Monday, April 30, 2007

Chafe: Some in Group of 88 Presumed Guilt

The Chronicle has a lengthy article today on the continued defiance of the Group of 88; I will be posting more on this issue tomorrow.

The article includes a major, if perhaps unintended, admission by Group stalwart William Chafe: “Most of us never presumed guilt.” [emphasis added]

This statement is, to my knowledge, the first public concession by a Group member on this issue. Chafe did not inform Chronicle readers which Group members presumed guilt.


Anonymous said...

Seems to me that Farred, or any other group member who says anything besides "no comment" at this point, is a fool. Duke should be reining these jerks in, as every remark they make will give the impression that they continue to speak for Duke. If someone says "we did nothing wrong", they're screwing themselves; if someone says "we're sorry and we made mistakes", they're screwing themselves.

I assume, by the way, that discussions are currently under way between "our man" and "your man" over a voluntary settlement with Duke and the families. Duke's general counsel should be losing sleep over every dumb remark the 88 continue to make.

Anonymous said...

OOOPS! *Most* of us, eh?! Good catch, KC, I eagerly await tomorrow's post!

Anonymous said...

Professor Sigal is correct to note in the article that "there exists a social disaster on our campus and throughout society." Unfortunately, he's part of it.

Jack said...

"I am appalled at the way that bloggers who have targeted the 'Group of 88' have put words in our mouths, denied our individuality and racist and violent language to attack us-including sending us e-mails and making phone calls wishing our deaths and calling us 'Jew b-' and 'n-b-,'" Chafe wrote in an e-mail. "Most of us never presumed guilt."

Unless there is a misprint or misquote, is Chafe admitting they used racist and violent language as an expression of individuality? As for the “attacks” in the form of emails and phone calls, prove it, report it to authorities, document these very serious charges. I do not believe them; like so much else, they make things up to fit suit their needs.

Anonymous said...

It still amazes me how someone like Chafe, considered an intellual at Duke University, does not to this day understand our justice system and the Constitution. By him saying "most of us did not presume guilt" is pure ignorance. I always recalled it correct to suppose the presumtion of innocence. This "leader" at Duke seems to be unable to mouth the words, 'most of us presumed innocence'. Just because this guy, and SOME of the others did not presume guilt does not mean that he is presuming innocence now, even at this late date and time. Try as hard as Chafe and others may, this still cannot be taken as an apology or even a statement of their original intent and meaning of their ad. I am still waiting to hear why this particular ad came out immediately after the public disclosure of the "hoax" if factuly and student concerns about thier "issues" were so prevalent long before then. I guess I will be waiting a long time for that answer.

Anonymous said...

I still believe if they had IPs of folk who threatened, abused, etc them that person would already have been named by them. I have no idea what the rules of arrest are on this charge. Whiners - Liars Liars - pants on fire.

Anonymous said...

That statement is essentially a confirmation of a number of statements.

Most of us are reckless idiots who don't think before we sign something. Heck, we're academics! Accountability isn't a word with which we are familiar.

Some of us deserved to be sued because we knowingly libeled, slandered and endorsed/encouraged the intimidation of 3 demonstrably innocent people who were also our students. At the very least, we deserve to lose our jobs.

At any rate, this moron should be very worried about the statement he just made. Presuming that any of the G88 have the right to serve as judge and jury over others is an assumption of the most self-righteously despicable kind.

Has there been any hint of an "escrow-endowment" for Duke University that sets, as conditions for release of the endowment to the school, the firings of a number of Duke faculty and administrators. I certainly wouldn't know how to set up such and endowment, but I would certainly contribute to one as I am now a few years out of my Trinity class and would like to start giving back to the school that I want Duke to be.

Anonymous said...

Unless I have missed something, there really has not been much outcry, or objection to the Gang of 88 from the rest of the Duke faculty. A couple of profs offered some mild rebuke a few months ago, but, other than that, silence. I think it might be presumptuous to believe that the Gang of 88 does not represent the sentiments of most of Duke’s faculty and administration! Perhaps the Rolling Stone portrayal was on the mark: Duke kids are too shallow and superficial to realize the deep seated disdain their own teachers have for them. Wow, intellectually, that must be a crappy environment to live in.

Anonymous said...

I have no doubt that Chafe is telling the truth when he says that, "Most of us never presumed guilt." The whole ad was obviously put together by a small group of faculty members, and the rest of the fellow travelers were simply foolish enough to go along with this group’s radical agenda.

