Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Questions and Answers

Today seemed like a good day for a questions-and-answers post, which I haven’t done in awhile. The blog has now had readers from at least 116 countries, with new readers from the Cayman Islands, Aruba, Dominica, Venezuela, Morocco, Lithuania, Nepal, Cote D’Ivoire, Zimbabwe, and Gambia. Since August 28, the blog has had more than 1.1 million visitors, with more than 2.1 million pages viewed.

Q (via e-mail): In yesterday’s Herald-Sun, Nifong said, “I don’t represent the people who write in from elsewhere. I do represent the people of Durham. They’re the ones I need to do a good job for. Many people tell me they are very happy with our work. I think the results we're getting in court speak for themselves. The DA’s Office has always been about more than just one case.” Do you think this statement was intended as an attack on the bar, which is not based in Durham and which has focused exclusively on Nifong's behavior in "just one case"?

A: This question is an excellent one. Yesterday, I e-mailed Nifong’s lawyer, David Freedman, to ask whether the D.A. has decided to go on the “offensive” against the Bar. Given that the whole DA Appreciation Week affair was divorced from reality, it’s a little hard to determine what Nifong meant by his comments. I’d be curious to know, however, whether Nifong had cleared the event with Freedman before holding it. My guess is no.


Q: A two-part question:

If the G-88 had the wisdom at the outset to counsel restraint instead of promoting prejudice (purely hypothetical, so please play along):

1) Do you think that justice would still have been derailed the way it was, and

2) If so, would this case still have become a priority for you?

A: The answer to (2) is easy: I doubt very much that the case would have become a priority, in part because my initial interest (the first six or eight posts) all involved the faculty response. Only once I became involved did I start looking at Nifong’s actions more closely.

As to (1), I think the outcome would have been different had the Group of 88 issued a statement counseling restraint rather than rushing to judgment. I was puzzled by a recent discussion thread in the Chronicle where several commenters claimed I had blamed the Group for causing, rather than contributing to, the rush to judgment or for leading to Nifong’s actions. I have never made either claim.

I have, however, argued that the Group’s work facilitated Nifong’s efforts. Recall the context here: amidst a fluid legal and political situation, 88 Duke faculty issued a public statement that any fair-minded Durham resident would have interpreted as suggesting the players were guilty. (We know now that the Group rushed to get the statement out, apparently to ensure that it would appear before DNA test results were revealed.) No professors publicly criticized the statement (though the student newspaper did). These professors, a fair-minded outsider would believe, must have known something of the students they decided to criticize. Surely, they could not be so reckless to issue such a statement otherwise.

Nifong defeated Freda Black by 883 votes in the primary. His behavior in the case got for him the anti-Duke, demagogue vote anyway. Had the public voice of the Duke faculty criticized Nifong, would such an action have caused 500 Durham voters to have switched allegiance from Nifong to Black? We’ll never know, of course, but my best guess is yes.


Q: Where are the Duke trustees? Are they sitting idly while the thin-skinned professors continue to embarrass the university? Are they happy with Brodhead’s performance?

A: All indications are that the Trustees remain content with Brodhead’s performance—keeping in mind that these are the Trustees who selected Brodhead.

The silence of the Trustees regarding the Group of 88 remains one of the real mysteries of the case.


Q: Do you suppose a Freedom of Information Act request would allow access to . . . the hiring practices? One has to shudder when one considers who didn’t get the jobs that the Gang of 88 hijacked.

A: A FOIA request would not apply to Duke, as a private institution.

The question raises an interesting issue, however. What other applicants were in the pool that produced the selection of Grant Farred? Or of Thavolia Glymph? Based on the quality of insights we have seen from such figures over the past several months, it’s worth considering whether Duke wound up with the best candidates in those searches.


Q: 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?

Q: 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 adamantly against it. The final decision was Yale. All over Long island I hear of the same type of conversations.

A: These two comments tie back to the question of the Trustees’ passivity. Obviously, the Group of 88 doesn’t speak for a majority of Duke’s arts and sciences faculty. Yet, as we have seen over the past 10 months, they possess considerable power to intimidate their opponents, and the administration has, to my knowledge, done nothing to indicate either publicly or privately any displeasure with their conduct.


