated and intelligent. Against this backdrop it seems strange that they didn’t wait for the facts to come out before they reacted. If they waited till April 11, they would have known that the case against the Lacrosse players was weak/nonexistent. There are of course social problems in the world but if you don’t pick and choose your battles you will end up doing your cause more harm then good.

Anonymous said...

to 12:39"Why would you disparage cleaning ladies in such a willful manner?"

I am very sorry. What was I thinking - that the a photo g88 would look like a photo of cleaning ladies of a bygone era?
That there is no comparison to the hard working cleaning ladies of today and the fakers, the radicals who never did an honest day in their life, the group 88?
Let's compare photos of nurses today and the group of 88, who would you rather have as your advocate?

Anonymous said...

GREAT post by John in Carolina. It has been mentioned, but it is a must read:

M. Simon said...

Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a "long march through the culture." Additionally, a new proletariat must be created. In his "Prison Notebooks," he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.


American Thinker

Anonymous said...

For those of you so critcal of Duke and Durham, shine the spotlight on other campuses and college towns and cities as well. There are tales that need telling.

M. Simon said...

John in Carolina

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

If you keep a cheat sheet (text file) up of your most commonly used forms (probably around 10 to 20) it is really easy.

Anonymous said...

Amen 1:04.

I've lived in a number of different places, and Durham was no worse than any of them and better than most.

M. Simon said...


First thing you need to start a war is an incident.

This Duke case looks like it.

Anonymous said...

While other elite universities have their version of the pot bangers the national spotlight is on Duke.

I live on Long Island, a lacrosse hotbed, and I can tell you the actions of the gang of 88 and more importantly the administration is beginning to have an effect. The elite students and in particular student athletes who attend Duke do not want for choice.

As time drags on and with no resolution parents ponder and ask; why would I send my child to a university that demonstrate, so clearly, a pandering to extreme political position at the expense of protecting its students? As each day goes on the damage to Duke's image grows. My business partner's daughter is a very bright talented lacrosse player. Accepted and recruited to numerous colleges her final consideration was Duke and Yale. While she leaned to Duke her parents, after following this case, were adamently against it. The final decision was Yale. All over Long island I hear of the same type of conversations.

The administration, through word and action, should take a position NOW. Parents want to feel comfortable with the university they send their 18 year old children to attend.

Anonymous said...

Back in the day, "Latin Literature in Translation" was the gut for athletes and for serious students who needed a respite from research and paper writing in more demanding courses yet wanted to read great literature at the same time.

Do any of the readers of this blog who are enrolled at Duke or who have recently graduated know if there are guts other than those taught by the Group of 88 ilk that students could take? Is it possible that if other gut courses were availabe that the enrollment in the politically correct courses would drop, and that these courses would fold by attrition. Or is there a hugh demand for victim's study courses?

Do many students take the Hook-up course for fun and laughs rather than for serious social inquiry?

Also, how easy or difficult is it to avoid these politically correct courses and professors and still get a degree in the Humanities--say English literature, for example?

Thanks for enlightening me. East Beast (not water buffalo) who graduated from the defunct Woman's College at Duke

Michael said...

re: 1:04

A survey of other areas was
done a few weeks ago on safety from the local community.

But if you need something for comparison as far as crime goes, how about Wellesley College? It was mentioned in
the list of colleges in safer
communities compared to Durham.

Anonymous said...

Re: my 1:28 post. I did not mean to imply that athletes and serious students were two separate categories. I know many exceptionally bright athletes balancing difficult majors with the demands of their sport.

One of the many aspects of this current hoax that bothers me is that the Group of 88 ilk depicts athletes (especially white male ones)as being cut from the same cloth and teams as monolithic substandard cultures at best. I hope there is a backlash in the mainstream media.

Anonymous said...

Duke alumni have to say "No".

That's all it will take.

I am not a hypocrite - I do what I preach. Sadly, there are too many morons with too much money out there.

Michael said...

For those that didn't see the Leno piece on the hoax.

Miller on Leno

TheManTheMyth said...

You forgot the last phase---black man rapes white woman---potbangges response--total silence. Like all liberals, the group of 88 and the potbanggers are racists of the most foul and fetid variety....

Anonymous said...

Dear 1:26,

How well did your business partner check out Yale? It, like Duke, is a wealthy university in a poor town, with town-gown problems. It wouldn't take much to spark a firestorm there. Brodhead hailed from Yale, and was Dean there when a co-ed was murdered and a professor was a suspect. Did you read the link in KC's blog on Jacob Remes, a graduate student at Duke, who as an undergraduate at Yale chanmpioned a change in the admission policy for athletes at Yale? The politically correct are destroying the great tradition of humanities at Yale as well.

Gary Packwood said...

The Need for Airbrushing

Angry studies people for the most part are advocating change that will impact the lives of people who are old enough to work for a living.

Most people who work for a living have not earned a four year degree...and never will.

That little fact begs the question of why Angry Studies people or the G88 are advocating from a university environment in the first place.

Most working people never set foot on a university campus except to attend a ball game.

It seems to me that Angry Studies people and the G88 are in contact airbrush mode. They have found themselves in a job where they are talking to an empty room. That must be frustrating and the reason behind the screaming and potbanging...and the need to airbrush.

How did advocates for working people end up in universities? I thought they were supposed to be running for political office if they want to change the world.

Anonymous said...

If MTU '76 ever writes a book, I'm getting that one too.


Anonymous said...

I am loathe to criticize KC Johnson (after all, he had to find some term to describe it), but "airbrushing" really seems wrong. It suggests that Gang 88's coverup efforts have been smooth. Have they? I remind all of Cathy Davidson's bizarre Jan 5, 2007 N&O-published "defense" of the listening statement.

Davidson held forth on women's lower pay, abysmally low U.S. graduation rates, then boom! she trotted out the image of LAX players ordering strippers like they were ordering pizza.

