Sunday, March 04, 2007

Sunday Roundup

A USA Today article from last week featured the latest jaw-dropping comment from NAACP case monitor Irving Joyner. Asked about Mike Nifong’s having instructed police to violate their own regulations and run a do-over lineup that was confined only to suspects, Joyner breezily termed the procedural misconduct “really unimportant.”

As long as the accuser could identify someone in court, he implied, convictions should follow. Since this opinion wholly contradicts the traditional stance of the NAACP on due process, I assume that Joyner will soon be resigning from the organization?

John Fitzpatrick, a black defense lawyer and Nifong campaign donor, provided an equally stunning comment, in his case on the purpose of the criminal justice system. Fitzpatrick demanded a trial on the grounds that “the public has a right to hear [the accuser’s] side of the story from her mouth under oath.” (In yesterday's Herald-Sun, Fitzpatrick even more preposterously suggested that Nifong's defiant response to the state bar could be interpreted as somewhat of an apology. It might have been a cry for forgiveness.”)

Once again, Jim Coleman provided a voice of sanity, repeating his earlier assertion that the lineup violated procedure and predicting that the case would be dropped.


This case long ago passed the line into farce. Therefore, this week’s edition of case humor:

  • An amusing youtube with a message for Irving Joyner;
  • The Spoof predicts the next excuse that Mike Nifong will offer to the Bar;
  • Liestoppers uncovered a leaked document from Duke’s Academic Council, revealing the newly planned Department of Scapegoatology.

Among the offerings:

Scapegoatology 101: Introduction to Scapegoatology (Prerequisite for graduation for all persons attending Duke on athletic scholarships).

Taught by Peter Wood, this course will introduce the discerning student to the concept and general practices of Scapegoatology, including an overview of the scapegoatology process and exploration of the goals of Scapegoating ... Numerous lab experiments and field exercises will be conducted. Students on athletic scholarship will have the thrilling experience of acting as scapegoats in all field exercises and lab experiments while those having declared majors in Sociology, Anthropology and AAAS will, of course, be afforded the opportunity to participate as scapegoaters.

Scapegoatology 103: Selecting Your Scapegoat

Taught by Wahneema Lubiano, this course explores the thrills and pitfalls of selecting or creating your scapegoat.


  • Academic Jargon and Gobbledygook 101, 102 & 103.
  • Ideological Indoctrination and Demagoguery 101.

Scapegoatology 107: Milking The Scapegoat Process For All You Can

Taught by the subgroup chairpersons for the Campus Culture Initiative (CCI), this course is designed as a recapitulation and reaffirmation of the previous Scapegoatology Courses, and is designed to once again tie your “For Shame” scapegoating efforts back to actualization and furtherance of your hidden agendas. The following books are required reading:

  • How to Demand Campus Initiatives
  • Selective Committee Stacking
  • Leadership Through Ignoring Your Committee Members
  • How to Make Taking Your Pet Course a Prerequisite for Graduation.

According to the leaked document, adjunct professor Mike Nifong not only will offer a course in the new department, but he will give guest lecturers in a class taught by Karla Holloway.


Ohio’s State’s campus paper, The Lantern, examined how the case has shown the value of teammates, in the best sense of the term. To me, one of the most remarkable elements of events in Durham has been the behavior of the lacrosse players since March 14. They just as easily could have lashed out, or grown surly, or imitated the Group of 88 in shameless conduct. Instead, the players have shown character under tremendous duress.

As columnist Kevin Bruffy noted,

Publicly they were condemned, chastised and presumed guilty before the apparent facts of the case surfaced. The team in general, and the three accused specifically, were public enemy No. 1 across the country. They were called hooligans and their pictures plastered all across campus . . . Even their school turned its back on them. Still, through it all, they held together, even when it would have been much easier to tuck their tails between their legs and disappear . . .But if the remaining charges are dropped, the Duke party would be no different than thousands of other parties that happen every year on almost every major college campus in the country.

A consistent pattern throughout this case has been the high-quality, and empathetic, commentary from most in the college press.


Mike Nifong’s bizarre crusade against Friends of Duke University has attracted media notice. WRAL recently did a report on the issue (with a web interview with FODU spokesperson Jason Trumpbour).