Q: In direct contradiction to what Kim Curtis appears to hold true about middle class/upper middle class males, I knew in my bones that 40 college kids were not going to sit around and allow a crime to be committed while they were available and able to stop it. Sure, one, maybe two, bad apples might do harm and evil, acting in stealth and away from prying eyes. But 40 kids? 40 bad apples? 40 bad apples with enough brains and drive to make it into a good school? All 40 of them never hearing their mom’s or dad’s voice in their head saying, “Do the right thing?”

A: This point is a good one, and it has not received sufficient emphasis in commentary about the case.


Q: I am the one who asked Prof. Johnson to cite to his quotes. How do you know that he has kept notes and investigated the truthfulness of the cited quote? . . . I just think that he should practice what he preaches and either cite to the source or state why the person is remaining anonymous (just as I wish to remain anonymous).

A: Point well taken, and my apologies for not explaining my sources in the two potbangers posts.

Some of the comments in the post (those that were linked) came from publicly available sources. The others came from e-mails circulated among the potbangers. These e-mails were forwarded to me by a former potbanger who grew embittered by the movement’s behavior. The person agreed to forward the documents to me provided I not reveal his or her name publicly; since these were documents, I was willing to make the promise.


Q: I am a Duke student, and I am asking you NICELY, please please PLEASE, STOP IT! Stop sending my professors hate mail and death threats. Stop attributing 5 months of news media sensationalism to 88 professors. Stop your violent and vengeful comments on this blog.

A: Making death threats through e-mail is a criminal offense; if any have been leveled against the Group, they should go to the Durham Police Department and file charges. And, unless e-mails sent to Group members asking them to comment qualify as “hate mail,” I am innocent of the charge. We have already seen the curious way some Duke professors characterize e-mail, as when Alex Rosenberg stated that I sent him an e-mail accusing him of prejudging the case.

As for the “violent and vengeful comments” or “attributing 5 months of news media sensationalism to 88 professors,” the student, unfortunately, did not identify which of the blog’s more than 400 posts had committed such offenses.


Q: It would not surprise me to learn that most, if not all, of the “student quotes” in the April “Listening” ad were fabricated. Can anyone locate the “big black man” who supposedly said he was uncomfortable with the Duke police shadowing him on campus?

A: An excellent question. We know now that the ad was, effectively, “Listening to Lubiano”—that the “quotes” were not quotes at all, but paraphrases from her notes. To my knowledge, none of the Group members have responded to Friends of Duke’s questions on whether any of them had consulted with the Duke Police to determine whether the department had a policy of slowing down when officers saw a “big black man” on campus.


Q: How ironic would it be if the accuser, when facing the inevitable prospect of being charged with filing a false complaint, avers that she never made any of the statements Mr. Wilson claims that she made in an interview on December 21st? How could you be so silly so as not to interview this accuser without a witness and without a recording? This could be the first step in the waltz down witness tampering lane.

A: The Dec. 21 “frame” is one of the most troubling aspects of the case. It seems inconceivable that the accuser knew enough about the specific holes in Nifong’s case to have been able to come up with the appropriate answers to fill those holes. Wilson, of course, knew just which answers were needed.

Another procedural question. At this point, Himan was still on the case. Why did he not accompany Wilson for this interview?


Q: Take a look at the mini-script at the bottom of the Group of 88 ad. It states in part: “We thank the following departments and programs for signing onto this ad with African & African American Studies: Romance Studies; Psychology; Social and Health Sciences; Franklin Humanities Institute; Critical U.S. Studies; Art, Art History, and Visual Studies; Classical Studies; Asian & African Languages & Literature; Women’s Studies; Latino/a Studies; Latin American and Caribbean Studies; Medieval and Renaissance Studies; European Studies; Program in Education; and the Center for Documentary Studies. Because of space limitations, the names of additional faculty and staff who signed on in support may be read at the AAAS website…” Does this mean these departments and programs approved of the ad? Was it the head of each department or program that gave assent? Was a vote taken among the faculty of each of these departments or programs approving of their support? Is the list simply reflective of the departments and programs of the 88 signatories? Have this ever been addressed? Let’s say I’m a member of the Post-Raphaelite Studies Department and strongly disapproved of a certain position. If I later saw an ad supporting that position and thanking the Post-Raphaelite Studies Department for signing onto it, I would have a thing or two to say about that.

A: In response to this question, I looked into the issue, and was deeply troubled at what I discovered.