But instead of admitting how silly they were, they have to jump through hoops to provide an academic fig leaf for themselves:

Sigal 1: "We should note that many statements included in the ad were not statements of fact, but rather perceptions of individual students." For that you took out a full page ad? And in the middle of the lacrosse controversy? Do you realize that you have just come out and admitted that the listening ad was pure BS?

Sigal 2: "This social disaster is not the lacrosse party; it is the prevalence of such things as racism, sexism, sexual violence and homophobia." If that is the problem, then why didn’t you say so? And why didn’t you add global warming, gun violence, school dropout rates, unchecked immigration, and speeding in school zones?

Olcott 1: "This problem of 'campus culture' is hardly isolated to Duke or to the present moment.” So why didn’t you take out an ad in the Chronicle of Higher Education instead of the Duke Chronicle?

Olcott 2: "I'll admit that the combination of all these stories coming out made me ask myself, 'Would I want my niece to come to Duke?'” If she were going to take classes with you, definitely not. However, if she takes classes with good professors as my daughter does, the Duke would be represent an extraordinary personal and academic experience.

Chafe: "I am appalled at the way that bloggers who have targeted the 'Group of 88' have put words in our mouths, denied our individuality and [used] racist and violent language to attack us.” Have these meanie bloggers supported protesters with “Castrate Chafe” signs? If not, then no matter how offensive their language, their comments pale in comparison to what you agreed with and signed.

These clowns could not be any more pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, I'm wondering now if an "escrow-endowment" would even be legal. It seems a little bit like blackmail. However, I would think that it would just be a structured version of the decision making process that every alumnus(a) goes through. I wonder if such a legal/financial structure even exists.

After all, who am I kidding, I won't be giving any money to Duke until Dean Sue is fired.

Anonymous said...

Good work, KC. This is huge. I always knew these numbskulls would end up screwing themselves. Boys' attorneys will have a field day with this info, as it points in the direction of deliberate harm.


Anonymous said...

It is interesting how the group of 88's pattern of lying parallels accuser Magnums.

As the accuser kept shifting her story to try to make it compatible with incontrovertible physical evidence, (no DNA, timed photos, the cab driver, cell phone records), the faculty has shifted the meaning of their ad and comments to fit the narrative of the collapsing criminal case.

It is astonishing to me that such a collection of dishonest people can get through the screening process that goes with at least twenty years of schooling from first grade to receiving a Ph.D. Their performance over the last year certainly casts doubt on their academic credentials as anyone with an ounce of common sense can see clearly through their ever changing evasions and rationalizations.

There will be no repentence from this group of lying bullies and there will be no penalties meted out to them for defaming the players.

That is Duke's shame.

Anonymous said...


Have any of the professors that instruct your daughter spoken out in opposition to the Gang of 88, or in support of the falsely accused players? Or expressed outrage at how the University exposed the students in general and the players in particular, to potential harm from outside agitators and activists? Have they condemned the District Attorney and the corrupt Durham Police Department, the targeting of Duke students by law enforcement (hardly a new occurrence)? No, I do not believe they have, so… they have silently agreed with the Gang of 88, they have let these radical leftists “represent” the sentiments of Duke’s faculty. Why? Ask yourself that question before you applaud the extraordinary academic and personal experience you think Duke provides.

Anonymous said...

In response to 3:09 regarding the "problem that's not isolated to Duke" according to some of the G88, I'd just like to address this delusional concept popularized by some of the most twisted freaks among the hoax apologists.

I call it the butterfly effect of modern victim mentality. The concept, simply, is that everyone is racist/sexist/classist even if they are not aware of it. Essentially, it is the idea that no matter where you're reading this blog or what you've done before reading it or what you'll do after reading it you are contributing to the plight of Crystal Mangum. For example, just by remaining unflaggingly supportive of her son, Mrs. Seligman is contributing the social injustices that exist in the world today. Misfortune in this world is a creation of the world, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL.

Of course, this philosophy is a pathetic excuse for people who don't respect themselves or others enough to live a meaningful life driven by strong character.

Anonymous said...

It is unclear who authored the ad.

That says it all, nobody wants to own up to writing it, interesting. If they are so proud of what they did, why the anonymous author?

Anonymous said...


No punishment to these lying bullies?

Listen, I totally agree with the spirit of your post, but you have to use your imagination to understand just how radically, say, Karla Holloway's world has been altered. She was once a respected teacher. Now she's associated with academic parasitism, affirmative action, thuggery, and tortious behavior--not to mention stupidity. She's marked. She wants out from Duke, trust me. But not even that goofball at Vandy will want her.


Anonymous said...


We all know who wrote it. It was Lubiano and Holloway, with the assistance of most of the AAAS faculty.


Michael said...