Trumpbour also issued a statement on the FODU site:

It is typical of Nifong’s narcissism and grandiosity that he imagines himself confronted by giants. The reality is that we are a bunch of ordinary folks who had to shoulder the burden of speaking out against him ourselves because we got tossed out on our ear at Duke. Our group’s original purpose was to get Duke to speak out in defense of its students and they did not start doing that until late December. We are mostly funded out of our own pockets. We have no experience doing this sort of thing and we are figuring it out as we go along. If Nifong were to recognize these realities, it would be a bitter blow to him. He would then have to finally confront the reality that he is responsible for his own misfortunes. All we have done is shine a light on his actions and invite others to see for themselves the nature and extent of his misconduct.
Nifong’s targeting of FODU is indeed an irony. The group exists only because the public voices of Duke’s faculty—the Group of 88 and figures such as Peter Wood or Orin Starn—rushed to judgment last spring, not only abandoning the academy’s traditional reverence for due process but advancing their personal and pedagogical agendas on the backs of their own students. So if Nifong has a complaint with anyone, he should direct it at the Group of 88.


Bill Anderson’s latest excellent article looks at how those who expected “that Nifong would simply become background noise” had not counted on how the DA’s bar response would make him “front-and-center once again.”

To Anderson, “The arrogance of Nifong’s statements . . . tells us more about the state than we could possibly have realized.” He correctly notes that the indictments in this case were brought not by Nifong but by the state of North Carolina. So each and every day the special prosecutors keep the charges in place, “the State of North Carolina is de facto endorsing Nifong’s conduct.”

Anderson concludes,

To paraphrase Leon Trotsky, "Nifong is the state; the state is Nifong." Indeed, until (or if) the North Carolina authorities drop these charges and go after the real criminals in this case – Nifong, the Durham police, and others who pushed the charges – then the only proper thing for them to do is to hang pictures of Nifong on their office walls, since on this day, he is the very face of the "justice system" of The State of North Carolina.



Many months ago, Wahneema Lubiano promised that the Group of 88 would plow forward “regardless of the ‘truth’ established in whatever period of time about the incident at the house on N. Buchanan Blvd.” The status of race relations among Duke students exemplifies the trend.

In the first stage of the Group of 88 rehab tour, the “clarifying” faculty asserted, “The disaster [of which the original Group of 88 ad spoke] is the atmosphere that allows sexism, racism, and sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus.” A month later, the Campus Culture Initiative report amplified upon the claim, asserting that interactions across racial lines at Duke were worse than at a cohort of 20 private universities.

But an alert commenter at the Liestoppers board noted that data from 2001-2002 from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education presented an entirely different picture. The JBHE study indicated that Duke ranked #1 among 26 universities considered, and stated that the ranking provide “an excellent guide to whether a given university is committed to the education of African Americans and is providing a happy place for them to be.”

The rankings, it would seem, represent one “truth” that Lubiano and her cohort will choose to deny.


The latest top-notch Duke Chronicle article comes from Zak Kazzaz, examining the peculiar record of Nifong’s chief investigator, Linwood Wilson. Kazzaz obtained an interview with Joseph Cheshire, who observed that while “all investigators are supposed to provide objective information to the lawyers that they're working with, and if you have an investigator that does not do that then justice is not served, in this case it seems that the boss did not want objective information.”

The Chronicle asked Wilson, who admits that he has investigated no more than four other rape cases since 1971, about the many complaints filed against him, along with two formal rebukes from the body that licenses P.I.’s. His response? “I don't have to explain it. They found no violation.” Nifong refused comment on why he hired Wilson—something that remains one of the big mysteries of the case.

The Chronicle piece also noted the unusual nature of Wilson’s role. While D.A. investigators normally tend to bureaucratic matters, Wilson has functioned more as a policeman, including obtaining the Dec. 21 (frame) statement from the accuser.

Kazzaz’s reporting also raises doubts as to why Wilson and Wilson alone conducted the Dec. 21 interview, since “compared to Wilson's self-admitted, minimal experience with rape cases, Himan said he has specific training for his position and a specialty in violent crimes.”