To Davidson this was no non-sequitur, and it wasn't cynically diversionary: she was conveying her very real belief that the stripper-as-pizza horror constituted a sufficent indictment of the LAX players that the listeners had been justified.

So what if the 88's ad had emboldened Nifong, validated the baying potbangers, fuelled the ravings of race pimps, enormously increased the likelihood that a fair trial in Durham would be impossible ... women still earn less than men, and by God, they are not pizzas!

Air-brushing? The 88 have had to slap the paint on much too thickly to call it that.

Anonymous said...

"Airbrush" is too kind. The pot bangers, Gang of 88, and those that abet their fraud are more akin to the Taliban.

They are decontructing history and tearing down the truth, much like the Taliban tore down the Budhist statue(s).

And for some strange reason they don't think any one has noticed, or that no one will care.

Anonymous said...

Did you hear the one about the guy who married the Woman's Studies professor?

His buddy was horrified, asking him what in the world are you thinking...

His reply. "I know, no one will try to have an affair with her, and if they do, I won't care."

Jay Waters said...

Terrific irony in the comments of Jacob Remes that the issues are "primarily relevant to the Duke and Durham communities" and questioning the involvement of outsiders.

First, it echoes with great clarity the talking points of all the great Southern segregationists, who questioned why Northern students and the federal government were interested in what happened in Greensboro or Montgomery or Little Rock. Or even more recently, how China pushes back when Western nations bring to light their human rights abuses.

Forty years ago in North Carolina and other Southern states, the call went out to the whole world to focus on the injustice being practiced in that area, and to shine the spotlight of the national media on those who were the champions of injustice.

So, so many of those who are walking the streets of Durham today, crying "race, race" are able to do that because the world did answer that call forty years ago, and resisted the call of those who considered that injustice "their peculiar institution" that was "particuarly relevant to the Duke and Durham communities".

Your answer - our answer -- to Mr. Remes and others of his ilk is found in the words of Martin Luther King -- "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

Mr. Remes, that's why we are here.

Anonymous said...

12:48 Inre: Austin, TX

That's an accurate description of the City Council, what about the balance of the residents?

Anonymous said...

11:46 Inre: FOIA, thanks for the clarity.

Anonymous said...

"For those of you so critcal of Duke and Durham, shine the spotlight on other campuses and college towns and cities as well. There are tales that need telling."

Wouldn't it be extraordinary for Duke to earn's its standing and effect change by doing away with these frauds?

There's no question these marxists rant on other campuses. U.Col got rid of Ward Churchll. Why can't Duke?

The real issue is lack of transparency, governance and leadership. That is what appears to separate Duke from many of the others.

Anonymous said...

"For those of you so critcal of Duke and Durham, shine the spotlight on other campuses and college towns and cities as well. There are tales that need telling."

Wouldn't it be extraordinary for Duke to earn's its standing and effect change by doing away with these frauds?

There's no question these marxists rant on other campuses. U.Col got rid of Ward Churchll. Why can't Duke?

The real issue is lack of transparency, governance and leadership. That is what appears to separate Duke from many of the others.

Anonymous said...

The funny thing is ... as a kid I had a whole different picture of professors. Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton, someone really smart. At worst, the professor on Gilligan's Island (but he could make a power station out of some coconuts and vines - can YOU do that? LOL).

My mother is a professor, but STILL, I have this view of professors today: Some are still smart, in the traditional fields, but most of them are literally morons - they couldn't even add two fractions, and I'm not kidding - but they have learned some words to appear smart and to use as a guise for their moronic, naive and downright stupid opinions (hegemony, heuristic, heteronormative ... blah, blah, we already know them ...).

Put a bit more succinctly: "Professors" in Angry Studies or Agenda Studies or whatever the group classification should be ... are morons. That's really what I think.

Anonymous said...

Michael (10:25, 1:35),

Your blanket condemnation of Duke and Durham seems secondhand, as if your information comes mainly from the blogs. Have you spent much time on the Duke campus or in Durham. This blog, extremely informative and illuminating, does not and does not claim to examine the university and the town in their entirety. But you do, as you encourage students not to attend Duke based on your blog reading and, I suppose, other media reports. A bit of a pot banger yourself.

Anonymous said...

The author of the following 10:25 AM comment must wear blinders.

"There are problems in every city and town and college campus but it's hard to come up with one off the top of my head that is so dangerous and corrupt."

Michael said...

re: 2:48

I've been to Duke and Durham a few times. The campus felt pleasant. The buildings reminded me of Boston College and I didn't have any safety concerns though we were there during the day. We've stayed over in Durham a few times but it seemed like your typical US suburb. I guess we didn't see any of the bad parts.

What strikes me in reading about Durham in the blogs is that you have this racial hostility. I have seen it firsthand in some places and it's something that I'd rather not live near. There are lots of places in the US that don't have this latent animosity and some of those places have colleges and universities.

Wellesley College also has fabulous grounds. And if you go outside of the college into the town (or maybe it's a city), my guess is that you'd feel fairly comfortable there as far as your personal safety goes.

Besides personal safety and
the relationship between
local residents and students there is the issue of corruption of the CJ system. Now I think that this exists to some degree in most places but Durham and NC has been so in your face about it that it is astounding to me. These kids are still charged and we're coming up
fast on the one-year anniversary. Mike Nifong is still in office!

If you have a daughter, you
worry about their safety. If
you have a son, the worries are a little different but I'd rather not have to worry about the CJ system and the local residents. As far as the faculty issues go, I think that it doesn't matter where you go.

Michael said...

> The author of the following
> 10:25 AM comment must wear
> blinders.

You are free to come up with a college located in a city that is more dangerous and corrupt than Durham to prove me wrong.

Anonymous said...

U. of Chicago, Northwestern, USC, UCLA, Miami, NYU, Vanderbilt... and that's just from the places I've been.

Anonymous said...