"Were the authors naive? Definitely," Koonz said. "I would definitely still support [the ad], I would just add one more sentence: 'Let the justice system decide.'"

Sure. Check your brain at the door and let the justice system decide. We're at 200 exonerated in The Innocence Project now. Letting the justice system decide cost these three men and their families a pretty penny. And for others, their freedome for many years. And their reputations.

How about using a little common sense.

Michael said...

["I am appalled at the way that bloggers who have targeted the 'Group of 88' have put words in our mouths, denied our individuality and racist and violent language to attack us-including sending us e-mails and making phone calls wishing our deaths and calling us 'Jew b-' and 'n-b-,'" Chafe wrote in an e-mail. "Most of us never presumed guilt."]

In this particular case, the Group of 88 might consider Cooper's "listening statement". I am totally amazed that these professors don't have the ability to issue an apology. That puts them even below Nifong.

Anonymous said...

In response to 3:09 regarding the "problem that's not isolated to Duke"

Indeed, this is not isolated to Duke.
Indoctrinate U.
"Last week I attended the premiere of Indoctrinate U, Evan Coyne Maloney’s documentary about campus political correctness. It’s a fun and powerful piece of work that deserves a wide audience. The film features plenty of encounters between Maloney and college officials who, after being embarrassed by Maloney’s questions, invariably summon police to have him evicted. These confrontations are entertaining, but the real force of this film flows from Maloney’s recounting of a series of incidents of campus political correctness. I had never heard of any of these cases. Yet each of them is remarkable.

When the war over campus PC broke out in the late eighties, the Left used to dismiss stories like the ones recounted by Maloney as isolated and atypical anecdotes. Twenty years later, organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) have clashed with universities over literally hundreds, probably thousands, of such incidents."

"So to prove that there is in fact an audience for this film, a website has been set up where you can register your interest in seeing Indoctrinate U."

Please register.

I really hope that more people start supporting FIRE, after Duke Hoax. It may be too late after the next elections. I remember KC saying once he does not support FIRE, but I would be curious if KC still thinks so. Clearly, the problem is not solved internally by academia.

Anonymous said...


Get, real, baby. They're waiting to get served.

The whole point of AAAS is listening-statement BS, so why should anyone apologize? The inevitable litigation is gonna be ugly, and most entertaining.

I can't wait.


Anonymous said...

Most of us presumed innocence could mean 49% plus OF US did not.
Which group are you in Chafe?

Anonymous said...

Hello I need you help Chafe d' said

"I am appalled at the way that bloggers who have targeted the 'Group of 88' have put words in our mouths, denied our individuality and racist and violent language to attack us-including sending us e-mails and making phone calls wishing our deaths and calling us 'Jew b-' and 'n-b-,'"

I admit I did send him an email, and you all know I do not have a great mastery of the English language. Please show me where I have called the Chaffed one a Jew b or a n-b-

My lettersent 4/14/2007

"Mr. Chafe,

You owe an apology to those you tried to destroy with your pen. The Duke Lacrosse attempted lynching by you, and others is most likely the only thing history will know you by. You can probably never repair the damage you have done but at least you can try.

Tom E*****"

Tom E.

Anonymous said...

Asking questions from gang88 or scrutinising their syllabi is probably secret racism, according to gang88. Once Hillary has been installed in White House, this falls under hate speech / universal speech code legislation and you will be thrown to jail. Have a nice life then. Who knows, Nifong may have the luxury of being the prosecutor in your case.
Remember, hate speech is whatever what offends left-wingers and this surely does offend them.

Anonymous said...

K.C. please do a post with respect to the latest statment by Irving Joyner, that putrid, vile, f**k of a human being who just said that the state did not "have a really strong case". Another hypentension causing phrase was "in the absence of any STRONG evidence".

I am so completely enraged by this bigot that I can hardly type.

Mike in Nevada

Anonymous said...

"Most of us never presumed guilt."

-and he thinks thatis some noble state of mind.


Anonymous said...

I like this quote too:
"I feel... a tremendous sense of relief," Jocelyn Olcott, assistant professor of history and women's studies and a signatory of the ad, wrote in an e-mail. "We have a lot of work to do to close the wounds that have opened up, but I hope that the healing can start now."

Channeling Mikey Nifong, do you think? (Specifically, the "wounds that (we) have opened up" and "I hope that the healing can start now" (um, are you necessary part of the solution I take it? Why have you been silent for 12 months? Where was the learning experience/leadership for the last 12 months?)

Chicago said...

James Coleman said it best when he stated that Nifong's actions were as if he was "mooning the legal system."