Bob Ekstrand, meanwhile, wondered why the accuser didn’t produce a new statement on December 21, given that she recanted her April 6 version of events. As he noted,

Look at what the product [of the interview] was—the product wasn't a statement. It seemed more of a hodgepodge of facts that was basically kind of an unconnected set of assertions that seemed to be trying to address enormous holes in the case.


I admit to a strong bias in favor of JetBlue, my favorite airline. A couple of weeks ago, it had a day from hell, when weather problems at JFK exposed a major flaw in the airline’s business model. Customers on four planes were stranded on the runway for hours. Flights were canceled or delayed for several days thereafter.

JetBlue CEO David Neeleman responded quickly, issuing an apology and promising to make the necessary changes to prevent the errors from occurring again.

The Duke administration should have imitated JetBlue’s approach, apologizing for contributing to a rush to judgment and promising to ensure that, in the future, all Duke professors would respect the provisions of the Faculty Handbook regarding how they treat all of their school’s students.


John in Carolina continues his excellent series profiling the actions of Cpl. David Addison, acting DPD spokesperson during critical days last March and DPD liaison to “Crimestoppers,” the group that produced the “wanted” poster stating unequivocally that a rape occurred at the lacrosse house.

If a federal investigation of Nifong’s behavior occurs, Addison will be on the hot seat: as JinC notes, he surely will be asked questions that “he’ll have to answer either by incriminating himself, but telling the truth or by incriminating himself even more deeply by perjuring.”

And, for the ever-growing “truth-is-stranger-than-fiction” file, JinC reveals that Addison was recently selected by Durham Jaycees as their Outstanding Young Public Servant of the Year. Just amazing.


Steve (Spoiler) Monks is out as chairman of the county Republican Party. The figure who siphoned enough votes away from Lewis Cheek to allow Nifong to slip by with a plurality total resigned his chairmanship yesterday.

In a fitting rebuke for this Nifong enabler, a committee member successfully called for him to cut off his resignation speech--as he was delivering it.


I spent the weekend at Williams College, where I was part of a conference discussing new historiographical trends about the Vietnam War. Here was the lead story in Friday’s campus paper, the Williams Record.

Posters heralding the “Feminist Porn Activist,” “The Amazing World of Orgasm,” and “Sidewalk Sex Clinic” are hanging around campus, outshining the typical lecture fare and ACE parties. These events are part of the Women’s Collective initiative Positive Sex Week, which began Sunday and will continue until March 3.

According to organizers, these events are meant to celebrate empowerment, educate the campus about the benefits of exploring sex and challenge the participants to think critically about the effects of sex and sexuality in society.

At the other geographic tip of Massachusetts, last week all Harvard College freshmen received an email (subject line “sexxxxxy”) from the college dean. The topic? “Hooking Up: Hot Hints For Making Your Harvard (or Future) Sex Life Great.”

The e-mail advertised a talk from Amber Madison, author of Hooking Up: An All-Out Guide to Sex and Sexuality. The dean wrote,

Want to know more about how to access pleasure, how to communicate your desires and how to make sure that you're getting what you want and need from your partner? Do you have questions about sex or sexuality that you've never had answered? You won't want to miss this!
Students who complained received a reply from Susan Marine, Director of the Harvard College Women's Center. Marine justified the e-mail by commenting, “Our role as educators is to enable all students who wish to learn about their own development to have access to accurate, meaningful information.”

If you knew nothing about how today's college professors approach gender and sexuality issues other than what we have seen in this case, you would be excused for believing that today's campus ultra-left are Victorian neo-prohibitionists. After all, Group of 88 members have portrayed themselves as shocked (shocked!) by the captains having hired strippers, and have acted as if underage drinking constitutes a deep moral flaw.

In fact, the Harvard and Williams episodes are routine on elite college campuses, and they are almost always generated by figures whose share the Group of 88’s ideological temperament. The hypocrisy of the Group’s using the difficulties of students who don't fit the preferred race/class/gender profile to "discover" their inner Jerry Falwells is one of the most depressing elements of the case.


Anonymous said...

Thanks for the nod to John in Carolina. J-i-C has done excellent work on the News & Observer's shameful role in its inflammatory late March coverage and on the Durham police role in distributing libelous posters.

aberman said...

KC, I know this is *way* off topic, but since you are a law professor, perhaps you can answer this for me.
Massachucetts State Law seems to make it illegal to enticing people under the age of 18 to have sex. Considering may freshman are under 18, was Harvard doing that with their email?

