In the Yaeger/Pressler book, Duke spokesperson John Burness deflected critics of the administration’s handling of the Group of 88 by noting,
In the time I’ve been at Duke, our faculty do and say all kinds of things. The university doesn’t comment on that . . . Our job is to provide a venue for free speech, and then let the debate go. We hope it’s enlightened, but at the end of the day, you have these debates and people learn from them. We don’t go condemning faculty members for what they say when they do that.
This argument would have been more compelling had Brodhead not thrice specifically commented on—and defended—the Group’s statement, thereby at least implicitly “condemning faculty members” at Duke who are on record criticizing the Group‘s actions.
Brodhead’s three statements:
- January, in a Chronicle interview: “If faculty members talked about those underlying issues, that is their right. Quite a number of people have assured me that the ad said the students were guilty, but if you go back and look, that’s not what the ad says.”
No, the ad just says “thank you” to other people who said the students were guilty.
- April, in a “Duke Conversation” appearance in Chicago: The Group of 88 “signed a petition defending students who as minorities, felt threatened by the situation.”
How professors stating unequivocally that something “happened” to Crystal Mangum would make minority students feel safer Brodhead did not reveal.
- June, in a “Duke Conversation” appearance in Philadelphia: “Brodhead referred to the Group of 88 statement and said people should read it, because it doesn’t say what people have been told it says.”
That statement, indeed, is true: the Group members “told” people that five academic departments formally signed onto the ad, when in fact no such endorsement occurred.
Brodhead’s adamant refusal to apologize for the Group of 88’s ad—and, moreover, his publicly deeming it either an innocuous statement of faculty support for Duke students or a professorial tribute to the race/class/gender trinity—is, remarkably, a more extreme position than that taken even by several members of the Group.*
In February, Math professor and Group member Arlie Petters told the Chronicle of Higher Education that, upon seeing the reaction to the ad of not only the lacrosse players but other Duke students, the statement might have been misguided. “Whenever something causes undue pain to people,” Petters reasonably explained, “then of course that isn’t something I would want to be a part of.”
Petters is the only signatory to have publicly apologized for signing the ad. But at least two other Group members apologized, in e-mails sent to lacrosse families.
The first conceded that, in retrospect, he regretted “some of the wording of the final version of the ad”—which did not “make clear that our solidarity with the alleged victim could never make us forget that a solidarity with our students, as perhaps, for all anyone really knew, victims of false or unfair accusations.”
In asking himself, if he could do things over, whether he would sign the ad again, the Group member was unequivocal: “No, I would not. To that extent I am truly sorry I was unable to keep my peace at the time. The ad, if we absolutely needed to publish it, should have been worded differently, more carefully. The lacrosse players are, collectively and individually, just like any other students at Duke.”
And the signatory made no attempt to deny that a rush to judgment occurred. “When accusations as terrible as the ones that were made come to light against a collective,” he confessed, “people tend to react initially by believing the accusations, or at least believing that something like what the accusations state did happen. It is hard initially for anyone to imagine that someone could be so evil as to make ungrounded accusations of that nature.” As a result, “Yes, people did rush to judgment, and others gave in to the pressure, and others were not careful enough in their public statements—and I am afraid I have to accept partial responsibility for that in the business of the ad signature.”
Another signatory also apologized for her actions. “While our ad did not accuse the lacrosse team of anything,” she realized, “it did thank ‘protesters making collective noise.’ I regret and apologize for failing to make distinctions amongst that week’s many protests. Some of the sentiments on display that week can only be described as vile and violent. They were wrong. And I was wrong not to condemn them. I also regret and apologize for our omission of the vital qualifier ‘alleged’ from the ad’s reference to the victim.”
Indeed, the signatory admitted that she agreed with the ad’s critics on at least one point—“last year’s lacrosse team was the victim of a rush to judgement. I was certainly among those who feared the worst at various moments during those first weeks.” Why, then, did she sign? “It did not occur to me then that the ad might be placing my other lacrosse-playing students in jeopardy, as their lawyers have argued. I have come to understand through conversations with members of the lacrosse family why they were so upset by the ad’s publication. Our concerns about student racism could be read as suggesting a motivation for the crimes alleged. That possibility was certainly nowhere discounted (and again I was very afraid that might be true).” After all, “the District Attorney was adamant that a rape had occurred at a lacrosse team party and promised that DNA analysis would soon identify the perpetrators.”
Moreover, the Group member forcefully confronted the campaign of character assassination that, in effect, became the Group of 88's fall back position, She admitted, “I don’t know of any case where an individual or group has been condemned so fiercely as the members of this team for using offensive language or for paying money to watch exotic dancers or for underage drinking. While offensive to me personally, the only one of these actions that is illegal breaks a law I broke as well and when the drinking age was eighteen.”