As such, this group of professors, especially the ones who have gone on to further embarrass Duke in an attempt to push their agenda with additional statements and actions are mooning the concept of higher education and what it stands for and hopes to accomplish for the next generation. From grade retaliation to statements of comparing students to the people who mugged Emmitt Till, they continue to make themselves and their employer look bad. If I made such a statement while representing my company, I would be fired. I guess expressing hate and anger towards certain segments of the population with out even knowing them is ok as long as it is under the umbrella of "education" and "creating meaningful conversations."

AMac said...

For readers who are just becoming familiar with the controversy over the "Group of 88's Listening Statement":

It's informative to read the actual advertisement. A link is posted on the right side of the main page of D-i-W, or click here.

Quoted text in bold:

The ad was run because "we [the sponsoring professors] are turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait."

The "Listening Statement":

-- thanked protesters "for shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman"

-- expressed the signers' concerns about keeping "the young woman herself central to this conversation"

-- applauded the claim "that the disaster didn't begin on March 13th and won't end with what the police say or the court decides"

And the Listening Statement ends with:

-- "To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard."

This conclusion was a reference to the "potbanging" protesters who carried posters reading "CASTRATE," "GET A CONSCIENCE NOT A LAWYER," "TIME TO CONFESS," and "GIVE THEM EQUAL MEASURE." Protesters outside 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. used this chant to make themselves heard:

Who’s being Silent?
They’re being silent!
Whose protecting rapists?
They’re protecting rapist!
So, who are the rapists?
They must be the rapists!
Out of the house! Out of the town!
We don’t want! You around!

LieStoppers has documented these demonstrations here.

These are the statements and the endorsements that Professors Jocelyn Olcott, Claudia Koonz, Peter Sigal, and William Chafe stated that they "stand by."

Direct quotes, easily verified. Not "misconstrued."

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

"...bloggers who have targeted the 'Group of 88' have put words in our mouths, denied OUR individuality and racist and violent language to attack us..." (Professor Chafe's e-mail)

Yup, Chafe, we did attack you because we believe 'castrate' and 'dead man walking' are racist and violent language. But geesh, I never expected you'd admit it's also the language of the Gang of 88.

Or, did you mean something else when you typed 'our'?

Anonymous said...

Where is the legal liability for the 88? Are they protected by First Amendment as to semi-public figures? Is the standard malice or Recklessness? Is either present if the DA insists a rape occurred?

Same with the Duke Administrator what did he DO or not do that makes Duke liable to the players?

The case filed against one professor does not name Duke does it? That professor actually DID something. Are the continued rants by the 88 imputed to her individually?

So unless someone wants to claim Duke conspired with Durham PD and Nifong to deny constitutional rights to the players in a legally culpable way (by expressing an opinion? Saying they believed it as fact?), whats the risk for Duke other than continued embarassment in letting these 88 irresponsible people run on?

becket03 said...

Chafe is intransigent and unrepentant, the kind of person who's totally incapable of self-examination and reform. His head is made of concrete.

His Emmett Till remark was one of the most outrageous statements made by anyone in the entire affair. But he sorely lacks the common decency and dose of humility required to apologize for it.

I've read on this blog that Chafe enjoyed, and perhaps still enjoys, high standing in his field. Having never heard of him prior to this matter, and having never read his books, I'm unqualified to comment on his professional output. But I am qualified to say that if such a man has a good professional reputation, it only goes to show, as I've seen demonstrated several times in my own life, that professional ability and personal character are often two totally separate attributes of human nature.


Anonymous said...

we must never underestimate the power of self-delusion.

the "social disaster" ad was purported to give anonymous students a voice in what was happening at duke. now at least one member of the 88 admits that some of the anonymous quotes were not statements of fact, but rather individual perceptions.

where did many of the other statements come from?

Jon Pessah, ESPN The Magazine, reported the following on sept 7, 2006: "Lubiano thought back to the last week of March, to the night she'd first heard those words. About 75 students had crowded into a second-floor conference room at the John Hope Franklin Center, named for one of the most prominent African-American professors in school history. They were there for a forum on black masculinity, but the focus had changed to reflect the sordid drama playing out on campus. Tensions were high as the space filled. There were two white women in the room, Lubiano remembered, a few Latino and Asian students and a couple of white faculty members. Everyone else was black.