Anonymous said...

Bill A.... Great article. What a teacher - I could understand your point. KC is not a law Profssor- History.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Diane Nelson urge students to go topless to protest a speech. I guess there is a difference between the political breast and the paid breast. I'm surprised that at a school which offers queer studies programs that strippers would cause the faculty's inner church lady to emerge with such vehemence.

Does anyone feel that the amount of attention Duke's faculty pays to pop music and sexuality shows immaturity. Actually a group of middle aged (and more)teachers obsessed with there students sexuality strikes me as a little creepy.

Gary Packwood said...

Linwood Wilson

If you would like to see a picture of Linwood Wilson, Gospel Singer (Bass), THE SPOKESMEN QUARTET out of Durham, NC here is the link.

Linwood Wilson is the President of the singing group.

I would imagine that Mr. Wilson has a solid fan base in the Durham area who appreciate gospel music. That would be especially true of African American Blacks who trace their families back to the old south.

For those who like to trace the history of southern gospel music, the men's quartet is where it all started.

The white gospel quartet has it gospel roots in barbershop quartet singing.

Also, African music is ALWAYS SACRED. White people moved from secular music to sacred music...especially in quartets.

Bill and Gloria Gather are the gospel music leaders right now. When they bring their concert to Houston, Texas they fill a stadium with 30,000 people with tickets sold out within two or three days.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

I don't find the statements by Joyner and Fitzpatrick jaw dropping. And I can not see how they could be shocking to anyone who has followed the politicization of rape cases.

The rape-nazis like Murphy and Grace certainly do not favor due process in rape cases. They don't trust juries either. They certainly agree with Joyner that any old ID process is ok and with Fitzpatrick that Mangum has some right to have her allegation heard publically.

Certainly this puts Joyner at odd with the usual position of the NAACP on other types of crimes, but that is hardly unheard of.

Unknown said...

Apropose K.C.'s visit to Williams, The New York Times has a major look see today on the celebration of pornography on college campuses, by women no less.

Anonymous said...

In answer to w. fontes' 1:21 question:
"Does anyone feel that the amount of attention Duke's faculty pays to pop music and sexuality shows immaturity. Actually a group of middle aged (and more)teachers obsessed with there students sexuality strikes me as a little creepy."

Yes, I have thought for some time that the focus of some faculty members on student sexlife has been creepy--the exaggeration of sex incidents on campus, the creating a sense of fear and victimization and anger, the reading lists of some courses, their "academic" writings. Typically, it is a student who would suggest a bare-breasted protest, or streaking, or mooning. That a professor would suggest that form of protest for students is odd. It's as if some of the faculty haven't grown up yet, or maybe they simply are unable to approach subject matter and to relate to their students in a professional, academic manner. Oh, rebels, they are. Why aren't they laughed off campus? Are they pied pipers with a following of young people searching for themselves? In some ways the antics of Nelson and thugniggerintellectual and others remind me of parents who try to act and dress like their adolescent children. Are these professors being cool in their trendiness? I'm perplexed.

Anonymous said...

The USA Today article of 2/27/07 that is the subject of your first item in the "Sunday Roundup" has quite an uncorrected error in it. Andrea Stone has the byline and the article lists the "accuser" as being 18 years old. .

"The 18-year-old accuser, one of two women hired to dance at the party, has changed her story several times. "

It is no wonder she can't keep her story straight being only 18 years old and quite busy being a student, giving birth to 3 children, seeing US Navy service, stealing a car, stripping, and all her hotel appointments.

Do the people who publish newspapers even read their articles? How can a national newspaper get something so wrong?

Anonymous said...

Joyner's unbelievable statements should be known all over the blogosphere, especially by the left-wing and/or liberal blogs of N.C. which are so desperately trying to ignore the big elephants in the room.

GS said...

I like Her posting.

Anonymous said...

Joyner and the NAACP have destroyed any credibility they may once have had. Their blatantly hypocritical comments in this case will be quoted back to them in the future in every case where a black defendant has been the victim of a prosecutor's misconduct.

Anonymous said...

"ALL students of every gender are welcome!" - Harvard Dean, inre: Sex speech.