One final point: after penning the remarks above, both of these Group members signed the “clarifying” statement, which, among other things, declared, “There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it . . . We reject all of these.” [emphasis added]
In short, at least three original signatories have, in their own words:
- conceded that the ad harmed the lacrosse players;
- termed the ad as part of a rush to judgment;
- apologized for having signed the ad.
In this respect, Brodhead has consistently adopted a more extreme position on the ad than even some of its own signatories.
But could he legitimately believe that the ad wasn’t intended to condemn the lacrosse players? Tomorrow’s post will explore this issue.
*--modified for clarity
It's too bad that these signatory/critics remain anonymous. I would like to think that in the aftermath of the fracas surrounding publication of the ad, there was deliberation and discussion among the more reasonable-minded of the signatories.
However, I fear for the worst: that broadly among the signatories, not only there was little careful reflectance, there was an atmosphere of such single-minded willful blindness that any deviation or dissention from the party line was not tolerated. It would seem to me that the faculty who apologize in private but sign "clarifying" statements in public may fear backlash for exposing their true feelings.
2 out of 87 isn't a very good record for anonymous bravery.
"Brodhead’s adamant refusal to apologize for the Group of 88’s ad—and, moreover, to deem it either an innocuous statement of faculty support for Duke students or a professorial tribute to the race/class/gender trinity—is, remarkably, a more extreme position than that taken even by several members of the Group."
I'm confused by this part of the post. Are you saying Brodhead refused to deem it either an innocuous statement or a professorial tribute, or are you (as I suspect) actually saying that these are the two ways Brodhead DID characterize the statement?
I also found it interesting that they were willing to sign the statement publicly yet refuse to identify them selves now. Was any reason given for the anonymity? Are they afraid of retaliation by their peers? Do they have tenure? Are they afraid if they come forward tenure will be denied?
12:11--I suspect you are right here. K.C.--have you, or the recipients of the e-mails, asked whether the senders would be willing to have their names made public and found that they were not, or has no one asked?
Allow me to clarify:
I know their identity. Since I didn't want to be accused of doing anything that might discourage the (seemingly few) non-extremist voices among the Group from coming forward, I let the quotes go anonymously.
Also made the change for clarity that 12.16 suggested.
I will even buy the Duke 88's claim that they really wanted to start a dialogue even though it failed to materialize; however, for 85 of them not apologize for or acknowledge the presumption of guilt in the ad is just wrong. On the other hand, I wouldn't call for any of them to resign or be fired because that would undermine the tenure system. Likewise, it wouldn't be fair to judge the entire career of each member of the Duke 88 based on this one episode alone (even though some of them seems to have had a lackluster academic career up until then). In terms of egregiousness, Knifong is still King and truly deserve everything that has happened to him. You may disagree but that's my honest opinion.
Very interesting that people like the unnamed two would sign the clarifying statement. That makes it hard for me to take their private apologies very seriously.
wait, so you're saying that these two apologizing profesors later went on to sign the statement that declared their own refusal to apologize???
How does that make them any less culpable??
Seriously that's basically like Nifong summoning up tears in his apology before retracting it two hours later by slandering the players
Why would you sign a clarifying statement if you regretted signing the original statement? The only thing that comes to mind is if it helps your professional career to be seen as a professional protester even if you disagree with the message that you are protesting.
Perhaps they signed the clarifying statement under implied duress. I guess I could see that given my readings of the environment that they work under. Not what you'd expect in a place that respects the free exchange of ideas.
I'm curious about this part of the apology:
"I also regret and apologize for our omission of the vital qualifier ‘alleged’ from the ad’s reference to the victim."
As far as I can tell, the ad never used the word "victim," so there was really no place for them to use the word "alleged." It may be a minor point, but it seems like this professor hasn't carefully read the original statement to this day.
G88ism is both a religion and a virus.
God help us.
What is ironic is that academia with all its PC speech control is far from being a place that respects the free exchange of ideas. Ask Stephen Baldwin who was forced to publicly apologize for using the phrase "tarred and feathered" b/c it was supposedly racist (NOT!). Try calling someone a Water Buffalo and see what response you get...
12:23-- Your comment is so reasonable-sounding that I'm tempted to agree with it, but on second thought, I cannot.
Which tenure system warrants protection? It seems that the tenure system only provides its protection to the tenured faculty-- and that all of the underlings are subject to the extraordinarily capricious process of being granted tenure. Here, I'm sure, expressing a politically-unpopular view, or deflating a stuffed-shirt in your department could doom you years later. Also, the inflexibility and egoism I've seen in a few of the professors make me highly skeptical that placing the awesome power of the tenure-granting committee in their hands would be advisable.
Also, I agree that all of the 88 should not be judged too harshly by the ad, but that it bears mentioning that some faculty have made explicit connections of the Duke case to their own research. Not considering as merely thematically related, but using the case itself as material for papers or classes-- here I can mention Karla Holloway, Grant Farred, and Anne Deutsch.