One professor thundered about having no confidence in an administration that considered canceling games a proper response to sexual assault and racial slurs. He called for the players to be expelled and the program to be shut down. Lubiano was taken aback by the level of her colleague's anger, which put him out of step with the rest of her peers. Yes, the lacrosse team had sparked the crisis. But there was more to it, much more. One by one, the students spoke of their unhappiness with their life at Duke."

i'm sure the professor who railed on about the lacrosse team had formed the proper context for the students to voice their opinion. i'm also sure that the students at that meeting felt they had the right to speak openly and disagree with their professors without having any concern about those opinions coming back and hurting them in their classroom pursuits.

it's also evident that at least one professor did not presume the innocense of the lacrosse players.

Anonymous said...

Where is the legal liability for the 88?

This is against Duke Faculty Handbook, but apparently, its role is to be a meaningless window dressing only, or a method to harass occasional non-far-left liberal faculty member. I wonder if this makes them or Duke vulnerable. Students have some rights under US constitution and under University-student "contract". These faculty racists clearly violated these rights.

Any word about the grade retalition? Business as usual at Duke and no reason to any actions or investigations?

Anonymous said...

I like deklan singh's novel idea of an "escrow endowment" (3:05 p.m.). It is not lightly that I made the decision not to give to the 2007 Annual Fund after years of participation. I have planned to write on each solicitation I receive the reasons I will not be giving (all related to agenda-driven faculty and the temerity of the administration in handling the lacrosse hoax) and return the solicitations. However, an escrow endowment would be a powerful statement if enough alumna put the funds they were withholding from Duke into the escrow account--more powerful than simply not giving. For the bigger donors, there would be the problem of whether money given to such an escrow account could be deducted as charitable donations on a federal income tax returns.

Anonymous said...

Chafe is just plain wrong. All of them presumed guilt when they affixed their signatures to a statement that read, "People are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman."

They can use words like misinterpreted and misrepresented all they want. The statement clearly says something happened to this woman. She was claiming she was raped. What else could, "What happened to this young woman" mean?

Their signatures stated in writing that they presumed these guys were guilty. Any other explanations are just pure spin and outright lies.

Anonymous said...

miramar, at 3:09 p.m., great responses to the comments by the 88'ers in today's Chronicle article. You do realize, however, that had your responses been e-mailed directly to them, that they would have been deemed threatening by the recipients. I can hear Olcott now: "And a blogger even resorted to personally attacking my niece."

Anonymous said...

They know full well what they did. They know full well who authored the propaganda. And they know full well its intent and purpose to abuse the legal system and railroad innocent people.

Here now is an example of human beings at their worst. Contrast this with the Duke LAX teams' conduct throughout this ordeal. The G88 have yet to earn the privilege of teaching such students as these.

Watch now as human nature plays out. There will be little honor to witness here. Fingers will point and blame will ooze. The G88 wall of silence wrongly attributed to the LAX team will begin to self-destruct, because they know what they did and most of them have no understanding of honor.

Anonymous said...

This case will go down in history as one of the most egregious attempts by a corrupt DA to railroad innocent men for a crime that never took place.

And it happened on Duke's doorstep, to members of the Duke community, and the best that the great civil libertarians among the Duke faculty can say is, "that most of us did not presume guilt".

If members of the Group of 88 are so confident in the rightness of their "listening" ad, why will they not insist that the producers of the ad be identified, and that the sources of the funds used to pay for running the ad in the Duke Chronicle be revealed?


And isn't it fitting that these self-centered faculty members should now call attention to their "victimization" at the hands of bloggers and emailers.

Why don't they spend some of their time and energy demanding justice and the protection of civil liberties for Duke students in Durham.

Anonymous said...

I must compliment Deklan Singh on his 3:22 pm post which included this insightful statement:

"Misfortune in this world is a creation of the world, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL. Of course, this philosophy is a pathetic excuse for people who don't respect themselves or others enough to live a meaningful life driven by strong character."

Singh's powerful comment stuck a meaningful chord with me and I hope it inspires others to realize the sorry state of personal responsibility among those who prefer to claim all wrongs are racist based. There is a terrible racist element to the duke hoax but it was perpetrated by those who pride themselves as being the defenders against racism...the 88 academics at Duke who signed the inflammatory listening statement.

I also wanted to make special note of another post at 5:25 by becket that resonated:

"it only goes to show...that professional ability and personal character are often two totally separate attributes of human nature."

This is an important lesson for Duke students of the 88 to remember. They might be admired in their fields of study but they are dismal failures as honorable human beings. They are too steeped in ideology to realize their shortcomings and the damage they inflicted on three innocent young men and their families. They simply don't care!

Anonymous said...

Off topic

Durham PD is going to release their
version of the investigation. Bet they say the id line-up was to identify witnesses.

Anonymous said...

1 smart thing AAAS did

News flask: the listening statement was written by AAAS, but

they got whitey to sign it

it was a Negro proposition from inception

Anonymous said...