Given my recent experience on Amanda Marcotte's blog,, it is obvious that the current school of thought among the whitewashers is "why are you so concerned with this little thing going on in Durham"; "it so sad that you have nothing better to do than follow this case"; "why don't you just go away". So sad!

These people want to be able to forget about the harm they've caused so that they can delude themselves into believing that they are not vicious monsters the next time that they try to persecute an innocent individual for no other reason than that they dislike their gender or race.

The motive for this type of attitude is no different than that which pervades the KKK, NBPP, Aryan Nations and the most bigoted elements of all societies. We are seeing the formation or coalescing of an entirely new hate group.

Michael said...

> U. of Chicago, Northwestern,
> USC, UCLA, Miami, NYU,
> Vanderbilt... and that's
> just from the places I've
> been.

These places all have corrupt CJ systems similar to the examples of Nifong, Hudson and the other cast of CJ players?

I'm from New England and I've seen many colleges and universities in fairly quiet towns and some in busy cities. Some have the crime problems. Northeastern University certainly is in a bad section of Boston but do the locals hate the students and is the CJ system corrupt? There is corruption in Boston of course but I don't see it aimed at students.

Anonymous said...

I lived in Durham for six years, and I never experienced anyone "hating" me as a student, and while I never got arrested the CJ system there never seemed any worse than in the other places I've lived.

I would suggest that those of you who never lived in Durham don't get a very accurate view from either the media or the blogs what it's really like to live there. It's actually a really nice place. If I ever get a chance to move back to the Triangle, my wife and I both feel strongly that we'll opt to live in Durham - and we'd go back in a heartbeat.

Anonymous said...

Man-About-Dtown Cash Michaels used to live in Durham as well, but for some reason moved to Cary a few years ago. (12 miles east)

Anonymous said...

3:20 PM vivien

"These people want to be able to forget about the harm they've caused so that they can delude themselves into believing that they are not vicious monsters..."

After the dust settles a bit, some of these people will look around (when no one else is looking) and realize the gravity of their actions. This is huge. This is the Big Kahuna of no-no's, the kind of behavior that leads to the rule of thuggery if left unchecked. History's most frightening days are under the rule of thuggery.

I think that the pot-bangers, G88 and other collaborators in the railroading are now back-pedaling, lying and covering up with such an effort that it suggests somewhere deep in their conscience they do understand the magnitude of the badness and there is no way in hell they will make good.

Anonymous said...

3:21 P.M.

Let me add to the list of campuses in non-idyllic places where the students need to learn to avoid some of the locals and the criminal justice systems, a valuable life-long skill: Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Berkeley. These are just some of the better known ones. The relative isolation (talk about a place of wealth and privilege) of Wellesley is a "good fit" for some, but many students don't crave that lifestyle and want a larger university experience.

Thanks for the earlier link to Leno, and thanks for not being anonymous. You're braver than I. I am, however, no more afraid of Durham than any other city I've lived in, and I grew up in D.C., former murder capital of the country.

Anonymous said...

Please read 7:04AM's post, especially the attorneys.

Poster wonders if affirmatively acted upon faculty displaced the truly worthy.



PS Attorneys, how do we access that information? Can a phony affirmative action degree be considered fraud?

Anonymous said...




Anonymous said...

Regarding comparing town/gown issues of other universities:

Ask Collin if he is considering Georgetown in D.C. a place to transfer. I don't think he found the CJ system there particularly welcoming.

It's certainly no worse in D.C. than Durham, but instances of injustice and resentment toward "elite" college kids can occur anywhere. I would guess that a muslim Arab kid at Yale has as much to fear from the CJ system in New Haven as a white kid from New York or California does in Durham.

Anonymous said...

Polanski says

7:53AM has posted a MAJOR TITLE ALERT:

"An Epidemic of Fraud in the Academy"

Let's make this our Extermination Statement.

Let's get rid of these cock-a-roaches

Anonymous said...

3:27 said:

"I lived in Durham for six years, and I never experienced anyone "hating" me as a student, and while I never got arrested the CJ system there never seemed any worse than in the other places I've lived....I would suggest that those of you who never lived in Durham don't get a very accurate view from either the media or the blogs what it's really like to live there. It's actually a really nice place. If I ever get a chance to move back to the Triangle, my wife and I both feel strongly that we'll opt to live in Durham - and we'd go back in a heartbeat."

Thanks 3:27. That needed to be said and repeated on this blog. In the heat of argument, people tend to paint with an overly broad brush. Your experience as a student at Duke mirrors mine.

Two non-Duke friends of mine moved with their husbands to Durham several years ago, very sad to leave New York City and Tucson, Arizona. Both are very happy and prospering in the Durham community, and do not want to leave.

As usual, the media give an incomplete picture that is too often taken for the full truth and nothing but the truth.

Anonymous said...


With all due respect, issues of race and gender should be discussed in a bar.

This shit is a pseudoconcept amusement park.

It's beyond crap. We need to form an ad hoc committee on this.

"Brilliant like Wahneema Lubiano: How to Exterminate Entrenched Mediocrities at Duke"


Anonymous said...

Vivien Thomas: Of COURSE they want the case to go away now. Hilarious, after they wanted so much attention to it when they thought the case was going "their" way. Also hilarious that some take the tact of saying "Why are you so concerned about this small event at Duke anyway?" If they'd thought it was a small event, they wouldn't have been posting and potbanging over it back when.

Anonymous said...


re white privilege

Again, these bastards are dictating the argument. I urge all posters to state where in Europe they are from.

How funny is Irish privilege--my background.

No, my "privilege" is my work ethic, creativity, and high IQ.


Anonymous said...

The Durham Responds Yahoo Group made a token announcement of the latest claim of rape at Duke. Of course they only posted the article from the N&O which left out the race of the accused, lol. But I'd love to hear Bryan Proffitt's theories about this new case. I want to know how it fits into his theories on race and rape and white male violence.