These folk were and continue to be true villians. Why do they still have jobs at Duke? Why does Burness still have a job? Duke has paid a lot for this crowd.
I used "virus" as in virus of the soul.
As far as I can tell, the ad never used the word "victim," so there was really no place for them to use the word "alleged."
Apparantly, the Chronicle went back and forth with the submitter of the ad (who I suppose to be Lubiano) toning down some of the more controversial language until an agreement was reached that was satisfactory.
I'd love to see the original version!
Geant, Alex, thuga and the rest must be furious at the payoff. Not to mention the Coach and KC's book sales. Grant's last book is
# 620,000 at Amazon. Certainly keeping their heads down now.
Re: 12:51 AM, Polanski, I believe:
When you leave out the vulgarities, you have so much to offer as "fuel for thought", and are quite witty as well. Thanks for your insights.
Many years ago, in Life magazine, there was a picture of an asian man holding, in his left hand, a cute fuzzy puppy. He was picking out lunch. This picture crystallized the meaning of alien to me.
Sometimes, when cultures are greatly different, the only thing that can be said is that they are alien. The workings of the group of 88 showed that we are dealing, at cross purposes, with those holding an alien value system. Concepts of duty, honor, fairness, have not at all the same meaning to them, as opposed to those of us raised in a traditional Western value system. They had no teaching as children as to the tenets of chivalry, self-sacrifice or honor. Joel Chandler Harris in the Uncle Remus tales lauded the cleverness and wiliness of Brer Rabbit in outwitting Brer Fox and Brer Bear. The message was to game the system rather than work with the system. When they say "fairness" it means I got mine, have you got yours? Need I say more?
The group of 88 are intelligent, hard-working, well-meaning people. They try hard to do a good job. If you read their resumes, most are recognized as successful in their chosen field. But to me they are alien, I cannot get my mind around they way they look at the world. And the bad news is they are unlikely to change in ways that the more traditional of us would agree with. Compromise and working solutions are unlikely. They actively despise the concepts and the people who built our world and who built our country. Those interested may wish to review the DVD "Gettysburg" side A scene 8 and side B, scene 17; the Chamberlain and Armistead speeches. How can you explain this heroism to such folks? They just don't get it.
Anonymous Professor said...
...“When accusations as terrible as the ones that were made come to light against a collective,” he confessed, “people tend to react initially by believing the accusations, or at least believing that something like what the accusations state did happen. It is hard initially for anyone to imagine that someone could be so evil as to make ungrounded accusations of that nature.”
That pesky little phrase ...Innocent Until Proven Guilty...seems to be a strange concept for all of the G88 except for Grant Farred who has already noted that our legal system is such a cross to bear for he and his colleagues.
Why does the 'collective' have such a problem with Innocent Until Proven Guilty? I thought that was the point of earning designation as a collective in the first place?
Wot say you, Faculty?
1:35, I think you've hit the nail on the head.... and I would add, not only is their value system alien, they are absolutely oblivious to the "real world" outside the ivory tower......... I genuinely believe that some of the G88 are truly mystified at the uproar over the Chronicle ad.... they fail to see the implication of the ad in the context of a criminal investigation, let alone in the context of a false allegation. It's their failure to see or even acknowledge after the fact, the impact of their actions, that is so frustrating to me. It's no accident that not a single Duke law professor (many of whom are extremely liberal) signed the ad.......... they clearly understood the necessity of restraint......... many of the G88 only saw social agenda........
what at issue here is "REAL INTENT"...one knows it when one hears their poorly written words
the group of 88 are an example of dryrot...or better yet broadrot
the academic word for moral malice of forethought...intentional harming of the lacross team...and the reputation of the university...
I really haven't read many posts here critical of the faculties at other schools. I guess only Duke has a problem.
If the problem is academically underqualified politically-correct Angry Studies teachers without an ounce of common sense, who spout neo-Marxist ideology yet have zero contact with or affinity with real working class people, then Duke isn't the only university with a problem.
But Duke does seem to be the only school to date where a significant proportion of the faculty has gone so far as to publicly applaud crazed demonstrators who falsely accused the school's students of rape and called for their castration.
I still don't undertand the two that secretly apologized signing the Clarifying statement. I guess it means their apologies were lies, or that their apologies were sincere but they're afraid of the wrath of the rest of the 88.
... or perhaps that they're just not very bright.
Something no one has yet commented upon:
“When accusations as terrible as the ones that were made come to light against a collective,” he confessed, “people tend to react initially by believing the accusations, or at least believing that something like what the accusations state did happen." (emphasis added)
Let's skip over, for the moment, the professor's Marxian term "a collective" used to mean "the lacrosse team". What the author is saying is that the allegations were so terrible that normal people would be inclined to believe them. Does that make sense? Wouldn't normal people react by being initially skeptical of "accusations so terrible"? And remember, by the time of this ad, we were past the "initial" stage. We were weeks later and at the stage where 46 Duke students were loudly claiming their complete innocence of wholly uncorroborated allegations made by one woman who was hauled in for public intoxication.