Excuse me, Prof. Chafe? Did you NOT compare the LAX players to the murderers of Emmett Till? Please do not use your weasel words of "in context of" as an excuse. We know exactly what you were saying, sir.

So, these people also are cowards. I would much more respect people who say, "Yes, we assumed guilt, but we were wrong," to "Oh, no! We NEVER assumed guilt. But we think all of them are racist bastards, anyway!"

It is nice to see the Duke G88 faculty members take such a heroic stand. What cowards! What liars!

Anonymous said...

I really liked how they blamed the negative attention they have received, in part, on
outspoken members of the Duke community! This is monumental hypocrisy -- how can they not see this?

Michael said...

re: 6:24

I don't even know if they'll have to do that. They could just say that Mike Nifong took over and dictated the terms of the ID session. Then it would just turn into a finger-pointing exercise between Nifong and the police.

Anonymous said...

It is the end of yet another day.
And Nifong is still D.A.

Where is the Legislature?

Anonymous said...

I am so sick and tired of these professors repeatedly accusing the Duke student body of racism and bigotry.

I'm surprised they get away with it as much as they do.

Anonymous said...

These quotes from the profs seem to me to be very self-serving, and require a rather revisionist view of history.

Looking at the parts of the ad which are *not* comments from students, it is patently absurd to assert that the ad wasn't about the lacrosse case, and wasn't about Duke. The whole thing goes on about "this investigation", "this young woman", "March 13th", etc.

To simply add "Let the justice system decide", as Claudia Koonz would do, ignores the obvious implications of things like saying "what happened to this young woman" and thanking protesters who were going around with signs calling for castration. Is she really implying that it would be all better if the ad had essentially said "thank you for calling for castration while waiting for the justice system to decide"???

They tried to "turn up the volume", and in the process they helped drown out the voice of reason.

The ad was prejudicial in content and tone, and very poorly timed. It prejudged the situation and thereby deepened the very problems which it pretended to deplore. But at least it was written in ignorance of many details of the truth. Failing now to directly apologize for it, and any negative effects it had, on the other hand, is done in knowledge of the truth, as some of their comments reveal, and is thus even more reprehensible than the original ad.

GaryB said...

I don't look at the signing of the original statement as a huge "sin" -- it could well be an error in the moment. It was initially easy to buy into the "wild jock-frat" image and feel like one was taking a stand for justice while not considering what actually happened in the protests etc and how that, together with the document set a tone of presumed guilt.

The real sin is in not admitting all this. I would have easily accepted, even a few months later any of the faculty saying "woops, got swept away by emotion not intellect. I'm embarrassed to be associated with that document, consider my signature withdrawn". Even a "yeah, in hindsight, wasn't my best moment" would do now.

But not a one has backed away at all. On the other hand, I bet they are getting a bunch of racist email despite the fact that many of us 'jew b-' and some very prominent 'n-b-'s were appalled by the whole case up front and by injustice in general.

Also, I suspect that blacks more than whites from such (il)legal railroading than whites. There's much to have common cause about here and some of them recognized this from the beginning.

Anonymous said...

KC, please review the recent Chronicle article regarding James Coleman and his support for Duke University's response to the lacrosse scandal. He basically said Duke did the best they could under the circumstances and focuses on the fact that if Duke had pressured Nifong in any way, the University would have been accused of using their tremendous resources and influence to prevent the legal process from running its course. There has been so much criticism of Brodhead and Duke on here for their reaction, and so much praise of Coleman, that his viewpoint, as a black law professor at Duke, is very interesting to those of us who supported the Duke 3 AND Duke.

Anonymous said...

"Sigal said, however, that a single event did not prompt the conversations that led to the ad."

That's clearly the biggest BS. It's pretty well known the ad was *rushed* to press before the DNA results came out. Now they want to claim the ad's intended message was of a more general nature. The fact remains it was placed at a very specific time. It's all about context, time and place. If it really was intended as a general statement against society's worst ills, why couldn't they do what was apparently abhorant to them ... WAIT?! To this day, none of them have ever adequately explained what was so horrible about waiting. Whenever I see the "Thank you for not waiting," I see a frustrated Peter Lange in front of his house on a Sunday morning trying to get through to the potbangers with totally truthful common sense statements like, "We don't know the facts yet,
and "You will have to wait and see like the rest of us," only to be treated with extreme disrespect. They were all so sure they already knew the facts and they were totally wrong and almost all of them refuse to admit that.

Also, I don't think we've yet heard who were the "vulnerable" ones told to wait. I suspect it was people like Houston Baker who wanted to publically demand the entire team be expelled.