I e-mailed all the professors in the Romance Studies; Psychology: Social and Health Sciences; Art, Art History, and Visual Studies; and Asian & African Languages & Literature departments who did not sign the Group of 88’s ad, and asked when their department formally endorsed the Group of 88’s statement. Many did not respond. Those who did, however, could not recall any formal departmental mechanism through which their department approved the ad.

For those outside of the academy, it is hard to overstate the significance of this point. Departments rarely speak as corporate bodies: in my 13 years as a professor at ASU, Williams, Brooklyn, and (as a visitor) Harvard, I have never been part of a department that formally “endorsed” any public statement. At a minimum, for such an endorsement to have been made, the department would have needed to have voted, either by e-mail or in person.

When did the votes in these four departments occur? Why is there no record of the votes? I would have asked the ad’s author, Wahneema Lubiano, for an explanation, but she had responded to an earlier request from me in the following way: “Do not email me again. I am putting your name and email address in my filter.”



Anonymous said...

Anyone else notice KC has broken the Million hits mark?

Keep up the good work.

Gary Packwood said...

Welcome new friends from across the world.

You are welcome here and what you have to say will be read.
Join with us as we seek to improve how we live, learn and understand others.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations KC, for breaking the million hit mark. I am looking forward to reading your book on the Duke Hoax (Nifong Hoax?)

Anonymous said...

My condolences on finding yourself in Wahneema's filter, KC.

Anonymous said...

"I am a Duke student, and I am asking you NICELY, please please PLEASE, STOP IT! Stop sending my professors hate mail and death threats. Stop attributing 5 months of news media sensationalism to 88 professors. Stop your violent and vengeful comments on this blog."

Sure, it's a blog and the folks who post comments that are vengeful and violent.

Let me ask you, how do you interpret the word "castrate"? Is that a word that connotates violence or is that just a reaction to the widespread cancer of racism and sexism so prevelant on the Duke campus?

How about this gem from the Gang O'88 ... "Thank you for not waiting"

Sounds like a response from reasonable adults to me, unless of course, your entire professional life is dedicated to the demonization of others.

Then, of course, you don't have to wait for a damned thing, just stand in the streets demanding justice, banging pots and inflaming an already volatile situation with irresponsible,and quite frankly, despicable rhetoric.

Yet again, this time through a proxy, those who stood in public and condemned three innocent men because of their race, their class and their social circle now claim to be the victims.

Claim your victimhood when your parents are forced to defend you, not only in the legal system, but also against the very professors they entrusted your well being to.

You want violence? How about asking thugniggaintellectual about the appearance of the New Black Panther party, then go and ask Lubiano or Holloway how they would have reacted if the KKK had shown up.

PLEASE stop it. Please stop the radicalization of our campuses with pseudo-intellectual garbage masquerading as some sort of agent for societal change.

Lubiano, Holloway,thugniggaintellectual ... they care nothing for reasonable discourse, they have shown, repeatedly, that any position that apears in opposition to their world view is nothing more than racism, classcism and any other damn "ism" you can name.

So please, save your sophistry for the street corner, your professors have committed unconscionable acts, now they're going to answer for them.

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

Yes, welcome new friends from around the word. It is amazing - KC initial questioning of the 88 and the hoax, has morphed into this blog bringing us together in the fight for justice. I am Irish -I can't help being sentimental.

Anonymous said...

Ceadh mille failte, Gael, slainte!

Anonymous said...


I share your outrage and applaud your eloquence!

Anonymous said...

Joe T

"We're kicking their butts"?

What cave are you posting from?

1. Angry Studies, especially AAAS, has expanded its depth and influence at Duke.

2. No one is discussing appropriate punishments for our favorite homely sociopath.

3. Brodhead and the trustees are just peachy. Have a drink with them, and watch how they avoid the phone calls from the finnertys, the Evanses, and Seligmanns. These pigs are living large.

4. Nifong will get disbarred, but so what? He is a thug extraordianaire who should be sent to the big house for 30 years. Comparatively speaking, Nifong's taking a walk--and good luck to Rae trying to collect her judgment.

5. The Durham black community will continue to receive more white-funded Duke largesse, and show no appreciation. Ditto NAACP

6. Women's studies scored a huge victory in this case--even our moderator is afraid to describe what a false accuser really is.

Yep, we be winning

A Jew and proud of it

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

Certainly anyone who usually gives to Duke could have more influence right now by giving to the defense fund at

As for that poor brainwashed Duke student, that you send people like that out into the world is another problem with having angery studies programs.