Anonymous said...

When a "victim" lit a spark, they reached for the gasoline.

When the fire went out of control, they thanked their supporters for fueling it.

When the fire turned out to be arson, they said they are the real victims.

"Intellectual evolution," indeed.


Anonymous said...

For families considering Yale vs. Duke, here's a fairly current story for you from last month. The Men's Tennis team got in some hot water and had to apologize to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Cooperative

"The captain of the men’s tennis team apologized last week in an e-mail sent to several members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Cooperative at Yale for what the Co-op had described as homophobic activities during the team’s initiation last fall.
. . . .
During dinner on Nov. 10, team members wearing women’s underwear and fishnet stockings had posed as members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity and entered several residential college dining halls, where they sang and danced on tabletops, students who saw the incident said. The witnesses said the team’s initiates had signs on their backs that read, “I’m a faggot. Insert Here.”

The tennis team met last fall with coach Alex Dorato and Senior Associate Athletic Director Forrest Temple after the episode came to light, Wai said, and has consulted with the team’s academic adviser and law professor Jed Rubenfeld to discuss legal implications. Wai said the team wrote an apology last November to Pierson College Master Harvey Goldblatt and Dean Amerigo Fabbri for having offended students in the Pierson dining hall."

Tennis Team Apologizes

Anonymous said...

Polanski said

To Brad Davis, 9:45am

Great post. Part of winning the culture war is using the correct language.

I urge all posters to refer to the black "stars" at Duke and elsewhere as possessing BLACK PRIVILEGE.

Any faculty at Dook with a pair willing to teach the course?--LOL

Anonymous said...

Duke 09

Did I remember to tell you to go F yourself for calling me a racist?


Anonymous said...


There are superior sister schools out there to Duke, especially now.

Heard of Emory? I consistently see its faculty doing great work in books and serious publications.


Anonymous said...

> U. of Chicago, Northwestern,
> USC, UCLA, Miami, NYU,
> Vanderbilt... and that's
> just from the places I've
> been.

USC, I'll agree with you as it is in South Cental (gangland), but UCLA is surrounded by Bel Air, Westwood, Beverly Hills. Not much violent crime there.

Anonymous said...

If you're going to[school in] San Francisco
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If you're going to San Francisco
You're gonna meet some gentle people there

Scott McKenzie

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 10:25 AM,

Keep Austin Weird.

Anonymous said...

Shame on those Yale tennis players for dancing on the dining tables.

Anonymous said...


Assuming this case were to go to trial, which undoubtedly it shouldn't, but assuming it could a jury possibly convict?

Unlike the group of 88 and their groupie potbangers, it is the duty of a jury to ALWAYS assume innocence and convict ONLY when there is ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY or at least the ABSENCE OF DOUBT that a crime has been committed.

With all the facts that are known about this case, how could a morally just jury ever convict? (Assuming, of course, that none of the 88 or the potbangers will be jurists!)

Anonymous said...

Dear 2:22
Thanks. I would think he checked Yale carefully but I am sending him your post.

I believe the problem is not necessarily the reality of elite universities but the publicity surrounding Duke.

The 60 minute interview with the accused parents was very powerful. I think many parents put themselves in their place and say " it's horrible what Durham and Nifong are doing to these kids but for goodness sakes why did Duke pile on. These is an expectation a university would look to support its students, almost a tacit agreement to do so.

Anonymous said...

Polanski at 5:02,

LOL. Yes, yes, I believe you did.

Anonymous said...

Assuming this case were to go to trial, which undoubtedly it shouldn't, but assuming it could a jury possibly convict?

Simple. And this was Nifong's strategy all alone. Get Kim or Crystal on the stand and have them say "they called us n*gg*rs". A properly constituted Durham jury would vote to convict regardless of the evidence (or lack of it).

Anonymous said...

I think that Anonymous is hogging the board comments. Then begins arguments and answers them as well!

Yep, anonymous is one confused person fer sure! :)

I love reading KC's writings, he is so way beyond good. He is a real people magnet as well.

Maybe Duke is the university we, as a country, start with. Flushing the crap out and rebuilding from the ground up. If it can be done at Duke, it can done across the country and for sure it needs doing in every major university across the country as well.

Gary Packwood said...

I have a question about the Potbangers, please.

Have they ever suggested ways to improve life on the campus of Duke? I hear the complaining but how about proposed solutions?

For example,

Do the students at Duke have sufficient funds to pay to attend a party ON the campus of Duke with music and beer and food? Is there anyplace on campus to have that party? Other colleges have 'activity centers'.

You get a red wrist band if you are under the age of 21 and a blue wrist band if over the age of 21.

Guests are invited.

Can we have a dance contest between three or four campus' at the same time via a Internet connection and big screen TV's? With nice prizes? Harvard, Yale, Duke and Vandy on a Saturday night?

Can Duke charge 5 cents per beer and plate of food to cover some of the cost of the technology and the cost associated with the facility?

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind that Nifong intended to use rape shield laws to keep out nearly all of the DNA evidence, as well as Crystal's activity with the vibrator. They would have thrown in the "n-word" stuff, which would have enraged the Durham jury, and they would have convicted on all counts, I believe.

Now, Nifong knew the whole thing was a lie, which makes him even more culpable. That is why he needs to go to prison for the rest of his life, and I am not joking here. This man was willing to put three people away for 50 years knowing the entire case was a lie.

Nifong and most of the Durham police (since most of them know that the charges were a lie) are simply nothing more than a criminal gang. Period. At least gangs supply products (albeit illegal) that people want. All Nifong and company produce are lies and crimes.

Why do you think Nifong was demanding that the lacrosse players be forced to be prosecution witnesses? He did not want them available to the defense, so it was his tactic in trying to keep them out of the courtroom altogether.

As I have been saying, these people are criminals. Criminals.

Anonymous said...