And read what the anonymous professor says next -- he just can't stop digging his hole:
“It is hard initially for anyone to imagine that someone could be so evil as to make ungrounded accusations of that nature.” (emphasis added)
In other words -- and anyone correct me if they feel this is a misinterpretation:
"It is easier for 'people' to believe allegations of a gangrape than it is for 'anyone' to believe that the allegations are false."
And let's keep this in perspective: "It is easier for 'people' to believe an intoxicated sex worker's completely uncorroborated allegations of a gangrape by or involving dozens of Duke students than it is for 'anyone' to believe the assertions of innocence by dozens of Duke students."
Assuming no one has an alternative interpretation of the professor's position which is substantially at odds with this one, we must ask the question: What has conditioned the professor's mind that s/he could think that normal people think like this?
I for one would have thought the reverse: That any normal person would react to the initial allegations with skepticism bordering on disbelief. I did. Duke needs to do some serious questioning as to the environment in the faculty and administration which produced an opposite belief.
maybe that last phrase would be clearer if it said "an opposite reaction".
Can't agree. These are 88 individuals who came together in solidarity over an opportunity. None cared about Mangum. Or whether a rape occurred. None believe that an undercurrent of racism and oppression exists on campus. These people are loaded with a smorgasboard of pathologies centered on hate. Successful white males are probably on their collective short lists. For some of the females, it may simply be the fact they're unattractive to men.
Anon 3:58 : As simplistic as your theory might sound, I suspect there's a lot of truth in it. (Just look at the crowd in the potbanger photos and "Castrate" sign photos).
TENURE is a large part of the problem in academia today, everyone just dances around the 800 lb gorilla sitting in front of them. when one grants a job for life there is very little accountibility in job performance. DOWN WITH TENURE
3:58: I hadn't seen it mentioned anywhere, but I've been thinking over the past few months that a good portion of these G88-type professors must be a sort of nerd-loser combination sprinkled with a dose of revanchism. I would guess these were people who were marginalized in high school while athletes and cheerleaders ruled the scene with the latent (but perversely innocent) cruelty so typical of a ruling class.
It is their luck that they have the academic skill to become perpetual scholars. Getting (eventually tenured) positions at major colleges puts them in a perfect position for a petty tyranny to take revenge on the 'collective' that snubbed them in their youth.
I guess in the G88's case, that collective is a usual suspect of blame - white, wealthy jocks.
Check out this story. This is so typical of the black community. And they're supposed to be equal? Slavery was a blessing to these savage animals.
Duke didn't pay millions of dollars to the Duke 3 out of compassion. Steele and Brodhead needed to buy silence, for their own, and the group of 88's despicable actions.
unti they can no longer hide with settlements, the duke alumni will ignore (just win bball games coach KOWARD)
anonymous 3:58 said...
Successful white males are probably on their collective short lists
Not "probably", hetero white men ARE the list.
You need to try aquainting yourself with some of the feminist/hard left teachings that go on in universities and colleges all over the west. They pretty much imply that hetro white men are responsible for victimizing and repressing women, minorities and gays and the way forward to a better world is to overthrow the "patriarchy" by any means posssible.
Plus of course, all men are rapists as well.
People with tenure have shown
up here criticizing bloggers
for being anonymous. That's
Tenure is sometimes abused by
people who throw juvenile stink-
bombs, then run and hide behind
their wall. Easy to be brave
when you feel untouchable!
However...Tenure is a Maginot line,
and courts don't have to honor it
with regard to criminal or socially
disruptive behavior, and professors
can be sued.
It was designed to protect unpopular
ideas, but what is seems to have
accomplished lately is to enable
the Little Stalins of the academic
world (such as Grant Farred and
Ward Churchill) to become bullies
A lawyer will be calling shortly.
They are worse for apologizing privately and then signing the "clarifying" statement. They added hypocrisy and duplicity to their slanderous actions.
The Larry Summers fiasco at Harvard tells me all I need to know about the so-called Free Speech Doctrine at American colleges.
The administrations don't have tenure and rightfully so. I don't work in a educational setting and don't have tenure, and rightfully so.
To all those who argue that tenure for professors is absolutely necessary to maintain the Free Speech Doctrine at our colleges, I ask you
what type of free speech is really being allowed? Is all speech at colleges equally free? Hardly. I'm reminded of the passage in Orwell's 1984 in which he writes "some animals were more equal than others." In the present day, that sentiment is expressed as "free speech for me, but not for thee."
I haven't seen anything that has come from the supposed arena of free speech at Duke over the last 16 months strike me as anything noteworthy or has brought enlightened understanding to the topics covered by the events of the Nifong Scandal Case. Indeed, only a few seem to feel comfortable exercising their free speech "rights." The rest of the professors cower in fear from the possibility of being exposed as anti-PC. That has much more of a hold on them than any free speech doctrine.