Finally one of the great ironies of the angery studies programs is they are tolerated at academic institutions for two reasons:

1. The usual PC/white guilt crap.

2. TO PROVIDE EASY MARJORS FOR ATHLETES, particularly minority athletes who would struggle mightily in the tougher majors.

I wonder what percentage of majors in say Africana and African-American Studies [AAAS] are scholarship athletes who got special admits to Duke? This group of Duke faculty is the dumbest most self destructive group, I have ever seen. They hate their student not understanding without rich white students there is no Duke. They hate athletics not understanding that without athletics there is no AAAS or at least AAAS is smaller. They talk like outsider being too stupid to understand that regardless of their opinions being a member of the Duke faculty makes one an establishment figure. As I said, self destructive idiots.

Anonymous said...

HOAX : The Social Disaster Which Came After March 14th, 2006 at Duke University

I'd like a small thank-you in the liner notes.

I don't think we should fault Duke too much for their handling of the Group of 88. After all, Houston Baker practically made a bee-line down I40 following his rush to judgment. Duke can't been seen as a suppressor of free speech, regardless of how ridiculous that speech happens to be. I would suspect that you'll see the key members of the G88 dropping off the course lists over the next few years until only a few of them are left. This isn't something that the majority of Duke students/faculty/ staff/ adminitrators/ alumni like.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, though, on another topic, how sad is it that President Bush thought he could sell Hydrogen Fuel Cell research as a viable transportation option. The CEO's of the big oil companies probably ran the train on him later. Why didn't he just say that we were researching cold fusion in order to get ourselves off of oil? MORON.

I'd just settle for a good diesel-hybrid that got 60-80mpg.

Oh, yeah, congrats on a million hits or whatever.

Anonymous said...


A question for you.

I was wondering if you were aware of Dr. Wood's own athletic participation?

Prof. Wood played varsity LACROSSE at Harvard (ugrad) and when he was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. (He later returned to Harvard to earn his PhD)

Prof. Wood also coached the women's lacrosse club team at Duke (when he was a young professor).

I have no comment/thoughts on his political stances/viewpoints, but was just curious if people were aware he had played NCAA lax while as a college student. . . if nothing else, it is interesting contextual matter.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Vivien Thomas that Duke shouldn't be faulted too much with their handling of the Group of 88. After the turmoil subsides, things will not be back to normal for the 88 and there will be attrition. The campus doesn't need a all-out free speech/academic freedom debate on top of the current legal issues involving the LAX players, the criminal justice system, and others.

Also, the silence of the trustees isn't a mystery to me. I doubt that they are silent. They are receiving much information, and they simply haven't spoken publicly yet, and for that they are wise.

january said...

2:19 and Vivien Thomas:

All they had to do was say "they don't speak for the university." They should have done that and they didn't, and for that I most definitely do fault them.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure I buy the argument that the new "facts" that emerged from the Dec. 21 interview were created by Linwood Wilson. KC suggests that Crystal Mangum couldn't have known all the holes in the case, but is that really true? It's been reported that CM was never seen on NCCU's campus because she was taking her classes online. It's also been reported that CM at one time had an online ad for her escort/dancing "services." It's also been reported that CM was on the honor roll at NCCU. If true, these reports suggest that CM is well-acquainted with the internet, and that she has enough intelligence to follow the case developments.

As an attorney, when I read Wilson's report on the Dec. 21 interview, it seemed to me that the new "facts" had been created by someone who was familiar with the problems in the State's case, but who lacked sufficient knowledge or understanding of the law to realize how creating the new "facts" would cause even more problems for the prosecution. Based on his past performance (e.g., his insistence to Cheshire that CM's story had never varied), Linwood Wilson seems to fit this description, but then so does Crystal Mangum. Of course, there's always the possibility that it was a collaborative effort between the two. In any event, I'm not ready to place the entire blame on Wilson just yet.

Anonymous said...

Joe T's 12:24 AM response is interesting, and I think he has a good point. Almost all of the kinds of incidents that bring out the collective potbangers on university campuses have been hoaxes, and the sources of those hoaxes has been faculty and students.

I would not be at all surprised if Duke faculty members fabricated at least some of the so-called death threats. Because of the nature of IP addresses, one can track down emails and their sources, so I seriously doubt that anyone on the outside sent real-live death threats to Duke faculty members.