Have they ever suggested ways to improve life on the campus of Duke? I hear the complaining but how about proposed solutions?

At the "Shut Up and Teach" forum, C. Piot implied that the best way to improve campus culture is a mandatory requirement for all white people to take an AAAS course so that they would know how racist they are.

Anonymous said...

Polanski writes

11:52 Anti-Leftist Liberal: I apologize for using the Anglo Saxon word "fart"--but what's appropriate for Chaucer is good enough for me. My basic point is that what happened at Duke is only idiosyncratic in the extreme: one finds Karla Holloway clones at places like Princeton. Professor, did you know that the overrated Henry Louis Gates is one of a handful of University professors at Harvard? What's your take on that?

12:22 if you insist on referring to me as sophmoris [sic], perhaps you should get in the habit of consulting a good dictionary. You love to cast aspersions in my direction, but you never bother to riposte. Are you afraid I'll spank you, and make you my little bitch?

Congratulations to Kethra, 10AM--diversity is not wasting millions, however; it's billions



1. 1st person on board to seriously criticize Jason Trumpbour's call for a reconciliation with the G88

2. Coined Angry Studies, Silly Studies, etc. Most importantly, was the 1st person on board to call for the defunding of these wasteful programs

3. 1st person on board to call Brodhead a feckless bitch who should be fired

4. 1st person on board to emphasize how costly Angry Studies is

5. 1st person on board to point out the woeful treatment of the genius that is Japanese and Chinese cultures

6. 1st person on the board to concoct a conceptual framework for punishing false accusers--ie, making it a felony sex crime

7. have consistently argued how to form an ad hoc committee to put added pressure on Brodhead and the trustees

8. 1st person to reject the "mentally ill" defense for Precious by correctly pointing out that she is a quotidian sociopath

9. coined "academic welfare"

10. pointed out that Angry Studies is a form of reparations, and that reparations have been paid in full

11. Pointed out to other posters the best criticism of black studies ever published--Terry Teachout's article in "The New Criterion"

Yep, I guess I'm just another troll.

Anonymous said...

12. Impersonated multiple other posters.

13. Posted anonymous comments extolling brilliance of own posts.

14. First poster to provide egomaniacal numbered list of own achievements.

15. Bored other readers to death.

But 'Angry Studies' was pretty good.

Anonymous said...


My aliases are for humor purposes only, like my Barack Obama. I was "impersonating" no one.

Your other points are pure BS


PS that troll that Googled me on my so-called "achievements" was not me--OK, sport?

Anonymous said...

"There may very well be other claims, but assault won't really work."

It's really too bad that basic stupidity isn't actionable.

Anonymous said...

4:05 Affirmatively acted upon faculty...

Actually Polanski there are a few scenarios:

1. They passed on ones that were worse than the Gang of 88, which is not likely. They may have lesser academic credentials, but are not likley frauds. Or they are worse frauds and offended the sense of the frauds that were charged with hiring.

2. They passed on those that are these frauds peers. Zero sum fraud, if you will.

3. They passed on those that were academically superior, to teach fraudulent studies.

What am I missing?

I'm just curious to see some process transparency in how things are run.

Anonymous said...

6:00 PM

16. First person to track and repost his own crap while sitting naked in front of a mirror.

Anonymous said...

"Assuming this case were to go to trial, which undoubtedly it shouldn't, but assuming it could a jury possibly convict?"

Based upon the actions we've seen, it is very likely the boys would not get a fair trial in Durham. A jury filled with Gang of 88 and pot bangers - that's how.

Anonymous said...

I consider the evidence ambiguous about whether or not Polanski is a troll.

Now there is no question that he has the currently modish rhetoric of vulgar invective down pat. But that is primarily fashionable on the left. Gotta admit though that is pretty weak evidence of trollishness.

His apparent racism could be insincere: a very subtle troll trick to imply that those at this site who find the intentional abuse of prosecutorial power for political gain disgusting are really racists, e.g. these comments from Polanski over at DIH show what the fuss is REALLY about.

On the other hand, he may be just a plain old-fashioned bigot and no troll.

It is a difficult question.


Take an example: are we to take the following as sincere racist drivel, or as insincere pose aimed at creating guilt by association.

"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."

Unfortunately, I have known people bigoted enough to believe that sort of thing so it doesn't have to be a parody.


Anonymous said...


Drop trou--he comea da spankin

re AA credentials

Wahneema's prose speaks for itself--execrable

Think of Angry Studies this way:

You've just hired Frank Gehry to design a 1st-class museum. Say the 1 in Balboa, Spain. Then a committee headed by Karla Holloway decrees that Gehry's a capitalistic Jew whose aesthetic does not speak for underrepresented minorities.

So a black architect is hired to build an extremely expensive annex adjacent to Gehry's masterpiece.

The black architect has the talent of Spike Lee, Gordon Parks, and Toni Morrison rolled into one.

Welcome to the museum, brother.

Angry Studies is an ugly tumor on the face of Mona Lisa.


Anonymous said...

Roman, I like you just the way you are. But we are not choosing sides here for a hockey game.


Anonymous said...

U. of Chicago, Northwestern, USC, UCLA, Miami, NYU, Vanderbilt... and that's just from the places I've been.

And Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Berkeley

To whoever came up with that list of colleges supposedly in areas with as many CJ problems as Durham...what are you basing your list on? Crime stats? Personal experiences with the CJ system?

I get the issue with Yale and Penn, but NYU, Columbia, Vanderbilt, Berkely? Really? You totally lost me.


Anonymous said...

Sorry, I mean Berkeley.


Anonymous said...

i have enough faith in the defense lawyers to make mincemeat of the prosecutions at trial to be confident there could be no conviction at a trial. The jury has to be unanimous on a verdict. I figured Nifong was hoping for a hung jury, so that he could celebrate the defendants not being exonerated.

Anonymous said...