We only have two genders where I'm from. Maybe the NSF has funded some interesting research in their biology lab?

"Each" reads better than "every" in this sentence, unless you a hermaphrodite. Maybe the subtle message is that Duke, Yale, Princeton, et al are under represented by hermaphordites and that Harvard is leading the charge.

I suppose these classes make their Grandmother's very proud. One wonders what is discussed at Thanksgiving when the topic of one's career is raised.

Anonymous said...

Neeleman of jetBlue not only apologized more importantly he swiftly corrected any chance of that happenening again.

Not only has there been no apology, more importantly there has been nothing done to corrct this problem and, in fact, the problem has probably been emboldened.

The Duke Faculty Guide should have been sufficient grounds for either severely repremanding these 88 faculty members or, better, terminating them for gross misconduct. brodhead has been an ineffectual and feckless leader of this University.

Anonymous said...

Many thanks to KC and to Bill Anderson for continuing to systematically and thoughtfully voice outrage at this nonsensical and hateful mess. I am grateful to you both and also grateful that this case has created a national opportunity to reveal the rotten nature of the misandry so present in our culture. Perhaps there is hope for us yet.

I couldn't agree more with you on the JetBlue assessment. I love them too. For anyone over 6' they are a blessing.

Anonymous said...

I remain skeptical of future events in this case. While the excellent coverage here has focused on facts, irregularities, and bizarre behavior of principals (other than the accused) and fringe elements, I think there is a significant unasked question which will drive the behavior of the politicians and their current appointees (investigators, judges, et al). That question is, essentially:

How can "we" minimize damage to the (Democratic) Party and least disappoint our Black voter base?

I don't assign much value to predictions, mine included, but I think in this case the answers to that key question are fairly obvious:

1. Hold a trial. This will be essential.

2. Refuse a change of venue, ensuring selection of some local Black jury members who will be predisposed toward a particular outcome. Black "participation" is essential also.

3. Keep the lying accuser off the stand, perhaps by introducing a sworn written statement into evidence and pleading emotional distress - if this is possible.

The most likely trial outcome, and desired political outcome, is a hung jury. No re-trial will be forthcoming become "the community needs to heal;" the predicted outcome of a retrial would be the same; and an original guilty verdict would be overturned on appeal in about a microsecond - another embarrassment.

I would really like to be wrong about all this; but politics is nasty business, and right now, this looks to me to be roughly the most probable scenario moving forward.

Anonymous said...

That Youtube video was very well done.

It is very encouraging to see a black person with the insight to realize that supporting Nifong's injustice in this case makes them hypocrites when they protest similar injustices in other cases.

I also liked his comments about how this case hurts real rape victims.

He nailed it.

Ex-prosecutor said...

Professor Joyner's view, that the lineup is not a problem so long as the complainant can make an identification in the courtoom, shows an astonishing ignorance of criminal procedure. Such an answer on a law school or bar exam would result in an "F." Apparently, he did not take or slept through the criminal procedure course which is required at most law schools. I hope that he does not each criminal pocedure.

In fact, the very reason for standard lineup procedures requiring one suspect and 6 "fillers," is to avoid a situation such as this.

A tainted identification claim by a defendant requires a hearing at which the prosecution must show the that the witness identified the defendant because of the opportunity to see the defendant at the time of the crime and not because of later suggestive procedures by the police.

Normally, identifications problems result when police has "single-shotted" the defendant, meaning that the witness was shown a photo of only the defendant and asked, "Is this the one." Problems occur also in a lineup when, for example, the defendant's appearance differs from other in th lineup, usually because of race, weight or height. I've never heard of one, as here, where any ID was a good one, since the photo lineup consisted only of suspects.

Could Professor Joyner have been visiting at UNC, when Mr. Nifong attended, and been his criminal procedure procedure instructor? That two supposed criminal procedure experts reside closeby in a single state surely could not occur by chance.

That the victim, as I recall, is not referring to the defendant's by their first names, perfectly illustrates the necessity of proper lineup procedures. Faulty initial lineup procedures are compounded when there has been excessive post-line publicity, including showing the defendant's picture and name on television and in the newspaper, as has occurred here.