Remember when they had to shut down the Chronicle on-line poll about readmitting Finnerty and Seligmann? Hundreds of "votes" came from two faculty computers. In other words, two faculty members at least were permitting their computers to be used for hoax voting.

So, Joe T.'s post is not just idle speculation in my book.

Michael said...

The level of worldwide exposure is pretty amazing. The local newspapers should do a story on that alone.

Unfortunately it's showing the world what an embarassment Durham and North Carolina is. And I'm sure that our international readers are wondering where the Feds are in this case.

KC, in this post, is showing that he is head and shoulders above Sports Illustrated, the major networks, local newspapers and the national newspapers on the level and integrity of research, analysis and reporting.

M. Simon said...

Cultural Marxism explains what the Gang 88 is up to.

The subversion of America. i.e. turning America into the USSR.

an excerpt from the above link:

Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.

an excerpt from a link at the above link:

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.

Thus thugniggaintellectual.

Communists have always used the criminal element to advance its cause. They represent the muscle of the movement. Thus the New Black Panthers (NBP).

The NBP is not an abberation. It is part of the plan. Where argument and persuasion do not work intimidation will be used.

BTW this was all worked out in the 1920s.

About 5% of the American population creates the wealth we all enjoy. That 5% are our top intellectual performers.

In any Communist regime they will be the first up against the wall.

This is what the thugniggas of the world are up to. Which is why this is the "perfect" case for them.

The sex stuff is all about destroying coherent families because such families are naturally in the way.

I have been pretty much a libertine in my youth. However, nature changes all that when children start to arrive. It surprised me. Children naturally seem to change most people's point of view on the subject.

The USSR was a bastion of free sex in the beginning. That went away after the first few years because it is not natural for families. Families are naturally conservative. It has nothing to do with politics. It is nature.

To reduce the power of natural conservatism, sexaul libertinism is promoted for all, not just the unmarried, because it breaks family bonds.

M. Simon said...

I have turned my 7:59AM into a post with added links.

Especially look at te New Black Panther link where a black man takes apart the New Black Panthers.

Duke And The Cultural Marxist Program

M. Simon said...

Want a real Jew Cowboy?

Kinky Friedman.

Anonymous said...

Hi KC,

From your answer to one of the questions:

"Obviously, the Group of 88 doesn’t speak for a majority of Duke’s arts and sciences faculty."

Not to be a pedant or anything, but is there any evidence for that one way or the other? AFAIK, the vast majority have said nothing.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know how to nominate KC for a Pulitzer Prize?

He is doing the work that the drive-by media used to do, so he should get the prize.

Anonymous said...

I would be worried about those "death threats" regarding police investigations. Fabricating evidence is a standard practise in Durham and I'm sure Gang88/CitizenCommittee/Nifong/Gottlieb is able to come up with the a word document showing a threatening email with "From: KJ" on the top of it and Durham jury convicting KJ based on that evidence.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know how to nominate KC for a Pulitzer Prize?

I suppose this is sick joke. Pulitzer committee is controlled by ultra PC people. I wouldn't be surprised if some memebers of Gang88 are there. In anycase, it is far left organisation that rewards only politically motivated "stories" e.g. criminal leaks to Al-Qaida, fabricated evidence or so forth. Exposing left wing conspiracy is certainly the last thing that got rewarded.

Anonymous said...

I have to admit that Gang88 was right about one issue: There is a social disaster at Duke and it has a lot to do with those "racial privileges" Gang88 talks so much.

Maybe one day professors are hired based on their skills, not because of their race and political views. (But I wouldn't count on that)

AMac said...

Joe T 12:24am --

Unlike you, I think it's likely that the Group of 88 (&c) are receiving abusive and threatening emails. There is a lot of anger "out there," and the detached nature of internet communications tends to bring out the worst in some people.

From time to time, one can see that in the comments on this very blog.

The response of the Brodhead Administration to this issue has been revealing. In January, Provost Peter Lange defended the Group of 88 through attacking "the bloggers" who, he implies, are responsible for promoting the offending emails.

In what other case have public intellectuals urged that the nuts at the fringes should be given the power to set the terms of the debate?

Actually--of course--this is a job for Duke's Information Technology division and the Duke Police Department. Unwanted and offensive emails constitute a problem known as Spam. Technical fixes are well-known and widespread. Threatening emails are a Law Enforcement problem known as Threats. There, too, there are known procedures and institutions to police them (hint).