Please, this fool who calls himself Polanski is one of those capital "R" Racists, the kind who pleases the Aryan Nation every step of the way. There are no good blacks, are there Roman? At least not unless they fetch things for you.

Anonymous said...

bill anderson 5:53pm
That is such a frigtening thought, especially that Nifong is probably not the only DA who has ever used these tactics.

What does it say for our justice system? What does it say for people who wind up or who have already been in a similar situation and can't afford great lawyers?

How did Nifong think he would get away with this?

It sure has shaken my security in a justice system that I naively thought always worked.

Anonymous said...

RP has been commenting on here a long time. He is one of few brave enough to be forthright about his identity, and he has sparked thinking and provoked a great deal of conversation. "L'agent provacateur" is his role. Part of the value of the blog is the very free exchange of ideas, n'est ce pas, even those with which we disagree?


Anonymous said...

This was posted over at John in Carolina .... the letter epaks for itself and I have copied and pasted the entire text (sorry M Simon, lost the hyperlink directions) ... it certainly needs no further comment from me, but makes for a fascinating read ...

Duke University's student newspaper, The Chronicle, today published a letter from Professor of Economics Roy Weintraub in which he references a "flyer" for the "Shut Up and Teach" event sponsored on campus Feb. 12 by members of Duke faculty's Group of 88.

It follows in full; after which I offer a few comments.


To the editor:

I have read the "flyer" for Monday's "Shut Up and Teach" panel discussion, with its reference to Joseph McCarthy, suggesting that dark forces are trying to silence some politically minded Duke faculty.

In the late 1940s, my father, an economist, was attacked in newspaper editorials in The Brooklyn Eagle for teaching communism to nice Catholic boys at St. Johns University. He was, of course, an early Keynesian.

In the late 1940s, the man who would become my doctoral adviser had to leave the United States for almost a decade to avoid the agitated involvement of the Regents of the University of Michigan in his tenure case, based on his admitted connection with the Communist Party as a graduate student and young instructor. In those years with the Smith Act in place, one could be jailed for being a Communist Party member. That he was doing the work for which he would later win the Nobel Prize mattered not at all to the Regents.

And my college classmate was Julius and Ethel Rosenberg's older son.

So I read with astonishment the recent panelists' invocation of McCarthyism as their characterization of the criticism they have received for their public statements or writings. They face no death sentence, no jail time, no threats from Trustees or administrators of employment termination, no loss of income, no loss of custody of their children, no loss of their passports, no reduction whatsoever in their public or private circumstances.

I don't ask the panelists to shut up and teach. I ask them instead to understand that for various Duke faculty, staff, administrators, students, parents and alumni to disagree with them in public or in private is neither McCarthyism nor an academic travesty and betrayal of the values of our institution, but is rather an expression of their believing otherwise.

E. Roy Weintraub

Professor of Economics

It's very hard to find the words to express the relief, gladness and pride I felt when I read Professor Weintraub's letter.

It reminded me of the quietly spoken, brief, clearly stated, factually supported, carefully reasoned lectures with which the many outstanding professors I was fortunate to have at Duke would often begin a class before opening it up for discussion.

In just a few paragraphs Weintraub explained what McCarthyism was really like; highlighted shame claims of victimization; and rightly asserted that free, civil questioning and disagreement not only have a place at Duke, but affirm its essence and purpose.

Thank you, Professsor Weintraub.

Anonymous said...


I love you, but I have no more time to refute your expert opinions.

There's an expression in the film business I quite like:

Go fuck yourself in the mouth


Anonymous said...

humboldtblue 7:44 -

One of the best comments I've seen. Thank you.

--Lumpy Gravy
(A Closet Conservative, I Guess)

Anonymous said...


I'm planning to learn hyperlinks too, after the instructions are posted another couple dozen times. Then I'm going to get an ipod, then I'm going to learn how to do text messages ...

Dave in CA
(not Humboldt, though I did do the marathon once...)

Anonymous said...


No need to thank my sorry butt, the thanks belongs to John and Professor Weintraub, again, all I did was copy and paste (and horribly mistype the word speaks, that's what happens when you post four minutes before you're supposed to go on air for the evening newscast).

And Dave, I chuckle along with you, I'm surprised MSimon hasn't sent us all to blogger detention for ignoring his patient and repetitive directions on how to properly hyperlink. As for the marathon, there are few more beautiful places to hold one than up here in the north woods

Anonymous said...

For those who want to read about Duke lacrosse players in a lacrosse context, read the flattering comments from CSTV's analyst.

Or hang out here and obsess over the Potbangers. Your call.

Anonymous said...

Another interesting thing about the gang O'88 complaining about those who have no connection to Duke making a ruckus, how many of the potbangers had any connection to Duke?

How many members of the NBP party who showed up in Durham have a connection to Duke?

Jesse Jackson, is he an alum?

Just athought

Anonymous said...

Inre: Joe McCarthy...he was right, now one may argue he, our leadership, and the press could have handled it differently, but he was right.

A few other thoughts, if Arafat can win a Noebel Peace prize, then anything is possible.

There is no telling how many people died because of the Rosenbergs.

One must realize the context of the comments. The Communists had Nukes pointed at us. It was prudent to take them seriously.

At some point we may arrive at that state again if we keep allowing the lunatics to run our educational system.

Otherwise a great note, that certainly brackets intellectually dishonest the Gang of 88, race/gender/class warfare marxists really are.

McCarthy was right!

Anonymous said...

Hi KC,

There was a fascinating column in the Duke Chronicle today by a student supporter of the "Group of 88."

I think this is an area that deserves more analysis-- who are the students who are backing the "Group of 88?"

"Cost of Your Signature" by Samson Mesele

It is reported that over 150 people attended the "Shut Up" event, many of them students. Who are they, and why are they there?


Anonymous said...