I don't think professors are worthy of a concept such as tenure. As a group they haven't proven to me that they can handle it responsibly. No one can convince me that we have a better educational system with tenure than what we would have without it. Other people go to work everyday and justify their existence in that job by what they do that day, not because they are are guaranteed a job. Professors should be held to the same standard. ABOLISH TENURE!
Are any of the 88 Communists? All of them???
I apologize. My reference to 1984 is obviously incorrect. I meant Animal Farm.
If we changed the G88 to "good ole boys" would it be easier for everyone to understand? Both are groups of people that have never had any consequences for their actions. Both are cultures that tolerate intolerance for those that are different.
Can you imagine the effort in time and treasure it took to turn this rock over at Durham to see these 85 academics and their president slithering and scurrying about at Duke University. These people know exactly what they said and what they meant and what they wanted after all aren't they "educated." As someone said, it is a virus. If there are classes in "correctness" the 85 of the 88 should be required to be the first to attend.
Yes, Duke and many of the so-called institutions of higher klearning in this kountry have become klaces where some animals are more equal than others. Pigs were at the top of the food chain in Orwell's metaphorical noval weren't they, but in the societal structure in Durham, pigs don't represent the police do they? Let's see . . . . well there's . .
What's with you & your comments. "most...should never have been hired in the first place..." We know you have lots of experience starting & not finishing things, but are you also an HR person? Stick to the subject. If you feel a need to pass judgement, how about, in your opinion (based on what?), someone wasn't qualified...You make it more difficult for anyone to talk/apologize, because you are like a noisy little Yorkie. All you do is yip.
It seems to me the issue is that most of the 88 did not apologize. The question now is if the legal agreement permits them to apologize. Broadhead should say something about them, but does he/Duke claim that the legal agreement precludes such a statement?
No, they are not Communists. They're Republicans. And...?????
I don't buy the claim from Broadhead, the G88 and their fellow travelers that the "Social Disaster" and "'Clarifying' Statement" were designed to start a conversation. If so then we're still waiting for it, at least at Duke; the only real conversation is out here in the blogosphere where the G88 fear to tread. Why are those people so deathly afraid of a real conversation, one where they are not in complete control and where they just can't cut you off and silence you when the 'conversation' starts to go south for their side? If those people were real academics they could defend their positions in the marketplace of ideas.
I can't even begin to count how many times I've been silenced, censored, banned, etc., once I've started to shoot holes in the dogma of feminists and other PC types while engaging them in 'conversation.' When things don't go their way the MO is to 'move on.' That's not legitimate dialog, debate, pedagogy, etc., that's indoctrination. There is no such thing as a real dialog on campus these days - as another pointed out, the operative model on campus is "free speech for me (i.e., the politically correct) but not thee (people who haven't drank the PC Koolaid)."
Further, did anyone here listen to NPR's "All Things Considered" last Friday afternoon? They had two stories on the Duke LAX hoax: The first was an interview with Pressler and the second was a story on the recent conference of legal scholars at Duke. Both stories were highly-spun and basically made it out that this fiasco was entirely the fault Nifong, and only Nifong. To be sure, as we all know, there were a lot of enablers and people who failed to act when action was called for, and many - if not most - of them were at Duke. Yet not one single word in either story about the role that the G88 and other disciples of the race/class/gender cult played in this modern-day lynch mob. IMO NPR and other members of the MSM are complicit in the perpetuation of this hoax and should be held accountable as well. They all are making Nifong the sole Scapegoat for this mess (notably, Nifong's a white male so I suppose in the eyes of the PC cult he's the logical one to blame) and deflecting criticism away from all others.
Conversation? Hah. What BS. I'm not buying it, not for a second.
Are they Republicans with liberal agendas?
FEAR . . . is what the Group85 bring to the lack of debate at duke . . . . university. They truly are . . . . . . pot. . . bangers.
"academic freedom" means never having to say you are sorry
Nifong could not have acted in the way that he did without the enabling atmosphere that has been created by the like of Group88. You cannot make it up. You have to work at creating that environment. It is a world view devoid of reality or the ability to interface with reality. It creates its own vortex of stupid behavior and innocent people go to prison for most of their lives to satisfy 88 frauds.
Can somebody fill in the blanks for me please? There was a statement about "we got to class with racists" etc... This appeared in the listening statement. A very similar statement was printed and attributed to named students in a newspaper article. Does anybody remember the school the students went to???
K.C. thanks for the clarification re anonymity--and your point is well taken. At this point it is more valuable to know that these e-mails were written than to know who wrote them (as long as someone knows who wrote them); those people presumably have to option of identifying themselves if they want to.