That Duke's Administration and the Group of 88 seem completely uninterested in practical approaches to the email problem strongly suggests that they feel that there's most to be gained from milking their crybaby/victim status.

Perhaps Duke's Next President will take the overdue steps that would re-center the debate on the thinking and writing of the grownups (like, for instance, K.C. Johnson).

AMac said...

anon 8:50am --

You asked about the Duke faculty that is not pro-Hoax. See this Friends of Duke University page for a list of fifty professors who have come out publically against prosecutorial misconduct and in favor of Due Process.

Anonymous said...

Polanski is absolutely correct. We are losing the war but may have some tiny victories in this little battle.

In fact it is worse than he says. Just contact your Congressman and ask them why they voted for the pc bills like VAWA or the genital mutilation legislation. Ask them why they are only focusing on women and are ignoring the needs of men and boys. They will either placate you or they will ignore you. The PC we see from the characters in the LAX mess is the same PC you will see from your legislators.

We need tanks and artillery but have only pea-shooters. We are in deep yogurt.

Gayle Miller said...

Query: Yes, Duke is a private institution. However, does it not accept Federal funding in some form or fashion? If that is indeed the case, then are they not subject to FOIA requests?

I'm just asking.

As to the Group of 88 - their lack of relevance will become more and more apparent with the passage of time and the exoneration of the 3 victims of this debacle.

And, as enrollment and the ability to attract high quality athletes to the Duke program increases, Brodhead will go down as well.

Sometimes, much as I detest being patient (it isn't naturally in my DNA), it is a really good idea to just let cause and effect weigh in on a situation!

Anonymous said...


I'm scheduling some meetings next month re financing for a Duke documentary. I plan to ambush some of these pols you referenced.

Humiliation is a wonderful thing. That's why it's essential that the boys' attorneys sue CGM, Nifong, Brodhead, and the G88.

They should not settle out of court. Discovery is a Precious form of humiliation.

The only problem is a Durham jury, but these attorneys will know how to get by that problem. Not all blacks like CGM, I'll guaranree you that.


Anonymous said...


Anon 8:50 here. Thanks for the pointer, but that actually reinforces my point: There have been 88+ signers of the Listening Statement and support thereof, and 50 supporting the students. What is the total faculty count in A&S?

Anon 8:50, who really should get around to getting an account...

Anonymous said...


You're right re the Pulitzer. It's PC- and quota-driven.

It's now considered a joke, much in the same way the Nobel in literature has become since awarding it to Toni Morrison.

Can you imagin? Geniuses like Milan Kundera, Philip Roth, and Thomas Pynchon passed over for Morrison.

BTW, I've lost a lot of respect for Johnson. He's a so-so writer, terrible editor, and has lost his way as a blog administrator.

So, yes, let's nominate him for a Pulitzer. He deserves it.

Trust me, boyo. My documentary is what people will be talking about, not Johnson and Taylor's book. That book will be nothing more than a rehash.

Neither Taylor nor Johnson displays any creative or bold answers to the serious issues this case presents.


AMac said...

anon 8:50am --

You don't even have to get an account, just pick a 'handle' and use it (as Polanski does) so that readers can match comment to author.

Re Duke's Silent Majority, here are the thoughts of an anonymous Duke prof that are probably pretty mainstream. Others post on D-i-W threads from time to time.

Polanski --

There's something a bit funny about complaints that somebody else hasn't undertaken just what you think needs to be done.

Johnson got his free Blogspot account and started scribbling. You or I can do the same, whenever the Muse strikes. Just leave a trail of hyperlinks at this and other blogs, as M. Simon has done. Write well enough and often enough, and your readers will return.

Johnson has done more than anyone to crack this case, by compiling and linking bits and pieces from here and there, and by offering basic, logical, ethical commentary that is accessible to a broad audience.

By blog or documentary, how about standing on a giant's shoulders rather than repeatedly noting that he isn't tall enough, in the way that you think he should be tall. We heard you.

Anonymous said...

Polanski writes on KC's blog. I just pass over his contributions. Not interested in what he/she has to write. Definetly low low class, when he calls KC - Johnson. Just pass him by folks. I am not for censorship unless they are cussin or talking about body parts.