Inre: McCarthy #2 - it turns our the American press and leftists, didn't expect the USSR to fall. They also weren't aware of the Verona intercepts. Both of which, undeniably demonstrated that McCarthy was indeed right.

"For all those rushing to put pen to paper to denounce any of the above, you'd be best advised to first do your "homework". Read "Venona" (Yale University Press); "The Secret World Of American Communism" (Yale University Press); "The Haunted Wood" (Random House); "The Venona Secrets" (Regnery); "The Secret History Of the KGB" (Basic Books); "Whittaker Chambers: A Biography" (Modern Library); and "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the life and legacy of America's most hated Senator" (Free Press). If at first you haven't read the above, then you are coming unarmed for a battle of wits."

McCarthy was right!

Anonymous said...

Goodness, this article supports Polanski's assertions...

Chronicle Editorial

"Cost of Your Signature" by Samson Mesele

Anonymous said...

9:36 PM This should fix the Chronicle Editorial above:
"Cost of Your Signature"

Anonymous said...

So, either:

A) Racism and sexual assault is so bad at Duke that "Indeed, the April ad's social commentary transcends the very dimensions of the lacrosse case", and this warrants sending 3 innocent men to 50 years in prison.

B) Racism and sexual assault is so bad in Society as a whole that "Indeed, the April ad's social commentary transcends the very dimensions of the lacrosse case", and this warrants sending 3 innocent men to 50 years in prison.

G88, Pot-Bangers and other criminal supporters of railroading and thuggery, that's what your lies, backpedaling, threats and FUD boil down to.

Anonymous said...

Samson Mesele gets points for not using "meta-narrative" in his editorial but he should have his column taken away and sent to his room for this:

Carefully read over the language of this petition, and ask yourself if you believe all the words are fair and just. As 88 professors can attest, you will be held accountable for all of them.


Anonymous said...

9:36 pm,

Thanks for fixing my link to the "Cost of Your Signature" by Group of 88 apologist Duke student Samson Mesele in the Chronicle.

There are already 71 comments to the on-line version (click on comments at the end of the article) and they make for compelling reading.


Anonymous said...

Does this sound familiar? What can be preserved, if it has already been lost? It's past time to reclaim the high ground.

Preservation of Academic Integrity

"In 1915, John Dewey of Columbia University and Arthur Lovejoy of Johns Hopkins University came together with other educators to establish the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), an organization designed to preserve the integrity of the academy from a politicized donor-driven agenda.

The 1915 Declaration of Principles stated the principles for what academic freedom should be: "the freedom of the academic teacher entail certain correlative obligations... The university teacher... should, if he is fit for his position, be a person of a fair and judicial mind; he should, in dealing with such subjects, set forth justly, without suppression or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators... and he should, above all, remember that his business is not to provide his students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves."

However, despite the above, free speech is not used almost interchangeably with academic freedom. Academic freedom is being used a "get-out-of-jail-free card" when a speaker, usually a self-described "scholar-activist," intends to thwart oversight and accountability..."

Anonymous said...

I was going to chime in with "No one was unjustly charged with being a communist during the McCarthy era" but it has been done by people far more eloquent than I. "McCarthyism" is misused by the left as shorthand for a witch hunt. Seems it was a commie hunt that found a lot of commies.

So I might ask the Gang of 88 "Have you no shame?" but we know the answer to that - they don't.

Anonymous said...

For many, the goal of affirmative action is for every black person in America have a job for which they are less qualified than the whites who are applying for the same job.

As a payback for years of discrimination, many believe they are entitled to be overrated as a form of reparations.

It wasn't always the goal of affirmative action. It started out as way to end discrimination. Some of us are old enough to remember when there were no blacks in professional sports. For many years blacks played professional basketball and blacks were not allowed in PGA tour events. Can you imagine no Michael Jordan in the NBA and no Tiger Woods at golf's major championships. Such exclusion was justified by people who said that blacks couldn't compete with whites. It was truly ridiculous.

At the time the civil rights bills were passed in the mid sixties, many people felt the next step was to offer education and training to blacks so they could make up the gap in skills between whites and blacks. For sympathetic college administrators the goal of programs to increase black enrollment was that by the time they graduated, the black students would have roughly the same academic profile as their white counterparts.

To promote this outcome some schools would identify promising black high school students and give them training in the summers. When they got to college they would receive academic help in their first year and hopefully by their second and third year they would be indistinguishable from the rest of the student body. It was envisioned that as they felt more secure in their abilities they would naturally integrate themselves into the wider university community.

Some of this happened but what also happened was the rise of separatist sentiment. During the era of civil rights activism, the separatist views of Malcolm X and his followers were widely rejected by most blacks. They supported actions to end discrimination and they were successful. With the end of legal segregation and the enforcement of the voting rights act of 1965, barriers for blacks were dismantled at a rapid rate.

But at universities that had previously enrolled few blacks, many of the growing numbers of black students started embracing separatist doctrines and practices. Blacks formed their own caucases in all forms of endeavor. The first African-American Studies departments came about from various sit-ins and protests that came from the all black student organizations that had developed on campuses.

Sensing that college administrators would back down from almost any threat (at Cornell, black students had weapons with them at their sit-in in the late sixties), black students pressed for preferential treatment in program formation, hiring, etc.

In the wider society, a similar pattern took hold where increasingly, demographic outcomes became the measure of compliance with anti-discrimination law.

The narrative that had framed civil rights movement had always been the declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".

To supporters of equal rights, the problems weren't the basic laws and traditions of American society but the failure to apply them to blacks equally.

The narrative would gradually change. As affirmative action evolved, it became a matter of entitlement that black people should have separate and lower standards applied to them for jobs and college admissions.

From a political point of view such efforts were remarkably successful. Pro affirmative action organizations succeeded in their goal of ensuring that at most universities and professional schools, the academic profile of enrolled black students was substantially lower than that of white students.