R.R. Hamilton--you make an interesting point at 3:40 am. But sometimes people's gut reactions aren't logical. I think I'm a pretty rational person, but I can remember times when my first reaction to hearing something has been, "Wow, there must be some truth to that, because who would/could make that up?" I agree, now that I think about it, that that may not make any sense, but there it is.
The difference is, I also tend to wait for more information (when I can) before going with my gut reaction. In the lacrosse case I only had to wait about 30 seconds because everything else I know or think about the likely behavior of the types of people involved in the situation led me to conclude that the allegations just didn't add up.
For the G88, either they just went with that gut reaction or what they thought about the likely behavior of the types of people involved [it's not clear to me that they KNEW much, if anything, about the likely behavior of Duke lacrosse players] reinforced that reaction rather than undercutting it.
I wonder if the two who privately apologized, but later signed the clarifying statement have tenure. If not, did they fear retribution from their enlightened collegues if they declined to sign the clairfying statement?
Our job is to provide a venue for free speech, and then let the debate go. We hope it’s enlightened, but at the end of the day, you have these debates and people learn from them. - Burness
If true, the Duke administration and faculty have missed a monumental learning opportunity. At the end of the day the great lessons of this debate, if even recognized at all, are left unexamined, as attested to by the lack of apology.
Anonymous 2:53 said...
...I really haven't read many posts here critical of the faculties at other schools. I guess only Duke has a problem.
I don't think we are focused today on just the faculty.
KC has titled today's post .... More Royalist Than the King.
A 'royalist' is an advocate of the principles of monarchy.
It's the whole Duke University monarchy that we are discussing today, I think.
Royalist most certainly do not believe in the concept of 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty' and that creates a huge problem for those of us who support the rule of law in the United States...and that includes Dave, Reade and Collin and their families.
Naw, just typical Republican types. You know how Republicans call names & are mean to folks they don't like. And how they don't wait for the facts. I mean, think about it, facts never matter much to Uncle Dick and the White House.
I think that various segments of public opinion in the US have long upheld the concept of guilty until proven innocent. What's happened in the LAX case is that the targets could defend themselves. And, yes, they were, in the end, clearly innocent.
8:24 (more) Well, guilty of nothing more than poor taste and immaturity. So, what's new?
Hardt (one of the 88) reminds me
all the more of Longshanks son
in "Braveheart;" Nifong isn't as
noble as Longshanks, and neither
are any of the Duke Royal Family
(as regards the current occupants
of the throne.)
Glad KC posted Hardt's musings,
a fine example of a pedantic
member of the 88.
I think free speech at the University is GREAT both for students and educators.
So why can't the three accused players tell us what the Duke Adminstration paid them to take away their free speech.
Duke what gives hear - free speech fot some and muzzle for others?? Or is that free speech for us and censorship for others. Dick...we're listening??
And yet, in the picture, the people aggrieved in this whole process still find something worthwhile at Duke.
"If I have the chance to get a master's degree from Duke University, that's a tough thing to turn down," Tony McDevitt tells the Baltimore Sun in a story about the players considering taking up the offer of an extra year of eligibility.
I'd like to see KC explain this. The blog seems to be degenerating into simplistic Duke-bashing. There are some things worth bashing at Duke, but shouldn't KC give us the whole picture?
Frank Herbert wrote (Dune)
"Do you know what guerrillas often
say? They claim that their rebellions
are invulnerable to economic warfare
because they have no economy,
that they are parasitic on those
they would overthrow. The fools
merely fail to assess the coin
in which they must inevitably
pay. The pattern is inexorable
in its degenerative failures.
You see it repeated in the systems
of slavery, of welfare states,
of caste-ridden religions, of
socializing bureaucracies - in any
system which creates and maintains
dependencies. Too long a parasite,
and you can't exist without a host."
Minus the racial animus, this pretty
well sums up Polanski's view,
and is anathema to those of the
88 - some of whom are merely
parasites on the fat rump of a
Another lesson from Herbert
about the concept of "freedom for
me, none for thee:"
"When I am weaker than you,
I ask for freedom because that
is according to your principles;
when I am stronger than you,
I take away your freedom because
that is according to my principles."
That's a concept that's used by
Communists, Fascists, Islamafascists,
Femifascists, Socialists, and
parasites of all kinds.
It's a thing to be feared when
these kinds finally achieve power.
Anonymous 9:36 said...
...And yet, in the picture, the people aggrieved in this whole process still find something worthwhile at Duke.
..."If I have the chance to get a master's degree from Duke University, that's a tough thing to turn down," Tony McDevitt tells the Baltimore Sun in a story about the players considering taking up the offer of an extra year of eligibility.
...I'd like to see KC explain this. The blog seems to be degenerating into simplistic Duke-bashing. There are some things worth bashing at Duke, but shouldn't KC give us the whole picture?