Anonymous said...

re Polanski

I'm his assistant. He's on location today, but he promises to answer all comments. He has decided to seek out financing for a documentary, and he finds Professor Johnson's focus unfocused. I myself don't give a damn about this farrago of race, class and gender.

I have advised Polanski not to pursue this, as the company is in the process of producing some difficult projects. I know he's looking for a producing partner, and he'll find one.

Now I must get back to the studio.

Tom Bouman
Production Assistant

Anonymous said...

Tom - It has been obvious all along that your boss has a dog in this fight. We appear to be stuck with him as he will nor start his own blog. Better him than Justice58

Anonymous said...

hi, I am the ONLY DUKE STUDENT posting on this blog, it seems. I posted but DIW took my comment off, it was an appeal for you to please stop targeting my professors, sending hate mail, adhominim attacks, etc. You can see part of my post in JSW'S referance to the "poor brainwashed duke student" (moi!) or HumboldtBlue's much more strident critique of my appeal.

DIW why are you deleting the posts of the only duke student on here? how long will it take til you delete this post? Dont be afraid of me! Im just a Duke student, and if you really believe what you post, you would welcome my contribution, because, well, isnt this blog all about what you all think is best for me? if not, then what is it exactly?

Anonymous said...

Thanks KC

In regards to the "40 bad apples" question/comment, in which you answered, "This point is a good one, and it has not received sufficient emphasis in commentary about the case.", be careful.

There has been discussion on that topic, and the recent rape case illustrates it might happen without being noticed by the crowd attending the party. If that rape happened, I refrain from classifying all at that party as "bad apples".

This is not needed in the Duke case.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 2:19 AM said...

The campus doesn't need a all-out free speech/academic freedom debate on top of the current legal issues involving the LAX players, the criminal justice system, and others.

I must not understand.

We are right in the middle of the debate and it is not just legal issues involving the LAX players.

There are many many legal issues and most of them don't involve the LAX players.

I hope you are correct about the Board of Trustees.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 2:03 PM

Did you mean ... ad hominem (appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason)) "ad hominem arguments"


Anonymous said...

"well, isnt this blog all about what you all think is best for me? if not, then what is it exactly?"

Since when did this case become about you? I know your professors believe that this case has become about them, they're victims after all, but have you been accused of a heinous crime you did not commit?

Did 88 professors sign a "listening statement" that implied your guilt because of your race or your social status?

If not, the question stands, when did this case become about you?

Gary Packwood said...

Gayle Miller said...

Query: Yes, Duke is a private institution. However, does it not accept Federal funding in some form or fashion? If that is indeed the case, then are they not subject to FOIA requests?

The issue I believe is whether the institution is a private entity.

Funds are not subject to FOIA requests...only legal entities.

AMac said...


I didn't see you earlier comment. Why not try resubmitting it?

In my experience, the comments that get axed from this blog exhibit one or more of the following. They are:

-- libelous
-- racist
-- far off-topic
-- inflammatory

As to the latter, the Hoax and Duke's response to it touch on some complex and sensitive issues. There is a grey area between an intellectual's exploration--say, Charles Murray in his recent WSJ op-eds--and in-your-face commentary.

Johnson isn't obliged to host what he considers to be noxious remarks--mine, yours, or anyone else's.

So before re-posting, a re-write to make your points more palatable to a general audience might be in order.

Above, you said your earlier comment "was an appeal for you to please stop targeting my professors, sending hate mail, adhominim attacks, etc."

Who is "you"? Johnson? The targeted, hateful, ad hominem attacks he has unleashed on your professors seem to exist only in their minds. Can you offer evidence to the contrary?

Or does "you" mean "comment posters"? My letters have been polite (and unanswered). If other D-i-W readers have written obscene or threatening emails, I join you in urging them to stop--it's unethical, illegal, and counterproductive. But I have no evidence that D-i-W has inspired anyone to do so. Johnson's advice has been in the opposite direction.

Since you are a member of Duke's community, I would urge you to remind the Administration that the I.T. folks and the Duke Police have the tools to solve most of the Group of 88's email problems. Blacklists, whitelists, spam filters, IP tracing, routing of genuine threats to law enforcement, and the like.

The deeper structural flaws at Duke will take longer to fix.

Anonymous said...

Thx, KC, for giving an approving nod to my point about "40 bad apples." I appreciate it.


Anonymous said...