Anonymous said...

Wake up, Dukies, people of reason! This is a university that has a profound resentment towards it students, their lifestyles and families; their thinly veiled contempt toward alumni is contained only until the checks clear. Don’t kid yourselves into believing this is the work of a small minority – hundreds of others on the faculty sit by in silent approval of the Gang of 88. Your beloved Duke has been co-opted, hijacked by a philosophical mindset so at odds with traditional values, and yet, they hold all the cards. Like Duke’s Board of Trustees, the faculty of AAAs and Women’s Studies, Cultural Anthropology is also “self selecting”. They’re in, they’re tenured and there is nothing you can do about it.

Jack said...

Anyone hear how the lecture at Williams went?

Unknown said...

People are being naive if they believe that (a) the gang of 88 will be sued successfully, or (b) Duke will be sued successfully for the statements made by the gang of 88.

The gang of 88 are moral midgets, fully deserving the contempt of all decent human beings. BUT, even without going into whether specific individuals had legally become "public figures" with very limited protection under the law of defamation, there is the additional legal issue of whether anyone specific was accused of a crime in the listening ad. I admit it would be great fun to put each one of the gang through the expense and pain of American civil litigation, but few of them are likely to have significant personal assets. Even a win (and civil litigation costs BIG money) would just get you to play round 2 in bankruptcy court, another swamp of endless, futile legal costs. (Been there, done both rounds. No fun, believe me.)

The potential monetary rewards from successfully suing Duke on the theory that the gang of 88 were authorized agents of Duke would be huge. And Duke has plenty of money so bankruptcy would not be an option for Duke. The problem is that the gang of 88 were almost certainly NOT authorized to speak for Duke. I'd expect Duke to have a good shot at a summary judgment in its favor; academic freedom means that Duke has no right to control what these moral midgets say. It is of course quite probable that someone in the gang used Duke's money to pay for the ad, but that someone was almost certainly not authorized to do so.

KC has been saying for months that the best claim against Duke is one based on violation of implied contract. That claim might well succeed legally, but it is going to be very limited in its scope and will turn into a large payback only if punitive or exemplary damages are awarded.

The real money is in the claims against the Durham DA and the Durham Police Department. My guess is that the best that can be expected from the legal system is for (a) the wrongfully accused to get back their legal fees and maybe a decent pile of "smart" money from Durham, and (b) Nifong and a few of the others , e.g. Wilson and Gottlieb, to do hard time. The punishment for the gang of 88 will have to be extra-legal: after all we know that they are moral lepers and they know we know. That is why they squeal so. Their squeals give me a sense of deep happiness.


Anonymous said...

Peter Sigal, associate professor of history and a signer of the ad, said "I support working with students to help amplify their voices. I also support the overall proclamation of the ad: that there exists a social disaster on our campus and throughout society."

Questions for Peter Sigal;
Did you help amplify the student's voices who screamed "CASTRATE"?(Talk about violence) By the way, the ad thanked these students/protestors for making collective noise and for "...not waiting and for making yourselves heard."

Social disaster on Duke's campus and throughout society? Were Reade, Colin and Dave to be your sacrificial lambs for the historical woes of society?

The ad made no mention of seeking justice nor did it declare the need for evaluating the validity of the current rape accusation.

The G88 failed to recognize their own contributions to their so-called "social disaster" when they used this opportunity to delegate blacks to the weak position of victimhood.

When all around you scream that you are just a victim, then all you can see in yourself is a victim.

Anonymous said...

For those Duke alums interested, there is a way to defer your gift to Duke, but get a tax deduction. Many of the mutual fund companies have a charitable trust set up that can take individuals deductions. I have used the one at T. Rowe Price (see,3011,lnp%253D-1%2526cg%253D990%2526pgid%253D8024,00.html?scn=Invest_With_Confiden&rfpgid=8006). Everyone who is willing to invest $10,000 can set one of these up individually, or you could pool your money to reach $10,000. If you pool it, you would have to trust the trustees. You can not use the money to pay pledges, but that's okay. Just stop pledging and use the trust to pay your gifts when you're ready. I've given a large amount one year to my account when I had a lot of taxable income and then used the account to fund gifts for several years. Because I have one of these, I have ceased sending my money to Duke and will send them a gift when Broadhead is gone and the 88 have been punished. If that doesn't happen before I die, then my wife will send it to her alma mater.

Anonymous said...

I'm a lawyer (though in a different specialty), but I've also run it by a number of other lawyers I talk to, and none of us can come up with a scenario where any suit against Duke survives a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

The City of Durham, on the other hand, better be prepared to write some very large checks.