There is a saying that nobody's life ever needs to be considered wasted, for it can always be used as a bad example." That certainly applies her, for Mr. Nifong has created a constitutional tangle for the state AG's office which can become a teaching tool for what not to do.

Gary Packwood said...

Jon 12.51

I think you are confusing this board with the FODU board.

KC of this board Professor KC Johnson, a Professor of History Professor Jason Trumpbour, a Professor of Law.

The URL for his board is below.

Friends of Duke University (FODU)

jrh said...

I have been reading KC's preview of his book for some time now, and followed his career and his earlier fight for freedom of expression with great admiration (full disclosure: I am a Williams grad). But one subject I do not remember seeing addressed is Nifong's actions since he relinquished the "rape" case and was charged with several offenses in the conduct of his office. Specifically:

1) To what degree is he devoting himself in his duties as dictrict attorney, as opposed to spending work hours on his personal defense? If he is not able to work full-time, he would seem to be receiving compensation from the office for his personal matters.

2) A similar question involves his use of public resources over and above his own work time for his defense. Is he using the work of other government officials during work hours to assist in his defense?

3) Is any portion of Nifong's legal defense cost being borne by Durham or the state of North Carolina? The public has a right to know this.

If Nifong is any way not able to work full-time, or if he is improperly using public resources for personal use, he ought to step down, at least until this over. As despicable as his actions have been, he has a legal right to remain in office until the matter is decided; that is part of our legal process. But he does not have the right to use public time/funds/resources improperly, and we ought to know whther this is, in fact, going on.

Anonymous said...


Like you I saw the articles about Addison at JinC. Unlike you, I was not persuaded: Addison can take the Fifth Amendment; he does not have to say a thing. Of course, the Feds can offer him immunity, and they probably will.

That probably would not be a bad thing in this case; testimony about the frame-up from a low-level participant is the way to get to the people really responsible, e.g. Nifong.


Anonymous said...

From gak

I noticed the article looked slanted still. Terms like "drunken off-campus party" and refering to the accuser as 18. Not to mention the comments by Mr Joyner and Mr Fitzpatrick. I am eager to see just exactly how this plays out. My big concern is the time limit on these civil suits I hear so much about. I have only heard of one about the grades. I wonder how this is going to play out for the 3 who owe so much, leave alone the other forty-something who weren't charged.

To Shipwreck
Do the people who publish newspapers even read their articles? How can a national newspaper get something so wrong?

I was working for an insurance company when an ex employee came back and killed some people in management. The incorrect information being published as fact was frightening. I suggest you are correct that nobody double checks this stuff.

Anonymous said...

to JRH at 10 AM from a non-lawyer / retired professor: You raise some excellent points. Note that on Nifong's December 28 letter to the state bar he used his official "District Attorney" stationary. I find this tacky and inappropriate since he is responding as an individual, and not in his official capacity as DA.

Anonymous said...

If the Justice system even considers buying off on Nifong's excuses after his public videotaped and obvious transgressions, the jury on Scooter Libby's case ought to come back with a finding recommending him for sainthood.

We saw the standard the justice system held Martha Stewart to....if they hold one of their own to a lesser standard, the special place of lawyers in the US judicial system needs to go.....

Anonymous said...

Using Joyner's theory, why bother with a pre-trial line-up or photo ID?

Just arrest anybody, get them into court, and have the accuser claim the "defendant" to be "the one."

I wonder how many people accused of a criminal act would agree with Joyner's view of "justice." Would Joyner himself agree with it should he ever find himself so accused?

Anonymous said...

the USA Today article lists the accuser's age as 18.Isn't she in her late twenties?

Anonymous said...

If Nifong was smart, he would have an accident and be out on Workers Comp for the next two years, He could give up his law license, complete hs pension requirement and still get paid.

Anonymous said...

While I appreciate the attempts to explain Nifong's behavior in this matter as sociopathic and/or narcissistic, we should not dismiss the probability that Nifong is just plain old mean.

Anonymous said...

To P. Rich--
I hope your predictions are not right--and one thing that may make a difference is that there is no way the case could be prosecuted without the testimony of the accuser. Because the defendants have the constitutional right to confront (i.e., cross-examine) the witnesses against them, a sworn statement from her will not be acceptable (and at the very least, even if the prosecution could somehow get around this problem, the statement would presumably bring in with it every other contradictory claim and statement she has made--leaving a huge mess if there is no way to try to explain away the inconsistencies through live witness testimony). And without some sort of testimony from the accuser, there's just no evidence on which to build any sort of case.