The "40 bad apples" point is significant to the Duke 3 case in that the party took place in a cramped, single level bungalow. All the partiers, 40 plus people, were never more than 25 feet from each other while they occupied the house.

It is beyond belief that three of the attendees, plus one of the two central figures at the party, the dancer whom they'd all come to see, would vacate themselves into a bathroom and their absence not be noted. It is also beyond belief that a gang rape could occur while 40 young men sat a few feet away with only a bathroom door separating them from the action, and none of them attempt to investigate and intercede.

The layout of the house tightly restricts what could have been done in the bungalow in secret. That may be true in the recent case also, or it may not be. But what is not true in the recent case is an allegation of gang rape. Two partygoers in a bathroom are a lot different than four, one of whom, the dancer, is the main focus of attention for every person at the party.


Anonymous said...

Only Duke Student,

You write as though you truly are a Duke student:


No capitalization.


All caps, in your best 8th grade prose style

I'll skip the horrible sentence structure.


That's real close to the correct spelling.


A mess that some proofreading would have sorted out, perhaps.

>how long...

Again, a sentence started with a lower case letter.


Check into the apostrophe - it can be your friend, when properly applied.


See above.



>... this blog all about what you all think is best for me? if not, then what is it exactly?

Well, since the first time I met a Duke student I have always told two jokes about them - you can always tell a Duke student, you just can't tell them much.

The other is "How many Duke students does it take to change a lightbulb?"

One - they stand still and the world revolves around them.

Now either go back and take some English classes or quit lying about which school you actually attend.

Anonymous said...


1. making or having a harsh sound; grating; creaking: strident insects; strident hinges.
2. having a shrill, irritating quality or character: a strident tone in his writings.
3. Linguistics. (in distinctive feature analysis) characterized acoustically by noise of relatively high intensity, as sibilants, labiodental and uvular fricatives, and most affricates.

Considering all of the comments I have made on this blog have been of written form, I can only assume any stridency you associate with my posts is what you hear in your head, or through your uvular fricatives, whichever comes first.

Anonymous said...

KC is the professor here. Can you english teachers allow him to correct spelling, periods, comas and style? Don't waste our time.

Anonymous said...

" KC is the professor here. Can you english teachers allow him to correct spelling, periods, comas and style? Don't waste our time."

I have a better idea, why don't you make the corrections yourself, begin with the word coma and change it to comma, it might make you seem less of a poltroon

Anonymous said...


Don't waste your time? What? You know you can skip a comment - no really, you can! You don't have to read them all. It's true!

And use all that extra time learning English. It will be fun!

Anonymous said...

The Duke case only highlights that we are not a country of "laws," but of men. The former is lip service for the masses, the latter predetermines the outcome.

Very good to learn of Professor Johnson's epiphany regarding the New York Times - if I may, the rag of record.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering about all the post-grads who were led down the garden path. Now out in the world fouling young minds, forming secret societies of 88, taking their money at the behest of complicit trustees.

But I'm the one walking down the yellow brick road, that Duke retains even one student.

Many thanks for your efforts, K.C..

Gary Packwood said...


The comments section of KC's blog has become a zoo. A constant barrage of bell curve comments mixed in with Barak Obama bashing are answered with Ted Haggard and Mark Foley taunts. None of them have any bearing on the case. I assume he continues to put out a post every day because new people are still discovering the blog and he wants to keep interest at a high level but the comments are a blow to his credibility.

My opinion is that he is caught on the horns of a dilemma. I’m sure he doesn’t want to heavily censor the site and doesn’t have the time available to baby sit the wack jobs. I personally think he needs to ban at least one poster.

Gary Packwood said...


FROM Liestoppers Today

David said...

At some point, my hope is that Professor Johnson will expand beyond Durham into the fertile ground of general, or global, prosecutorial misconduct.

This is a long way from an impetus to question the ethics of 88 professors, although it's academics such as these who add such a taint to the already poisoned water.

It seems the entire NC Bar is in full CYA mode, content to leave the accused dangling in the southern wind - a foot, a few toes, balancing on a stool.

Would anyone dare predict they'll do the right thing. Not simply concerning Nifong and his Durham cohorts, but about themselves.


Anonymous said...

They are strippers, not dancers. Yet again, another unsolicited and unwanted english lesson..

Anonymous said...

Hello. I love your blog, it is very nice. You can see pictures of me on - See you soon baby ;)