To increase faculty diversity, schools invested heavily in identity politics. It started with a few academic programs like AA studies but gradually expanded into centers of research and offices of multiculuralism or diversity. Sensing that universities were investing in identity activities, new groups of identities began to imitate the black groups and sought to enlarge the pool receiving special treatment to include, women, Latinos and gays.

These entities were quite different from the usual departments at a university. In other areas, objectivity was considered essential. The idea was that one should stand outside one's subject and study it. But with identity studies there are different goals. They are supposed to support the self-esteem of classes of victims. Support for identity programs and activities became a way for universities to show that they were sensitive to the needs of previously excluded groups. Correspondingly, opposition to investing in such activities or simply insisting on academic accountability was generally considered an act of bigotry. Gradually, preferential treatment became an important part of university governance.

This extended even to campus life where great efforts were made to avoid physical descriptions of crime suspects so as not to reenforce negative stereotypes.

Unless of course the stereotypes were attached to white male athletes. Then stereotyping was to be cherished because it leant credence to the ideology that drives investment in the identity industry.

The old narrative about all men being created equal was replaced by a new mantra of pervasive institutional racism and sexism that justified increasing levels of institutional support to identity activities whether it was the funding of departments, preferential hiring, creating "diversity" staff positions, special programs for minorities and women and so on.

The spoiled behavior of the group of 88 is not really surprising. Many are in identity programs that have never been held to the same level of academic accountability as their colleagues in more traditional fields.

There was always something corrupt about the identity programs. They have always been about "managing diversity", the appeasement of some of the more strident voices with the aim of avoiding trouble. But such appeasement is a fool's game. The more favors that are granted, the more strident the voices will become as ever greater accusations will have to be leveled to justify the ever greater demands for preferential treatment.

The true hoax in this whole sorry episode is the behavior of all those who sought to take advantage of the allegations to pursue their own agendas. The electoral schemes of the DA, the acting out by the pot-bangers, the CYA behavior of the administration in suspending the students, closing down the lacrosse season and firing the coach, and above all the posturing of the group of 88 who seized upon the false accusations to affix their own self-serving narrative to an event that never happened.

An nobody is backing down, least of all the group of 88 that has draped itself in self-pity and revisionist lies that their actions and words were unrelated to any presumptions of guilt.

Anonymous said...

What's the point of hitching your wagon to a fraud like David Horowitz?

He's the Karla Holloway of the right.

Anonymous said...

10:52 He's just a guy trying to make a buck and expose the lunacy of marxist's running the show on campus. Horowitz also has some skins of the wall from being quite active in that arena.

What has Holloway ever done?

I'd say they operate in quite different arenas of intellectual honesty.

Do you have some examples? His being shouted down at Duke is a fine example of the intollerable, and hostile environment at Duke, wouldn't you agree?

In lieu of any debate or discourse they take their shirts off and shout...

AMac said...

Joe McCarthy shouldn't be rehabilitated just because a couple of faculty crybabies claim that his shade is persecuting them.

He was a bad person who did bad things.

FWIW, blogger/humorist James Lileks wrote a short retrospective essay on the Senator a couple of years ago.

What McCarthy Messed Up

Anonymous said...

10:52 says "David Horowitz is the Karla Holloway of the Right"

Right on, brother. Like Holloway, Horowitz wants "diversity," no matter the talent of the diverse person.

I've spoken to him on the phone, and while he's a helluva nice guy, he would never dream of rethinking his positions.

BTW, like Holloway, Horowitz has never uttered 1 original thought with which I'm aware.


Anonymous said...

Why is David Horowitz a fraud? That's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know. I've only read a little about him, the Wikipedia entry and a transcript of his speech at Duke last year.

Has he represented himself as something he is not? Or is it just that you think what he says is not true?

I had to chuckle at this from Sampson Mesele's apologia for the 88 in the Chronicle:
"In my view, he [Brodhead]is an honorary signatory of the ad and its references to student-identified problems of racism, sexual coercion and social inequality at Duke."

Maybe it's unfair to make fun of a sophomore, but I expect even Brodhead would decline the offer of "honorary signatory".

Anonymous said...

""And even after Communism itself has been defeated -- which it will be, but not by men such as yourself -- the term McCarthyism will be used to shut down debate. The accusation will be the absolution. On behalf of everyone who opposed the totalitarians, the collectivists, the mealy-minded fans of charismatic brutes yet to come -- thanks for nothing.

"And now I must return to the 21st century, where U.S. astronauts have just completed a mission with their Russian comrades. Oh, and that Aaron Copland fellow you were so worried about? We play his Fanfare for a Common Man when the aircraft carriers return to port.

"Here's your grave, Joe. Lie down. Start spinning."

You have killed your cause -- and what's more, you have poisoned debate for decades to come."

Yup, ol' Joe was a true American hero all right. What's next, a symposium on the academic excellence of Ann Coulter? Isn't she an American heroine too?

Nope, Joe never hurt an innocent. Joe never did a thing to destroy the liberties we enjoy, he never usurped the protections guaranteed in the constitution, no, not ol' Joe. He's a hero.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 9:04 PM

I think I will read about Duke lacrosse players in a lacrosse context. Thanks for the link.

I think I will hang out here and obsess over the Potbangers a little... also.

I have received five phone calls from three different states about Duke, so I need to answer those questions as best I can.

I keep looking for the Potbanger's apology so I can tell my friends who have called that the Potbangers goofed and said so.

You know where that apology is located?

Gary Packwood said...

duke09parent 11:16 PM

The "honorary signatory" statement made me smile a little also.

When I was a sophomore I am sure that I would have used new words over and over until my friends told me to hush.

But, I swear that I remember Homer Simpson of The Simpson's becoming an honorary signatory two or three seasons ago.

Anonymous said...

10:38 has written the best post I've ever read on this board.


Study it, digest it, and shove it down the 88's throats.

Well done, Anonymous.


«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 211   Newer› Newest»