Anonymous said...

This isn't exactly "on topic" but can anybody tell me how many of the 88, if any, have tenure at Duke? I've been reading up on that and spoke with a former A&T instructor who said this: (paraphrased)

elevating the AAAS (Poster, me, read that in the blogs somewhere) to department status might be wise to make it easier for the administration to keep an eye on them. Further, tenure makes it very difficult to fire a professor but not impossible. Failure to follow the handbook might or might not be sufficient to terminate the tenured professor.

I'm trying to figure out just what Duke can do to clean up the mess. I understand there is politics on campus and everybody is trying to cover themselves, but if this stuff becomes MSM public, the discussions on dukes enrollment numbers are going to take on a whole new dimension.

I can't see where anybody who researches schools before going is going to choose this one knowing what the current administration allows in the name of justice. I don't have his exact quote, but Kevin Finnerty, Collin's father, said when asked about sending Collin back to Duke something to the effect of with Nifong running justice down there and the schools failure to protect the students, who would send their kid to that.

Am I missing something in the greater picture. Is there more to the cleanup then meets my eye. I don't understand why the administration has not fired those of the 88 that they can and started whatever proceedings to clean out the rest. I truly would appreciate any input on the cleanup and what it truly would take to put Duke right again.

Thank you in advance

Anonymous said...

To the 8:29 poster:

There is no way that the prosecution can bring this case to trial and not have Ms. Mangnum testify. The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution (and yes, it does apply to NC as well) provides that criminal defendants have the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. That means that Ms. Mangum does not have the option of submitting a sworn statement in lieu of testimony, nor may she appear by videotape. She must appear in person, and face cross-examination by multiple defense attorneys, all of whom will be armed with an enormous arsenal of impeaching evidence to use against her.

Anonymous said...


Well written - your liberal bona fides are in order. I mean, who else but a liberal could write such a racist comment!

Time to fall back to your "some of my best friends are black" position. That's just sad. Are you Polanski under deep cover?

Anonymous said...

A consistent pattern throughout this case has been the high-quality, and empathetic, commentary from most in the college press.

This article in the Georgetown Hoya shows all the signs of G88-style education.

On the front page, above the fold, the headline, "Coach Talks With Indicted Duke Player," subheadline, "Seligmann Voices Interest in GU." What a horror! Talking with an "Indicted Duke Player"! And let's all cringe, "Seligmann Voices Interest in GU." After all, everyone knows that the "indicted Duke players" are horrible persons.

This is the case summary that the article provides:
Seligmann and Duke teammates Colin Finnerty and David Evans were charged last spring with rape, sexual assault and kidnapping in connection with a March 2006 team party. Rape charges were dropped in December, but the other two charges have not yet been resolved.

In accordance with university policy, Duke suspended the three players last spring pending the resolution of the charges against them. Seligmann and Finnerty were invited to return to classes last month but do not plan to do so while charges are pending; Evans was a senior last spring and graduated in May. All three players have maintained their innocence.

That's it. Nothing about the prosecutor being charged with misconduct and being removed from the case. Nothing about the total lack of credible evidence to support the charges. Nothing about the hardship that the obviously bogus charges have imposed on the "indicted Duke lacrosse players". Just straight factual reporting in the Hoya, informing the Georgetown community of the shocking news of communication with persons whose reputation has been maliciously destroyed. Unbelievably vicious, evil reporting. No concern for truth and justice.

Perhaps this article indicates the kind of education that Georgetown students are receiving. It indicates an education that would make the Duke Group of 88 and their ilk proud.

E-mail: said...

Says columnist, Keven Bruffy:
"... if the remaining charges are dropped, the Duke party would be no different than thousands of other parties that happen every year on almost every major college campus in the country".

Hiring strippers is legal.
Underage drinking is NOT legal.
Rape is NOT legal.
Drug-Rape deserves castration.

These illegal activities are exactly what's happening at most college fraternities.

Why do you suppose "risk management" was introduced several years ago, and finally implemented throughout the fraternity system?