Anonymous said...

"We should note that many statements included in the ad were not statements of fact, but rather perceptions of individual students,"

ok professor YOU SIGNED A MANIFESTO that WASNT based upon FACT...lets see if your PHD thesis was based upon fact...give us the URL...well do the rest

is this the way YOU educate students to express opinions ?

is this what BROADROT has agreed with ?

is this an example of scholarship or sedition ?


like most liberals CHAFE will never admit a mistake...its time he was EDUCATED the way reade and the LAZ team were...

that he is still on the DUKE FACULTY is WHY DUKE will rot in a atmosphere of moral deptavity

Anonymous said...


under federal law CIVIL RICO, or the establishment of a conspiracy to deny civil rights is a code pleading that can be made on the basis of LAW or EQUITY.

what one needs to consider is the OUTCOME of the a matter of determining INTENT

to promote VIGILANTE actions is a matter of fact YET to be determined...BUT the posters were made and distributed and exposed to thousands of DUKE employees, students, media and TV/radio

clearly the alleged manifesto signed by the duke 88 allegedly contributed to the manifestations of HATE by various parties against the LAX TEAM, the coach and the players...


there are many ways to deny civil rights, there are many ways to harm innocent peoples reputations

DUKE UNIVERSITY chose to allow the manifesto to be published ON ITS NEWSPAPER, with its own alleged FACULTY ADVISORS...and so it allegedly didnt show the care and concern to all students, only those who were reacting with typical out of control emotion

the DUKE FACULTY should have consulted with a lawyer BEFORE they signed this manifesto, and in legal parlance they were alleged accomplices, to be determined by a civil court, in spreading intentional and totally fictitious falsehoods that created outrage at the players

in the OJ case, EQUITY prevailed against factual proof to find NOT can easily work in reverse...

america needs to sanction these professors if DUKE doesnt have the moral backbone to see what they have done

Anonymous said...

Not a word of apology at all ever during the entire event? Another wasted opportunity. If they didn't get around to it then, they never will. Karma's a biatch.

Anonymous said...

Whether or not a Civil Suit against Duke or the G88 is successful is really immaterial. The damage to Duke would be in the spectacle of the trial.

Lubiano on the stand having to answer with a straight yes or no answer would be priceless. Broadhed on the stand. Houston Baker on the stand. Grant Fared on the stand. CourtTV would be there. Greta would be there. The cockroaches would be forced to stay in the light.

Duke would be beyond foolish to let is go that far. However, I have no sense of comfort that Duke is not being led by Fools.

Anonymous said...


very insightful...the trail coverage issue...

Anonymous said...

I have yet to see any Duke Gang of 88 prof (or Broadhead) actually take an intelligent look at the criticism and deal like "intellectuals".

It is pathetic the degree to which Duke profs want to shoot the messenger and hid behind false accusations of racism.

I am willing to make a wager with any Duke prof. For every example of white racism that he can show me regarding the Duke LAX case, I will counter either with an example of black racism, or 20 critical blogs with no racism whatsoever.

Let them shut up and put their money where their mouth is.

Ernie in Utah

Anonymous said...

The First Amendment trumps RICO and again, there appears to be no basis for suing the profs who have been accurately stained by someone here as "moral lepers".

A "show trial" against them is a waste of money: best to make them Exhibit A to every discussion about the total lack of public oversight in faculty hiring or accountability.

Colorado has Ward Churchill: this place has an unbelievable number of them sucking at the public teat. How on earth do people like this secure tenured positions at what is supposed to be a great American University?

Duke has indeed been hijacked in part by these pseudo intellectuals and Duke is not alone. Its high time to take back these universities from these craven people who are truly little betetr than the thugs in "Clockwork Orange."

Public Oversight in university hiring and discipline.

Anonymous said...

groups are not protected by the constitution from RICO or there would be no rico prosecutions...only individuals are granted rights

Anonymous said...

Do you think using RICO against a group of self-righteous professors that lack any sense of fairness or history is a RICO claim?

RICO requires an "enterprise" angaged in "racketeering" and peddicate acts etc.

If the 88 are a RICO "enterprise", so is just about every hate group in the US that is entitled to spew opinions, believe in "facts," and demonize opponents (or maybe the New York Times). Doubt any court is going to want to start down that slope.... Besides, the First Amendment rights of those professors trumps RICO. Period.

Face it: they ought to be fired; stripped of tenure; immortalized in some hall of shame as betrayers of justice and truth. Cast out of a university dedicated to the pursuit of truth and intellectual honesty. Work for that: its best in the long run.