Why? Just check out http://www.duke.edu
The DukeEngage URL is especially interesting and impressive.
gak at 8:42:
Assuming your question was serious, the info you are looking for is here:
The listening statement quoted anonymously some students who were quoted by name in an article in the Independent Weekly. All the students quoted were Duke graduate students--two in divinity, one in history (NOT undergrads, for what it is worth--and it may be worth something, because I think grad students in humanities or divinity are somewhat more likely to have bought into the world view of academics like the G88 than undergrads)--except for one person described as a recent graduate (presumably from the class of 2005 or before, since the article was published in March, 2006, before that year's graduation) who, according to a footnote, was at the time about to start Harvard Law School.
In the listening statement, the quotations that came from the Independent article were credited to the Independent, while other statements are completely unidentified.
Thank you very much anon @ 10:03. Yes my question was serious and the info helps. Thanks again
The g88 were hired so they could fulfill an agenda. The same goes for some in the student body.
When you get a job or are accepted into school solely based on your skin color, sex, etc., you might end up thinking that this is your most important “virtue.”
A female student with mediocre grades applied to a nursing school. She had been told she had no chance of getting in She paid no attention, and applied anyway. A few months latter she had a letter of acceptance, but had to have personal interview to finalize the process. Common in some nursing schools.
When she got there, everyone in the committee had a look of horror.
This student is African-- South African. She is blonde and has blue eyes. She came to believe that the slot they had given her had been “saved” for a black applicant. Since she is not American, she did not understand all the 13 or so ethnic choices that the application had. So she filled in “other” and put African in the line. The committee asked her to justify her entry. She said her family had been there for 200 years. What else would she be? They asked about the “black” experience. Where there any blacks in her family? She said no. They stopped short of suggesting she start putting ”white-African” so as to not confuse anyone.
She has continued to use this to get to the front of the line. Why not? It works. Her attitude is that it is fun to beat them at their own game. Besides, she has come to believe that being African is her most important asset. She says that no one cares about her intelect or competance.
Jack once asked why anyone cared
about "saving Duke," or "saving Duke from itself,"
wondering: "why bother?"
I've come around to his side,
to some extent, seeing that
the oligarchy is unable and
unwilling to correct itself
with suitable humility.
In other words: BOT needs to
make Brodhead eat his words.
Anon 9:36, in a sense,
asks why it should be torn down,
brick-by-brick, stating that
DIW posters are engaging in
"simplistic Duke bashing."
Maybe some are, but the worst
excesses of the school speak
for themselves: it badly needs
a kind of Reformation.
Presently, 80-or-so Torquemadas
and their King seem to control the
agenda of present-day Duke University.
It did not occur to me then that the ad might be placing my other lacrosse-playing students in jeopardy, as their lawyers have argued
The immunity given by the deal with the 3 LAX players doesn't, so far as I can tell, extend to the rest of the team. This woman is trying really hard to avoid a civil suit.
Yup. Education teaches discrimination.
As in: to discriminate.
(Prejudice is different than
That's what science does:
it compares things, their
differences and their similarities.
I tend to be more hopeful than
discriminatory. Even so, I don't
see much to be hopeful for from
people like Hardt.
Interesting that Duke's 80+ and
Brodhead are discriminatory in a
completely fallacious fashion:
they've merely substituted common
prejudices of the past with
nouveau prejudices of their own
And you're right: they're incredibly
easy to deconstruct.
I don't know about you guys, but my Spidey Sense is telling me "something happened" behind the closed doors of Ivory Towers and thereafter, large checks were written to cover-up the rush to judgment. They have paid good money to run and hide from their malfeasance, and gosh darnit, I think they are entitled to it. What? They had to use someone else's money to cover their tracks? Say it ain't so.
On what grounds do I object to the Group of 88?
It is very tempting to object on Constitutional grounds (the presumption of innocence, search and seizure, Brady materials, free speech form them but not the rest of us, etc., etc., etc.), but perhaps my favorite objection to imbeciles unable to raise their OWN money to buy their way out of trouble their OWN big mouths got them into is the one that hurts them the most...RELEVANCE!
Love it: "Spidey Sense!"
The G88 have been caught with their invisible pants down courtesy of Crystal Meth. I wonder whether any of them is even mad at her for this invisible fabric she had spun for them.
Gary Packwood: If people didn't care about Duke, and the students there, they would not be trying so hard to fix things and improve the situation. No one is bashing Duke. It is still a great school run, at present, by weirdos. And having some real unusual people on the faculty. A surgeon has to define the lesion before he removes a cancer. You cannot fix a problem if you don't know exactly what it is. Simplistic Duke bashing?? I think not. The administration (Brodhead, Burness, Alleva, Steel, the BOT) and the G88 are the appropriate targets for "bashing", if you will -- they set themselves up and in many cases are digging themselves deeper into a hole. If you give them enough rope ....
What an excellent post today!
KC is dissecting every issue and every element of this case as he winds down his reign over the Wonderland crew.
All of the Gritty Gang of 88 cannot be so gritty to not see what they have done to innocent young men whose parents pay their salaries.
That's some nerve. To bite the innocent hands who feed you. But alas, the Gritty Gang of 88 have come to be known by their embarrassing deeds....as by their own actions, much of the country has been treated to a taste of their subpar and declasse "scholarship".
Reality bites on the Duke quad!
Below is a very astute analysis into the psyche of the Gritty Gang. Many of their views of the world were formed by the era explored in this incisive and insightful column.
I'll go back and retrieve the link in the next post.
John Burness is an intellectual, illogical and a cowardly eunuch.
Impotent in the face of turmoil.
Only adding another metasticized layer of Duke obfuscation to the mix......simply because mendacity is all with which he is familiar.
Let's consider other Brodhead comments. To wit:
I've been rereading some of the memorialized statements of Duke's administration, in light of the failure of the Gang of 88 to atone for their misplaced, ill-considered and poorly executed diversity agenda.
In his April 6, 2006 letter to the Duke community, Richard "Broadhead" stated: "If the allegations are verified, what happened would be a deep violation of fundamental ethical principles and among the most serious crimes known to the legal system. Such conduct is completely unacceptable both within the university and in our society at large. If the truth of the allegations is upheld, it will call for severe punishment from the courts and from Duke's disciplinary system."
A reasonable person can and should agree with this statement and its underlying truth.
BUT ... and
again (with emphasis on these phrases): "If the allegations are verified,..."
and "If the truth of the allegations is upheld, ..."
What is left UNSAID often speaks volumes!! Nowhere could I find a statement such as:
"If the allegations are false, ..."
or "If the truth of the allegations are not upheld,..."
It seems that addressing the consequences of innocence was neither important to Brodhead nor in his lexicon. Otherwise, he surely would have considered publicly (and at that same time)the consequences of that innocence, just as he publicly discussed the consequences of guilt.
One can view Broadhead's silence on the "IF" of innocence as fanning the flames of public opinion -- with an all too willing Gang of 88 pouring gasoline on the fire.
I also find it noteworthy that the Gang of 88's ad appeared in the same issue of the Duke Chronicle as Brodhead's letter.
Thomas Inman '74
An "inie" is always better, especially on a woman.
Looks better in a bikini instead of that odd thing protruding out. That older model now who used to be with Victoria Secret has a navel that is an "outie".
Looked so strange that I always got chivers looking at it. Glad she retired.
Geant, Alex, thuga and the rest must be furious at the payoff. Not to mention the Coach and KC's book sales. Grant's last book is
# 620,000 at Amazon. Certainly keeping their heads down now.
Jul 2, 2007 12:47:00 AM
While never to be discouraged, sales rank of a book is not an indicator of quality. For example, I'm sure if Paris Hilton penned a diet guide, it would outsell Shakespeare. There are academic books that greatly boost a field where there are only 1000 people in the world who can read and absorb the information. Math texts come immediately to mind, but many obscure areas, sub-specialties or narrow technical areas too.
That said, a sales rank of 620,000 seems way to high for Grant's book, and makes me fear for our civilization :-)
Polanski, You may be an elitist, but you're not very smart. I've started telling friends to read this blog to find out about the half-educated members of the radical right who rant here. That way, they don't have to listen to talk radio. And, you're as amusing as daytime tv.
As long as I know you don't go anywhere near my kids. And, I've actually told them to read you for racism & stupidity.
PS Who is Randy?
I'm thinking that Broadhead might have room for you, too, Polanski. A diversity pimp would surely have space for a loud mouth filled with hot air.
Polanski is VERY smart:
he's got a couple of problems,
vulgarity being one of them,
but he's head and shoulders above
the 80+ Trollsters!
I'm sure even Debrah would agree
with that assessment.
Just wondering: what makes YOU so
smart? (Give us some deep revelations, now.)
I wasn't claiming to be smart; but then, I don't make all of the large generalizations that Polanski does. I simply notice that he seems to think it's reasonable to pass judgement on a lot of people. And, he doesn't seem to have a lot of space in his thinking for people who think differently than he does. I don't think one has to be particularly intelligent to notice that...
Polansky's love of vulgarity underscores the fact that he's a geezer having a mid-life crisis, don't you think? And, he's wishing he'd been smart enough to get his doctorate in literature and land a job at Duke. I think he's got a variation on penis envy...
Yeah, I worry about large [sic] generalizations.
I'm never vulgar. I always try to be a precise geezer. By the way, how do you know that I'm not an employed G88 member?
Oh. Like Grant Farred's peculiar
state-of-mind? "Prowess" envy?
(I've put that up so many times
it's gotten kinda old. Sorry)
I'm assuming that no one would have chosen your name; it's too, well, too memorable. Besides, you're racist too often.
Post a Comment